Web Survey Bibliography
Self-selected samples and the lack of representativity of internet users, on topics other than the internet or computers, remain the prominent problems of standardized online surveys. The inherent coverage bias means that, in many cases, populations cannot be reflected by the internet community, for not everybody has access to the internet and, thus, the chance to respond. Often times, the sampling procedure cannot be carried out in the same manner as for classical data collection, which incurs further problems like sampling bias or self-recruitment. The quantification of the nonresponse bias and other statistical measures of fit is basically impracticable; therefore, judgements on data quality fail or have to be doubted.
The object of this study was a parallel, written and web-based, student evaluation survey. In order to isolate possible biases, a two-stage process was applied: first, a laboratory experiment assessed the measurement error caused by the collection mode. Subsequently, a random sample (n=484; N=985) were surveyed, testing for nonresponse bias. During both stages, respondents were randomly assigned to one of the two modes, both of which using the same questionnaire in terms of its content. As a result, significant differences occurred neither for the answers given nor for the rate of return, but only for the speed of return. As a consequence, this pilot project may be extended into an interconnected study at several nearby universities, gaining further consolidated findings on the comparability of modes and preparing a federal investigation.
Selbstselektierte Stichproben und fehlende Repräsentativität von Internetnutzern bei Erhebungsthemen jenseits von Internet und Computern sind die Hauptprobleme von standardisierten Online-Befragungen. Das medienbedingte Coverage-Problem führt dazu, daß die abzubildenden Grundgesamtheiten für viele Fragestellungen durch die Internetnutzer noch nicht widergespiegelt werden, weil nicht jedes Subjekt Zugang zum Internet und somit keine Möglichkeit zur Teilnahme hat. Stichprobenziehungen sind in der Praxis häufig nicht in gleicher Weise möglich wie bei klassischen Erhebungsformen, was zu weiteren Verzerrungseffekten durch Stichprobenfehler oder Selbstrekrutierung führt. Die Quantifizierung des Nonresponse-Fehlers sowie weiterer inferenzstatistischer Gütekriterien wird dadurch weitestgehend unmöglich, so daß Aussagen über die Datenqualität meist ausbleiben oder zweifelhaft sind.
Untersuchungsgegenstand dieser Studie ist eine parallele schriftliche und web-basierte Studierendenbefragung zum Hochschulranking. Um mögliche Verzerrungseffekte zu isolieren, wird ein zweistufiges Verfahren eingesetzt, wobei im ersten Schritt der methodenbedingte Meßfehler durch ein Laborexperiment bestimmt wird. In der anschließenden Felderhebung zur Ermittlung des Nonresponse-Fehlers wird eine Zufallsstichprobe (n=484; N=985) ausgewählt. In beiden Phasen werden die Probanden zufällig einer der beiden zu vergleichenden Erhebungsmethoden zugewiesen und inhaltlich die gleichen Meßinstrumente (HTML- bzw. Papierfragebogen) eingesetzt. Im Ergebnis traten signifikante Unterschiede zwischen beiden Erhebungsmethoden weder bei den gegebenen Antworten noch bei den Rücklaufquoten auf, sondern nur bei der Rücklaufgeschwindigkeit. In der Folge könnte dieses Pilotprojekt als Verbunduntersuchung auf weitere Fakultäten an den nordrhein-westfälischen Universitäten an Rhein und Ruhr ausgeweitet werden, um die Erkenntnisse über die Vergleichbarkeit zu verdichten und eine bundesweite Ausdehnung vorzubereiten.
Homepage - conference (abstract)
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.