Web Survey Bibliography
Concern about data falsification is as old as the profession of public opinion polling. However, the extent of data falsification is difficult to quantify and not well documented. As a result, the impact of falsification on statistical estimates is essentially unknown. Nonetheless, there is an established approach to address the problem of data falsification which includes prevention, for example by training interviewers and providing close supervision, and detection, such as through careful evaluation of patterns in the technical data, also referred to as paradata, and the substantive data.
In a recent paper, Kuriakose and Robbins (2015) propose a new approach to detecting falsification. The measure is an extension of the traditional method of looking for duplicates within datasets. What is new about their approach is the assertion that the presence of respondents that match another respondent on more than 85% of questions, what we refer to as a high match, indicates likely falsification. They apply this threshold to a range of publicly available international survey datasets and conclude that one-in-five international survey datasets likely contain falsified data.
The claim that there is widespread falsification in international surveys is clearly concerning. However, an extensive investigation conducted by Pew Research Center and summarized in this report finds the claim is not well supported. The results demonstrate that natural, benign survey features can explain high match rates. Specifically, the threshold that Kuriakose and Robbins propose is extremely sensitive to the number of questions, number of response options, number of respondents, and homogeneity within the population. Because of this sensitivity to multiple parameters, under real-world conditions it is possible for respondents to match on any percentage of questions even when the survey data is valid and uncorrupted. In other words, our analysis indicates the proposed threshold is prone to generating false positives – suggesting falsification when, in fact, there is none. Perhaps the most compelling evidence that casts doubt on the claim of widespread falsification is in the way the approach implicates some high-quality U.S. surveys. The threshold generates false positives in data with no suspected falsification but that has similar characteristics to the international surveys called into question.
This paper proceeds as follows. First, we briefly review the problem of data falsification in surveys and how it is typically addressed. Second, we summarize Kuriakose and Robbins’ argument for their proposed threshold for identifying falsified data and discuss our concerns about their evidence. Third, we outline the research steps we followed to evaluate the proposed threshold and then review in detail the results of our analysis. Finally, we conclude with a discussion of the findings and other ways the field is working to improve quality control methods.
Web survey bibliography - 2016 (264)
- Web Health Monitoring Survey: A New Approach to Enhance the Effectiveness of Telemedicine Systems; 2017; Romano, M. F.; Sardella, M. V.; Alboni, F.
- Socially Desirable Responding in Web-Based Questionnaires: A Meta-Analytic Review of the Candor Hypothesis...; 2016; Gnambs, T.; Kaspar, K.
- Dynamic Question Ordering in Online Surveys; 2016; Early, K.; Mankoff, J.; Fienberg, S. E.
- How to use online surveys to understand human behaviour concerning window opening in terms of building...; 2016; Fabbri, K.
- Impact of satisficing behavior in online surveys on consumer preference and welfare estimates; 2016; Gao, Z.; House, L. A.; Bi, X.
- Comparing Twitter and Online Panels for Survey Recruitment of E-Cigarette Users and Smokers; 2016; Guillory, J.; Kim, A.; Murphy, J.; Bradfield, B.; Nonnemaker, J.; Hsieh, Y. P.
- Influence of Importance Statements and Box Size on Response Rate and Response Quality of Open-Ended...; 2016; Kumar Chaudhary, A.; Israel, G. D.
- Web based health surveys: Using a Two Step Heckman model to examine their potential for population health...; 2016; Morrissey, K.; Kinderman, P.; Pontin, E.; Tai, S.; Schwannauer, M.
- “Better do not touch” and other superstitions concerning melanoma: the cross-sectional web...; 2016; Gajda, M.; Kamiñska-Winciorek, G.; Wydmañski, J.; Tukiendorf, A.
- 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.
- The Low Response Score (LRS): A Metric to Locate, Predict, and Manage Hard-to-Survey Populations; 2016; Erdman, C.; Bates, N.
- Targeted Appeals for Participation in Letters to Panel Survey Members; 2016; Lynn, P.
- Can we assess representativeness of cross-national surveys using the education variable?; 2016; Ortmanns, V.; Schneider, S.
- Methodological Aspects of Central Left-Right Scale Placement in a Cross-national Perspective; 2016; Scholz, E.; Zuell, C.
- Fieldwork Effort, Response Rate, and the Distribution of Survey Outcomes: A Multilevel Meta-analysis; 2016; Sturgis, P.; Williams, Jo.; Brunton-Smith, I.; Moore, J.
- Mobile-only web survey respondents; 2016; Lugtig, P. J.; Toepoel, V.; Amin, A.
- Comparison of Face-to-Face and Web Surveys on the Topic of Homosexual Rights; 2016; Liu, M.; Wang, Yic.
- Question order sensitivity of subjective well-being measures: focus on life satisfaction, self-rated...; 2016; Lee, S.; McClain, C.; Webster, N.; Han, S.
- Web-Based Statistical Sampling and Analysis; 2016; Quinn, A.; Larson, K.
- Standard Definitions: Final Dispositions of Case Codes and Outcome Rates for Surveys 2016; 2016
- Using Visual Analogue Scales in eHealth: Non-Response Effects in a Lifestyle Intervention; 2016; Kuhlmann, T.; Reips, U.-D.; Wienert, J.; Lippke, S.
- Development and Pilot Test of a Mobile Application for Field Data Collection; 2016; Chiappetta, L.; Kerr, M. M.
- Statistical Design for Online Experiments Across Desktops, Tablets, Smartphones (and Maybe Wearable...; 2016; Qian, P.; Sadeghi, S.; Arora, N. K.
- A Case Study on the Use of Propensity Score Adjustments with Web Survey Data; 2016; Parsons, V.
- Motivated Misreporting in Web Panels; 2016; Bach, R.; Eckman, S.
- Are Initial Respondents Different from the Nonresponse Follow-Up Cases? A Study of Probability-Based...; 2016; Zeng, W.; Dennis, J. M.
- Using official surveys to reduce bias of estimates from nonrandom samples collected by web surveys; 2016; Beresovsky, V.; Dorfman, A.; Rumcheva, P.
- Predicting and Preventing Break-Offs in Web Surveys; 2016; Mittereder, F.
- A Feasibility Study of Recruiting and Maintaining a Web Panel of People with Disabilities; 2016; Chandler, J.
- Exploration of Methods for Blending Unconventional Samples with Traditional Probability Samples; 2016; Gellar, J.; Zhou, H.; D.; Sinclair, M. D.
- Ratio of Vector Lengths as an Indicator of Sample Representativeness ; 2016; Shin, H. C.
- Design of Sample Surveys That Complement Observational Data to Achieve Population Coverage; 2016; Slud, E.; Ashmead, R.
- 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.
- Comparing data quality between online panel and intercept samples; 2016; Liu, M.
- Effect of a Pre-Paid Incentive on Response Rates to an Address-Based Sampling (ABS) Web-Mail Survey; 2016; Suzer-Gurtekin, Z.; Elkasabi, M.; Liu, Me.; Lepkowski, J. M.; Curtin, R.; McBee, R.
- Response Behavior in a Video-Web Survey: A Mode Comparison Study; 2016; Haan, M.; Ongena, Y. P.; Vannieuwenhuyze, J. T. A.; de Glopper, K.
- Standard Definitions Final Dispositions of Case Codes and Outcome Rates for Surveys; 2016
- Integration of a phone-based household travel survey and a web-based student travel survey; 2016; Verreault, H.; Morency, C.
- Evaluation of mode equivalence of the MSKCC Bowel Function Instrument, LASA Quality of Life, and Subjective...; 2016; Bennett, A. V.; Keenoy, K.; Shouery, M.; Basch, E.; Temple, L. K.
- Making use of Internet interactivity to propose a dynamic presentation of web questionnaires; 2016; Revilla, M.; Ochoa, C.; Turbina, A.
- A streamlined approach to online linguistic surveys; 2016; Erlewine, M. Y.; Kotek, H.
- Du kommst hier nicht rein: Türsteherfragen identifizieren nachlässige Teilnehmer in Online-Umfragen; 2016; Merkle, B.; Kaczmirek, L.; Hellwig, O.
- Incorporating eye tracking into cognitive interviewing to pretest survey questions; 2016; Neuert, C.; Lenzner, T.
- Population Survey Features and Response Rates: A Randomized Experiment; 2016; Guo, Y.; Kopec, J.; Cibere, J.; Li, L. C.; Goldsmith, C. H.
- Mode Effect and Response Rate Issues in Mixed-Mode Survey Research: Implications for Recreational Fisheries...; 2016; Wallen, K. E.; Landon, A. C.; Kyle, G. T.; Schuett, M. A.; Leitz, J.; Kurzawski, K.
- A measure of survey mode differences; 2016; Homola, J.; Jackson, N. M.; Gill, Je.
- Web Health Monitoring Survey: A New Approach to Enhance the Effectiveness of Telemedicine Systems ; 2016; Romano, M. F.; Sardella, M. V.; Alboni, F.
- Smartphones vs PCs: Does the Device Affect the Web Survey Experience and the Measurement Error for...; 2016; Toninelli, D.; Revilla, M.
- Question order sensitivity of subjective well-being measures: focus on life satisfaction, self-rated...; 2016; Lee, S.; McClain, C.; Webster, N.; Han, S.