Web Survey Bibliography
Title Impulsiveness, Speed and Reliability in Online Questionnaire
Author Harms, C.
Year 2016
Access date 29.04.2016
Presentation PDF (527KB)
Abstract
Relevance & Research Question: Online questionnaires offer a way to collect paradata, such as response time or mouse movements. As they require participants' behavior, personality is expected to have an influence on how the questions are answered. The present study investigates how impulsiveness influences response times in an online questionnaire. A hypothesis that found mixed evidence in the past (Moltó, Segarra & Avila, 1993; Malle & Neubauer, 1991). Further we were interested in the effect of response speed on the reliability of questionnaires. Montag & Reuter (2008) found no such link. We extend their study by using more precise client-side response times.
Methods & Data: A convenience sample of N=572 participants was recruited, mainly under-graduate students at the universities Bonn and Ulm. Participants studying psychology could receive course credit for participation. Participants completed an online questionnaire that included demographic data and two personality questionnaires (NEO-FFI, 60 items, and Barrett Impulsiveness Scale, 30 items, each in German translation). Personality items were presented in randomized order for each participant. This enabled us to measure reaction time for each item independently.
Bayesian regression analysis (Rouder & Morey, 2012; Morey & Rouder, 2015) was used to test the relationship between impulsiveness and overall completion time against a model including only age and education (Yan & Tourangeau, 2008). Reliability was measured in terms of internal consistency using Cronbach's Alpha (Cronbach, 1951).
Results:Bayesian regression analysis yielded substantial evidence for an effect of age and education on completion time against no effect (BF_10 = 7.11). Testing our hypothesized model including impulsiveness against the model including only age and educational level yielded some little evidence against our model (BF_10 = 0.18).No notable differences in internal consistency were observed in any of the scales for neither very fast nor very slow subjects. All alpha scores ranged between 0.66 and 0.84 showing acceptable to good reliability.
Added Value: Our results show that (a) impulsiveness has no impact on the time a subject needs to complete a questionnaire and that (b) the speed of completion does not impact the internal consistency of self-reports. Further studies should strengthen this evidence.
Methods & Data: A convenience sample of N=572 participants was recruited, mainly under-graduate students at the universities Bonn and Ulm. Participants studying psychology could receive course credit for participation. Participants completed an online questionnaire that included demographic data and two personality questionnaires (NEO-FFI, 60 items, and Barrett Impulsiveness Scale, 30 items, each in German translation). Personality items were presented in randomized order for each participant. This enabled us to measure reaction time for each item independently.
Bayesian regression analysis (Rouder & Morey, 2012; Morey & Rouder, 2015) was used to test the relationship between impulsiveness and overall completion time against a model including only age and education (Yan & Tourangeau, 2008). Reliability was measured in terms of internal consistency using Cronbach's Alpha (Cronbach, 1951).
Results:Bayesian regression analysis yielded substantial evidence for an effect of age and education on completion time against no effect (BF_10 = 7.11). Testing our hypothesized model including impulsiveness against the model including only age and educational level yielded some little evidence against our model (BF_10 = 0.18).No notable differences in internal consistency were observed in any of the scales for neither very fast nor very slow subjects. All alpha scores ranged between 0.66 and 0.84 showing acceptable to good reliability.
Added Value: Our results show that (a) impulsiveness has no impact on the time a subject needs to complete a questionnaire and that (b) the speed of completion does not impact the internal consistency of self-reports. Further studies should strengthen this evidence.
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.