Web Survey Bibliography
Title Web Probing for Question Evaluation: The Effects of Probe Placement
Author Fowler, S.; Willis, G. B.; Moser, R. P.; Townsend, R. L. M.; Maitland, A.; Sun, H.; Berrigan, D.
Year 2016
Access date 09.06.2016
Abstract
Though the majority of cognitive interviewing is conducted in a laboratory environment by specialized interviewers, an alternative procedure,embedded probing, was developed decades ago (Converse & Presser, 1986; Schuman, 1966). Embedded probing involves the evaluation of select items through the administration of cognitive probes within a field survey environment, relying on much larger samples than are cost-effective with standard cognitive interviewing. Embedded probing has recently resurfaced in the form of web probing, mainly prompted by the increasing availability of internet-based platforms that provide fast, inexpensive access to respondents (Behr, Braun, Kaczmirek, & Bandilla,
2013; Murphy, Keating, and Edgar, 2013). However, little guidance exists concerning specific practices. In particular, as for standard cognitive interviewing, it is unclear whether probes should be administered concurrently with the target item, or retrospectively at the end of the interview (i.e. debriefing). This study examined web-based probing in the context of questionnaire pretesting and evaluation, relying on respondents from Amazon’s Mechanical Turk (mTurk), an online labor crowdsourcing platform. A questionnaire segment on walking behavior and attitudes, selected from the National Health Interview Survey (NHIS), was presented to 1,444 mTurk respondents. Probes were embedded for 4 targeted items. For example, respondents were asked: “When answering the question -- Where you live, are there roads, sidewalks, paths, or trails where you can walk? – Please say more about what you were thinking about...”, then typed their response to the probe into an open text box. As an experimental manipulation, approximately half of respondents answered the probes concurrently, and the remainder responded retrospectively. We will present the results of an analysis that compares the responses obtained as a function of probe placement, by assessing quantitative metrics such as number of words entered, as well as qualitative measures, including thematic coding and rater judgment of usefulness of the information obtained.
2013; Murphy, Keating, and Edgar, 2013). However, little guidance exists concerning specific practices. In particular, as for standard cognitive interviewing, it is unclear whether probes should be administered concurrently with the target item, or retrospectively at the end of the interview (i.e. debriefing). This study examined web-based probing in the context of questionnaire pretesting and evaluation, relying on respondents from Amazon’s Mechanical Turk (mTurk), an online labor crowdsourcing platform. A questionnaire segment on walking behavior and attitudes, selected from the National Health Interview Survey (NHIS), was presented to 1,444 mTurk respondents. Probes were embedded for 4 targeted items. For example, respondents were asked: “When answering the question -- Where you live, are there roads, sidewalks, paths, or trails where you can walk? – Please say more about what you were thinking about...”, then typed their response to the probe into an open text box. As an experimental manipulation, approximately half of respondents answered the probes concurrently, and the remainder responded retrospectively. We will present the results of an analysis that compares the responses obtained as a function of probe placement, by assessing quantitative metrics such as number of words entered, as well as qualitative measures, including thematic coding and rater judgment of usefulness of the information obtained.
Access/Direct link Conference Homepage (abstract)
Year of publication2016
Bibliographic typeConferences, workshops, tutorials, presentations
Web survey bibliography (388)
- A Meta-Analysis of the Effects of Incentives on Response Rate in Online Survey Studies; 2017; Mohammad Asire, A.
- Fieldwork monitoring and managing with time-related paradata; 2017; Vandenplas, C.
- 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.
- 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.
- Targeted letters: Effects on sample composition and item non-response; 2017; Bianchi, A.; Biffignandi, S.
- Improving survey response rates: The effect of embedded questions in web survey email Invitations; 2017; Liu, M.; Inchausti, N.
- Enhancing survey participation: Facebook advertisements for recruitment in educational research; 2017; Forgasz, H.; Tan, H.; Leder, G.; McLeod, A.
- Overview: Online Surveys; 2017; Vehovar, V.; Lozar Manfreda, K.
- “Better do not touch” and other superstitions concerning melanoma: the cross-sectional web...; 2016; Gajda, M.; Kamińska-Winciorek, G.; Wydmański, J.; Tukiendorf, A.
- Targeted Appeals for Participation in Letters to Panel Survey Members; 2016; Lynn, P.
- Population Survey Features and Response Rates: A Randomized Experiment; 2016; Guo, Y.; Kopec, J.; Cibere, J.; Li, L. C.; Goldsmith, C. H.
- The Effects of a Delayed Incentive on Response Rates, Response Mode, Data Quality, and Sample Bias in...; 2016; McGonagle, K., Freedman, V. A.
- Can Student Populations in Developing Countries Be Reached by Online Surveys? The Case of the National...; 2016; Langer, A., Meuleman, B., Oshodi, A.-G. T., Schroyens, M.
- How to maximize survey response rates ; 2016; DeVall, R.; Colby, C.
- Impact of Field Period Length and Contact Attempts on Representativeness for Web Survey ; 2016; Bertoni, N.; Turakhia, C.; Magaw, R.; Ackermann, A.
- Have You Taken Your Survey Yet? Optimum Interval for Reminders in Web Panel Surveys ; 2016; Kanitkar, K. N.; Liu, D.
- User Experience and Eye-tracking: Results to Optimize Completion of a Web Survey and Website Design ; 2016; Walton, L.; Ricci, K.; Libman Barry, A.; Eiginger, C.; Christian, L. M.
- A Multi-phase Exploration Into Web-based Panel Respondents: Assessing Differences in Recruitment, Respondents...; 2016; Redlawsk, D.; Rogers, K.; Borie-Holtz, D.
- Exploring the Feasibility of Using Facebook for Surveying Special Interest Populations ; 2016; Lee, C.; Jang, S.
- National Estimates of Sexual Minority Women Alcohol Use through Web Based Respondent Driven Sampling...; 2016; Farrell Middleton, D.; Iachan, R.; Freedner-Maguire, N.; Trocki, K.; Evans, C.
- User Experience Considerations for Contextual Product Surveys on Smartphones ; 2016; Sedley, A.; Mueller, H.
- Web Probing for Question Evaluation: The Effects of Probe Placement ; 2016; Fowler, S.; Willis, G. B.; Moser, R. P.; Townsend, R. L. M.; Maitland, A.; Sun, H.; Berrigan, D.
- Early-bird Incentives: Results From an Experiment to Determine Response Rate and Cost Effects ; 2016; De Santis, J.; Callahan, R.; Marsh, S.; Perez-Johnson, I.
- Effects of an Initial Offering of Multiple Survey Response Options on Response Rates; 2016; Steele, E. A.; Marlar, J.; Allen, L.; Kanitkar, K. N.
- How to Invite? Methods for Increasing Internet Surv ey Response Rate ; 2016; Huang, A. R.; Noel, H.; Hargraves, L.
- Reaching the Mobile Generation: Reducing Web Survey Non-response through SMS Reminders ; 2016; Kanitkar, K. N.; Marlar, J.
- "Don't be Afraid ... We're Researchers!": The Impact of Informal Contact Language...; 2016; Foster, K. N.; Hagemeier, N. E.; Alamain, A. A.; Pack, R.; Sevak, R. J.
- Does Embedding a Survey Question in the Survey Invi tation E-mail Affect Response Rates? Evidence from...; 2016; Vannette, D.
- Communication Channels that Predict and Mediate Self-response ; 2016; Walejko, G. K.
- Ballpoint Pens as Incentives with Mail Questionnaires – Results of a Survey Experiment; 2016; Heise, M.
- Non-Observation Bias in an Address-Register-Based CATI/CAPI Mixed Mode Survey; 2016; Lipps, O.
- Pre-Survey Text Messages (SMS) Improve Participation Rate in an Australian Mobile Telephone Survey:...; 2016; Dal Grande, E.; Chittleborough, C. R.; Campostrini, S.; Dollard, M.; Taylor, A. W.
- Effects of Personalization and Invitation Email Length on Web-Based Survey Response Rates; 2016; Trespalacios, J. H.; Perkins, R. A.
- Assessing targeted approach letters: effects in different modes on response rates, response speed and...; 2016; Lynn, P.
- Refining the Web Response Option in the Multiple Mode Collection of the American Community Survey; 2016; Hughes, T.; Tancreto, J.
- Setting Up an Online Panel Representative of the General Population The German Internet Panel; 2016; Blom, A. G.; Gathmann, C.; Krieger, U.
- Sample Representation and Substantive Outcomes Using Web With and Without Incentives Compared to Telephone...; 2016; Lipps, O.; Pekari, N.
- Collecting Data from mHealth Users via SMS Surveys: A Case Study in Kenya; 2016; Johnson, D.
- “Money Will Solve the Problem”: Testing the Effectiveness of Conditional Incentives for...; 2016; DeCamp, W.; Manierre, M. J.
- Effects of Incentive Amount and Type of Web Survey Response Rates; 2016; Coopersmith, J.; Vogel, L. K.; Bruursema, T.; Feeney, K.
- Effect of a Post-paid Incentive on Response to a Web-based Survey; 2016; Brown, J. A.; Serrato, C. A.; Hugh, M.; Kanter, M. H.; A.; Spritzer, K. L.; Hays, R. D.
- Reminder Effect and Data Usability on Web Questionnaire Survey for University Students; 2016; Oishi, T.; Mori, M.; Takata, E.
- Is One More Reminder Worth It? If So, Pick Up the Phone: Findings from a Web Survey; 2016; Lin-Freeman, L.
- Take the money and run? Redemption of a gift card incentive in a clinician survey. ; 2016; Chen, J. S.; Sprague, B. L.; Klabunde, C. N.; Tosteson, A. N. A.; Bitton, A.; Onega, T.; MacLean, C....
- The effect of email invitation elements on response rate in a web survey within an online community; 2016; Petrovcic, A.; Petric, G.; Lozar Manfreda, K.
- A reliability analysis of Mechanical Turk data; 2016; Rouse, S. V.
- Doing Surveys Online ; 2016; Toepoel, V.
- A Privacy-Friendly Method to Reward Participants of Online-Surveys; 2015; Herfert, M.; Lange, B.; Selzer, A.; Waldmann, U.
- Incentive Types and Amounts in a Web-based Survey of College Students; 2015; Krebs, C.; Planty, M.; Stroop, J.; Berzofsky, M.; Lindquist, C.
- Using Mobile Phones for High-Frequency Data Collection; 2015; Azevedo, J. P.; Ballivian, A.; Durbin, W.