Web Survey Bibliography
Title Apples to Oranges or Gala versus Golden Delicious?: Comparing Data Quality of Nonprobability Internet Samples to Low Response Rate Probability Samples
Author Dutwin, D.; Buskirk, T. D.
Source Public Opinion Quarterly (POQ); 81, 1, pp. 213-239
Year 2017
Database Oxford Journals
Access date 24.08.2017
Abstract Nonprobability samples have gained mass popularity and
use in many research circles, including market research and some political
research. One justification for the use of nonprobability samples is
that low response rate probability surveys have nothing significant to
offer over and above a “well built” nonprobability sample. Utilizing an
elemental approach, we compare a range of samples, weighting, and
modeling procedures in an analysis that evaluates the estimated bias of
various cross-tabulations of core demographics. Specifically, we compare
a battery of bias related metrics for nonprobability panels, dualframe
telephone samples, and a high-quality in-person sample. Results
indicate that there is roughly a linear trend, with nonprobability samples
attaining the greatest estimated bias, and the in-person sample, the
lowest. Results also indicate that the bias estimates vary widely for the
nonprobability samples compared to either the telephone or in-person
samples, which themselves tend to have consistently smaller amounts of
estimated bias. Specifically, both weighted and unweighted dual-frame
telephone samples were found to have about half the estimated bias
compared to analogous nonprobability samples. Advanced techniques
such as propensity weighting and sample matching did not improve
these measures, and in some cases made matters worse. Implications for
“fit for purpose” in survey research are discussed given these findings.
use in many research circles, including market research and some political
research. One justification for the use of nonprobability samples is
that low response rate probability surveys have nothing significant to
offer over and above a “well built” nonprobability sample. Utilizing an
elemental approach, we compare a range of samples, weighting, and
modeling procedures in an analysis that evaluates the estimated bias of
various cross-tabulations of core demographics. Specifically, we compare
a battery of bias related metrics for nonprobability panels, dualframe
telephone samples, and a high-quality in-person sample. Results
indicate that there is roughly a linear trend, with nonprobability samples
attaining the greatest estimated bias, and the in-person sample, the
lowest. Results also indicate that the bias estimates vary widely for the
nonprobability samples compared to either the telephone or in-person
samples, which themselves tend to have consistently smaller amounts of
estimated bias. Specifically, both weighted and unweighted dual-frame
telephone samples were found to have about half the estimated bias
compared to analogous nonprobability samples. Advanced techniques
such as propensity weighting and sample matching did not improve
these measures, and in some cases made matters worse. Implications for
“fit for purpose” in survey research are discussed given these findings.
Access/Direct link Journal Homepage (abstract) / (full text)
Year of publication2017
Bibliographic typeJournal article
Web survey bibliography - Marketing/business (336)
- Achieving Strong Privacy in Online Survey; 2017; Zhou, Yo.; Zhou, Yi.; Chen, S.; Wu, S. S.
- Where, When, How and with What Do Panel Interviews Take Place and Is the Quality of Answers Affected...; 2017; Niebruegge, S.
- Is There a Future for Surveys; 2017; Miller, P. V.
- Mobile Research im Kontext der digitalen Transformation; 2017; Friedrich-Freksa, M.
- Virtual reality meets sensory research; 2017; Depoortere, L.
- Online customer journey analysis: a data science toolbox; 2017; Bonnay, D.
- 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.
- Statistical Design for Online Experiments Across Desktops, Tablets, Smartphones (and Maybe Wearable...; 2016; Qian, P.; Sadeghi, S.; Arora, N. K.
- FocusVision 2015 Annual MR Technology Report; 2016; Macer, T., Wilson, S.
- The Effects of a Delayed Incentive on Response Rates, Response Mode, Data Quality, and Sample Bias in...; 2016; McGonagle, K., Freedman, V. A.
- 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.
- Evaluating Online Labor Markets for Experimental Research: Amazon.com's Mechanical Turk; 2016; Berinsky, A.; Huber, G. A.; Lenz, G. S.
- Web-based versus Paper-based Survey Data: An Estimation of Road Users’ Value of Travel Time Savings...; 2016; Kato, H.; Sakashita, A.; Tsuchiya, Tak.
- An Examination of Opposing Responses on Duplicated Multi-Mode Survey Responses; 2016; Djangali, A.
- Scientific Surveys Based on Incomplete Sampling Frames and High Rates of Nonresponse; 2016; Fahimi, M.; Barlas, F. M.; Thomas, R. K.; Buttermore, N. R.
- Adapting Labour Force Survey questions from interviewer-administered modes for web self-completion in...; 2015; Betts, P.; Cubbon, B.
- Internet Panels, Professional Respondents, and Data Quality; 2015; Matthijsse, S.; De Leeuw, E. D.; Hox, J.
- Are they willing to use the web? First results of a possible switch from PAPI to CAPI/CAWI in an establishment...; 2015; Ellguth, P.; Kohaut, S.
- GreenBook Research Industry Trends Report; 2015; Murphy, L. (Ed.)
- The role of gamification in better accessing reality and hence increasing data validity ; 2015; Bailey, P.; Kernohan, H.; Pritchard, G.
- Rewarding the Truth; 2015; Puleston, J.
- Impact of raising awareness of respondents on the measurement quality in a web survey; 2015; Revilla, M.
- Email subject lines and response rates to invitations to participate in a web survey and a face-to-face...; 2015; Sappleton, N.; Lourenco, F.
- Can a non-probabilistic online panel achieve question quality similar to that of the European Social...; 2015; Revilla, M.; Saris, W. E.; Loewe, G.; Ochoa, C.
- Mode Effects in Mixed-Mode Economic Surveys: Insights from a Randomized Experiment; 2015; Hsu, J. W.; McFall, B. H.
- Web-based survey, calibration, and economic impact assessment of spending in nature based recreation; 2015; Paudel, K. P., Devkota, N., Gyawali, B.
- The Influence of Answer Box Format on Response Behavior on List-Style Open-Ended Questions; 2014; Keusch, F.
- Improving Survey Response Rates in Online Panels Effects of Low-Cost Incentives and Cost-Free Text Appeal...; 2014; Pedersen, M. J., Nielsen, C. V.
- Matrix versus paging designs in a brand attribution task; 2014; Conrad, F. G., McCullough, W., Nishimura, R.
- Internet-Based Surveys: Methodological Issues; 2014; Albaum, G., Brockett, P., Golden, L., Han, V., Roster, C. A., Smith, S. M., Wiley, J. B.
- Use of a Google Map Tool Embedded in an Internet Survey Instrument: Is it a Valid and Reliable Alternative...; 2014; Dasgupta, S., Vaughan, A. S., Kramer, M. R., Sanchez, T. H., Sullivan, P. S.
- Sequential or Simultaneous Multi-Mode? Results from Two Large Surveys of Electric Utility Consumers; 2014; Jackson, C., Ledoux, C.
- Targeting the bias – the impact of mass media attention on sample composition and representativeness...; 2014; Steinmetz, S., Oez, F., Tijdens, K. G.
- Exploring selection biases for developing countries - is the web a promising tool for data collection...; 2014; Tijdens, K. G., Steinmetz, S.
- Measuring the very long, fuzzy tail in the occupational distribution in web-surveys; 2014; Tijdens, K. G.
- Moving answers with the GyroScale: Using the mobile device’s gyroscope for market research purposes...; 2014; Luetters, H., Kraus, M., Westphal, D.
- Clicking vs. Dragging: Different Uses of the Mouse and Their Implications for Online Surveys; 2014; Sikkel, D., Steenbergen, R., Gras, S.
- Innovation for television research - online surveys via HbbTV. A new technology with fantastic opportunities...; 2014; Herche, J., Adler, M.
- Online mobile surveys in Italy: coverage and other methodological challenges; 2014; Poggio, T.
- How Sliders Bias Survey Data; 2013; Sellers, R.
- Survey Research Response Rates: Internet Technology vs. Snail Mail ; 2013; Lanier, P. A., Tanner, J. R., Totaro, M. W., Gradnigo, G.
- The impact of New Zealand's 2008 prohibition of piperazine-based party pills on young people'...; 2013; Sheridan, J., Dong, C. Y., Butler, R., Barnes, J.
- How well do volunteer web panel surveys measure sensitive behaviours in the general population, and...; 2013; Erens, B., Burkill, S., Copas, A., Couper, M. P., Conrad, F.
- Effects of Gamification on Participation and Data Quality in a Real-World Market Research Domain ; 2013; Cechanowicz, J., Gutwin, C., Brownell, B., Goodfellow, L.
- Ideal participants in online market research: Lessons from closed communities; 2013; Heinze, A., Ferneley, E., Child, P.
- Online, face-to-face and telephone surveys—Comparing different sampling methods in wine consumer...; 2013; Szolnoki, G., Hoffmann, D.
- Where does the Fair Trade price premium go? Confronting consumers' request with reality; 2013; Langen, N., Adenaeuer, L.
- Customer satisfaction in Web 2.0 and information technology development; 2013; Sharma, G., Baoku, L.
- Research staff and public engagement: a UK study; 2013; Davies, S.