Web Survey Bibliography
Progress indicators are used to inform participants of surveys about the degree of completion and the remaining quantity of questions. The main aim of progress indicators is to reduce drop out rates. Theory holds that this is accomplished by allowing participants to estimate the remaining time till completion. Participants might base their estimation on the time invested in relation to the number of completed items and the perceived speed of the progress indicator. If the estimated time till completion is beyond acceptance the participant drops out.A common method displays the number of pages/items completed and the total number of pages/items in the survey. These numbers may be visualized by a graphical bar which either substitutes the numbers or supports them. Instead of the raw pages/items numbers the percentage of completed pages/items may be displayed. These methods can be characterized as static approaches in computing the percentage till completion. When using surveys which implement filter techniques this leads to a serious problem: filters used to skip non-appropriate items for groups of participants cause the progress indicator to jump to completion rather than progress in a smooth way. This behaviour results in unpredictable percentages in the view of participants and thus ruins the advantages of predictable time estimations.To cope with this problem a number of computing methods were developed which can be characterized as dynamic approach. With an algorithm easy to implement the overall pages or items missing till completion are estimated for the participant on every page displayed together with an estimated total number of pages/items in the survey. These numbers vary in accordance with the filter path of the survey resulting in a smooth completion of the progress indicator. Dynamic approaches are shown which address the problem of static approaches. A web-experiment with different types of progress indicators was conducted. The experiment included a control group without progress indicator and demonstrates the impact of static vs. dynamic approaches and the perceived speed of the progress indicator on the drop out.
Homepage - conference (abstract)
Web survey bibliography - 2005 (76)
- The ethics of research using electronic mail discussion groups; 2005; Kralik, D., Warren, J., Koch, T., Pignone, G., Price, K.
- The Analyses of Domestic Study about Internet Survey; 2005; Rui, L., Tie-ying, S.
- Controlling the Baseline Speed of Respondents: An Empirical Evaluation of Data Treatment Methods of...; 2005; Mayerl, J.
- Determinanten der Rücklaufquote in Online-Panels; 2005; Batanic, B., Moser, K.
- On the cost-efficiency of probability sampling based mail surveys with a Web response option; 2005; Werner, P.
- Expert workshop on mixed mode data collection in comparative social surveys; 2005; Roberts, C.
- The Effect Of A Simultaneous Mixed-Mode (Mail And Web) Survey On Respondent Characteristics And Survey...; 2005; Brennan, M.
- The total survey error approach. A guide to the new science of survey research; 2005; Weisberg, H. F.
- The professional respondent problem in online panel surveys today; 2005; Fulgoni, G.
- Satisficing behavior in online panelists; 2005; Downes-Le Guin, T.
- Reading behavior in the digital environment: Changes in reading behavior over the past ten years; 2005; Liu, Z.
- Rating versus comparative trade-off measures. Trending changes in political issues across time and predictive...; 2005; Thomas, R. K., Behnke, S., Johnson, Al., Sanders, M.
- Publication bias: Recognizing the problem, understanding its origins and scope, and preventing harm; 2005; Dickersin, K.
- Panel proliferation and quality concerns; 2005; Faasse, J.
- Gricean effects in self-administered survey. Ph.D. Dissertation; 2005; Yan, T.
- Drop-down boxes, radio buttons, or fill-in-the-blank? Web survey scale-type effects; 2005
- Does weighting for nonresponse increase the variance of survey means?; 2005; Little, R. J., Vartivarian, S.
- Big scale observations gathered with the help of client side paradata; 2005; Haraldsen, G., Kleven, O., Sundvoll, A.
- User Interface Design and Evaluation ; 2005; Stone, D., Jarrett, C., Woodroffe, M., Minocha, S.
- Adding Value to Data Through Improved Access. The Case for Web Portals; 2005; Baker, R. P.
- Multi-Mode Research and Data Linkage. Theoretical and Practical Advice; 2005; Terhanian, G.
- Architectural Design of a Survey Questionnaire and Respondent Data Repository. Practical Considerations...; 2005; Cookson, P., Sobell, J.
- Developing and validating a nursing website evaluation questionnaire; 2005; Tsai, S. - L., Chai, S.-K.
- Workaround: Site’s surveys beat pop-up blockers, yield responses; 2005; Arnold, C.
- The Story of Subject Naught: A Cautionary but Optimistic Tale of Internet Survey Research; 2005; Konstan, J. A., Ross, M. W., Rosser, B. R. S., Stanton, J. M., Edwards, W. M.
- Standards in Online Surveys. Sources for Professional Codes of Conduct, Ethical Guidelines and Quality...; 2005; Kaczmirek, L., Schulze, N.
- Computer adaptive testing; 2005; Gershon, R. C.
- Ego control and ego-resiliency: Generalization of self-report scales based on personality descriptions...; 2005; Block, J., Funder, D. C., Letzring, T. D.
- The Web experiment list: A Web service for the recruitment of participants and archiving of Internet...; 2005; Reips, U. -D., Lengler, R.
- Survey of substance use among high school students in Taipei: Web-based questionnaire versus paper-and...; 2005; Wang, Y. C., Lee, C. M., Lew-Ting, C. Y., Hsiao, C. K., Chen, W. J.
- Web Surveys. A Brief Guide on Usability and Implementation Issues; 2005; Kaczmirek, L.
- An assessment of measurement invariance between online and mail surveys ; 2005; Deutskens, E., de Ruyter, K., Wetzels, M.
- E-mail versus Web survey response rates among health education professionals; 2005; Kittleson, M. J., Brown, S. L.
- Toward An Open-Source Methodology: What We Can Learn From The Blogosphere; 2005; M.
- Aux Abonnes Absents: Liste Rouge Et Telephone Portable Dans Les Enquetes En Population Generale Sur...; 2005; Beck, F., ., Peretti-Watel, P.
- Web Versus Paper Questionnares: A Design and Functionality - Comparison; 2005; Jones, Ja., Fraser, C., Dowling, Z.
- Web Surveys and the new Disability Discrimination Act; 2005; Macer, T.
- Mixed-mode Surveys Using Mail and Web Questionnaires; 2005; Meckel, M., Baugh, P., Walters, D.
- Sampling procedure, questionnaire design, online implementation; 2005; Jackob, N., Arens, J., Zerback, T., Jowell, R., de Rouvray, C.
- Simple Approaches to Estimating the Variance of the Propensity Score Weighted Estimator Applied on Volunteer...; 2005; Isaksson, A., Lee, S., de Rouvray, C.
- Simple Approaches to Estimating the Variance of the Propensity Score Weighted Estimator Applied on Volunteer...; 2005; Isaksson, A., Lee, S.
- Alternative Modes for Health Surveillance Surveys: An Experiment with Web, Mail, and Telephone; 2005; Link, M. W., Mokdad, A.
- An Experimental Comparison Of Web And Telephone Surveys; 2005; Fricker, S., Galesic, M., Tourangeau, R., Yan, T.
- Organizational Virtual Communities: Exploring Motivations Behind Online Panel Participation; 2005; Daugherty, T., Lee, W.-N., Gangadharbatla, H., Kim, K., Outhavong, S.
- Promoting Uniform Question Understanding in Today's and Tomorrow's Surveys; 2005; Conrad, F. G., Schober, M. F.
- Is a Web survey as effective as a mail survey? A field experiment among computer users; 2005; Kiernan, N. E., Kiernan, M., Oyler, M. A., Gilles, C.
- The effect of personalization on response rates and data quality in web surveys; 2005; Heerwegh, D., Vanhove, T., Matthijs, K., Loosveldt, G.
- When Methodology Interferes With Substance; 2005; Schoen, H., Faas, T.
- Web-based and Mailed Questionnaires: A Comparison of Response Rates and Compliance; 2005; Baelter, K., Balter, O., Fondell, E., Trolle-Lagerros, Y.
- Bleeding Edge or Proven Technology? The Fact and the Fiction of Mobile Survey Computing; 2005; Cameron, M. R.