Web Survey Bibliography
The most important part of a web survey is arguably the email invitation. The invitation sets the stage for the rest of the survey, and allows the respondent to judge the costs and benefits of participation. The content of the invitation can also determine if the invitation gets delivered or blocked by email providers, and whether it lands in the recipient’s inbox or spam folder. As web surveys increase in popularity but continue to have the lowest response rates of all modes, it is important to understand how the features of the email invitation impact non-response. Many features of the web invitation have been tested in past studies, such as subject line, personalization, contact and confidentiality information, topic, sponsorship, frequency of contact, incentives, and URL links. However, results have been mixed, and many studies were conducted in academic settings with unknown applicability to general population settings. Further, many studies have tested one feature versus another, but have not tested the combination of multiple features of the email invitation. The present study expands on the current body of knowledge by simultaneously testing multiple features of the survey invitation. These features include subject line, incentive, HTML versus plain text, sponsorship, personalization, and frequency of contact. The invitations were sent for two different types of general population studies. The first is the Gallup Panel, a probability- based panel of 55,000 members who receive survey invitations on a regular basis. The other is a customer satisfaction survey, in which respondents have a customer relationship with a business but are not expecting a survey invitation. The findings will include results on bounce backs, SPAM flags and spamminess scores, open rates, click through rates, and final response rates. Recommendations are also made for features that improve deliverability, open-rates, click through rates, and ultimately response rates.
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.