Web Survey Bibliography
Title A Comparison of Emerging Pretesting Methods for Evaluating “Modern” Surveys
Author Geisen, E., Murphy, J.
Year 2017
Access date 10.09.2017
Abstract Due to low costs, improvements in coverage, and technological advances many surveys are now being conducted in whole or in part via self-administered web questionnaires. Increasingly, respondents are choosing to complete web surveys on touch-screen mobile devices such as tablets and smartphones. Recent estimates show that the proportion of respondents completing a survey on a mobile device can be 30% or more for some surveys (Lugtig, Toepoel, and Amin, 2016; Saunders, 2015). Mobile apps are also being used by survey respondents who are panel members and by interviewers to administer household screening surveys. Because of these technological advances, the ways that respondents and interviewers interact with surveys are changing.
With the pace of change in survey administration, we need to consider whether traditional pretesting methodologies address the types of potential quality concerns these newer modes introduce. For example, modern web surveys support dynamic survey features such as hover-over definitions, calculate total buttons, videos/images, error messages, dynamic look-ups, touch-screen, swiping to navigate, GPS, and other capabilities. Each of these features changes the respondent-survey interaction, which can affect the quality of the data collected in a survey.
The purpose of this paper is to introduce emerging survey pretesting methodologies and compare these with traditional methods in the light of modern data collection technologies to consider where the standard approaches for pretesting can be improved. We begin by discussing the key limitations of traditional pretesting methods such as expert review, cognitive interviewing, and pilot testing for evaluating “modern” surveys. We then provide an overview of emerging pretesting methods including usability testing, eye tracking, and crowdsourcing. We discuss the advantages offered by these methods – particularly in terms of budget and schedule—and provide empirical examples of how these methods can improve data quality. We conclude with a theoretical mode for the optimal combination of traditional and newer methods for pretesting modern surveys.
With the pace of change in survey administration, we need to consider whether traditional pretesting methodologies address the types of potential quality concerns these newer modes introduce. For example, modern web surveys support dynamic survey features such as hover-over definitions, calculate total buttons, videos/images, error messages, dynamic look-ups, touch-screen, swiping to navigate, GPS, and other capabilities. Each of these features changes the respondent-survey interaction, which can affect the quality of the data collected in a survey.
The purpose of this paper is to introduce emerging survey pretesting methodologies and compare these with traditional methods in the light of modern data collection technologies to consider where the standard approaches for pretesting can be improved. We begin by discussing the key limitations of traditional pretesting methods such as expert review, cognitive interviewing, and pilot testing for evaluating “modern” surveys. We then provide an overview of emerging pretesting methods including usability testing, eye tracking, and crowdsourcing. We discuss the advantages offered by these methods – particularly in terms of budget and schedule—and provide empirical examples of how these methods can improve data quality. We conclude with a theoretical mode for the optimal combination of traditional and newer methods for pretesting modern surveys.
Access/Direct link Conference Homepage (abstract) / (presentation)
Year of publication2017
Bibliographic typeConferences, workshops, tutorials, presentations
Web survey bibliography (290)
- 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.
- Telephone versus Online Survey Modes for Election Studies: Comparing Canadian Public Opinion and Vote...; 2017; Breton, C.; Cutler, F.; Lachance, S.; Mierke-Zatwarnicki, A.
- 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.
- Where, When, How and with What Do Panel Interviews Take Place and Is the Quality of Answers Affected...; 2017; Niebruegge, S.
- Do distractions during web survey completion affect data quality? Findings from a laboratory experiment...; 2017; Wenz, A.
- A Comparison of Emerging Pretesting Methods for Evaluating “Modern” Surveys; 2017; Geisen, E., Murphy, J.
- Pushing to web in the ISSP; 2017; Jonsdottir, G. A.; Dofradottir, A. G.; Einarsson, H. B.
- 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.
- Comparing data quality and cost from three modes of on-board transit surveys ; 2017; Agrawal, A. W.; Granger-Bevan, S.; W.; Newmark, G. L.; Nixon, H.
- Overview: Online Surveys; 2017; Vehovar, V.; Lozar Manfreda, K.
- FocusVision 2015 Annual MR Technology Report; 2016; Macer, T., Wilson, S.
- Comparisons of Online Recruitment Strategies for Convenience Samples: Craigslist, Google AdWords, Facebook...; 2016; Antoun, C., Zhang, C., Conrad, F. G., Schober, M. F.
- Feature phones no barrier to conducting an effective conjoint study ; 2016; de Rooij, R.; Dossin, R.
- Mixing Modes: Challenges (and Tradeoffs) of Adapting a Mailed Paper Survey to the Web ; 2016; Wilkinson-Flicker, S.; McPhee, C. B.; Medway, R.; Kaiser, A.; Cutts, K.
- Does Changing Monetary Incentive Schemes in Panel Studies Affect Cooperation? A Quasi-experiment on...; 2016; Schaurer, I.; Bosnjak, M.
- Survey Mode and Mail Method: A Practical Experiment in Survey Fielding for a Multi-round Survey ; 2016; Sullivan, B. D.; Duda, N.; Bogen, K.; Clusen, N. A.; Wakar, B.; Zhou, H.
- 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.
- Using Cash Incentives to Help Recruitment in a Probability Based Web Panel: The Effects on Sign Up Rates...; 2016; Krieger, U.
- Assessing Changes in Coverage Bias of Web Surveys a s Internet Access Increases in the United States...; 2016; Sterrett, D.; Malato, D.; Benz, J.; Tompson, T.; English, N.
- Thinking Inside the Box Visual Design of the Response Box Affects Creative Divergent Thinking in an...; 2016; Mohr, A. H.; Sell, A.; Lindsay, T.
- Web surveys for offline rural communities ; 2016; Gichohi, B. W.
- Adaptive survey designs to minimize survey mode effects – a case study on the Dutch Labor Force...; 2016; Calinescu, M.; Schouten, B.
- Assessment of Innovations in Data Collection Technology for Understanding Society; 2016; Couper, M. P.
- Evaluating Online Labor Markets for Experimental Research: Amazon.com's Mechanical Turk; 2016; Berinsky, A.; Huber, G. A.; Lenz, G. S.
- Sample Representation and Substantive Outcomes Using Web With and Without Incentives Compared to Telephone...; 2016; Lipps, O.; Pekari, N.
- “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.
- 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....
- A reliability analysis of Mechanical Turk data; 2016; Rouse, S. V.
- Taming Big Data: Using App Technology to Study Organizational Behavior on Social Media; 2015; Bail, C. A.
- Using Mobile Phones for High-Frequency Data Collection; 2015; Azevedo, J. P.; Ballivian, A.; Durbin, W.
- Cell Phone and Face-to-face Interview Responses in Population-based Sur- veys - How Do They Compare?; 2015; Ghandour, L.; Ghandour, B.; Mahfoud, Z.; Mokdad, A.; Sibai, A. M.
- The Cathie Marsh lecture: What does the failure of the polls tell us about the future of survey research...; 2015; Sturgis, P., Matheson, J.
- Mixed mode surveys ; 2015; Burton, J.
- Understanding Society Innovation Panel Wave 7: Results from Methodological Experiments; 2015; Blom, A. G.; Burton, J.; Booker, C. L.; Cernat, A.; Fairbrother, M.; Jaeckle, A.; Kaminska, O.; Keusch...
- Response Effects of Prenotification, Prepaid Cash, Prepaid Vouchers, and Postpaid Vouchers: An Experimental...; 2015; van Veen, F.; Goeritz, A.; Sattler, S.
- Tailored fieldwork design to increase representative household survey response: an experiment in the...; 2015; Luiten, A.; Schouten, B.
- Using Internet to Recruit Immigrants with Language and Culture Barriers for Tobacco and Alcohol Use...; 2015; Carlini, B. H.; Safioti, L.; Rue, T. C.; Miles, L.
- Online Recruitment Methods for Web-Based and Mobile Health Studies: A Review of the Literature; 2015; Lane, T. S.; Armin, J.; Gordon, Ju. S.
- iTunes Song-Gifting is a Low-Cost, Efficient Recruitment Tool to Engage High-Risk MSM in Internet Research...; 2015; Holland, C. M.; Ritchie, N. D.; Du Bois, S. N.
- A Note on the Use of Survey Research Firms to Enable Empirical Data Collection; 2015; Schoenherr, T.; Ellram, L. M.; Tate, W. L.
- Recruiting Online: Lessons From a Longitudinal Survey of Contraception and Pregnancy Intentions of Young...; 2015; Harris, M. L.; Loxton, D.; Wigginton, B.; Lucke, J. C.
- Recruiting for addiction research via Facebook; 2015; Thornton, L. K.; Harris, K.; Baker, A.; Johnson, M.; Kay-Lambkin, F. J.
- The effectiveness of incentives on recruitment and retention rates: an experiment in a web survey; 2015; Mulder, J.; Douhou, S.
- Adding a Web Mode to Phone Surveys: Effectiveness and Cost Implications; 2015; Beebe, T. J.; Lien, R.; Luxenberg, H.; Rainey, J.
- Query on Data Collection for Social Surveys; 2014; Blanke, K., Luiten, A.
- Examining the Effect of Prenotification Postcards on Online Survey Response Rate in a University Graduate...; 2014; Lalasz, C. B., Doane, M. J., Springer, V. A., Dahir, V. B.