Web Survey Bibliography
In Web surveys, rating scales measuring the respondents’ attitudes and self-descriptions by means of a series of related statements are commonly presented in grid (or matrix) questions. Despite the benefits of displaying multiple rating scale items neatly arranged and supposedly easy to complete on a single screen, respondents are often tempted to rely on cognitive shortcuts in order to reduce the extent of cognitive and navigational effort required to answer a set of rating scale items. In order to minimize this risk of cognitive shortcuts resulting in satisfying rather than optimal answers, respondents have to be motivated to spend extra time and effort on the attentive and careful processing of rating scales. A wide range of visual and dynamic features are available in interactive Web surveys allowing for visual enhancement and greater interactivity in the presentation of survey questions. To date, however, only a few studies have systematically examined new rating scale designs using data input methods other than conventional radio buttons. In the present study, two different rating scales were designed using drag-and-drop as a more interactive data input method: Respondents have to drag the response options towards the rating scale items (‘drag-response’), or in the reverse direction, the rating scale items towards the response options (‘drag-item’). In both drag-and-drop rating scales, the visual highlighting of the items and response options as well as the dynamic strengthening of the link between these key components are aimed at encouraging the respondents to process a rating scale more attentively and carefully. The effectiveness of the drag-and-drop rating scales in preventing the respondents’ susceptibility to cognitive shortcuts is assessed on the basis of five systematic response tendencies that are typically accompanied by rating scales, i.e., careless, nondifferentiated, acquiescent, and extreme responding as well as the respondents’ systematic tendency to select one of the first response options, so called primacy effects. Moreover, item missing data, response times, and respondent evaluation are examined. The findings of the present study revealed that although both drag-and-drop scales entail a higher level of respondent burden as indicated by an increase in item missing data and longer response times compared to conventional radio button scales, they promote the respondents’ attentiveness and carefulness towards the response task which is accompanied by the respondents’ reduced susceptibility to cognitive shortcuts in processing rating scales.
Ratingskalen zu Erfassung von Einstellungen und Persönlichkeitsmerkmalen des Befragten werden in Online-Befragungen bevorzugt in Form einer Matrixfrage dargestellt. Matrixfragen bieten zwar gewisse Vorzüge hinsichtlich der übersichtlichen Darstellung und einer vermeintlich einfachen Bearbeitung mehrerer Items. Gleichzeitig sind sie jedoch auch anfälliger für systematische Antworttendenzen, die zur Verringerung der Datenqualität führen können. Um dem Risiko derartiger Abkürzungsstrategien entgegenzuwirken, müssen die Befragten zur aufmerksamen und sorgfältigen Bearbeitung von Ratingskalen motiviert werden. Online-Befragungen ermöglichen den Einsatz visueller und interaktiver Elemente zur optischen Aufwertung einzelner Fragen und zur Steigung der Interaktivität des Befragungsprozesses insgesamt. Bislang gibt es jedoch nur wenige Studien, die den Einsatz solcher Gestaltungselemente in Ratingskalen untersuchen. Vor diesem Hintergrund werden im Rahmen der vorliegenden Studie zwei unterschiedliche Drag-and-Drop-Ratingskalen konzipiert: In der Drag-Response-Skala sind die Befragten aufgefordert, mit dem Mauszeiger eine ausgewählte Antwortmöglichkeit zum jeweiligen Item zu ziehen, wohingegen in der Drag-Item-Skala das jeweilige Item zur ausgewählten Antwortmöglichkeit gezogen wird. Durch den Einsatz der Drag-and-Drop Technik soll die Aufmerksamkeit gezielt auf die Items und Antwortmöglichkeiten gelenkt sowie die Verbindung zwischen dem jeweiligen Item und der ausgewählten Antwortmöglichkeit verstärkt werden. Zur Überprüfung der Effektivität der beiden Drag-and-Drop-Ratingskalen hinsichtlich einer aufmerksameren und sorgfältigeren Bearbeitung und letztlich einer Vorbeugung von systematischen Antworttendenzen werden mehrere Indikatoren der Datenqualität herangezogen, darunter ‚Careless Responding‘, ‚Nondifferentiation‘, ‚Acquiescence‘, ‚Extremity‘ sowie ‚Primacy Effekte‘. Darüber hinaus werden das Ausmaß fehlender Werte, die Antwortzeiten und Bewertungen der Befragten ausgewertet. Die Ergebnisse der vorliegenden Untersuchung zeigen, dass die Drag-and-Drop-Ratingskalen zwar mit einem gesteigerten Aufwand für Kognition und Navigation einhergehen, welcher zu mehr fehlenden Werten und längeren Antwortzeiten führt. Gleichzeitig jedoch werden die Befragten zu einem aufmerksameren und sorgfältigeren Antwortverhalten motiviert, was wiederum systematischen Antworttendenzen entgegenwirkt.
Web survey bibliography - Germany (361)
- Interviewer effects on onliner and offliner participation in the German Internet Panel; 2017; Herzing, J. M. E.; Blom, A. G.; Meuleman, B.
- Comparing the same Questionnaire between five Online Panels: A Study of the Effect of Recruitment Strategy...; 2017; Schnell, R.; Panreck, L.
- 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.
- Social Desirability and Undesirability Effects on Survey Response latencies; 2017; Andersen, H.; Mayerl, J.
- Comparison of response patterns in different survey designs: a longitudinal panel with mixed-mode and...; 2017; Ruebsamen, N.; Akmatov, M. K.; Castell, S.; Karch, A.; Mikolajczyk, R. T.
- Mobile Research im Kontext der digitalen Transformation; 2017; Friedrich-Freksa, M.
- Kognitives Pretesting; 2017; Neuert, C.
- Grundzüge des Datenschutzrechts und aktuelle Datenschutzprobleme in der Markt- und Sozialforschung; 2017; Schweizer, A.
- Article Establishing an Open Probability-Based Mixed-Mode Panel of the General Population in Germany...; 2017; Bosnjak, M.; Dannwolf, T.; Enderle, T.; Schaurer, I.; Struminskaya, B.; Tanner, A.; Weyandt, K.
- Socially Desirable Responding in Web-Based Questionnaires: A Meta-Analytic Review of the Candor Hypothesis...; 2016; Gnambs, T.; Kaspar, K.
- Methodological Aspects of Central Left-Right Scale Placement in a Cross-national Perspective; 2016; Scholz, E.; Zuell, C.
- Predicting and Preventing Break-Offs in Web Surveys; 2016; Mittereder, F.
- Incorporating eye tracking into cognitive interviewing to pretest survey questions; 2016; Neuert, C.; Lenzner, T.
- Geht’s auch mit der Maus? – Eine Methodenstudie zu Online-Befragungen in der Jugendforschung...; 2016; Heim, R.; Konowalczyk, S.; Grgic, M.; Seyda, M.; Burrmann, U.; Rauschenbach, T.
- Comparing Cognitive Interviewing and Online Probing: Do They Find Similar Results?; 2016; Meitinger, K., Behr, D.
- Device Effects - How different screen sizes affect answers in online surveys; 2016; Fisher, B.; Bernet, F.
- Effects of motivating question types with graphical support in multi channel design studies; 2016; Luetters, H.; Friedrich-Freksa, M.; Vitt, SGoldstein, D. G.
- Analyzing Cognitive Burden of Survey Questions with Paradata: A Web Survey Experiment; 2016; Hoehne, J. K.; Schlosser, S.; Krebs, D.
- Secondary Respondent Consent in the German Family Panel; 2016; Schmiedeberg, C.; Castiglioni, L.; Schroeder, J.
- Does Changing Monetary Incentive Schemes in Panel Studies Affect Cooperation? A Quasi-experiment on...; 2016; Schaurer, I.; Bosnjak, M.
- Using Cash Incentives to Help Recruitment in a Probability Based Web Panel: The Effects on Sign Up Rates...; 2016; Krieger, U.
- The Mobile Web Only Population: Socio-demographic Characteristics and Potential Bias ; 2016; Fuchs, M.; Metzler, A.
- The Impact of Scale Direction, Alignment and Length on Responses to Rating Scale Questions in a Web...; 2016; Keusch, F.; Liu, M.; Yan, T.
- Web Surveys Versus Other Survey Modes: An Updated Meta-analysis Comparing Response Rates ; 2016; Wengrzik, J.; Bosnjak, M.; Lozar Manfreda, K.
- Retrospective Measurement of Students’ Extracurricular Activities with a Self-administered Calendar...; 2016; Furthmueller, P.
- Privacy Concerns in Responses to Sensitive Questions. A Survey Experiment on the Influence of Numeric...; 2016; Bader, F., Bauer, J., Kroher, M., Riordan, P.
- Ballpoint Pens as Incentives with Mail Questionnaires – Results of a Survey Experiment; 2016; Heise, M.
- Does survey mode matter for studying electoral behaviour? Evidence from the 2009 German Longitudinal...; 2016; Bytzek, E.; Bieber, I. E.
- Forecasting proportional representation elections from non-representative expectation surveys; 2016; Graefe, A.
- Setting Up an Online Panel Representative of the General Population The German Internet Panel; 2016; Blom, A. G.; Gathmann, C.; Krieger, U.
- Online Surveys are Mixed-Device Surveys. Issues Associated with the Use of Different (Mobile) Devices...; 2016; Toepoel, V.; Lugtig, P. J.
- Stable Relationships, Stable Participation? The Effects of Partnership Dissolution and Changes in Relationship...; 2016; Mueller, B.; Castiglioni, L.
- Will They Stay or Will They Go? Personality Predictors of Dropout in Online Study; 2016; Nestler, S.; Thielsch, M.; Vasilev, E.; Back, M.
- Respondent Conditioning in Online Panel Surveys: Results of Two Field Experiments; 2016; Struminskaya, B.
- A Privacy-Friendly Method to Reward Participants of Online-Surveys; 2015; Herfert, M.; Lange, B.; Selzer, A.; Waldmann, U.
- The impact of frequency rating scale formats on the measurement of latent variables in web surveys -...; 2015; Menold, N.; Kemper, C. J.
- Investigating response order effects in web surveys using eye tracking; 2015; Karem Hoehne, J.; Lenzner, T.
- Implementation of the forced answering option within online surveys: Do higher item response rates come...; 2015; Decieux, J. P.; Mergener, A.; Neufang, K.; Sischka, P.
- Translating Answers to Open-ended Survey Questions in Cross-cultural Research: A Case Study on the Interplay...; 2015; Behr, D.
- The Effects of Questionnaire Completion Using Mobile Devices on Data Quality. Evidence from a Probability...; 2015; Bosnjak, M.; Struminskaya, B.; Weyandt, K.
- Are they willing to use the web? First results of a possible switch from PAPI to CAPI/CAWI in an establishment...; 2015; Ellguth, P.; Kohaut, S.
- Measuring Political Knowledge in Web-Based Surveys: An Experimental Validation of Visual Versus Verbal...; 2015; Munzert, S.; Selb, P.
- Changing from CAPI to CAWI in an ongoing household panel - experiences from the German Socio-Economic...; 2015; Schupp, J.; Sassenroth, D.
- Rating Scales in Web Surveys: A Test of New Drag-and-Drop Rating Procedures; 2015; Kunz, T.
- Mode System Effects in an Online Panel Study: Comparing a Probability-based Online Panel with two Face...; 2015; Struminskaya, B.; De Leeuw, E. D.; Kaczmirek, L.
- Higher response rates at the expense of validity? Consequences of the implementation of the ‘forced...; 2015; Decieux, J. P.; Mergener, A.; Neufang, K.; Sischka, P.
- A quasi-experiment on effects of prepaid versus promised incentives on participation in a probability...; 2015; Schaurer, I.; Bosnjak, M.
- Response Effects of Prenotification, Prepaid Cash, Prepaid Vouchers, and Postpaid Vouchers: An Experimental...; 2015; van Veen, F.; Goeritz, A.; Sattler, S.
- Recruiting Respondents for a Mobile Phone Panel: The Impact of Recruitment Question Wording on Cooperation...; 2015; Busse, B.; Fuchs, M.
- The Influence of the Answer Box Size on Item Nonresponse to Open-Ended Questions in a Web Survey ; 2015; Zuell, C.; Menold, N.; Koerber, S.