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 (364)
- Displaying Videos in Web Surveys: Implications for Complete Viewing and Survey Responses; 2017; Mendelson, J.; Lee Gibson, J.; Romano Bergstrom, J. C.
- Usability Testing for Survey Research; 2017; Geisen, E.; Romano Bergstrom, J. C.
- Where, When, How and with What Do Panel Interviews Take Place and Is the Quality of Answers Affected...; 2017; Niebruegge, S.
- 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.
- Comparing acquiescent and extreme response styles in face-to-face and web surveys; 2017; Liu, M.; Conrad, F. G.; Lee, S.
- Respondent mode choice in a smartphone survey ; 2017; Conrad, F. G., Schober, M. F., Antoun, C., Yan, H. Y., Hupp, A., Johnston, M., Ehlen, P., Vickers, L...
- 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.
- Methods for Evaluating Respondent Attrition in Web-Based Surveys; 2016; Hochheimer, C. J.; Sabo, R. T.; Krist, A. H.; Day, T.; Cyrus, J.; Woolf, S. H.
- Mobile-only web survey respondents; 2016; Lugtig, P. J.; Toepoel, V.; Amin, A.
- Using official surveys to reduce bias of estimates from nonrandom samples collected by web surveys; 2016; Beresovsky, V.; Dorfman, A.; Rumcheva, P.
- Making use of Internet interactivity to propose a dynamic presentation of web questionnaires; 2016; Revilla, M.; Ochoa, C.; Turbina, A.
- Helping respondents provide good answers in Web surveys; 2016; Couper, M. P.; Zhang, C.
- Gamifying. Not all fun and games; 2016; Stubington, P.; Crichton, C.
- FocusVision 2015 Annual MR Technology Report; 2016; Macer, T., Wilson, S.
- Are sliders too slick for surveys?; 2016; Buskirk, T. D.
- Research gamification for quality pharmaceutical stakeholder insights; 2016; Mondry, B.; Fink, L.
- SurveyTester from Knowledge Navigators ; 2016; Macer, T.
- Simplifying your mobile solution; 2016; Berry, K.
- Effects of motivating question types with graphical support in multi channel design studies; 2016; Luetters, H.; Friedrich-Freksa, M.; Vitt, SGoldstein, D. G.
- Why Do Web Surveys Take Longer on Smartphones?; 2016; Couper, M. P.; J. J.Peterson, G. J.
- Usability Testing within Agile Process; 2016; Holland, T.
- Association of Eye Tracking with Other Usability Metrics ; 2016; Olmsted, E. L.
- Cognitive Probing Methods in Usability Testing – Pros and Cons; 2016; Nichols, E. M.
- Thinking Inside the Box Visual Design of the Response Box Affects Creative Divergent Thinking in an...; 2016; Mohr, A. H.; Sell, A.; Lindsay, T.
- Distractions: The Incidence and Consequences of Interruptions for Survey Respondents ; 2016; Ansolabehere, S.; Schaffner, B. F.
- The Effect of CATI Questions, Respondents, and Interviewers on Response Time; 2016; Olson, K.; Smyth, J. D.
- New Generation of Online Questionnaires?; 2016; Revilla, M.; Ochoa, C.; Turbina, A.
- The Analysis of Respondent’s Behavior toward Edit Messages in a Web Survey; 2016; Park, Y.
- 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.
- Online Surveys are Mixed-Device Surveys. Issues Associated with the Use of Different (Mobile) Devices...; 2016; Toepoel, V.; Lugtig, P. J.
- A Technical Guide to Effective and Accessible web Surveys; 2016; Baatard, G.
- The Validity of Surveys: Online and Offline; 2016; Wiersma, W.
- Computer-assisted and online data collection in general population surveys; 2016; Skarupova, K.
- A Framework of Incorporating Thai Social Networking Data in Online Marketing Survey; 2016; Jiamthapthaksin, R.; Aung, T. H.; Ratanasawadwat, N.
- Creation and Usability Testing of a Web-Based Pre-Scanning Radiology Patient Safety and History Questionnaire...; 2016; Robinson, T. J.; DuVall, S.; Wiggins III, R
- Comprehension and engagement in survey interviews with virtual agents; 2016; Conrad, F. G.; Schober, M. F.; Jans, M.; Orlowski, R. A.; Nielsen, D.; Levenstein, R. M.
- Taming Big Data: Using App Technology to Study Organizational Behavior on Social Media; 2015; Bail, C. A.
- A Meta-Analysis of Breakoff Rates in Mobile Web Surveys; 2015; Mavletova, A. M.; Couper, M. P.
- Optimizing the Decennial Census for Mobile – A Case Study; 2015; Nichols, E. M.; Hawala, E. O.; Horwitz, R.; Bentley, M.
- Using Video to Reinvigorate the Open Question; 2015; Cape, P.
- Are Sliders Too Slick for Surveys? An Experiment Comparing Slider and Radio Button Scales for Smartphone...; 2015; Aadland, D.; Aalberg, T.
- Web Surveys Optimized for Smartphones: Are there Differences Between Computer and Smartphone Users?; 2015; Andreadis, I.
- Designing web surveys for the multi-device internet; 2015; de Bruijne, M.
- Data Quality Standards in Mixed Mode Surveys; 2015; Bremer, J.; Barbulescu, M.; Bennett, J.
- 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.
- A Review of Issues in Gamified Surveys; 2015; Keusch, F.; Zhang, Che.