Web Survey Bibliography
Title Mobile app respondents: a study on panel engagement
Author Scharioth, N.; Tschida, K.
Year 2016
Access date 29.04.2016
Presentation PDF (770KB)
Abstract
Relevance & Research Question: Mobile market research provides a way to engage with consumers and citizens in an interactive and fast fashion. This raises a number of methodological questions. How often can such app respondents be surveyed? What role do incentives play with regards to response speed and the final response rates? Does speed come at the expense of truthfulness? How effective are push notifications in relation to email notifications?
Methods & Data: We tested these questions by polling a sample of 1,668 active biopinio app users in December 2015. The sample was divided into 6 demographically similar groups (n=278), each of which was incentivized and notified in a distinct fashion, but with an otherwise identical questionnaire:
Group A: secure win, push and email notifications
Group B: secure win for first 200 participants, push and email notifications
Group C: lottery with 20% chance of winning, push and email notifications
Group D: lottery without transparent chance of winning, push and email notifications
Group E: lottery without transparent chance of winning, push notifications only
Group F: lottery without transparent chance of winning, email notifications only
Groups A-D differ in the type of incentivization the user was offered. Groups E and F have the same incentivization as Group D, but were notified either just by push notification or just by email. A measure for truthfulness was included through a disguised repeat question in all groups.
Results: Given the incentivization structure we expected Group B to respond the quickest (which was the case). There is little indication that speed came at the expense of truthfulness. The response rate varied between 64% and 80% with a guaranteed win resulting in the highest participation rate. Push notifications on their own are the least effective notification tool. App participants indicate a willingness to respond at high frequency (several surveys per month or even week).
Added Value: The results provide insights into how to optimize survey design, incentivization and frequency for mobile settings. App users' high engagement can be utilized for new types of market research designs.
Methods & Data: We tested these questions by polling a sample of 1,668 active biopinio app users in December 2015. The sample was divided into 6 demographically similar groups (n=278), each of which was incentivized and notified in a distinct fashion, but with an otherwise identical questionnaire:
Group A: secure win, push and email notifications
Group B: secure win for first 200 participants, push and email notifications
Group C: lottery with 20% chance of winning, push and email notifications
Group D: lottery without transparent chance of winning, push and email notifications
Group E: lottery without transparent chance of winning, push notifications only
Group F: lottery without transparent chance of winning, email notifications only
Groups A-D differ in the type of incentivization the user was offered. Groups E and F have the same incentivization as Group D, but were notified either just by push notification or just by email. A measure for truthfulness was included through a disguised repeat question in all groups.
Results: Given the incentivization structure we expected Group B to respond the quickest (which was the case). There is little indication that speed came at the expense of truthfulness. The response rate varied between 64% and 80% with a guaranteed win resulting in the highest participation rate. Push notifications on their own are the least effective notification tool. App participants indicate a willingness to respond at high frequency (several surveys per month or even week).
Added Value: The results provide insights into how to optimize survey design, incentivization and frequency for mobile settings. App users' high engagement can be utilized for new types of market research designs.
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.