Web Survey Bibliography
Title Interviewer effects on onliner and offliner participation in the German Internet Panel
Author Herzing, J. M. E.; Blom, A. G.; Meuleman, B.
Year 2017
Access date 16.09.2017
Abstract Research has shown that interviewers play a crucial role in obtaining cooperation from sample units. While previous studies investigate the influence of interviewers on unit nonresponse, they typically focus on face-to-face or telephone interviews. Yet recently, we have seen a rise in probability-based online panels, where interviewers recruit panelists for the online panel during face-to-face or telephone interviews. Furthermore, we know from research that recruiting previously offline sample units into probability-based online panels is difficult and that high nonresponse rates among such offliners threaten the representativeness of online panels. Our paper therefore considers the role that interviewers play in recruiting offliners into a probability-based online panel.
We use data from the recruitment interview of the German Internet Panel (GIP). The GIP is a probability-based, face-to-face recruited online panel, which includes persons without computers and/or internet by equipping them with needed devices. In addition, we use data from an interviewer survey conducted among the interviewers involved in the face-to-face recruitment of the GIP.
We investigate whether there is an interviewer effect on people’s likelihood to participate in the GIP. We analyze which interviewer characteristics determine participation in the GIP and investigate whether the interviewer effects and explanatory interviewer characteristics found differ, when interviewers try to recruit previously-offline as compared to previously-online persons.
We find significant interviewer effects on participation in the GIP. We further find that interviewers do not differentially affect the participation of onliners and offliners. However, the interviewer characteristics associated with the successful recruitment of onliners differs from those associated with recruiting offliners. For example, older interviewers are better at recruiting offliners than younger interviewers, but interviewer age has no effect on the recruitment of onliners. In addition, interviewers who expect to achieve higher recruitment rates are better at recruiting onliners than interviewers expecting low recruitment rates, but interviewers’ expectations have no effect on offliner recruitment.
We use data from the recruitment interview of the German Internet Panel (GIP). The GIP is a probability-based, face-to-face recruited online panel, which includes persons without computers and/or internet by equipping them with needed devices. In addition, we use data from an interviewer survey conducted among the interviewers involved in the face-to-face recruitment of the GIP.
We investigate whether there is an interviewer effect on people’s likelihood to participate in the GIP. We analyze which interviewer characteristics determine participation in the GIP and investigate whether the interviewer effects and explanatory interviewer characteristics found differ, when interviewers try to recruit previously-offline as compared to previously-online persons.
We find significant interviewer effects on participation in the GIP. We further find that interviewers do not differentially affect the participation of onliners and offliners. However, the interviewer characteristics associated with the successful recruitment of onliners differs from those associated with recruiting offliners. For example, older interviewers are better at recruiting offliners than younger interviewers, but interviewer age has no effect on the recruitment of onliners. In addition, interviewers who expect to achieve higher recruitment rates are better at recruiting onliners than interviewers expecting low recruitment rates, but interviewers’ expectations have no effect on offliner recruitment.
Access/Direct link Conference Homepage (abstract) / (presentation)
Year of publication2017
Bibliographic typeConferences, workshops, tutorials, presentations
Web survey bibliography - European survey research associaton conference 2017, ESRA, Lisbon (26)
- Effects of sampling procedure on data quality in a web survey; 2017; Rimac, I.; Ogresta, J.
- 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.
- A test of sample matching using a pseudo-web sample; 2017; Chatrchi, G., Gambino, J.
- A Partially Successful Attempt to Integrate a Web-Recruited Cohort into an Address-Based Sample; 2017; Kott, P. S., Farrelly, M., Kamyab, K.
- Nonprobability sampling as model construction; 2017; Mercer, A. W.