Web Survey Bibliography
Title Characteristics of the Population of Internet Panel Members
Author Boyle, J; Freedner, N.; Fakhouri, T.
Year 2015
Access date 22.08.2016
Abstract
Despite concerns about the non-probability basis for web surveys, an increasing number of studies have found that sample estimates from web surveys compare favorably to those from probability surveys. Aside from the inability to apply probability statistics to these web surveys, potential users worry about how reliable are these estimates.
This paper examines one element that may contribute to the representativeness of web surveys, at least in certain circumstances. Who are the participants and non-participants of these now ubiquitous sources used in population estimates and how similar are they to the population they are meant to represent?
The purpose of this paper is to investigate the actual coverage of Internet panels, generally, among Americanadults. Rather than look at the composition of any one online survey, we consider the characteristics of the population who participate in any web based panel surveys. Since web panels frequently “partner” with other web panel organizations in order to generate samples that are larger, more diverse or more specific than what is available within their panel members, the population who participate in any web panels is more critical to evaluating coverage error and bias of this form of survey than specific coverage and bias errors in individual panels.
A national probability survey of adults was conducted using a dual frame, random digit dialing sample determined participation in Internet survey panels and frequency of participation. Using several classifications for web panelist, we compare the population characteristics of the universe of web panelists compared to the general public. These findings allow us to characterize the degree of coverage and bias associated with the general population of web panelists. We believe that this is the first step in understanding the issues associated with the representativeness and non-representativeness of web survey findings.
This paper examines one element that may contribute to the representativeness of web surveys, at least in certain circumstances. Who are the participants and non-participants of these now ubiquitous sources used in population estimates and how similar are they to the population they are meant to represent?
The purpose of this paper is to investigate the actual coverage of Internet panels, generally, among Americanadults. Rather than look at the composition of any one online survey, we consider the characteristics of the population who participate in any web based panel surveys. Since web panels frequently “partner” with other web panel organizations in order to generate samples that are larger, more diverse or more specific than what is available within their panel members, the population who participate in any web panels is more critical to evaluating coverage error and bias of this form of survey than specific coverage and bias errors in individual panels.
A national probability survey of adults was conducted using a dual frame, random digit dialing sample determined participation in Internet survey panels and frequency of participation. Using several classifications for web panelist, we compare the population characteristics of the universe of web panelists compared to the general public. These findings allow us to characterize the degree of coverage and bias associated with the general population of web panelists. We believe that this is the first step in understanding the issues associated with the representativeness and non-representativeness of web survey findings.
Access/Direct link FCSM Research Conference Homepage (Abstract) / (Full text)
Year of publication2015
Bibliographic typeConferences, workshops, tutorials, presentations
Web survey bibliography - Noncoverage & sampling (851)
- Using experts’ consensus (the Delphi method) to evaluate weighting techniques in web surveys not...; 2017; Toepoel, V.; Emerson, H.
- Nonresponses as context-sensitive response behaviour of participants in online-surveys and their relevance...; 2017; Wetzlehuetter, D.
- A Comparison of Emerging Pretesting Methods for Evaluating “Modern” Surveys; 2017; Geisen, E., Murphy, J.
- Pushing to web in the ISSP; 2017; Jonsdottir, G. A.; Dofradottir, A. G.; Einarsson, H. B.
- Nonresponse in Organizational Surveying: Attitudinal Distribution Form and Conditional Response Probabilities...; 2017; Kulas, J. T.; Robinson, D. H.; Kellar, D. Z.; Smith, J. A.
- 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.
- Enhancing survey participation: Facebook advertisements for recruitment in educational research; 2017; Forgasz, H.; Tan, H.; Leder, G.; McLeod, A.
- Determinants of polling accuracy: the effect of opt-in Internet surveys; 2017; Sohlberg, J.; Gilljam, M.; Martinsson, J.
- Article Establishing an Open Probability-Based Mixed-Mode Panel of the General Population in Germany...; 2017; Bosnjak, M.; Dannwolf, T.; Enderle, T.; Schaurer, I.; Struminskaya, B.; Tanner, A.; Weyandt, K.
- PC, phone or tablet? Use, preference and completion rates for web surveys ; 2017; Brosnan, K.; Gruen, B.; Dolnicar, S.
- Overview: Online Surveys; 2017; Vehovar, V.; Lozar Manfreda, K.
- Standard Definitions Final Dispositions of Case Codes and Outcome Rates for Surveys; 2016
- Integration of a phone-based household travel survey and a web-based student travel survey; 2016; Verreault, H.; Morency, C.
- Du kommst hier nicht rein: Türsteherfragen identifizieren nachlässige Teilnehmer in Online-Umfragen; 2016; Merkle, B.; Kaczmirek, L.; Hellwig, O.
- Estimation and Adjustment of Self-Selection Bias in Volunteer Panel Web Surveys ; 2016; Niu, Ch.
- Geht’s auch mit der Maus? – Eine Methodenstudie zu Online-Befragungen in der Jugendforschung...; 2016; Heim, R.; Konowalczyk, S.; Grgic, M.; Seyda, M.; Burrmann, U.; Rauschenbach, T.
- FocusVision 2015 Annual MR Technology Report; 2016; Macer, T., Wilson, S.
- 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.
- 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.
- Feature phones no barrier to conducting an effective conjoint study ; 2016; de Rooij, R.; Dossin, R.
- Patient preference: a comparison of electronic patient-completed questionnaires with paper among cancer...; 2016; Martin, P.; Brown, M.C.; Espin‐Garcia, O.; Cuffe, S.; Pringle, D.; Mahler, M.; Villeneuve, J.;...
- Device use in web surveys: The effect of differential incentives; 2016; Mavletova, A. M.; Couper, M. P.
- 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
- Assessing the Accuracy of 51 Nonprobability Online Panels and River Samples: A Study of the Advertising...; 2016; Yang,Y.;Callegaro,M.;Yang,Y.;Callegaro,M.;Chin,K.;Yang,Y.;Villar,A.;Callegaro, M.; Chin, K.; Krosnick...
- Estimated-control Calibrated Estimates from Nonprobability Surveys; 2016; Dever, J. A.
- Decomposing Selection Effects in Non-probability Samples ; 2016; Mercer, A. W.; Keeter, S.; Kreuter, F.
- 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.
- Establishing the accuracy of online panels for survey research; 2016; Bruggen, E.; van den Brakel, J.; Krosnick, J. A.
- When will Nonprobability Surveys Mirror Probability Surveys? Considering Types of Inference and Weighting...; 2016; Pasek, J.
- Mixing modes of data collection in Swiss social surveys: Methodological report of the LIVES-FORS mixed...; 2016; Roberts, C.; Joye, D.; Staehli, M. E.
- What is the gain in a probability-based online panel to provide Internet access to sampling units that...; 2016; Revilla, M.; Cornilleau, A.; Cousteaux, A-S.; Legleye, S; de Pedraza, P.
- Representative web-survey!; 2016; Linde, P.
- Assessing targeted approach letters: effects in different modes on response rates, response speed and...; 2016; Lynn, P.
- The Analysis of Respondent’s Behavior toward Edit Messages in a Web Survey; 2016; Park, Y.
- The Utility of an Online Convenience Panel for Reaching Rare and Dispersed Populations; 2016; Sell, R.; Goldberg, S.; Conron, K.
- Setting Up an Online Panel Representative of the General Population The German Internet Panel; 2016; Blom, A. G.; Gathmann, C.; Krieger, U.
- Implementation of Web-Based Respondent Driven Sampling among Men Who Have Sex with Men in Sweden; 2016; Stroemdahl, S.; Lu, X.; Bengtsson, L.; Liljeros, F.; Thorson, A.
- Options for Fielding and Analyzing Web Surveys; 2016; Schonlau, M.; Couper, M. P.
- Report of the Inquiry into the 2015 British general election opinion polls; 2016; Sturgis, P., Baker, N., Callegaro, M., Fisher, St., Green, J., Jennings, W., Kuha, J., Lauderdale, B...
- Participant recruitment and data collection through Facebook: the role of personality factors; 2016; Rife, S. C.; Cate, K. L.; Kosinski, M.; Stillwell, D.
- Online Surveys are Mixed-Device Surveys. Issues Associated with the Use of Different (Mobile) Devices...; 2016; Toepoel, V.; Lugtig, P. J.
- Electronic and paper based data collection methods in library and information science research: A comparative...; 2016; Tella, A.
- The Validity of Surveys: Online and Offline; 2016; Wiersma, W.
- Computer-assisted and online data collection in general population surveys; 2016; Skarupova, K.
- Sunday shopping – The case of three surveys; 2016; Bethlehem, J.