Web Survey Bibliography
Title Measuring Subjective Health and Life Satisfaction with U.S. Hispanics
Year 2017
Access date 15.09.2017
Abstract Health and well-being are two important issues not only in research but also in policy. While accurate measurement of these attributes is critical, extant research indicates its difficulty in survey research. The main difficulties stem from the subjective nature of the concepts of health and well-being, as well as the use of response options with vague quantifiers. These difficulties become more evident for cross-cultural studies, where the concepts of health and well-being themselves may not be comparable. Moreover, their measurement instruments may not function equivalently.
This study focuses on the U.S. Hispanics and examines three variables: 1) self-rated health (SRH) and 2) life satisfaction (LS) measured with single item and 3) LS measured with five items. On SRH, Hispanics are known to report negative health more than non-Hispanic Whites, and non-equivalent translation of the English response categories of “excellent,” “very good,” “good,” “fair,” and “poor” has been hypothesized as a potential contributor. With the 5-item LS scale, all items are stated in a positive direction and asked with the Likert-type agreement response scale. As Hispanics are shown to be associated with acquiescent response style, the current 5-item LS scale may lead to an overestimation of LS for Hispanics. Motivated by these specific issues, we implemented the following experiments: 1) on SRH, translation of the response category, “fair,” into “regular” versus “passable”; and 2) on the five-item LS scale, direction of item wordings to be all positive versus balanced. Respondents were randomly assigned to one of the two conditions under each experiment. Using this experimental data, we will examine simple response distribution, item characteristics based on item response theory and relationships across three measures. These examinations will be carried out by considering interview language. The main data will come from a telephone survey of 1,296 U.S. Hispanics, supplemented by a Web survey a nonprobability sample of 1,416 Spanish speakers in the U.S. The web survey data was provided by SurveyMonkey, but all analysis will be done by the authors.
This study focuses on the U.S. Hispanics and examines three variables: 1) self-rated health (SRH) and 2) life satisfaction (LS) measured with single item and 3) LS measured with five items. On SRH, Hispanics are known to report negative health more than non-Hispanic Whites, and non-equivalent translation of the English response categories of “excellent,” “very good,” “good,” “fair,” and “poor” has been hypothesized as a potential contributor. With the 5-item LS scale, all items are stated in a positive direction and asked with the Likert-type agreement response scale. As Hispanics are shown to be associated with acquiescent response style, the current 5-item LS scale may lead to an overestimation of LS for Hispanics. Motivated by these specific issues, we implemented the following experiments: 1) on SRH, translation of the response category, “fair,” into “regular” versus “passable”; and 2) on the five-item LS scale, direction of item wordings to be all positive versus balanced. Respondents were randomly assigned to one of the two conditions under each experiment. Using this experimental data, we will examine simple response distribution, item characteristics based on item response theory and relationships across three measures. These examinations will be carried out by considering interview language. The main data will come from a telephone survey of 1,296 U.S. Hispanics, supplemented by a Web survey a nonprobability sample of 1,416 Spanish speakers in the U.S. The web survey data was provided by SurveyMonkey, but all analysis will be done by the authors.
Access/Direct link Conference Homepage (abstract) / (presentation)
Year of publication2017
Bibliographic typeConferences, workshops, tutorials, presentations
Web survey bibliography (4086)
- Displaying Videos in Web Surveys: Implications for Complete Viewing and Survey Responses; 2017; Mendelson, J.; Lee Gibson, J.; Romano Bergstrom, J. C.
- Using experts’ consensus (the Delphi method) to evaluate weighting techniques in web surveys not...; 2017; Toepoel, V.; Emerson, H.
- 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.
- Answering Without Reading: IMCs and Strong Satisficing in Online Surveys; 2017; Anduiza, E.; Galais, C.
- Ideal and maximum length for a web survey; 2017; Revilla, M.; Ochoa, C.
- Social desirability bias in self-reported well-being measures: evidence from an online survey; 2017; Caputo, A.
- Web-Based Survey Methodology; 2017; Wright, K. B.
- Handbook of Research Methods in Health Social Sciences; 2017; Liamputtong, P.
- Lessons from recruitment to an internet based survey for Degenerative Cervical Myelopathy: merits of...; 2017; Davies, B.; Kotter, M. R.
- Web Survey Gamification - Increasing Data Quality in Web Surveys by Using Game Design Elements; 2017; Schacht, S.; Keusch, F.; Bergmann, N.; Morana, S.
- Effects of sampling procedure on data quality in a web survey; 2017; Rimac, I.; Ogresta, J.
- Comparability of web and telephone surveys for the measurement of subjective well-being; 2017; Sarracino, F.; Riillo, C. F. A.; Mikucka, M.
- Achieving Strong Privacy in Online Survey; 2017; Zhou, Yo.; Zhou, Yi.; Chen, S.; Wu, S. S.
- A Meta-Analysis of the Effects of Incentives on Response Rate in Online Survey Studies; 2017; Mohammad Asire, A.
- Telephone versus Online Survey Modes for Election Studies: Comparing Canadian Public Opinion and Vote...; 2017; Breton, C.; Cutler, F.; Lachance, S.; Mierke-Zatwarnicki, A.
- Examining Factors Impacting Online Survey Response Ratesin Educational Research: Perceptions of Graduate...; 2017; Saleh, A.; Bista, K.
- Usability Testing for Survey Research; 2017; Geisen, E.; Romano Bergstrom, J. C.
- 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.
- Interviewer effects on onliner and offliner participation in the German Internet Panel; 2017; Herzing, J. M. E.; Blom, A. G.; Meuleman, B.
- Interviewer Gender and Survey Responses: The Effects of Humanizing Cues Variations; 2017; Jablonski, W.; Krzewinska, A.; Grzeszkiewicz-Radulska, K.
- Millennials and emojis in Spain and Mexico.; 2017; Bosch Jover, O.; Revilla, M.
- Where, When, How and with What Do Panel Interviews Take Place and Is the Quality of Answers Affected...; 2017; Niebruegge, S.
- Comparing the same Questionnaire between five Online Panels: A Study of the Effect of Recruitment Strategy...; 2017; Schnell, R.; Panreck, L.
- Nonresponses as context-sensitive response behaviour of participants in online-surveys and their relevance...; 2017; Wetzlehuetter, D.
- Do distractions during web survey completion affect data quality? Findings from a laboratory experiment...; 2017; Wenz, A.
- Predicting Breakoffs in Web Surveys; 2017; Mittereder, F.; West, B. T.
- Measuring Subjective Health and Life Satisfaction with U.S. Hispanics; 2017; Lee, S.; Davis, R.
- Humanizing Cues in Internet Surveys: Investigating Respondent Cognitive Processes; 2017; Jablonski, W.; Grzeszkiewicz-Radulska, K.; Krzewinska, A.
- A Comparison of Emerging Pretesting Methods for Evaluating “Modern” Surveys; 2017; Geisen, E., Murphy, J.
- The Effect of Respondent Commitment on Response Quality in Two Online Surveys; 2017; Cibelli Hibben, K.
- Pushing to web in the ISSP; 2017; Jonsdottir, G. A.; Dofradottir, A. G.; Einarsson, H. B.
- The 2016 Canadian Census: An Innovative Wave Collection Methodology to Maximize Self-Response and Internet...; 2017; Mathieu, P.
- 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.
- In search of best practices; 2017; Kappelhof, J. W. S.; Steijn, S.
- Redirected Inbound Call Sampling (RICS); A New Methodology ; 2017; Krotki, K.; Bobashev, G.; Levine, B.; Richards, S.
- An Empirical Process for Using Non-probability Survey for Inference; 2017; Tortora, R.; Iachan, R.
- The perils of non-probability sampling; 2017; Bethlehem, J.
- A Comparison of Two Nonprobability Samples with Probability Samples; 2017; Zack, E. S.; Kennedy, J. M.
- 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.
- Necessary but Insufficient: Why Measurement Invariance Tests Need Online Probing as a Complementary...; 2017; Meitinger, K.
- Nonresponse in Organizational Surveying: Attitudinal Distribution Form and Conditional Response Probabilities...; 2017; Kulas, J. T.; Robinson, D. H.; Kellar, D. Z.; Smith, J. A.
- Theory and Practice in Nonprobability Surveys: Parallels between Causal Inference and Survey Inference...; 2017; Mercer, A. W.; Kreuter, F.; Keeter, S.; Stuart, E. A.
- Is There a Future for Surveys; 2017; Miller, P. V.
- Reducing speeding in web surveys by providing immediate feedback; 2017; Conrad, F.; Tourangeau, R.; Couper, M. P.; Zhang, C.
- Social Desirability and Undesirability Effects on Survey Response latencies; 2017; Andersen, H.; Mayerl, J.
- A Working Example of How to Use Artificial Intelligence To Automate and Transform Surveys Into Customer...; 2017; Neve, S.
- A Case Study on Evaluating the Relevance of Some Rules for Writing Requirements through an Online Survey...; 2017; Warnier, M.; Condamines, A.
- Estimating the Impact of Measurement Differences Introduced by Efforts to Reach a Balanced Response...; 2017; Kappelhof, J. W. S.; De Leeuw, E. D.
- Targeted letters: Effects on sample composition and item non-response; 2017; Bianchi, A.; Biffignandi, S.