Web Survey Bibliography
Title Non-response in evaluation of teaching
Author Brinkmoeller, B.; Forthmann, B.; Thielsch, M.
Year 2016
Access date 29.04.2016
Presentation PDF (527KB)
Abstract
Relevance & Research Question
Student evaluations of teaching (SET) gain more and more importance for university teaching, especially web-based SETs. To guarantee the validity of SET and to avoid sample-errors high response rates are necessary – which cannot always be reached. This study investigates different factors, which might give some explanations for nonresponse in SETs. We examined the social exchange-theory, salience, opportunity costs, survey fatigue and the survey mode (online vs. paper-pencil).
Methods and data
We contacted student representatives of 48 universities, additional student groups in social media, and sent approx. 900 invitations via the online-panel PsyWeb. The web-based survey was available for about four months. Participants provided reasons for non-response, information about response behavior, and attitudes. A total of 490 participants (69.59 % female; age: M = 24.10, SD = 4.07) were included in the final sample.
Results
First, our results show a significant influence of social exchange on responding in SET (Δ R²=.069, p < .001). Also the influence of salience (ΔR²=.201, p < .001) and survey fatigue (ΔR²= .078, p < .001) show significant influences on the participation in SETs. No significant effects were found for opportunity costs (ΔR² = .005, p = .166) as well as for the survey mode (ΔR²= .004, p = .209).
Added value
The results of our study can be helpful for online researchers and evaluation managers in reducing non-response. Notably, our findings stress the importance of communication between students: It influences a student’s evaluation behavior if a fellow student evaluates all of his or her lectures and courses. Thus, universities should indicate how many students take part in a current SET to motivate even more students. Furthermore, it is helpful to increase the students’ identification with their own university and SET, for example with special events or university-games. In addition, the consequences of the SET should be public for the students so they become aware of how they can influence the quality of teaching in their faculty. Finally, we could find no evidence for the often made assumption that an online administration of questionnaires leads to a non-response-problem in SETs.
Student evaluations of teaching (SET) gain more and more importance for university teaching, especially web-based SETs. To guarantee the validity of SET and to avoid sample-errors high response rates are necessary – which cannot always be reached. This study investigates different factors, which might give some explanations for nonresponse in SETs. We examined the social exchange-theory, salience, opportunity costs, survey fatigue and the survey mode (online vs. paper-pencil).
Methods and data
We contacted student representatives of 48 universities, additional student groups in social media, and sent approx. 900 invitations via the online-panel PsyWeb. The web-based survey was available for about four months. Participants provided reasons for non-response, information about response behavior, and attitudes. A total of 490 participants (69.59 % female; age: M = 24.10, SD = 4.07) were included in the final sample.
Results
First, our results show a significant influence of social exchange on responding in SET (Δ R²=.069, p < .001). Also the influence of salience (ΔR²=.201, p < .001) and survey fatigue (ΔR²= .078, p < .001) show significant influences on the participation in SETs. No significant effects were found for opportunity costs (ΔR² = .005, p = .166) as well as for the survey mode (ΔR²= .004, p = .209).
Added value
The results of our study can be helpful for online researchers and evaluation managers in reducing non-response. Notably, our findings stress the importance of communication between students: It influences a student’s evaluation behavior if a fellow student evaluates all of his or her lectures and courses. Thus, universities should indicate how many students take part in a current SET to motivate even more students. Furthermore, it is helpful to increase the students’ identification with their own university and SET, for example with special events or university-games. In addition, the consequences of the SET should be public for the students so they become aware of how they can influence the quality of teaching in their faculty. Finally, we could find no evidence for the often made assumption that an online administration of questionnaires leads to a non-response-problem in SETs.
Access/Direct link Conference Homepage (presentation)
Year of publication2016
Bibliographic typeConferences, workshops, tutorials, presentations
Web survey bibliography - Germany (361)
- Interviewer effects on onliner and offliner participation in the German Internet Panel; 2017; Herzing, J. M. E.; Blom, A. G.; Meuleman, B.
- Comparing the same Questionnaire between five Online Panels: A Study of the Effect of Recruitment Strategy...; 2017; Schnell, R.; Panreck, L.
- Push2web or less is more? Experimental evidence from a mixed-mode population survey at the community...; 2017; Neumann, R.; Haeder, M.; Brust, O.; Dittrich, E.; von Hermanni, H.
- Social Desirability and Undesirability Effects on Survey Response latencies; 2017; Andersen, H.; Mayerl, J.
- 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.
- Mobile Research im Kontext der digitalen Transformation; 2017; Friedrich-Freksa, M.
- Kognitives Pretesting; 2017; Neuert, C.
- Grundzüge des Datenschutzrechts und aktuelle Datenschutzprobleme in der Markt- und Sozialforschung; 2017; Schweizer, A.
- 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.
- Socially Desirable Responding in Web-Based Questionnaires: A Meta-Analytic Review of the Candor Hypothesis...; 2016; Gnambs, T.; Kaspar, K.
- Methodological Aspects of Central Left-Right Scale Placement in a Cross-national Perspective; 2016; Scholz, E.; Zuell, C.
- Predicting and Preventing Break-Offs in Web Surveys; 2016; Mittereder, F.
- Incorporating eye tracking into cognitive interviewing to pretest survey questions; 2016; Neuert, C.; Lenzner, T.
- Geht’s auch mit der Maus? – Eine Methodenstudie zu Online-Befragungen in der Jugendforschung...; 2016; Heim, R.; Konowalczyk, S.; Grgic, M.; Seyda, M.; Burrmann, U.; Rauschenbach, T.
- Comparing Cognitive Interviewing and Online Probing: Do They Find Similar Results?; 2016; Meitinger, K., Behr, D.
- Device Effects - How different screen sizes affect answers in online surveys; 2016; Fisher, B.; Bernet, F.
- Effects of motivating question types with graphical support in multi channel design studies; 2016; Luetters, H.; Friedrich-Freksa, M.; Vitt, SGoldstein, D. G.
- Analyzing Cognitive Burden of Survey Questions with Paradata: A Web Survey Experiment; 2016; Hoehne, J. K.; Schlosser, S.; Krebs, D.
- Secondary Respondent Consent in the German Family Panel; 2016; Schmiedeberg, C.; Castiglioni, L.; Schroeder, J.
- Does Changing Monetary Incentive Schemes in Panel Studies Affect Cooperation? A Quasi-experiment on...; 2016; Schaurer, I.; Bosnjak, M.
- Using Cash Incentives to Help Recruitment in a Probability Based Web Panel: The Effects on Sign Up Rates...; 2016; Krieger, U.
- The Mobile Web Only Population: Socio-demographic Characteristics and Potential Bias ; 2016; Fuchs, M.; Metzler, A.
- The Impact of Scale Direction, Alignment and Length on Responses to Rating Scale Questions in a Web...; 2016; Keusch, F.; Liu, M.; Yan, T.
- Web Surveys Versus Other Survey Modes: An Updated Meta-analysis Comparing Response Rates ; 2016; Wengrzik, J.; Bosnjak, M.; Lozar Manfreda, K.
- Retrospective Measurement of Students’ Extracurricular Activities with a Self-administered Calendar...; 2016; Furthmueller, P.
- Privacy Concerns in Responses to Sensitive Questions. A Survey Experiment on the Influence of Numeric...; 2016; Bader, F., Bauer, J., Kroher, M., Riordan, P.
- Ballpoint Pens as Incentives with Mail Questionnaires – Results of a Survey Experiment; 2016; Heise, M.
- Does survey mode matter for studying electoral behaviour? Evidence from the 2009 German Longitudinal...; 2016; Bytzek, E.; Bieber, I. E.
- Forecasting proportional representation elections from non-representative expectation surveys; 2016; Graefe, A.
- Setting Up an Online Panel Representative of the General Population The German Internet Panel; 2016; Blom, A. G.; Gathmann, C.; Krieger, U.
- Online Surveys are Mixed-Device Surveys. Issues Associated with the Use of Different (Mobile) Devices...; 2016; Toepoel, V.; Lugtig, P. J.
- Stable Relationships, Stable Participation? The Effects of Partnership Dissolution and Changes in Relationship...; 2016; Mueller, B.; Castiglioni, L.
- Will They Stay or Will They Go? Personality Predictors of Dropout in Online Study; 2016; Nestler, S.; Thielsch, M.; Vasilev, E.; Back, M.
- Respondent Conditioning in Online Panel Surveys: Results of Two Field Experiments; 2016; Struminskaya, B.
- A Privacy-Friendly Method to Reward Participants of Online-Surveys; 2015; Herfert, M.; Lange, B.; Selzer, A.; Waldmann, U.
- The impact of frequency rating scale formats on the measurement of latent variables in web surveys -...; 2015; Menold, N.; Kemper, C. J.
- Investigating response order effects in web surveys using eye tracking; 2015; Karem Hoehne, J.; Lenzner, T.
- Implementation of the forced answering option within online surveys: Do higher item response rates come...; 2015; Decieux, J. P.; Mergener, A.; Neufang, K.; Sischka, P.
- Translating Answers to Open-ended Survey Questions in Cross-cultural Research: A Case Study on the Interplay...; 2015; Behr, D.
- The Effects of Questionnaire Completion Using Mobile Devices on Data Quality. Evidence from a Probability...; 2015; Bosnjak, M.; Struminskaya, B.; Weyandt, K.
- Are they willing to use the web? First results of a possible switch from PAPI to CAPI/CAWI in an establishment...; 2015; Ellguth, P.; Kohaut, S.
- Measuring Political Knowledge in Web-Based Surveys: An Experimental Validation of Visual Versus Verbal...; 2015; Munzert, S.; Selb, P.
- 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.
- Mode System Effects in an Online Panel Study: Comparing a Probability-based Online Panel with two Face...; 2015; Struminskaya, B.; De Leeuw, E. D.; Kaczmirek, L.
- Higher response rates at the expense of validity? Consequences of the implementation of the ‘forced...; 2015; Decieux, J. P.; Mergener, A.; Neufang, K.; Sischka, P.
- A quasi-experiment on effects of prepaid versus promised incentives on participation in a probability...; 2015; Schaurer, I.; Bosnjak, M.
- Response Effects of Prenotification, Prepaid Cash, Prepaid Vouchers, and Postpaid Vouchers: An Experimental...; 2015; van Veen, F.; Goeritz, A.; Sattler, S.
- Recruiting Respondents for a Mobile Phone Panel: The Impact of Recruitment Question Wording on Cooperation...; 2015; Busse, B.; Fuchs, M.
- The Influence of the Answer Box Size on Item Nonresponse to Open-Ended Questions in a Web Survey ; 2015; Zuell, C.; Menold, N.; Koerber, S.