Web Survey Bibliography
Title Mail merge can be used to create personalized questionnaires in complex surveys.
Source BMC Research Notes (2015) 8:574
Year 2016
Database Emerald
Access date 29.02.2016
Full text pdf (1.1 MB)
Abstract Background: Low response rates and inadequate question comprehension threaten the validity of survey results. We describe a simple procedure to implement personalized--as opposed to generically worded--questionnaires in the context of a complex web-based survey of corresponding authors of a random sample of 300 published cluster randomized trials. The purpose of the survey was to gather more detailed information about informed consent procedures used in the trial, over and above basic information provided in the trial report. We describe our approach--which allowed extensive personalization without the need for specialized computer technology--and discuss its potential application in similar settings. Results: The mail merge feature of standard word processing software was used to generate unique, personalized questionnaires for each author by incorporating specific information from the article, including naming the randomization unit (e.g., family practice, school, worksite), and identifying specific individuals who may have been considered research participants at the cluster level (family doctors, teachers, employers) and individual level (patients, students, employees) in questions regarding informed consent procedures in the trial. The response rate was relatively high (64 %, 182/285) and did not vary significantly by author, publication, or study characteristics. The refusal rate was low (7 %). Conclusion: While controlled studies are required to examine the specific effects of our approach on comprehension, quality of responses, and response rates, we showed how mail merge can be used as a simple but useful tool to add personalized fields to complex survey questionnaires, or to request additional information required from study authors. One potential application is in eliciting specific information about published articles from study authors when conducting systematic reviews and meta-analyses.
Access/Direct link NCBI (Abstract) / (Full text)
Springer Link (Abstract) / (Full text)
Springer Link (Abstract) / (Full text)
Year of publication2015
Bibliographic typeJournal article
Web survey bibliography (4086)
- 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.
- The Dynamic Identity Fusion Index: A New Continuous Measure of Identity Fusion for Web-Based Questionnaires...; 2016; Jimenez, J.; Gomez, A.; Buhrmester, M.; Whitehouse, H.; Swann, W. B.
- Recommended Practices for the design of business surveys questionnaires; 2016; Macchia, S.
- Navigation Buttons in Web-Based Surveys: Respondents’ Preferences Revisited in the Laboratory; 2016; Romano Bergstrom, J. C.; Erdman, C.; Lakhe, S.
- Collecting Data from mHealth Users via SMS Surveys: A Case Study in Kenya; 2016; Johnson, D.
- “Money Will Solve the Problem”: Testing the Effectiveness of Conditional Incentives for...; 2016; DeCamp, W.; Manierre, M. J.
- Effects of Incentive Amount and Type of Web Survey Response Rates; 2016; Coopersmith, J.; Vogel, L. K.; Bruursema, T.; Feeney, K.
- Effect of a Post-paid Incentive on Response to a Web-based Survey; 2016; Brown, J. A.; Serrato, C. A.; Hugh, M.; Kanter, M. H.; A.; Spritzer, K. L.; Hays, R. D.
- 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.
- Feasibility of using a multilingual web survey in studying the health of ethnic minority youth.; 2016; Kinnunen, J. M.; Malin, M.; Raisamo, S. U.; Lindfors, P. L.; Pere, L. A.; Rimpelae, A. H.
- Respondents of a follow-up web-based survey; 2016; Stoddard, S. A.; Amparo, P.; Popick, H.; Yudd, R.; Sujeer, A.; Baath, M.
- An Examination of Opposing Responses on Duplicated Multi-Mode Survey Responses; 2016; Djangali, A.
- Is One More Reminder Worth It? If So, Pick Up the Phone: Findings from a Web Survey; 2016; Lin-Freeman, L.
- 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.
- When Should I Call You? An Analysis of Differences in Demographics and Responses According to Respondents...; 2016; Vicente, P.; Lopes, I.
- Evaluating a New Proposal for Detecting Data Falsification in Surveys; 2016; Simmons, K.; Mercer, A. W.; Schwarzer, S.; Courtney, K.
- Quantifying Under- and Overreporting in Surveys Through a Dual-Questioning-Technique Design. ; 2016; de Jong , M.; Fox, J.-P.; Steenkamp, J. - B. E. M.
- The use and positioning of clarification features in web surveys; 2016; Metzler, A., Kunz, T., Fuchs, 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....
- Online Surveys are Mixed-Device Surveys. Issues Associated with the Use of Different (Mobile) Devices...; 2016; Toepoel, V.; Lugtig, P. J.
- Mail merge can be used to create personalized questionnaires in complex surveys. ; 2016; Taljaard, M.; Chaudhry, S. H.; Brehaut, J. C.; Weijer, C.; Grimshaw, J. M.
- Electronic and paper based data collection methods in library and information science research: A comparative...; 2016; Tella, A.
- Stable Relationships, Stable Participation? The Effects of Partnership Dissolution and Changes in Relationship...; 2016; Mueller, B.; Castiglioni, L.
- Identifying Pertinent Variables for Nonresponse Follow-Up Surveys. Lessons Learned from 4 Cases in Switzerland...; 2016; Vandenplas, C.; Joye, D.; Staehli, M. E.; Pollien, A.
- The 2013 Census Test: Piloting Methods to Reduce 2020 Census Costs; 2016; Walejko, G. K.; Miller, P. V.
- 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.
- Sunday shopping – The case of three surveys; 2016; Bethlehem, J.
- Solving the Nonresponse Problem With Sample Matching?; 2016
- Will They Stay or Will They Go? Personality Predictors of Dropout in Online Study; 2016; Nestler, S.; Thielsch, M.; Vasilev, E.; Back, M.
- Do Polls Still Work If People Don't Answer Their Phones?; 2016; Edwards-Levy, A.; Jackson, N. M.
- HUFFPOLLSTER: Why Reaching Latinos Is A Challenge For Pollsters; 2016; Jackson, N. M.; Edwards-Levy, A.; Velencia, J.
- 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.
- 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.
- The impact of academic sponsorship on Web survey dropout and item non-response; 2016; Allen, P. J.; Roberts, L. D.
- Moderators of Candidate Name-Order Effects in Elections: An Experiment; 2016; Kim, Nu.; Krosnick, J. A.; Casasanto, D.
- Predictive inference for non-probability samples: a simulation study ; 2016; Buelens, B.; Burger, J.; van den Brakel, J.