Web Survey Bibliography
Title Device Effects - How different screen sizes affect answers in online surveys
Author Fisher, B.; Bernet, F.
Source General Research Conference (GOR) 2016General Research Conference (GOR) 2016General Research Conference (GOR) 2016
Year 2016
Access date 10.08.2016
Full text PDF(1,33MB)
Abstract
The number of online panellists accessing surveys with mobile devices is increasing rapidly. Within the LINK Internet-Panel in Switzerland 28% of the panellists fill in questionnaires with a smartphone (17%) or a tablet (11%). Yet, little is known about the influence of the screen size on survey data quality. How do answers given on a small screen device (e.g. smartphone) differ from answers given on a large screen device (e.g. laptop or desktop computer)?
In the presentation we would like to show our latest scientific results from a methodical study.
Method: Online survey with optimised questionnaire for large and small screen devices.
Sample: Representative Swiss sample from LINK Internet-Panel and LINK Mobile-Panel. These panelists regularely answer questionnaires on both large screen devices and small screen devices (e.g. Smartphone). Applying an identical split sample approach, we examined the effects of the device used for answering on the given answers:
Group 1 had to answer the questionnaire on a large screen device (invitation by e-mail)
Group 2 had to answer the questionnaire on a smartphone (invitation by SMS)
Sample sizes: N=546 for group 1 and N=421 for group 2
Participation rate approximately 45%
Results: Differencies in answering behaviour of panelists using a large screen device compared to panelists using a small small screen device. Results show device effects on various question types such as open questions (partially small significant effects), matrix questions (frequently significant effects), closed questions (no effect), etc.
Added Value: Sharing new and relevant results about the influence of the screen size on the answer behaviour in online surveys which help to better cope with unintended mobile respondents.
In the presentation we would like to show our latest scientific results from a methodical study.
Method: Online survey with optimised questionnaire for large and small screen devices.
Sample: Representative Swiss sample from LINK Internet-Panel and LINK Mobile-Panel. These panelists regularely answer questionnaires on both large screen devices and small screen devices (e.g. Smartphone). Applying an identical split sample approach, we examined the effects of the device used for answering on the given answers:
Group 1 had to answer the questionnaire on a large screen device (invitation by e-mail)
Group 2 had to answer the questionnaire on a smartphone (invitation by SMS)
Sample sizes: N=546 for group 1 and N=421 for group 2
Participation rate approximately 45%
Results: Differencies in answering behaviour of panelists using a large screen device compared to panelists using a small small screen device. Results show device effects on various question types such as open questions (partially small significant effects), matrix questions (frequently significant effects), closed questions (no effect), etc.
Added Value: Sharing new and relevant results about the influence of the screen size on the answer behaviour in online surveys which help to better cope with unintended mobile respondents.
Access/Direct link Conference Homepage (abstract) / (full tex)
Year of publication2016
Bibliographic typeConferences, workshops, tutorials, presentations
Web survey bibliography - Measurement (1822)
- Displaying Videos in Web Surveys: Implications for Complete Viewing and Survey Responses; 2017; Mendelson, J.; Lee Gibson, J.; Romano Bergstrom, J. C.
- Careless Response and Attrition as Sources of Bias in Online Survey Assessments of Personality Traits...; 2017; Meade, A. W.; Ward, M. K.; Alfred, C. M.; Pappalardo, G.; Stoughton, J. W.
- An experimental comparison of web-push vs. paper-only survey procedures for conducting an in-depth health...; 2017; McMaster, H. S.; LeardMann, C. A.; Speigle, S.; Dillman, D. A.
- Demographic Question Placement: Effect on Item Response Rates and Means of a Veterans Health Administration...; 2017; Teclaw, R.; Price, M.; Osatuke, K.
- Effects of Applying Multimedia and Dialogue Box to Web Survey Design; 2017; Chen, H.
- Role of online survey tools in creating temporally accurate Environmental Product Declarations (EPD)...; 2017; Ganguly, I.; Bowers, T.; Pierobon, F.; Eastin, I.
- A test of sample matching using a pseudo-web sample; 2017; Chatrchi, G., Gambino, J.
- A Partially Successful Attempt to Integrate a Web-Recruited Cohort into an Address-Based Sample; 2017; Kott, P. S., Farrelly, M., Kamyab, K.
- Nonprobability sampling as model construction; 2017; Mercer, A. W.
- 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.
- The Failure of the Polls: Lessons Learned from the 2015 UK Polling Disaster; 2017; Sturgis, P.
- Overview: Online Surveys; 2017; Vehovar, V.; Lozar Manfreda, K.
- Three Methods for Occupation Coding Based on Statistical Learning; 2017; Geweon, H.; Schonlau, L.; Blohum, M.; Steiner, St.
- Standard Definitions: Final Dispositions of Case Codes and Outcome Rates for Surveys 2016; 2016
- Using Visual Analogue Scales in eHealth: Non-Response Effects in a Lifestyle Intervention; 2016; Kuhlmann, T.; Reips, U.-D.; Wienert, J.; Lippke, S.
- Standard Definitions Final Dispositions of Case Codes and Outcome Rates for Surveys; 2016
- FocusVision 2015 Annual MR Technology Report; 2016; Macer, T., Wilson, S.
- Last Year Your Answer Was … The Impact of Dependent Interviewing Wording and Survey Factors on...; 2016; Al Baghal, T.
- 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.
- The Effects of Vignette Placement on Attitudes Toward Supporting Family Members; 2016; Lau, C. Q., Seltzer, J. A., Bianchi, S. M.
- Comparisons of Online Recruitment Strategies for Convenience Samples: Craigslist, Google AdWords, Facebook...; 2016; Antoun, C., Zhang, C., Conrad, F. G., Schober, M. F.
- 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.
- A look into the challenges of mixed-mode surveys; 2016; Klausch, L. T.
- The use of online social networks as a promotional tool for self-administered internet surveys; 2016; de Rada, V. D.; Arino, L. V. C; Blasco, M. G
- Investigating Cognitive Effort of Response Formats in Web Surveys using Paradata ; 2016; Hoehne, J. K.; Schlosser, S.; Krebs, D.
- Conducting Survey Experiments Using an Online Labor Market ; 2016; Fowler, S.; Willis, G. B.; Moser, R. P.; Townsend, R. L. M.; Maitland, A.; Sun, H.; Ferrer, R.; Berrigan...
- Mode Effects on Subjective Well-being Research: Do they Affect Regression Coefficients? ; 2016; Sanchez Tome, R.; Roberts, C.; Staehli, M. E.; Joye, D.
- Examining Trends in the Presence of Survey Mode Effects ; 2016; Hisako Kitada, H.; Lesser, V. M.
- Using a Response Propensity Model to Allocate Non-c ontingent Incentives in a Web Panel ; 2016; Masterton, M.
- 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.
- Non-Observation Bias in an Address-Register-Based CATI/CAPI Mixed Mode Survey; 2016; Lipps, O.
- Bees to Honey or Flies to Manure? How the Usual Subject Recruitment Exacerbates the Shortcomings of...; 2016; Snell, S. A., Hillygus, D. S.
- Thinking Inside the Box Visual Design of the Response Box Affects Creative Divergent Thinking in an...; 2016; Mohr, A. H.; Sell, A.; Lindsay, T.
- Detecting Insufficient Effort Responding with an Infrequency Scale: Evaluating Validity and Participant...; 2016; Huang, J. L.; Bowling, N. A.; Liu, Me.; Li, Yu.
- Detecting careless respondents in web-based questionnaires: Which method to use?; 2016; Niesen, A. S. M.; Meijer, R. R.; Tendeiro, J. N.
- Web surveys for offline rural communities ; 2016; Gichohi, B. W.
- On-line life history calendar and sensitive topics: A pilot study; 2016; Morselli, D.; Berchtold, A.; Granell, J.-C. S.; Berchtold, And.
- Does survey mode matter for studying electoral behaviour? Evidence from the 2009 German Longitudinal...; 2016; Bytzek, E.; Bieber, I. E.
- The impact of visual design and response formats on data quality in a web survey of MOOC students; 2016; Maloshonok, N.; Terentev, E.
- An experiment comparing grids and item-by-item formats in web surveys completed through PCs and smartphones...; 2016; Revilla, M.; Toninelli, D.; Ochoa, C.
- Establishing the accuracy of online panels for survey research; 2016; Bruggen, E.; van den Brakel, J.; Krosnick, J. A.
- Eye-tracking Social Desirability Bias; 2016; Kaminska, O.; Foulsham, T.
- Evaluating Three Approaches to Statistically Adjust for Mode Effects; 2016; Kolenikov, S.; Kennedy, C.
- Distractions: The Incidence and Consequences of Interruptions for Survey Respondents ; 2016; Ansolabehere, S.; Schaffner, B. F.