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 (366)
- Grundzüge des Datenschutzrechts und aktuelle Datenschutzprobleme in der Markt- und Sozialforschung; 2017; Schweizer, A.
- Web- and Phone-based Data Collection using Planned Missing Designs; 2017; Revelle, W.; Condon, M. D.; Wilt, J.; French, A. J.; Brown, A.; Elleman, G. L.
- Finding and Investigating Geographical Data Online; 2017; Martin, D.; Cockings, S.; Leung, S.
- CAQDAS at a Crossroads: Affordances of Technology in an Online Environment; 2017; Silver, C.; Bulloch, L. S.
- Artificial Intelligence/Expert Systems and Online Research; 2017; Brent, E.
- Improving the Effectiveness of Online Data Collection by Mixing Survey Modes; 2017; Dillman, D. A.; Hao, F.; Millar, M. M.
- Online Survey Software; 2017; Kaczmirek, L.
- Online Survey Design; 2017; To, N.
- Sampling Methods for Online Surveys; 2017; Fricker, R. D.
- Research Design and Tools for Online Research; 2017; Hewson, C. M.
- Overview: Online Surveys; 2017; Vehovar, V.; Lozar Manfreda, K.
- Using Visual Analogue Scales in eHealth: Non-Response Effects in a Lifestyle Intervention; 2016; Kuhlmann, T.; Reips, U.-D.; Wienert, J.; Lippke, S.
- A Feasibility Study of Recruiting and Maintaining a Web Panel of People with Disabilities; 2016; Chandler, J.
- Inferences from Internet Panel Studies and Comparisons with Probability Samples; 2016; Lachan, R.; Boyle, J.; Harding, R.
- Exploring the Gig Economy Using a Web-Based Survey: Measuring the Online 'and' Offline Side...; 2016; Robles, B. J.; McGee, M.
- Facebook, Twitter, & Qr codes: An exploratory trial examining the feasibility of social media mechanisms...; 2016; Gu, L. L.; Skierkowski, D.; Florin, P.; Friend, K.; Ye, Y.
- Distractions: The Incidence and Consequences of Interruptions for Survey Respondents ; 2016; Ansolabehere, S.; Schaffner, B. F.
- Mixing modes of data collection in Swiss social surveys: Methodological report of the LIVES-FORS mixed...; 2016; Roberts, C.; Joye, D.; Staehli, M. E.
- Representative web-survey!; 2016; Linde, P.
- The Analysis of Respondent’s Behavior toward Edit Messages in a Web Survey; 2016; Park, Y.
- Refining the Web Response Option in the Multiple Mode Collection of the American Community Survey; 2016; Hughes, T.; Tancreto, J.
- The Utility of an Online Convenience Panel for Reaching Rare and Dispersed Populations; 2016; Sell, R.; Goldberg, S.; Conron, K.
- Comparing online and telephone survey results in the context of a skin cancer prevention campaign evaluation...; 2016; Hollier, L.P.; Pettigrew, S.; Slevin, T.; Strickland, M.; Minto, C.
- Evaluating Online Labor Markets for Experimental Research: Amazon.com's Mechanical Turk; 2016; Berinsky, A.; Huber, G. A.; Lenz, G. S.
- Setting Up an Online Panel Representative of the General Population The German Internet Panel; 2016; Blom, A. G.; Gathmann, C.; Krieger, U.
- Sample Representation and Substantive Outcomes Using Web With and Without Incentives Compared to Telephone...; 2016; Lipps, O.; Pekari, N.
- Effects of Data Collection Mode and Response Entry Device on Survey Response Quality; 2016; Ha, L.; Zhang, Che.; Jiang, W.
- Navigation Buttons in Web-Based Surveys: Respondents’ Preferences Revisited in the Laboratory; 2016; Romano Bergstrom, J. C.; Erdman, C.; Lakhe, S.
- Web-based versus Paper-based Survey Data: An Estimation of Road Users’ Value of Travel Time Savings...; 2016; Kato, H.; Sakashita, A.; Tsuchiya, Tak.
- Reminder Effect and Data Usability on Web Questionnaire Survey for University Students; 2016; Oishi, T.; Mori, M.; Takata, E.
- Reducing Underreports of Behaviors in Retrospective Surveys: The Effects of Three Different Strategies...; 2016; Lugtig, P. J.; Glasner, T.; Boeve, A.
- Dropouts in Longitudinal Surveys; 2016; Lugtig, P. J.; De Leeuw, E. D.
- Participant recruitment and data collection through Facebook: the role of personality factors; 2016; Rife, S. C.; Cate, K. L.; Kosinski, M.; Stillwell, D.
- What drives the participation in a monthly research web panel? The experience of ELIPSS, a French random...; 2016; Legleye, S; Cornilleau, A.; Razakamanana, N.
- Quantifying Under- and Overreporting in Surveys Through a Dual-Questioning-Technique Design. ; 2016; de Jong , M.; Fox, J.-P.; Steenkamp, J. - B. E. M.
- Take the money and run? Redemption of a gift card incentive in a clinician survey. ; 2016; Chen, J. S.; Sprague, B. L.; Klabunde, C. N.; Tosteson, A. N. A.; Bitton, A.; Onega, T.; MacLean, C....
- Electronic and paper based data collection methods in library and information science research: A comparative...; 2016; Tella, A.
- A Technical Guide to Effective and Accessible web Surveys; 2016; Baatard, G.
- The Validity of Surveys: Online and Offline; 2016; Wiersma, W.
- Methods can matter: Where Web surveys produce different results than phone interviews; 2016; Keeter, S.
- Computer-assisted and online data collection in general population surveys; 2016; Skarupova, K.
- Will They Stay or Will They Go? Personality Predictors of Dropout in Online Study; 2016; Nestler, S.; Thielsch, M.; Vasilev, E.; Back, M.
- A Framework of Incorporating Thai Social Networking Data in Online Marketing Survey; 2016; Jiamthapthaksin, R.; Aung, T. H.; Ratanasawadwat, N.
- Development of a scale to measure skepticism toward electronic word-of-mouth; 2016; Zhang, Xia.; Ko, M.; Carpenter, D.
- Improving social media measurement in surveys: Avoiding acquiescence bias in Facebook research; 2016; Kuru, O.; Pasek, J.
- Psychological research in the internet age: The quality of web-based data; 2016; Ramsey, S. R.; Thompson, K. L.; McKenzie, M.; Rosenbaum, A.
- Internet Abusive Use Questionnaire: Psychometric properties; 2016; Calvo-Frances, F.
- Revisiting “yes/no” versus “check all that apply”: Results from a mixed modes...; 2016; Nicolaas, G.; Campanelli, P.; Hope, S.; Jaeckle, A.; Lynn, P.
- A Statistical Approach to Provide Individualized Privacy for Surveys; 2016; Esponda, F.; Huerta, K.; Guerrero, V. M.
- Online and Social Media Data As an Imperfect Continuous Panel Survey; 2016; Diaz, F.; Garmon, F.; Hofman, J. K.; Kiciman, E.; Rothschild, D.