Web Survey Bibliography
Title Participation in a mixed-mode panel over the course of the field period: An analysis of different response propensity strata
Author Struminskaya, B.; Gummer, T.
Year 2016
Access date 29.04.2016
Abstract
Relevance & Research Question: Online survey researchers are often confronted with the question for how long they should set the field period. On the one hand, a longer fielding time might lead to higher participation, while on the other hand it requires survey managers to devote more of their time to the data collection efforts. To facilitate the decision about the length of the field period, we study how sample composition changes during the field period. Our main research question is whether a longer fielding time reduces the risk of nonresponse biases.
Methods & Data: We use data from the GESIS Panel, a probability-based mixed-mode panel of the general population in Germany that was recruited in 2013 and started the regular operation in 2014 (N(active panel)= 4,938). We analyze both the online and the offline samples, in which respondents were invited to bi-monthly online and mail surveys with a field period of two months. Drawing on information collected during the recruitment interview and the first self-administered survey in 2013, we predict response propensities and divide the panelists into three different strata. We then analyze whether these propensity strata show different response patterns over the field period. We seek to answer the question whether we are getting “more of the same” respondents (i.e., potentially higher nonresponse bias) or different respondents (i.e., potentially lower nonresponse bias) towards the end of the field period.
Results: Preliminary findings indicate that different variables predict participation in online and offline modes. Response patterns of the two high-propensity strata are similar for the online and offline modes, however, response patterns for the low-propensity strata differ over the field period between the modes. There is an indication that decreasing the length of the field period would increase potential bias in the online mode more than in the offline mode.
Added Value: This study contributes to the understanding of response patterns during the field period. Analysis of potential biases due to increasing or decreasing the fielding time can help survey practitioners determine the optimal field period for online and mail surveys.
Methods & Data: We use data from the GESIS Panel, a probability-based mixed-mode panel of the general population in Germany that was recruited in 2013 and started the regular operation in 2014 (N(active panel)= 4,938). We analyze both the online and the offline samples, in which respondents were invited to bi-monthly online and mail surveys with a field period of two months. Drawing on information collected during the recruitment interview and the first self-administered survey in 2013, we predict response propensities and divide the panelists into three different strata. We then analyze whether these propensity strata show different response patterns over the field period. We seek to answer the question whether we are getting “more of the same” respondents (i.e., potentially higher nonresponse bias) or different respondents (i.e., potentially lower nonresponse bias) towards the end of the field period.
Results: Preliminary findings indicate that different variables predict participation in online and offline modes. Response patterns of the two high-propensity strata are similar for the online and offline modes, however, response patterns for the low-propensity strata differ over the field period between the modes. There is an indication that decreasing the length of the field period would increase potential bias in the online mode more than in the offline mode.
Added Value: This study contributes to the understanding of response patterns during the field period. Analysis of potential biases due to increasing or decreasing the fielding time can help survey practitioners determine the optimal field period for online and mail surveys.
Access/Direct link Conference Homepage (presentation)
Year of publication2016
Bibliographic typeConferences, workshops, tutorials, presentations
Web survey bibliography - Germany (361)
- Does the Use of Mobile Devices (Tablets and Smartphones) Affect Survey Quality and Choice Behaviour...; 2015; Glenk, K.; Liebe, U.; Oehlmann, M.
- Does Personalized Feedback Increase Respondent Motivation?; 2015; Kroh, M.; Kuhne, S.
- Direction of Response Format in Web and Paper & Pencil Surveys; 2015
- Nonresponse and Measurement Bias in Web surveys ; 2015; Metzler, A.; Fuchs, M.
- Deep impact or no impact, evaluating opportunities for a new question type: Statement allocation on...; 2015; Schmidt, S.
- Approaches for Evaluating Online Survey Response Quality; 2015; Gluck, N.
- Positioning of Clarification Features in Open Frequency and Open Narrative Questions; 2015; Fuchs, M.; Metzler, A.
- A Systematic Generation of an Email Pool for Web Surveys; 2015; Silber, H.; Leibold, J.; Lischewski, J.; Schlosser, S.
- 640 Current trends in management of high-risk prostate cancer in Europe: Results of a web-based survey...; 2014; Briganti, A., Isbarn, H., Ost, P., Ploussard, G., Sooriakumaran, P., Van Den Bergh, R.C.N., Van Oort...
- Disclosure of sensitive behaviors across self-administered survey modes: a meta-analysis; 2014; Gnambs, T., Kaspar, K.
- Open-ended questions in Web Surveys-Using visual and adaptive questionnaire design to improve narrative...; 2014; Emde, M.
- Query on Data Collection for Social Surveys; 2014; Blanke, K., Luiten, A.
- Why Do Respondents Break Off Web Surveys and Does It Matter? Results From Four Follow-up Surveys; 2014; Rossmann, J., Blumenstiel, J. E., Steinbrecher, M.
- The Effectiveness of Mailed Invitations for Web Surveys and the Representativeness of Mixed-Mode versus...; 2014; Bandilla, W., Couper, M. P., Kaczmirek, L.
- Post-endodontic treatment of incisors and premolars among dental practitioners in Saarland: an interactive...; 2014; Mitov, G., Doerr, M., Nothdurft, F. P., Draenert, F., Pospiech, P. R.
- Mixed-Mode Designs bei Erhebungen mit sensitiven Fragen: Einfluss auf das Teilnahme- und Antwortverhalten...; 2014; Krug, G., Kriwy, P., Carstensen, J.
- Mining “Big Data” using Big Data Services ; 2014; Reips, U.-D., Matzat, U.
- Instant Interactive Feedback in Grid Questions: Reminding Web Survey; 2014; Kunz, T., Fuchs, M.
- What Does the Satisfaction with Democracy Measure Mean to Respondents in Different Countries? How Cross...; 2014; Behr, D., Braun, M.
- Determinants of the starting rate and the completion rate in online panel studies; 2014; Goeritz, A.
- Assessing representativeness of a probability-based online panel in Germany; 2014; Struminskaya, B., Kaczmirek, L., Schaurer, I., Bandilla, W.
- The Influence of the Answer Box Size on Item Nonresponse to Open-Ended Questions in a Web Survey; 2014; Zuell, C., Menold, N., Koerber, S.
- Does the Choice of Header Images influence Responses? Findings from a Web Survey on Students’...; 2014; Barth, A.
- Using Paradata to Predict and to Correct for Panel Attrition in a Web-based Panel Survey; 2014; Rossmann, J., Gummer, T.
- Offline Households in the German Internet Panel; 2014; Bossert, D., Holthausen, A., Krieger, U.
- Which fieldwork method for what target group? How to improve response rate and data quality; 2014; Wulfert, T., Woppmann, A.
- Switching the polarity of answer options within the questionnaire and using various numbering schemes...; 2014; Struminskaya, B., Schaurer, I., Bosnjak, M.
- Improving cheater detection in web-based randomized response using client-side paradata; 2014; Dombrowski, K., Becker, C.
- Interest Bias – An Extreme Form of Self-Selection?; 2014; Cape, P. J., Reichert, K.
- Increasing data quality in online surveys 4.1; 2014; Hoeckel, H.
- Moving answers with the GyroScale: Using the mobile device’s gyroscope for market research purposes...; 2014; Luetters, H., Kraus, M., Westphal, D.
- Confirmation Bias in Web-Based Search: A Randomized Online Study on the Effects of Expert Information...; 2014; Schweiger, S., Oeberst, A., Cress, U.
- Undisclosed Privacy: The Effect of Privacy Rights Design on Response Rates; 2014; Haer, R., Meidert, N.
- The Effect of Benefit Wording on Consent to Link Survey and Administrative Records in a Web Survey; 2014; Sakshaug, J. W., Kreuter, F.
- GESIS Panel: Sample and Recruitment; 2014
- The Use of Paradata to Predict Future Cooperation in a Panel Study; 2014; Funke, F., Goeritz, A.
- Incentives on demand in a probability-based online panel: redemption and the choice between pay-out...; 2014; Schaurer, I., Struminskaya, B., Kaczmirek, L.
- Responsive designed web surveys; 2014; Dreyer, M., Reich, M., Schwarzkopf, K.
- Extra incentives for extra efforts – impact of incentives for burdensome tasks within an incentivized...; 2014; Schreier, J. H., Biethahn, N., Drewes, F.
- Innovation for television research - online surveys via HbbTV. A new technology with fantastic opportunities...; 2014; Herche, J., Adler, M.
- Asking Sensitive Questions: An Evaluation of the Randomized Response Technique Versus Direct Questioning...; 2013; Wolter, F.; Preisendoerfer, P.
- Respondent Choice of Survey Mode; 2013; Fuchs, M.
- Development and validation of a single- item scale for the relative assessment of physical attractiveness...; 2013; Lutz, J.; Kemper, C. J.; Beierlein, C.; etc.
- Accounting for the Effects of Data Collection Method Application to the International Tobacco Control...; 2013; Thompson, M. E.; Huang, Y. C.; Boudreau, C.; Fong, G. T.; van den Putte, B.; Nagelhout, G. E.; Willemsen...
- The Short-term Campaign Panel of the German Longitudinal Election Study 2009. Design, Implementation...; 2013; Steinbrecher, M., Rossmann, J.
- Too Fast, Too Straight, Too Weird: Post Hoc Identification of Meaningless Data in Internet ; 2013; Leiner, D. J.
- The Digital Divide in Europe; 2013; Zillien, N.; Marr, M.
- The Recruitment of the Access Panel of German Official Statistics from a Large Survey in 2006: Empirical...; 2013; Amarov, B.; Rendtel, U.
- Online, face-to-face and telephone surveys—Comparing different sampling methods in wine consumer...; 2013; Szolnoki, G., Hoffmann, D.
- Where does the Fair Trade price premium go? Confronting consumers' request with reality; 2013; Langen, N., Adenaeuer, L.