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 (4086)
- Displaying Videos in Web Surveys: Implications for Complete Viewing and Survey Responses; 2017; Mendelson, J.; Lee Gibson, J.; Romano Bergstrom, J. C.
- Using experts’ consensus (the Delphi method) to evaluate weighting techniques in web surveys not...; 2017; Toepoel, V.; Emerson, H.
- Mind the Mode: Differences in Paper vs. Web-Based Survey Modes Among Women With Cancer; 2017; Hagan, T. L.; Belcher, S. M.; Donovan, H. S.
- Answering Without Reading: IMCs and Strong Satisficing in Online Surveys; 2017; Anduiza, E.; Galais, C.
- Ideal and maximum length for a web survey; 2017; Revilla, M.; Ochoa, C.
- Social desirability bias in self-reported well-being measures: evidence from an online survey; 2017; Caputo, A.
- Web-Based Survey Methodology; 2017; Wright, K. B.
- Handbook of Research Methods in Health Social Sciences; 2017; Liamputtong, P.
- Lessons from recruitment to an internet based survey for Degenerative Cervical Myelopathy: merits of...; 2017; Davies, B.; Kotter, M. R.
- Web Survey Gamification - Increasing Data Quality in Web Surveys by Using Game Design Elements; 2017; Schacht, S.; Keusch, F.; Bergmann, N.; Morana, S.
- Effects of sampling procedure on data quality in a web survey; 2017; Rimac, I.; Ogresta, J.
- Comparability of web and telephone surveys for the measurement of subjective well-being; 2017; Sarracino, F.; Riillo, C. F. A.; Mikucka, M.
- Achieving Strong Privacy in Online Survey; 2017; Zhou, Yo.; Zhou, Yi.; Chen, S.; Wu, S. S.
- A Meta-Analysis of the Effects of Incentives on Response Rate in Online Survey Studies; 2017; Mohammad Asire, A.
- Telephone versus Online Survey Modes for Election Studies: Comparing Canadian Public Opinion and Vote...; 2017; Breton, C.; Cutler, F.; Lachance, S.; Mierke-Zatwarnicki, A.
- Examining Factors Impacting Online Survey Response Ratesin Educational Research: Perceptions of Graduate...; 2017; Saleh, A.; Bista, K.
- Usability Testing for Survey Research; 2017; Geisen, E.; Romano Bergstrom, J. C.
- Paradata as an aide to questionnaire design: Improving quality and reducing burden; 2017; Timm, E.; Stewart, J.; Sidney, I.
- Fieldwork monitoring and managing with time-related paradata; 2017; Vandenplas, C.
- Interviewer effects on onliner and offliner participation in the German Internet Panel; 2017; Herzing, J. M. E.; Blom, A. G.; Meuleman, B.
- Interviewer Gender and Survey Responses: The Effects of Humanizing Cues Variations; 2017; Jablonski, W.; Krzewinska, A.; Grzeszkiewicz-Radulska, K.
- Millennials and emojis in Spain and Mexico.; 2017; Bosch Jover, O.; Revilla, M.
- Where, When, How and with What Do Panel Interviews Take Place and Is the Quality of Answers Affected...; 2017; Niebruegge, S.
- Comparing the same Questionnaire between five Online Panels: A Study of the Effect of Recruitment Strategy...; 2017; Schnell, R.; Panreck, L.
- Nonresponses as context-sensitive response behaviour of participants in online-surveys and their relevance...; 2017; Wetzlehuetter, D.
- Do distractions during web survey completion affect data quality? Findings from a laboratory experiment...; 2017; Wenz, A.
- Predicting Breakoffs in Web Surveys; 2017; Mittereder, F.; West, B. T.
- Measuring Subjective Health and Life Satisfaction with U.S. Hispanics; 2017; Lee, S.; Davis, R.
- Humanizing Cues in Internet Surveys: Investigating Respondent Cognitive Processes; 2017; Jablonski, W.; Grzeszkiewicz-Radulska, K.; Krzewinska, A.
- A Comparison of Emerging Pretesting Methods for Evaluating “Modern” Surveys; 2017; Geisen, E., Murphy, J.
- The Effect of Respondent Commitment on Response Quality in Two Online Surveys; 2017; Cibelli Hibben, K.
- Pushing to web in the ISSP; 2017; Jonsdottir, G. A.; Dofradottir, A. G.; Einarsson, H. B.
- The 2016 Canadian Census: An Innovative Wave Collection Methodology to Maximize Self-Response and Internet...; 2017; Mathieu, P.
- 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.
- In search of best practices; 2017; Kappelhof, J. W. S.; Steijn, S.
- Redirected Inbound Call Sampling (RICS); A New Methodology ; 2017; Krotki, K.; Bobashev, G.; Levine, B.; Richards, S.
- An Empirical Process for Using Non-probability Survey for Inference; 2017; Tortora, R.; Iachan, R.
- The perils of non-probability sampling; 2017; Bethlehem, J.
- A Comparison of Two Nonprobability Samples with Probability Samples; 2017; Zack, E. S.; Kennedy, J. M.
- Rates, Delays, and Completeness of General Practitioners’ Responses to a Postal Versus Web-Based...; 2017; Sebo, P.; Maisonneuve, H.; Cerutti, B.; Pascal Fournier, J.; Haller, D. M.
- Necessary but Insufficient: Why Measurement Invariance Tests Need Online Probing as a Complementary...; 2017; Meitinger, K.
- Nonresponse in Organizational Surveying: Attitudinal Distribution Form and Conditional Response Probabilities...; 2017; Kulas, J. T.; Robinson, D. H.; Kellar, D. Z.; Smith, J. A.
- Theory and Practice in Nonprobability Surveys: Parallels between Causal Inference and Survey Inference...; 2017; Mercer, A. W.; Kreuter, F.; Keeter, S.; Stuart, E. A.
- Is There a Future for Surveys; 2017; Miller, P. V.
- Reducing speeding in web surveys by providing immediate feedback; 2017; Conrad, F.; Tourangeau, R.; Couper, M. P.; Zhang, C.
- Social Desirability and Undesirability Effects on Survey Response latencies; 2017; Andersen, H.; Mayerl, J.
- A Working Example of How to Use Artificial Intelligence To Automate and Transform Surveys Into Customer...; 2017; Neve, S.
- A Case Study on Evaluating the Relevance of Some Rules for Writing Requirements through an Online Survey...; 2017; Warnier, M.; Condamines, A.
- Estimating the Impact of Measurement Differences Introduced by Efforts to Reach a Balanced Response...; 2017; Kappelhof, J. W. S.; De Leeuw, E. D.
- Targeted letters: Effects on sample composition and item non-response; 2017; Bianchi, A.; Biffignandi, S.