Web Survey Bibliography
Conventional practice usually places demographic items at the end of a questionnaire. The thinking behind this practice is that demographic items are less important than topically-salient items, so a higher risk for item nonresponse is tolerated. A recent study by Teclaw, Price and Osatuke (2012) turn this logic on its head and found that item response for demographic items at the beginning of a questionnaire was higher than for the same set of items at the end of the survey. This finding raises the question of whether there are other approaches to stimulating high item response rates for demographic questions. Other studies (e.g., Messer et al., 2012; Lesser et al., 2012) have found item response rates are higher for those responding by web than for mail. This study extends previous research by exploring how a statement about the importance of answering the demographic items at the end of a survey might mediate the relationship between mode and item response rate. Experimental data from a customer satisfaction survey of Cooperative Extension Service clients are used for the study. Overall, the aggregate item response rate was significantly higher on seven demographic items for web respondents than for mail respondents. Among web respondents, the importance prompt treatment had a statistically significant higher aggregate item response rate than the no prompt treatment. Conversely, the aggregate item response rate for mail respondents with the importance prompt was not significantly greater than that for mail respondents without the prompt. These results suggest that an importance prompt is a viable strategy for reducing item nonresponse of demographic items, at least among web respondents. One explanation for the results might be that using an importance prompt on single-question screens drew more attention to the prompt than having the prompt embedded among questions on the paper instrument.
Web survey bibliography - The American Association for Public Opinion Research (AAPOR) 70th Annual Conference, 2015 (35)
- Effects of Mobile versus PC Web on Survey Response Quality: a Crossover Experiment in a Probability...; 2017; Antoun, C.; Couper, M. P.; G. G.Conrad, F. G.
- The Role of Device Type and Respondent Characteristics in Internet Panel Survey Breakoff; 2015; McCutcheon, A. L.
- Web Survey Invitations: Design Features to Improve Response Rates; 2015; Hughes, J.; Marlar, J.
- Advance Postcard Mailing Improves Web Panel Survey Participation; 2015; Bertoni, N.; Burkey, A.; Caldaro, M.; Keeter, S.; DiSogra, C.; McGeeney, K.
- Mobile Devices for the Collection of Sensitive Information; 2015; Maitland, A.; Mercer, A. W.; Tourangeau, K.; Williams, Do.
- What Is The Impact of Smartphone Optimization on Long Surveys?; 2015; Cole, J.; Brooks, K.; Sarraf, S.
- Examining the Impact of Mobile First and Responsive Web Design on Desktop and Mobile Respondents; 2015; Tharp, D.
- Can An Importance Prompt Reduce Item Nonresponse For Demographic Items Across Web and Mail Modes?; 2015; Israel, G. D.
- Leveraging Area Probability Sampling in Recruiting Households for Web Surveys; 2015; Copeland, K.; Pedlow, K.; Tupek, A.
- Reducing Coverage Error in a Web Survey of College Students; 2015; Daley, K.; Pacer, J.
- Influences on Response Latency in a Web Survey; 2015; Ackermann, A.; Cheng, H. W.; Howard Ecklund, E.; Kolenikov, S.; Phillips, B. T.
- App vs. Web for Surveys of Smartphone Users; 2015; Igielnik, R.; McGeeney, K.
- Where Does the Platform Matter: The Impact of Geographic Clustering in Device Ownership and Internet...; 2015; Bilgen, I.; English, N.; Stern, M. J.; Ventura, I.
- Methodological Considerations in the Use of Name Generators and Interpreters; 2015; Proeschold Bell, R. J.; Eagle, D. E.
- Survey Estimation: How Different Are Probability and Non-Probability Survey Designs?; 2015; Shook-Sa, B. E.; Dever, J. A.
- Experience of Multiple Approaches to Increase Response Rate in a Mixed-Mode Implementation of a Population...; 2015; Ding, M.;Leite-Bennett, A. K.; Landreman, U. E.; Johnson, D. R.; Mehrotra, K.; Rosenkranz, M.; Thompson...
- The Effect of Respondent Commitment on Response Quality in an Online Survey; 2015; Cibelli Hibben, K.; Conrad, F.
- Predictors of Completion Rates in Online Surveys; 2015; Cho, S.; Cohen, Jo.; Kuriakose, N.; Liu, M.
- Boosting Probability-Based Web Survey Response Rates via Nonresponse Follow-Up; 2015; Chew, K.; Fontes, A.; Lavrakas, P. J.
- Adding a Web Mode to Phone Surveys: Effectiveness and Cost Implications; 2015; Beebe, T. J.; Lien, R.; Luxenberg, H.; Rainey, J.
- Web Survey Response Examined from the Perspective of Leverage-Saliency Theory Within a Longitudinal...; 2015; Nares, Y. G.
- Challenging Survey Screen Designs on Smartphones; 2015; Nichols, E. M.; Olmsted, E. L.
- The Effect Usability Testing has on Data Quality: A Design of an Online Diary; 2015; Gentry, R. J.; Pens, Y.
- Making Usability-Testing a Standard Survey Pretesting Methodology; 2015; McFarlane, E.
- Measuring the Effects of Operational Designs on Response Rates and Nonresponse Bias; 2015; Anderson, Me.; Henrikson, N.; King, D.; Ulrich, K.
- A Systematic Generation of an Email Pool for Web Surveys; 2015; Silber, H.; Leibold, J.; Lischewski, J.; Schlosser, S.
- Are Tailored Outreach Efforts Too Costly? An Assessment of a Responsive Design Approach to Control Costs...; 2015; Epps, S. R.; Getman, D. P.; Hall, L. M.; Hunter, J. A.
- Nonresponse Analysis and Adjustment in the Follow- Up Study of a National Cohort of Gulf War And Gulf...; 2015; Dursa, E.; Hammer, H.; Kolenikov, S.; Schneiderman, A. I.
- Return To Sender: An Evaluation of Undeliverable (e)Mail in the Modern Age; 2015; Marlar, J.; Yu, D.
- Evaluating Visual Design Elements for Data Collection and Panelist Engagement; 2015; Christian, L. M.; Harm, D.; Langer Tesfaye, C.; Wells, T.
- Comparing Field and Laboratory Usability Tests to Assess the Consistency and Mistakes in Web Survey...; 2015; Croen, A.; Gonzales, N.; Ghandour, R.; Stern, M. J.
- Cell RDD Respondents Unmasked: Progress Report on Geo and Demo Appends to the Wireless Frame; 2015; DiSogra, C.; Kennedy, C.Mosher, M.
- Cognitive Testing of Survey Translations: Does Respondent Language Proficiency Matter?; 2015; Schoua-Glusberg, A.; Park, H.; Meyer, M.; Goerman, P. L.; Sha, M.
- Culturally-Related Response Styles for Attitude Questions: A Comparative Analysis of Chinese and American...; 2015; Wang, Me.
- Innovative Uses of Paradata Across Diverse Contexts ; 2015; Cheung, G.; Pennell, B.-E.