Web Survey Bibliography
Title Consequences of the forced answering option within online surveys: Do higher item response rates come at the expense of participation and answer quality?
Author Sischka, P.; Decieux, J. P.; Mergener, A.; Neufang, K.
Year 2016
Access date 29.04.2016
Presentation PDF (615KB)
Abstract
Relevance: Too often online surveys are conducted without adequate attention to implementation details. One example is the frequent use of the forced answering option, which forces the respondent to answer each question in order to proceed through the questionnaire. The avoidance of missing data is often the idea behind the use of the forced answering option. There has been a tremendous increase in the use of this option; however, the inquirers are often not aware of possible consequences.
Research Question: Currently, only a few studies have researched the impact of forced answering on different quality parameters (e.g. dropouts, item nonresponse), with inconsistent results. To date no study has systematically examined effects of forced answering formats on answer quality. Given the rise in the popularity of online surveys in general and the frequent use of the forced answering option in particular, the impact of forced answering on data quality needs to be addressed. Our study assesses the consequences of the implementation of the forced answering option on dropouts as well as on answer quality. Our major hypothesis is that forcing respondents to answer will cause reactance, which in turn will decrease answer quality and increase dropout rates.
Methods and Data: To analyse the consequences of the implementation of forced answering option on response behaviour, we use split-ballot-field-experiments. We already conducted two studies (n=1056 & n=615) with differing experimental conditions and a third is ongoing. To determine answer quality, we use instructed response items, self-report for faking and other self-reports.
Results: Our results show a significant increase in dropouts and higher percentages of fakers under the forced answering condition. Both can be interpreted as reactance behavior arising from the force to answer each question in this condition.
Added Value: So far, no study has systematically examined effects of forced answering formats on answer quality. Our Paper address this issue.
Research Question: Currently, only a few studies have researched the impact of forced answering on different quality parameters (e.g. dropouts, item nonresponse), with inconsistent results. To date no study has systematically examined effects of forced answering formats on answer quality. Given the rise in the popularity of online surveys in general and the frequent use of the forced answering option in particular, the impact of forced answering on data quality needs to be addressed. Our study assesses the consequences of the implementation of the forced answering option on dropouts as well as on answer quality. Our major hypothesis is that forcing respondents to answer will cause reactance, which in turn will decrease answer quality and increase dropout rates.
Methods and Data: To analyse the consequences of the implementation of forced answering option on response behaviour, we use split-ballot-field-experiments. We already conducted two studies (n=1056 & n=615) with differing experimental conditions and a third is ongoing. To determine answer quality, we use instructed response items, self-report for faking and other self-reports.
Results: Our results show a significant increase in dropouts and higher percentages of fakers under the forced answering condition. Both can be interpreted as reactance behavior arising from the force to answer each question in this condition.
Added Value: So far, no study has systematically examined effects of forced answering formats on answer quality. Our Paper address this issue.
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.