Web Survey Bibliography
Title Push2web or less is more? Experimental evidence from a mixed-mode population survey at the community level in Germany
Author Neumann, R.; Haeder, M.; Brust, O.; Dittrich, E.; von Hermanni, H.
Year 2017
Access date 08.09.2017
Abstract The ‘Tailored design’ method (Dillmann et al. 2014) does not just seek to improve response rates, but also to alleviate the resulting non-response bias. Offering a tailored response option for respondents also provides the additional benefit of a substantial reduction of survey costs, considering the cost differential between an online and a paper responses. Yet, offering the web option implicitly relies on the assumption of equal and complete access to the internet and corresponding skill sets among respondents. Millar & Dillman (2014), who “conducted two experiments within a population that has complete access to the Internet and is believed to be highly Web literate” (Millar & Dillman 2014: 2) therefore covered only a (still) special case and found that offering both response option may not be a first best choice to achieve higher response rates. Do these results hold for samples of the general population as well?
To gain insights on this question, we systematically varied the postal recruitment process of a large mixed-mode survey we conducted in the fall of 2016 in the federal state of Saxony in Germany. We applied a sequential design similar to Millar & Dillman (2014) for the invitation of 8000 citizens to a community survey on waste disposal and environmental behavior. In the first invitation wave, we randomly allocated 40% of the respondents to paper-only survey, another 20% to a web-only and the final 40% to mixed-mode design with both response options. The follow-up consisted of a ‘Thank You’-postcard after about two weeks and a second invitation wave (completely) in mixed-mode design, offering both response options. We will present results of the competing designs on the overall response as well as a non-response analysis, based on register characteristics.
To gain insights on this question, we systematically varied the postal recruitment process of a large mixed-mode survey we conducted in the fall of 2016 in the federal state of Saxony in Germany. We applied a sequential design similar to Millar & Dillman (2014) for the invitation of 8000 citizens to a community survey on waste disposal and environmental behavior. In the first invitation wave, we randomly allocated 40% of the respondents to paper-only survey, another 20% to a web-only and the final 40% to mixed-mode design with both response options. The follow-up consisted of a ‘Thank You’-postcard after about two weeks and a second invitation wave (completely) in mixed-mode design, offering both response options. We will present results of the competing designs on the overall response as well as a non-response analysis, based on register characteristics.
Access/Direct link Conference Homepage (abstract) / (presentation)
Year of publication2017
Bibliographic typeConferences, workshops, tutorials, presentations
Web survey bibliography (388)
- A Meta-Analysis of the Effects of Incentives on Response Rate in Online Survey Studies; 2017; Mohammad Asire, A.
- Fieldwork monitoring and managing with time-related paradata; 2017; Vandenplas, C.
- 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.
- 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.
- Targeted letters: Effects on sample composition and item non-response; 2017; Bianchi, A.; Biffignandi, S.
- Improving survey response rates: The effect of embedded questions in web survey email Invitations; 2017; Liu, M.; Inchausti, N.
- Enhancing survey participation: Facebook advertisements for recruitment in educational research; 2017; Forgasz, H.; Tan, H.; Leder, G.; McLeod, A.
- Overview: Online Surveys; 2017; Vehovar, V.; Lozar Manfreda, K.
- “Better do not touch” and other superstitions concerning melanoma: the cross-sectional web...; 2016; Gajda, M.; Kamińska-Winciorek, G.; Wydmański, J.; Tukiendorf, A.
- Targeted Appeals for Participation in Letters to Panel Survey Members; 2016; Lynn, P.
- Population Survey Features and Response Rates: A Randomized Experiment; 2016; Guo, Y.; Kopec, J.; Cibere, J.; Li, L. C.; Goldsmith, C. H.
- 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.
- How to maximize survey response rates ; 2016; DeVall, R.; Colby, C.
- 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.
- 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.
- A Multi-phase Exploration Into Web-based Panel Respondents: Assessing Differences in Recruitment, Respondents...; 2016; Redlawsk, D.; Rogers, K.; Borie-Holtz, D.
- Exploring the Feasibility of Using Facebook for Surveying Special Interest Populations ; 2016; Lee, C.; Jang, S.
- National Estimates of Sexual Minority Women Alcohol Use through Web Based Respondent Driven Sampling...; 2016; Farrell Middleton, D.; Iachan, R.; Freedner-Maguire, N.; Trocki, K.; Evans, C.
- User Experience Considerations for Contextual Product Surveys on Smartphones ; 2016; Sedley, A.; Mueller, H.
- 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.
- Early-bird Incentives: Results From an Experiment to Determine Response Rate and Cost Effects ; 2016; De Santis, J.; Callahan, R.; Marsh, S.; Perez-Johnson, I.
- Effects of an Initial Offering of Multiple Survey Response Options on Response Rates; 2016; Steele, E. A.; Marlar, J.; Allen, L.; Kanitkar, K. N.
- How to Invite? Methods for Increasing Internet Surv ey Response Rate ; 2016; Huang, A. R.; Noel, H.; Hargraves, L.
- Reaching the Mobile Generation: Reducing Web Survey Non-response through SMS Reminders ; 2016; Kanitkar, K. N.; Marlar, J.
- "Don't be Afraid ... We're Researchers!": The Impact of Informal Contact Language...; 2016; Foster, K. N.; Hagemeier, N. E.; Alamain, A. A.; Pack, R.; Sevak, R. J.
- Does Embedding a Survey Question in the Survey Invi tation E-mail Affect Response Rates? Evidence from...; 2016; Vannette, D.
- Communication Channels that Predict and Mediate Self-response ; 2016; Walejko, G. K.
- Ballpoint Pens as Incentives with Mail Questionnaires – Results of a Survey Experiment; 2016; Heise, M.
- Non-Observation Bias in an Address-Register-Based CATI/CAPI Mixed Mode Survey; 2016; Lipps, O.
- Pre-Survey Text Messages (SMS) Improve Participation Rate in an Australian Mobile Telephone Survey:...; 2016; Dal Grande, E.; Chittleborough, C. R.; Campostrini, S.; Dollard, M.; Taylor, A. W.
- Effects of Personalization and Invitation Email Length on Web-Based Survey Response Rates; 2016; Trespalacios, J. H.; Perkins, R. A.
- Assessing targeted approach letters: effects in different modes on response rates, response speed and...; 2016; Lynn, P.
- Refining the Web Response Option in the Multiple Mode Collection of the American Community Survey; 2016; Hughes, T.; Tancreto, J.
- Setting Up an Online Panel Representative of the General Population The German Internet Panel; 2016; Blom, A. G.; Gathmann, C.; Krieger, U.
- Sample Representation and Substantive Outcomes Using Web With and Without Incentives Compared to Telephone...; 2016; Lipps, O.; Pekari, N.
- Collecting Data from mHealth Users via SMS Surveys: A Case Study in Kenya; 2016; Johnson, D.
- “Money Will Solve the Problem”: Testing the Effectiveness of Conditional Incentives for...; 2016; DeCamp, W.; Manierre, M. J.
- Effects of Incentive Amount and Type of Web Survey Response Rates; 2016; Coopersmith, J.; Vogel, L. K.; Bruursema, T.; Feeney, K.
- Effect of a Post-paid Incentive on Response to a Web-based Survey; 2016; Brown, J. A.; Serrato, C. A.; Hugh, M.; Kanter, M. H.; A.; Spritzer, K. L.; Hays, R. D.
- Reminder Effect and Data Usability on Web Questionnaire Survey for University Students; 2016; Oishi, T.; Mori, M.; Takata, E.
- Is One More Reminder Worth It? If So, Pick Up the Phone: Findings from a Web Survey; 2016; Lin-Freeman, L.
- Take the money and run? Redemption of a gift card incentive in a clinician survey. ; 2016; Chen, J. S.; Sprague, B. L.; Klabunde, C. N.; Tosteson, A. N. A.; Bitton, A.; Onega, T.; MacLean, C....
- The effect of email invitation elements on response rate in a web survey within an online community; 2016; Petrovcic, A.; Petric, G.; Lozar Manfreda, K.
- A reliability analysis of Mechanical Turk data; 2016; Rouse, S. V.
- Doing Surveys Online ; 2016; Toepoel, V.
- A Privacy-Friendly Method to Reward Participants of Online-Surveys; 2015; Herfert, M.; Lange, B.; Selzer, A.; Waldmann, U.
- Incentive Types and Amounts in a Web-based Survey of College Students; 2015; Krebs, C.; Planty, M.; Stroop, J.; Berzofsky, M.; Lindquist, C.
- Using Mobile Phones for High-Frequency Data Collection; 2015; Azevedo, J. P.; Ballivian, A.; Durbin, W.