Web Survey Bibliography
Title Análisis de herramientas gratuitas para el diseño de cuestionarios on-line
Author Montoya, L. S.; Farran, C. X.; Catala, C. M.
Source Píxel-Bit. Revista de Medios y Educación, 49, pp. 91-104
Year 2016
Database Web of Science
Access date 29.03.2017
Full text PDF (190 KB)
Abstract En este artículo se presentan los resultados de un estudio que tiene como objetivo analizar herramientas Web 2.0 gratuitas para el diseño de cuestionarios on-line. El procedimiento se desarrolla en cuatro fases:(1) Identificación y localización de herramientas; (2) Definición de criterios de análisis; (3) Análisis de herramientas y (4) Análisis de resultados. Se analiza un total de 37 herramientas de las 45 identificadas. Se constata el elevado número de aplicaciones existentes con versiones gratuitas que, en general, ofrecen funciones limitadas. Aunque las características de algunas de ellas pueden ajustarse a las necesidades de los investigadores. Palabras clave: Herramientas Web 2.0, Cuestionario, Análisis de herramientas, Encuesta en línea. This article presents the results of a study that aims to analyze free web 2.0 tools for designing online questionnaires. The procedure was developed in four phases: (1) Identification and location of the tools; (2) Definition of analysis criteria; (3) Analysis of tools and (4) Analysis of results. We analyzed 37 of a total 45 identified. It cconfirm the high number of existing applications with free versions that, generally, offer limited functions. However, the characteristics of some of them can meet the needs of researchers.
Análisis de herramientas gratuitas para el diseño de cuestionarios on-line.
Análisis de herramientas gratuitas para el diseño de cuestionarios on-line.
Abstract - optional This article presents the results of a study that aims to analyze free web 2.0 tools for designing online questionnaires. The procedure was developed in four phases: (1) Identification and location of the tools; (2) Definition of analysis criteria; (3) Analysis of tools and (4) Analysis of results. We analyzed 37 of a total 45 identified. It cconfirm the high number of existing applications with free versions that, generally, offer limited functions. However, the characteristics of some of them can meet the needs of researchers.
Access/Direct link Journal Homepage (abstract) / (full text)
Year of publication2016
Bibliographic typeJournal article
Web survey bibliography (4086)
- Question order sensitivity of subjective well-being measures: focus on life satisfaction, self-rated...; 2016; Lee, S.; McClain, C.; Webster, N.; Han, S.
- 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.
- Facebook, Twitter, & Qr codes: An exploratory trial examining the feasibility of social media mechanisms...; 2016; Gu, L. L.; Skierkowski, D.; Florin, P.; Friend, K.; Ye, Y.
- Sensitive Questions in Online Surveys: An Experimental Evaluation of Different Implementations of the...; 2016; Hoglinger, M.; Jann, B.; Diekmann, A.
- Design and test of a web-survey for collecting observer’s ratings on dairy goats’ behavioural...; 2016; Vieira, A.; Oliveira, M. D.; Nunes, T.; Stilwell, G.
- Análisis de herramientas gratuitas para el diseño de cuestionarios on-line; 2016; Montoya, L. S.; Farran, C. X.; Catala, C. M.
- 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.
- Helping respondents provide good answers in Web surveys; 2016; Couper, M. P.; Zhang, C.
- 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.
- Shorter Interviews, Longer Surveys: Optimising the survey participant experience whilst accommodating...; 2016; Halder, A.; Bansal, H. S.; Knowles, R.; Eldridge, J.; Murray, Mi.
- Gamifying. Not all fun and games; 2016; Stubington, P.; Crichton, C.
- Are interviews costing £0.08 a waste of money? Reviewing Google Surveys for Wisdom of the Crowd...; 2016; Roughton, G.; MacKay, I.
- Observations from Twelve Years of an Annual Market Research Technology Survey; 2016; Macer, T.; Wilson, S.
- 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.
- A new model for concept evaluation; 2016; Allen, D. R.
- Feature phones no barrier to conducting an effective conjoint study ; 2016; de Rooij, R.; Dossin, R.
- A look at the unique data-gathering process behind the Harvard Impact Study; 2016; Vitale, J.
- Are sliders too slick for surveys?; 2016; Buskirk, T. D.
- Research gamification for quality pharmaceutical stakeholder insights; 2016; Mondry, B.; Fink, L.
- The impact of survey duration on completion rates among Millennial respondents ; 2016; Coates, D.; Bliss, M.; Vivar, X.
- SurveyTester from Knowledge Navigators ; 2016; Macer, T.
- Marrying passive and custom data for effective mobile targeting; 2016; King, K.; Stevens, N.
- Simplifying your mobile solution; 2016; Berry, K.
- How to maximize survey response rates ; 2016; DeVall, R.; Colby, C.
- Participation rates of childhood cancer survivors to self-administered questionnaires: a systematic...; 2016; Kilsdonk, E.; Wendel, E.; van Dulmen-den Broeder, E.; van Leeuwen, F.E.; Van Den Berg, M. H.; Jaspers...
- Google's MIDAS Touch: Predicting UK Unemployment with Internet Search Data; 2016; Smith, Pau.
- 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.;...
- Mixed Mode Research: Issues in Design and Analysis; 2016; Hox, J.; De Leeuw, E. D.; Klausch, L. T.
- Does the Use of Smartphones to Participate in Web Surveys Affect the Survey Experience when Sensitive...; 2016; Toninelli, D.; Revilla, M.
- Device use in web surveys: The effect of differential incentives; 2016; Mavletova, A. M.; Couper, M. P.
- Device Effects - How different screen sizes affect answers in online surveys; 2016; Fisher, B.; Bernet, F.
- Effects of motivating question types with graphical support in multi channel design studies; 2016; Luetters, H.; Friedrich-Freksa, M.; Vitt, SGoldstein, D. G.
- Analyzing Cognitive Burden of Survey Questions with Paradata: A Web Survey Experiment; 2016; Hoehne, J. K.; Schlosser, S.; Krebs, D.
- Why Do Web Surveys Take Longer on Smartphones?; 2016; Couper, M. P.; J. J.Peterson, G. J.
- Do Initial Respondents Differ From Callback Respondents? Lessons From a Mobile CATI Survey; 2016; Vicente, P.; Marques, C.
- Secondary Respondent Consent in the German Family Panel; 2016; Schmiedeberg, C.; Castiglioni, L.; Schroeder, J.
- Online Focus Group Discussion is a Valid and Feasible Mode When Investigating Sensitive Topics Among...; 2016; Wettergren, L.; Eriksson, L. E.; Nilsson, J.; Jarvaeus, A.; Lampic, C.
- 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
- Optimizing Self-response for the 2020 Census ; 2016; Bentley, M.
- Improving Data Quality in a Web Survey of Youth and Teens ; 2016; Horton, V. M.; Branson, R.; Phillips, B. T.; Fowlkes, E.
- 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.