Web Survey Bibliography
Title What is the impact of using personalized salutations on survey participation and data quality? The case of a web survey
Year 2016
Access date 21.10.2016
Full text PDF (518 KB)
Abstract
Till recently, standardization was considered the norm in surveys. According to standardization rules, respondents are to be contacted using standardized procedures, interviewed by reading out questionnaire question as scripted and using standardized survey “tools”. However, there is evidence that suggests that, in some contexts, this approach may not be the most effective and alternative approaches to data collection, such as those based on “tailoring” survey instruments to respondent characteristics (i. e., flexible interviewing), may obtain better results. Little is known on the effects of using flexible data collection methods on data quality.
In this paper we report findings from an experiment that evaluates the impact of personalized vs. standardized SMS invitations on two aspects of non-sampling error, i. e., non-response and measurement error. Previous research on this topic has found that personalization of e-mail salutations significantly increases response rate when surveying university students (Heerwegh 2005; Joinson, Reips 2007). However, we are not aware of any studies that also looked at the impact of different ways of phrasing salutations on measurement error. This study is meant to contribute to expand the knowledge in this research field.
We use experimental data collected in the context of a follow-up of a national web survey on occupational outcomes of Italian graduates in Social Work (Sala, Decataldo and Respi 2015) that was carried out in 2015. To invite sample members to take part in the follow-up, short text messages (SMS) were used (telephone numbers were available from the graduates’ administrative records).
Sample members were randomly assigned to two groups: the “standardized” and the “personalized” salutation group. The text of the “standardized” SMS was: “Dear graduate, we are carrying out the second wave of the survey Occupational Outcomes of Social Workers. Take part in the study! Link to the 6 questions [url]”. The text of the “personalized” SMS was different only in the incipit: “Dear [graduate’s name], we are carrying out...”. The invitation was sent on May, 13th 2015.
To assess the impact of the different types of salutations on response and measurement errors we consider different indicators of survey participation and data quality. Indicators of the former include response rates and speed of response; indicators of the latter include item non response, the time taken to fill in the questionnaire, and social desirability. To analyse our data, we will adopt both bivariate and multivariate analysis.
So far we focused on the first research aim and analyzed the impact of tailoring the salutations of the SMS on survey participation. Results from a preliminary analysis show that there is a difference of 5 percent points in response rates between the two groups; sample members who received the personalized invitation (Dear Jon, for example) are more likely to respond than those sample members who received the standardized invitation (significant at 10% level). In the paper we intend to reflect on the psychological mechanisms that lead these differences.
Keywords: standardization, flexible interviewing, non response error.
In this paper we report findings from an experiment that evaluates the impact of personalized vs. standardized SMS invitations on two aspects of non-sampling error, i. e., non-response and measurement error. Previous research on this topic has found that personalization of e-mail salutations significantly increases response rate when surveying university students (Heerwegh 2005; Joinson, Reips 2007). However, we are not aware of any studies that also looked at the impact of different ways of phrasing salutations on measurement error. This study is meant to contribute to expand the knowledge in this research field.
We use experimental data collected in the context of a follow-up of a national web survey on occupational outcomes of Italian graduates in Social Work (Sala, Decataldo and Respi 2015) that was carried out in 2015. To invite sample members to take part in the follow-up, short text messages (SMS) were used (telephone numbers were available from the graduates’ administrative records).
Sample members were randomly assigned to two groups: the “standardized” and the “personalized” salutation group. The text of the “standardized” SMS was: “Dear graduate, we are carrying out the second wave of the survey Occupational Outcomes of Social Workers. Take part in the study! Link to the 6 questions [url]”. The text of the “personalized” SMS was different only in the incipit: “Dear [graduate’s name], we are carrying out...”. The invitation was sent on May, 13th 2015.
To assess the impact of the different types of salutations on response and measurement errors we consider different indicators of survey participation and data quality. Indicators of the former include response rates and speed of response; indicators of the latter include item non response, the time taken to fill in the questionnaire, and social desirability. To analyse our data, we will adopt both bivariate and multivariate analysis.
So far we focused on the first research aim and analyzed the impact of tailoring the salutations of the SMS on survey participation. Results from a preliminary analysis show that there is a difference of 5 percent points in response rates between the two groups; sample members who received the personalized invitation (Dear Jon, for example) are more likely to respond than those sample members who received the standardized invitation (significant at 10% level). In the paper we intend to reflect on the psychological mechanisms that lead these differences.
Keywords: standardization, flexible interviewing, non response error.
Access/Direct link Conference Homepage (abstract) / (full text)
Year of publication2016
Bibliographic typeConferences, workshops, tutorials, presentations
Web survey bibliography (4086)
- Displaying Videos in Web Surveys: Implications for Complete Viewing and Survey Responses; 2017; Mendelson, J.; Lee Gibson, J.; Romano Bergstrom, J. C.
- Using experts’ consensus (the Delphi method) to evaluate weighting techniques in web surveys not...; 2017; Toepoel, V.; Emerson, H.
- Mind the Mode: Differences in Paper vs. Web-Based Survey Modes Among Women With Cancer; 2017; Hagan, T. L.; Belcher, S. M.; Donovan, H. S.
- Answering Without Reading: IMCs and Strong Satisficing in Online Surveys; 2017; Anduiza, E.; Galais, C.
- Ideal and maximum length for a web survey; 2017; Revilla, M.; Ochoa, C.
- Social desirability bias in self-reported well-being measures: evidence from an online survey; 2017; Caputo, A.
- Web-Based Survey Methodology; 2017; Wright, K. B.
- Handbook of Research Methods in Health Social Sciences; 2017; Liamputtong, P.
- Lessons from recruitment to an internet based survey for Degenerative Cervical Myelopathy: merits of...; 2017; Davies, B.; Kotter, M. R.
- Web Survey Gamification - Increasing Data Quality in Web Surveys by Using Game Design Elements; 2017; Schacht, S.; Keusch, F.; Bergmann, N.; Morana, S.
- Effects of sampling procedure on data quality in a web survey; 2017; Rimac, I.; Ogresta, J.
- Comparability of web and telephone surveys for the measurement of subjective well-being; 2017; Sarracino, F.; Riillo, C. F. A.; Mikucka, M.
- Achieving Strong Privacy in Online Survey; 2017; Zhou, Yo.; Zhou, Yi.; Chen, S.; Wu, S. S.
- A Meta-Analysis of the Effects of Incentives on Response Rate in Online Survey Studies; 2017; Mohammad Asire, A.
- Telephone versus Online Survey Modes for Election Studies: Comparing Canadian Public Opinion and Vote...; 2017; Breton, C.; Cutler, F.; Lachance, S.; Mierke-Zatwarnicki, A.
- Examining Factors Impacting Online Survey Response Ratesin Educational Research: Perceptions of Graduate...; 2017; Saleh, A.; Bista, K.
- Usability Testing for Survey Research; 2017; Geisen, E.; Romano Bergstrom, J. C.
- Paradata as an aide to questionnaire design: Improving quality and reducing burden; 2017; Timm, E.; Stewart, J.; Sidney, I.
- Fieldwork monitoring and managing with time-related paradata; 2017; Vandenplas, C.
- Interviewer effects on onliner and offliner participation in the German Internet Panel; 2017; Herzing, J. M. E.; Blom, A. G.; Meuleman, B.
- Interviewer Gender and Survey Responses: The Effects of Humanizing Cues Variations; 2017; Jablonski, W.; Krzewinska, A.; Grzeszkiewicz-Radulska, K.
- Millennials and emojis in Spain and Mexico.; 2017; Bosch Jover, O.; Revilla, M.
- Where, When, How and with What Do Panel Interviews Take Place and Is the Quality of Answers Affected...; 2017; Niebruegge, S.
- Comparing the same Questionnaire between five Online Panels: A Study of the Effect of Recruitment Strategy...; 2017; Schnell, R.; Panreck, L.
- Nonresponses as context-sensitive response behaviour of participants in online-surveys and their relevance...; 2017; Wetzlehuetter, D.
- Do distractions during web survey completion affect data quality? Findings from a laboratory experiment...; 2017; Wenz, A.
- Predicting Breakoffs in Web Surveys; 2017; Mittereder, F.; West, B. T.
- Measuring Subjective Health and Life Satisfaction with U.S. Hispanics; 2017; Lee, S.; Davis, R.
- Humanizing Cues in Internet Surveys: Investigating Respondent Cognitive Processes; 2017; Jablonski, W.; Grzeszkiewicz-Radulska, K.; Krzewinska, A.
- A Comparison of Emerging Pretesting Methods for Evaluating “Modern” Surveys; 2017; Geisen, E., Murphy, J.
- The Effect of Respondent Commitment on Response Quality in Two Online Surveys; 2017; Cibelli Hibben, K.
- Pushing to web in the ISSP; 2017; Jonsdottir, G. A.; Dofradottir, A. G.; Einarsson, H. B.
- The 2016 Canadian Census: An Innovative Wave Collection Methodology to Maximize Self-Response and Internet...; 2017; Mathieu, P.
- 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.
- In search of best practices; 2017; Kappelhof, J. W. S.; Steijn, S.
- Redirected Inbound Call Sampling (RICS); A New Methodology ; 2017; Krotki, K.; Bobashev, G.; Levine, B.; Richards, S.
- An Empirical Process for Using Non-probability Survey for Inference; 2017; Tortora, R.; Iachan, R.
- The perils of non-probability sampling; 2017; Bethlehem, J.
- A Comparison of Two Nonprobability Samples with Probability Samples; 2017; Zack, E. S.; Kennedy, J. M.
- 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.
- Necessary but Insufficient: Why Measurement Invariance Tests Need Online Probing as a Complementary...; 2017; Meitinger, K.
- Nonresponse in Organizational Surveying: Attitudinal Distribution Form and Conditional Response Probabilities...; 2017; Kulas, J. T.; Robinson, D. H.; Kellar, D. Z.; Smith, J. A.
- Theory and Practice in Nonprobability Surveys: Parallels between Causal Inference and Survey Inference...; 2017; Mercer, A. W.; Kreuter, F.; Keeter, S.; Stuart, E. A.
- Is There a Future for Surveys; 2017; Miller, P. V.
- Reducing speeding in web surveys by providing immediate feedback; 2017; Conrad, F.; Tourangeau, R.; Couper, M. P.; Zhang, C.
- Social Desirability and Undesirability Effects on Survey Response latencies; 2017; Andersen, H.; Mayerl, J.
- A Working Example of How to Use Artificial Intelligence To Automate and Transform Surveys Into Customer...; 2017; Neve, S.
- A Case Study on Evaluating the Relevance of Some Rules for Writing Requirements through an Online Survey...; 2017; Warnier, M.; Condamines, A.
- Estimating the Impact of Measurement Differences Introduced by Efforts to Reach a Balanced Response...; 2017; Kappelhof, J. W. S.; De Leeuw, E. D.
- Targeted letters: Effects on sample composition and item non-response; 2017; Bianchi, A.; Biffignandi, S.