Web Survey Bibliography
Title Response Rates and Response Bias in Web Panel Surveys
Year 2015
Access date 22.08.2016
Abstract
Non-probability samples, such as online panels, are increasingly accepted as “fit for purpose” for low incidence populations (e.g., pregnant women), difficult to reach populations (e.g., health care workers) and other special populations, particularly when time or cost make probability surveys infeasible. However, there is much less enthusiasm for the application of these methods in social science research for general populations. Aside from the issue of statistical generalizability, low response rates within the panel and demographic biases in the achieved samples are often cited (AAPOR 2010).
Are low response rates and demographic biases endemic to population surveys using web panels, or do they reflect the methods of particular surveys? Many web panel surveys are conducted in such a way that response rate cannot be calculated. In other cases, response rate is not reported. Further, most web surveys are not conducted to optimize response rate since sample is nearly unlimited and speed is often critically important to the client. In addition, biases in web surveys are usually identified by comparing the characteristics of the achieved sample to the population, which does not address the source of the error as the frame or the survey procedures.
This paper examines the application of two survey protocols in a general population survey conducted in the same community using a national web panel. Invitations will be sent to two Census balanced samples of 5,000 from the master panel, with the goal of achieving at least 500 completes in each sample. For the first protocol, invitations will be followed by a single reminder, an industry standard. For the second protocol, a robust reminder schedule including up to 4 reminders will be fielded over a three week period. Response rate is calculated as the proportion of invited respondents who complete the interview. Non-response bias is calculated by comparing the characteristics of responders and non-responders from their panel profile. Findings are compared across the two samples from the same community in the experiment.
Are low response rates and demographic biases endemic to population surveys using web panels, or do they reflect the methods of particular surveys? Many web panel surveys are conducted in such a way that response rate cannot be calculated. In other cases, response rate is not reported. Further, most web surveys are not conducted to optimize response rate since sample is nearly unlimited and speed is often critically important to the client. In addition, biases in web surveys are usually identified by comparing the characteristics of the achieved sample to the population, which does not address the source of the error as the frame or the survey procedures.
This paper examines the application of two survey protocols in a general population survey conducted in the same community using a national web panel. Invitations will be sent to two Census balanced samples of 5,000 from the master panel, with the goal of achieving at least 500 completes in each sample. For the first protocol, invitations will be followed by a single reminder, an industry standard. For the second protocol, a robust reminder schedule including up to 4 reminders will be fielded over a three week period. Response rate is calculated as the proportion of invited respondents who complete the interview. Non-response bias is calculated by comparing the characteristics of responders and non-responders from their panel profile. Findings are compared across the two samples from the same community in the experiment.
Access/Direct link FCSM Research Conference Homepage (Abstract) / (Full text)
Year of publication2015
Bibliographic typeConferences, workshops, tutorials, presentations
Web survey bibliography (431)
- Interviewer effects on onliner and offliner participation in the German Internet Panel; 2017; Herzing, J. M. E.; Blom, A. G.; Meuleman, B.
- Millennials and emojis in Spain and Mexico.; 2017; Bosch Jover, O.; Revilla, M.
- Comparing the same Questionnaire between five Online Panels: A Study of the Effect of Recruitment Strategy...; 2017; Schnell, R.; Panreck, L.
- Do distractions during web survey completion affect data quality? Findings from a laboratory experiment...; 2017; Wenz, A.
- A Comparison of Two Nonprobability Samples with Probability Samples; 2017; Zack, E. S.; Kennedy, J. M.
- Targeted letters: Effects on sample composition and item non-response; 2017; Bianchi, A.; Biffignandi, S.
- Oversampling as a methodological strategy for the study of self-reported health among lesbian, gay and...; 2017; Anderssen, N.; Malterud, K.
- Analyzing Survey Characteristics, Participation, and Evaluation Across 186 Surveys in an Online Opt-...; 2017; Revilla, M.
- Comparison of response patterns in different survey designs: a longitudinal panel with mixed-mode and...; 2017; Ruebsamen, N.; Akmatov, M. K.; Castell, S.; Karch, A.; Mikolajczyk, R. T.
- 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.
- Effects of Mobile versus PC Web on Survey Response Quality: a Crossover Experiment in a Probability...; 2017; Antoun, C.; Couper, M. P.; G. G.Conrad, F. G.
- Impact of satisficing behavior in online surveys on consumer preference and welfare estimates; 2016; Gao, Z.; House, L. A.; Bi, X.
- Comparing Twitter and Online Panels for Survey Recruitment of E-Cigarette Users and Smokers; 2016; Guillory, J.; Kim, A.; Murphy, J.; Bradfield, B.; Nonnemaker, J.; Hsieh, Y. P.
- Targeted Appeals for Participation in Letters to Panel Survey Members; 2016; Lynn, P.
- Motivated Misreporting in Web Panels; 2016; Bach, R.; Eckman, S.
- Using official surveys to reduce bias of estimates from nonrandom samples collected by web surveys; 2016; Beresovsky, V.; Dorfman, A.; Rumcheva, P.
- A Feasibility Study of Recruiting and Maintaining a Web Panel of People with Disabilities; 2016; Chandler, J.
- Inferences from Internet Panel Studies and Comparisons with Probability Samples; 2016; Lachan, R.; Boyle, J.; Harding, R.
- Exploring the Gig Economy Using a Web-Based Survey: Measuring the Online 'and' Offline Side...; 2016; Robles, B. J.; McGee, M.
- Comparing data quality between online panel and intercept samples; 2016; Liu, M.
- Integration of a phone-based household travel survey and a web-based student travel survey; 2016; Verreault, H.; Morency, C.
- Are Final Comments in Web Survey Panels Associated with Next-Wave Attrition?; 2016; McLauchlan, C.; Schonlau, M.
- Estimation and Adjustment of Self-Selection Bias in Volunteer Panel Web Surveys ; 2016; Niu, Ch.
- Participation in an Intensive Longitudinal Study with Weekly Web Surveys Over 2.5 Years; 2016; Barber, J. S.; Kusunoki, Y.; Gatny, H. H.; Schulz, P.
- The impact of survey duration on completion rates among Millennial respondents ; 2016; Coates, D.; Bliss, M.; Vivar, X.
- Cognitive Probing Methods in Usability Testing – Pros and Cons; 2016; Nichols, E. M.
- 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...
- Calculating Standard Errors for Nonprobability Samples when Matching to Probability Samples ; 2016; Lee, Ad.; ZuWallack, R. S.
- 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.
- Using Web Panels to Quantify the Qualitative: The National Center for Health Statistics Research and...; 2016; Scanlon, P. J.
- Does Changing Monetary Incentive Schemes in Panel Studies Affect Cooperation? A Quasi-experiment on...; 2016; Schaurer, I.; Bosnjak, M.
- 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.
- Using Cash Incentives to Help Recruitment in a Probability Based Web Panel: The Effects on Sign Up Rates...; 2016; Krieger, U.
- Making Connections on the Internet: Online Survey Panel Communications ; 2016; Libman Barry, A.; Eiginger, C.; Walton, L.; Ricci, K.
- Evaluating a Modular Design Approach to Collecting Survey Data Using Text Messages ; 2016; West, B. T.; Ghimire, D.; Axinn, W.
- Safety First: Ensuring the Anonymity and Privacy of Iranian Panellists’ While Creating Iran...; 2016; Farmanesh, A.; Mohseni, E.
- Tracking the Representativeness of an Online Panel Over Time ; 2016; Klausch, L. T.; Scherpenzeel, A.
- 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.
- Establishing the accuracy of online panels for survey research; 2016; Bruggen, E.; van den Brakel, J.; Krosnick, J. A.
- Adaptive survey designs to minimize survey mode effects – a case study on the Dutch Labor Force...; 2016; Calinescu, M.; Schouten, B.
- 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.
- The Utility of an Online Convenience Panel for Reaching Rare and Dispersed Populations; 2016; Sell, R.; Goldberg, S.; Conron, K.
- Evaluating Online Labor Markets for Experimental Research: Amazon.com's Mechanical Turk; 2016; Berinsky, A.; Huber, G. A.; Lenz, G. S.
- Setting Up an Online Panel Representative of the General Population The German Internet Panel; 2016; Blom, A. G.; Gathmann, C.; Krieger, U.
- Reducing Underreports of Behaviors in Retrospective Surveys: The Effects of Three Different Strategies...; 2016; Lugtig, P. J.; Glasner, T.; Boeve, A.
- Dropouts in Longitudinal Surveys; 2016; Lugtig, P. J.; De Leeuw, E. D.