Web Survey Bibliography
BACKGROUND:
E-cigarettes have rapidly increased in popularity in recent years, driven, at least in part, by marketing and word-of-mouth discussion on Twitter. Given the rapid proliferation of e-cigarettes, researchers need timely quantitative data from e-cigarette users and smokers who may see e-cigarettes as a cessation tool. Twitter provides an ideal platform for recruiting e-cigarette users and smokers who use Twitter. Online panels offer a second method of accessing this population, but they have been criticized for recruiting too few young adults, among whom e-cigarette use rates are highest.
OBJECTIVE:
This study compares effectiveness of recruiting Twitter users who are e-cigarette users and smokers who have never used e-cigarettes via Twitter to online panelists provided by Qualtrics and explores how users recruited differ by demographics, e-cigarette use, and social media use.
METHODS:
Participants were adults who had ever used e-cigarettes (n=278; male: 57.6%, 160/278; age: mean 34.26, SD 14.16 years) and smokers (n=102; male: 38.2%, 39/102; age: mean 42.80, SD 14.16 years) with public Twitter profiles. Participants were recruited via online panel (n=190) or promoted tweets using keyword targeting for e-cigarette users (n=190). Predictor variables were demographics (age, gender, education, race/ethnicity), e-cigarette use (eg, past 30-day e-cigarette use, e-cigarette puffs per day), social media use behaviors (eg, Twitter use frequency), and days to final survey completion from survey launch for Twitter versus panel. Recruitment method (Twitter, panel) was the dependent variable.
RESULTS:
Across the total sample, participants were recruited more quickly via Twitter (incidence rate ratio=1.30, P=.02) than panel. Compared with young adult e-cigarette users (age 18-24 years), e-cigarette users aged 25 to 34 years (OR 0.01, 95% CI 0.00-0.60, P=.03) and 35 to 44 years (OR 0.01, 95% CI 0.00-0.51, P=.02) were more likely to be recruited via Twitter than panel. Smokers aged 35 to 44 years were less likely than those aged 18 to 24 years to be recruited via Twitter than panel (35-44: OR 0.03, 95% CI 0.00-0.49, P=.01). E-cigarette users who reported a greater number of e-cigarette puffs per day were more likely to be recruited via Twitter than panel compared to those who reported fewer puffs per day (OR 1.12, 95% CI 1.05-1.20, P=.001). With each one-unit increase in Twitter usage, e-cigarette users were 9.55 times (95% CI 2.28-40.00, P=.002) and smokers were 4.91 times (95% CI 1.90-12.74, P=.001) as likely to be recruited via Twitter than panel.
CONCLUSIONS:
Twitter ads were more time efficient than an online panel in recruiting e-cigarette users and smokers. In addition, Twitter provided access to younger adults, who were heavier users of e-cigarettes and Twitter. Recruiting via social media and online panel in combination offered access to a more diverse population of participants.
Web survey bibliography - Internet access Panels (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.