Web Survey Bibliography
Title The Utility of an Online Convenience Panel for Reaching Rare and Dispersed Populations
Author Sell, R.; Goldberg, S.; Conron, K.
Source PLOS one
Year 2016
Access date 06.04.2016
Full text pdf (207 KB)
Abstract Gaps in data collection systems, as well as challenges associated with gathering data from rare and dispersed populations, render current health surveillance systems inadequate to identify and monitor efforts to reduce health disparities. Using sexual and gender minorities we investigated the utility of using a large nonprobability online panel to conduct rapid population assessments of such populations using brief surveys. Surveys of the Google Android Panel (four assessing sexual orientation and one assessing gender identity and sex assigned at birth) were conducted resulting in invitation of 53,739 application users (37,505 of whom viewed the invitation) to generate a total of 34,759 who completed screening questions indicating their sexual orientation, or gender identity and sex at birth. Where possible we make comparisons to similar data from two population-based surveys (NHIS and NESARC). We found that 99.4% to 100.0% of respondents across our Google Android panel samples completed the screening questions and 97.8% to 99.2% of those that consented to participate in our surveys indicated they were “OK” with the content of surveys that assessed sexual orientation and sex/gender. In our Google Android panel samples there was a higher percentage of sexual minority respondents than in either NHIS or NESARC with 7.4% of men and 12.4% of women reporting gay, lesbian or bisexual identities. The proportion sexual minority was 2.8 to 5.6 times higher in the Google Android panel samples than was found in the 2012 NHIS sample, for men and women, respectively. The percentage of “transgender” identified individuals in the Google sample was 0.7%, which is similar to 0.5% transgender identified through the Massachusetts BRFSS, and using a transgender status item we found that 2.0% of the overall sample fit could be classified as transgender. The Google samples sometimes more closely approximated national averages for ethnicity and race than NHIS.
Access/Direct link Plos One (Abstract) / (Full text)
Year of publication2015
Bibliographic typeJournal article
Web survey bibliography (431)
- Interviewer effects on onliner and offliner participation in the German Internet Panel; 2017; Herzing, J. M. E.; Blom, A. G.; Meuleman, B.
- Millennials and emojis in Spain and Mexico.; 2017; Bosch Jover, O.; Revilla, M.
- Comparing the same Questionnaire between five Online Panels: A Study of the Effect of Recruitment Strategy...; 2017; Schnell, R.; Panreck, L.
- Do distractions during web survey completion affect data quality? Findings from a laboratory experiment...; 2017; Wenz, A.
- A Comparison of Two Nonprobability Samples with Probability Samples; 2017; Zack, E. S.; Kennedy, J. M.
- Targeted letters: Effects on sample composition and item non-response; 2017; Bianchi, A.; Biffignandi, S.
- Oversampling as a methodological strategy for the study of self-reported health among lesbian, gay and...; 2017; Anderssen, N.; Malterud, K.
- Analyzing Survey Characteristics, Participation, and Evaluation Across 186 Surveys in an Online Opt-...; 2017; Revilla, M.
- 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.
- Determinants of polling accuracy: the effect of opt-in Internet surveys; 2017; Sohlberg, J.; Gilljam, M.; Martinsson, J.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- Targeted Appeals for Participation in Letters to Panel Survey Members; 2016; Lynn, P.
- Motivated Misreporting in Web Panels; 2016; Bach, R.; Eckman, S.
- Using official surveys to reduce bias of estimates from nonrandom samples collected by web surveys; 2016; Beresovsky, V.; Dorfman, A.; Rumcheva, P.
- 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.
- Comparing data quality between online panel and intercept samples; 2016; Liu, M.
- Integration of a phone-based household travel survey and a web-based student travel survey; 2016; Verreault, H.; Morency, C.
- Are Final Comments in Web Survey Panels Associated with Next-Wave Attrition?; 2016; McLauchlan, C.; Schonlau, M.
- Estimation and Adjustment of Self-Selection Bias in Volunteer Panel Web Surveys ; 2016; Niu, Ch.
- Participation in an Intensive Longitudinal Study with Weekly Web Surveys Over 2.5 Years; 2016; Barber, J. S.; Kusunoki, Y.; Gatny, H. H.; Schulz, P.
- The impact of survey duration on completion rates among Millennial respondents ; 2016; Coates, D.; Bliss, M.; Vivar, X.
- Cognitive Probing Methods in Usability Testing – Pros and Cons; 2016; Nichols, E. M.
- Assessing the Accuracy of 51 Nonprobability Online Panels and River Samples: A Study of the Advertising...; 2016; Yang,Y.;Callegaro,M.;Yang,Y.;Callegaro,M.;Chin,K.;Yang,Y.;Villar,A.;Callegaro, M.; Chin, K.; Krosnick...
- Calculating Standard Errors for Nonprobability Samples when Matching to Probability Samples ; 2016; Lee, Ad.; ZuWallack, R. S.
- User Experience and Eye-tracking: Results to Optimize Completion of a Web Survey and Website Design ; 2016; Walton, L.; Ricci, K.; Libman Barry, A.; Eiginger, C.; Christian, L. M.
- Using Web Panels to Quantify the Qualitative: The National Center for Health Statistics Research and...; 2016; Scanlon, P. J.
- Does Changing Monetary Incentive Schemes in Panel Studies Affect Cooperation? A Quasi-experiment on...; 2016; Schaurer, I.; Bosnjak, M.
- Web Probing for Question Evaluation: The Effects of Probe Placement ; 2016; Fowler, S.; Willis, G. B.; Moser, R. P.; Townsend, R. L. M.; Maitland, A.; Sun, H.; Berrigan, D.
- Using Cash Incentives to Help Recruitment in a Probability Based Web Panel: The Effects on Sign Up Rates...; 2016; Krieger, U.
- Making Connections on the Internet: Online Survey Panel Communications ; 2016; Libman Barry, A.; Eiginger, C.; Walton, L.; Ricci, K.
- Evaluating a Modular Design Approach to Collecting Survey Data Using Text Messages ; 2016; West, B. T.; Ghimire, D.; Axinn, W.
- Safety First: Ensuring the Anonymity and Privacy of Iranian Panellists’ While Creating Iran&#...; 2016; Farmanesh, A.; Mohseni, E.
- Tracking the Representativeness of an Online Panel Over Time ; 2016; Klausch, L. T.; Scherpenzeel, A.
- Non-Observation Bias in an Address-Register-Based CATI/CAPI Mixed Mode Survey; 2016; Lipps, O.
- Bees to Honey or Flies to Manure? How the Usual Subject Recruitment Exacerbates the Shortcomings of...; 2016; Snell, S. A., Hillygus, D. S.
- Thinking Inside the Box Visual Design of the Response Box Affects Creative Divergent Thinking in an...; 2016; Mohr, A. H.; Sell, A.; Lindsay, T.
- Establishing the accuracy of online panels for survey research; 2016; Bruggen, E.; van den Brakel, J.; Krosnick, J. A.
- Adaptive survey designs to minimize survey mode effects – a case study on the Dutch Labor Force...; 2016; Calinescu, M.; Schouten, B.
- What is the gain in a probability-based online panel to provide Internet access to sampling units that...; 2016; Revilla, M.; Cornilleau, A.; Cousteaux, A-S.; Legleye, S; de Pedraza, P.
- Representative web-survey!; 2016; Linde, P.
- The Utility of an Online Convenience Panel for Reaching Rare and Dispersed Populations; 2016; Sell, R.; Goldberg, S.; Conron, K.
- 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.
- 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.