Web Survey Bibliography
Mixed mode surveys are becoming increasingly common. This has led to calls for tests of the differences in response patterns between survey modes. In this article, we present an analysis of mode effects, using data from Wave 1 of the ITC Netherlands Survey, conducted by web (CAWI) and telephone (CATI). For many of the questions, the web and telephone samples differed in the distribution of response options. This was found to be partly attributable to selection effects, since the web and telephone respondents were recruited in different ways, and the web and telephone samples differed on demographic characteristics. Another source of difference in the response option distribution was “administrative” in origin, having to do with the tendency of respondents to process the options differently depending on survey mode. This article illustrates an approach to modelling in a mixed mode survey that takes into account both selection and administration mode effects. The model is also embedded in an analysis of reactions to labels on cigarette packages using ITC data from the Netherlands, Germany, France, and the United Kingdom.
Spanish
Los modos mixtos de colecta son cada vez más frecuentes en las encuestas, y se hace necesario comprobar las diferencias entre las respuestas obtenidas por diferentes métodos. Este artículo analiza los efectos del modo de colecta utilizando los datos de la primera ola de la encuesta holandesa International Tobacco Control (ITC), realizada por internet (CAWI) y por teléfono (CATI). Para muchas preguntas, las dos muestras presentan distribuciones de repuestas diferentes. Ello es debido en parte a efectos de selección pues los sujetos que respondieron por teléfono fueron escogidos de manera diferente a los que respondieron por internet, y también al hecho de que las dos muestras diferían por ciertas características demográficas. Además intervino otro factor de origen "administrativo", pues hubo una tendencia a tratar las opciones de respuesta diferentemente según el modo de colecta. Este artículo presenta una modelización que toma en cuenta ambos efectos, selección y administración, en una encuesta con un modo mixto de colecta. El modelo es utilizado también en un análisis de las reacciones a las etiquetas que figuran en los paquetes de cigarrillos en Holanda, Alemania, Francia y Reino-Unido.
French
Les enquêtes recourant à un mode mixte de collecte sont de plus en plus nombreuses, et il devient nécessaire de tester les écarts entre les réponses obtenues par téléphone et par internet. Cet article analyse les effets des différents modes de collecte en utilisant la vague 1 de l'enquête International Tobacco Control (ITC) des Pays-Bas réalisée par internet (CAWI) et par téléphone (CATI). Pour de nombreuses questions, les échantillons présentent des distributions de réponse différentes. C'est dû en partie à des effets de sélection, car les répondants sont recrutés par des procédures différentes et les échantillons n'ont pas les mêmes caractéristiques démographiques, et en partie à des facteurs d'administration des questions, les répondants traitant différemment les items de réponse en fonction du mode de collecte. L'objectif est ici de présenter une modélisation qui prend en compte à la fois les effets de sélection et d'administration dans une enquête utilisant un mode mixte de collecte. Le modèle est aussi intégré dans une analyse des réactions à des mentions figurant sur les paquets de cigarettes, d'après les enquêtes ITC aux Pays-Bas, en Allemagne, en France et au Royaume-Uni.
IngentaConnect (Abstract) / (Full text); Journal Homepage (Abstract) / Full text)
Web survey bibliography (4086)
- Displaying Videos in Web Surveys: Implications for Complete Viewing and Survey Responses; 2017; Mendelson, J.; Lee Gibson, J.; Romano Bergstrom, J. C.
- Using experts’ consensus (the Delphi method) to evaluate weighting techniques in web surveys not...; 2017; Toepoel, V.; Emerson, H.
- Mind the Mode: Differences in Paper vs. Web-Based Survey Modes Among Women With Cancer; 2017; Hagan, T. L.; Belcher, S. M.; Donovan, H. S.
- Answering Without Reading: IMCs and Strong Satisficing in Online Surveys; 2017; Anduiza, E.; Galais, C.
- Ideal and maximum length for a web survey; 2017; Revilla, M.; Ochoa, C.
- Social desirability bias in self-reported well-being measures: evidence from an online survey; 2017; Caputo, A.
- Web-Based Survey Methodology; 2017; Wright, K. B.
- Handbook of Research Methods in Health Social Sciences; 2017; Liamputtong, P.
- Lessons from recruitment to an internet based survey for Degenerative Cervical Myelopathy: merits of...; 2017; Davies, B.; Kotter, M. R.
- Web Survey Gamification - Increasing Data Quality in Web Surveys by Using Game Design Elements; 2017; Schacht, S.; Keusch, F.; Bergmann, N.; Morana, S.
- Effects of sampling procedure on data quality in a web survey; 2017; Rimac, I.; Ogresta, J.
- Comparability of web and telephone surveys for the measurement of subjective well-being; 2017; Sarracino, F.; Riillo, C. F. A.; Mikucka, M.
- Achieving Strong Privacy in Online Survey; 2017; Zhou, Yo.; Zhou, Yi.; Chen, S.; Wu, S. S.
- A Meta-Analysis of the Effects of Incentives on Response Rate in Online Survey Studies; 2017; Mohammad Asire, A.
- Telephone versus Online Survey Modes for Election Studies: Comparing Canadian Public Opinion and Vote...; 2017; Breton, C.; Cutler, F.; Lachance, S.; Mierke-Zatwarnicki, A.
- Examining Factors Impacting Online Survey Response Ratesin Educational Research: Perceptions of Graduate...; 2017; Saleh, A.; Bista, K.
- Usability Testing for Survey Research; 2017; Geisen, E.; Romano Bergstrom, J. C.
- Paradata as an aide to questionnaire design: Improving quality and reducing burden; 2017; Timm, E.; Stewart, J.; Sidney, I.
- Fieldwork monitoring and managing with time-related paradata; 2017; Vandenplas, C.
- Interviewer effects on onliner and offliner participation in the German Internet Panel; 2017; Herzing, J. M. E.; Blom, A. G.; Meuleman, B.
- Interviewer Gender and Survey Responses: The Effects of Humanizing Cues Variations; 2017; Jablonski, W.; Krzewinska, A.; Grzeszkiewicz-Radulska, K.
- Millennials and emojis in Spain and Mexico.; 2017; Bosch Jover, O.; Revilla, M.
- Where, When, How and with What Do Panel Interviews Take Place and Is the Quality of Answers Affected...; 2017; Niebruegge, S.
- Comparing the same Questionnaire between five Online Panels: A Study of the Effect of Recruitment Strategy...; 2017; Schnell, R.; Panreck, L.
- Nonresponses as context-sensitive response behaviour of participants in online-surveys and their relevance...; 2017; Wetzlehuetter, D.
- Do distractions during web survey completion affect data quality? Findings from a laboratory experiment...; 2017; Wenz, A.
- Predicting Breakoffs in Web Surveys; 2017; Mittereder, F.; West, B. T.
- Measuring Subjective Health and Life Satisfaction with U.S. Hispanics; 2017; Lee, S.; Davis, R.
- Humanizing Cues in Internet Surveys: Investigating Respondent Cognitive Processes; 2017; Jablonski, W.; Grzeszkiewicz-Radulska, K.; Krzewinska, A.
- A Comparison of Emerging Pretesting Methods for Evaluating “Modern” Surveys; 2017; Geisen, E., Murphy, J.
- The Effect of Respondent Commitment on Response Quality in Two Online Surveys; 2017; Cibelli Hibben, K.
- Pushing to web in the ISSP; 2017; Jonsdottir, G. A.; Dofradottir, A. G.; Einarsson, H. B.
- The 2016 Canadian Census: An Innovative Wave Collection Methodology to Maximize Self-Response and Internet...; 2017; Mathieu, P.
- Push2web or less is more? Experimental evidence from a mixed-mode population survey at the community...; 2017; Neumann, R.; Haeder, M.; Brust, O.; Dittrich, E.; von Hermanni, H.
- In search of best practices; 2017; Kappelhof, J. W. S.; Steijn, S.
- Redirected Inbound Call Sampling (RICS); A New Methodology ; 2017; Krotki, K.; Bobashev, G.; Levine, B.; Richards, S.
- An Empirical Process for Using Non-probability Survey for Inference; 2017; Tortora, R.; Iachan, R.
- The perils of non-probability sampling; 2017; Bethlehem, J.
- A Comparison of Two Nonprobability Samples with Probability Samples; 2017; Zack, E. S.; Kennedy, J. M.
- Rates, Delays, and Completeness of General Practitioners’ Responses to a Postal Versus Web-Based...; 2017; Sebo, P.; Maisonneuve, H.; Cerutti, B.; Pascal Fournier, J.; Haller, D. M.
- Necessary but Insufficient: Why Measurement Invariance Tests Need Online Probing as a Complementary...; 2017; Meitinger, K.
- Nonresponse in Organizational Surveying: Attitudinal Distribution Form and Conditional Response Probabilities...; 2017; Kulas, J. T.; Robinson, D. H.; Kellar, D. Z.; Smith, J. A.
- Theory and Practice in Nonprobability Surveys: Parallels between Causal Inference and Survey Inference...; 2017; Mercer, A. W.; Kreuter, F.; Keeter, S.; Stuart, E. A.
- Is There a Future for Surveys; 2017; Miller, P. V.
- Reducing speeding in web surveys by providing immediate feedback; 2017; Conrad, F.; Tourangeau, R.; Couper, M. P.; Zhang, C.
- Social Desirability and Undesirability Effects on Survey Response latencies; 2017; Andersen, H.; Mayerl, J.
- A Working Example of How to Use Artificial Intelligence To Automate and Transform Surveys Into Customer...; 2017; Neve, S.
- A Case Study on Evaluating the Relevance of Some Rules for Writing Requirements through an Online Survey...; 2017; Warnier, M.; Condamines, A.
- Estimating the Impact of Measurement Differences Introduced by Efforts to Reach a Balanced Response...; 2017; Kappelhof, J. W. S.; De Leeuw, E. D.
- Targeted letters: Effects on sample composition and item non-response; 2017; Bianchi, A.; Biffignandi, S.