Web Survey Bibliography
Title Exploring Online Survey Metodologies: Who are the Respondents and How to Get them to respond
Author Wolter-Warmerdam, K., Gardinali, A.P., Wong, R.
Year 2003
Access date 07.05.2004
Abstract Although the collection of survey data using the internet has become increasingly popular, the concern whether the responses are representative of the larger population has presented a major challenge to survey researchers. Using data collected from the Student Experience in the Research University in the Twenty-First Century (SERU21) study, this paper seeks to compare the characteristics of respondents and non-respondents and the methodologies to elicit responses from a well-defined undergraduate population at the University of California system.
About seven thousand undergraduates from seven participating University of California campuses were sampled. Electronic invitations were sent to each student to solicit participation in the study. Students were also randomly assigned to three different subgroups, each receiving a different email invitation sequence. The variation was designed to explore which strategy would provide the most effective mean to yield positive responses from students. In addition, a follow-up telephone survey was conducted with a representative sample of non-respondents after the completion of the online survey. The follow-up telephone survey of 216 non-respondents collected detailed information regarding the reasons for their lack of participation as well as selected items from the online survey.
Using information from various sources as described above, the study will: (1) compare the characteristics of respondents and non-respondents to see if response biases exist; (2) compare the response rates from the three groups to see which invitation sequence is the most effective method; and (3) examine whether non-responses may also be conditional on the invitation sequencing. Findings from the study will provide an informed understanding of possible biases in collecting survey data over the internet, even in a well-defined population that has wide electronic access.
About seven thousand undergraduates from seven participating University of California campuses were sampled. Electronic invitations were sent to each student to solicit participation in the study. Students were also randomly assigned to three different subgroups, each receiving a different email invitation sequence. The variation was designed to explore which strategy would provide the most effective mean to yield positive responses from students. In addition, a follow-up telephone survey was conducted with a representative sample of non-respondents after the completion of the online survey. The follow-up telephone survey of 216 non-respondents collected detailed information regarding the reasons for their lack of participation as well as selected items from the online survey.
Using information from various sources as described above, the study will: (1) compare the characteristics of respondents and non-respondents to see if response biases exist; (2) compare the response rates from the three groups to see which invitation sequence is the most effective method; and (3) examine whether non-responses may also be conditional on the invitation sequencing. Findings from the study will provide an informed understanding of possible biases in collecting survey data over the internet, even in a well-defined population that has wide electronic access.
Access/Direct link Homepage - conference (abstract)
Year of publication2003
Bibliographic typeConferences, workshops, tutorials, presentations
Web Survey Bibliography - The American Association for Public Opinion Research (AAPOR) 58th Annual Conference, 2003 (45)
- Validations in Web-based Surveys; 2003; Crawford, S. D., Peytchev, A.
- Use and non-use of clarification features in web surveys; 2003; Tourangeau, R., Baker, R. P., Couper, M. P., Conrad, F. G.
- Web Experiment: Examining the Effect of Error Prompting on Item Nonresponse and Survey Nonresponse; 2003; Mooney, G., Rogers, B., Trunzo, D.
- Mode Effects in Web-enabled, Telephone and Face-to-Face Foreign Policy Surveys; 2003; Kull, S., Wolford, M. L.
- Differences in Mode of Questionnaire Administration: Self-Administered Web vs. CATI/CAPI; 2003; Carley-Baxter, L. R.
- The Effect of Data Collection Modality on Students’ Foreign Language Survey; 2003; Shieh, Y. Y.
- How web surveys differ from other kinds of user interfaces; 2003; Ehlen, P., Schober, M. F., Conrad, F. G.
- Differences in the Political Attitudes and Behavior of Cell and Land Line Telephone Users; 2003; Traugott, M. W., Joo, S. H.
- Surveys Using Cellular Telephones: A Feasibility Study; 2003; Steeh, C. G.
- Go With the Flow: Cognitive Testing of a Multi-mode, Multi-Agency Survey about Drinking Water; 2003; Wilson, B. F., Kamimoto, L. A., Whitaker, K. R., Williams, M., Dockins, C., Kim, H., Posnick, L. M.,...
- Asking Comparative Questions: A Comparison Of Three Wording Strategies; 2003; Liu, K.
- Comparing Propensity Score Weighting with Other Weighting Methods: A Case Study; 2003; Forsman, G., Varedian, M.
- It’s Only Incidental: Effects of Response Format in Determining Behavioral or Event Occurrence; 2003; Lafond, C.R., Smith, M. R., Behnke, C. S., Thomas, R. K.
- Evaluating Unit nonresponse Rates in Web Surveys - A Meta Study; 2003; Vehovar, V., Lozar Manfreda, K., Koren, G., Dolničar, V.
- Achieving high response rates on web-based surveys of post-secondary students; 2003; Nichols, L.B., Ghadialy, R.
- The Effects of Cash, Electronic, and Paper Gift Certificates as Respondent Incentives for a Web-Based...; 2003; Birnholtz, J. P., Horn, D. B., Finholt, T. A., Bae, S. J.
- Developing a Strategy for Sampling U.S. Mobile Phone Users Based on European Models; 2003; Buskirk, T. D., Callegaro, M.
- Comparing Internet “River,” Internet; 2003; Feld, K. G.
- A Comparison between Using the Web and Using the Telephone to Survey Political Opinions; 2003; Forsman, G., Isaksson, A.
- Design implementation of a Multimode Web Survey; 2003; Wine, S.J., Cominole, M.B., Carwile, D.S., Perry, K.
- Partnering with a Newspaper to Assess Community Opinion Online; 2003; Downs, E.P., Lindley, A.M.
- Implementing a Web Survey Administration System at the GAO; 2003; Feldesman, A.G.
- Cognitive Processes in Web Surveys; 2003; Fuchs, M.
- Using Internet-Based Surveys With Physicians, What Works and What Doesn't Work; 2003; Schneiderman, M., Thran, S., Adams, C., Lerner, B.
- Exploring Online Survey Metodologies: Who are the Respondents and How to Get them to respond; 2003; Wolter-Warmerdam, K., Gardinali, A.P., Wong, R.
- Using RGI (Respondent Generated Interval) to gather factual information in a web survey; 2003; Lusinchi, P.D.
- Methodological issues in Web data collection of ego-centered networks; 2003; Vehovar, V., Lozar Manfreda, K., Koren, G., Hlebec, V.
- Can What We Don’t Know (about “Don’t Know”) Hurt Us?: Effects of Item Non-response...; 2003; Krosnick, J. A., Behnke, C. S., Lafond, C.R., Thomas, R. K.
- How Does Ranking Rate?: A Comparison of Ranking and Rating Tasks.; 2003; Krosnick, J. A., Shaeffer, E. M., Thomas, R. K.
- Web vs. IVR: Mode Effects in Structured Interviews Utilizing Rating Scales; 2003; Callegaro, M., Bhola, D. S., Yang, Y.
- What They See Is What We Get: Response Options for Web Surveys; 2003; Tourangeau, R., Crawford, S. D., Conrad, F. G., Couper, M. P.
- Measuring Visual Political Knowledge; 2003; Prior, M.
- Collecting Eye Tracking Data to Test QUAID, A Web Facility that Helps Survey Methodologists Identify...; 2003; Graesser, A., Daniel, K. F., Cai, Z., Cooper, E., Whitten, S., Louwerse, M.
- Survey content foreknowledge and response rate; 2003; Ehrlich, N. J.
- Web Survey Design: Comparing Static and Interactive Survey Instruments; 2003; Nyiri, Z., Clark L.R.
- Comparing Web-Based Survey Methods with other Approaches: An examination of health knowledge, opinion...; 2003; Greiling, K.A., McCarrier, P.K., Stringer, M.C.
- The role of issue involvement in UK public attitudes to the single European currency; 2003; Roberts, E.C.
- Using an Instructional Web Site for Respondents to Improve Response Quality; 2003; Trussell, N., Lai, J. W., Shuttles, D. C.
- Partipation in Online Surveys: Results from a Series of Experiments; 2003; Kiniorski, A. K., Smith, M. R.
- Propensity score and calibration as bias reducing techniques in surveys based on Internet panels: application...; 2003; Johansson, C., Lorenc, B.
- When Respondents Know Too Much: Limitations of Web Surveys for Electoral Research; 2003; Callum, N., J., Sturgis, P.
- Measuring Customer Satisfaction with a Salient Event: An Experimental Design Analyzing the Impact of...; 2003; Schuldt, G. R., McDevitt, P. K.
- Effects of sponsor identity and perceived data security on response rates and data quality; 2003; Davis, B., Levin, K., O'Brien, J., Wang, A., Gordon, A., Shipp, S.
- Does Order Really Make a Difference? The Impact of Respondent and Question Characteristics on Response...; 2003; O'Neill, G.E.
- An Experiment with Respondent Burden in a Pop-Up Web Survey; 2003; David, P., Horner, L. R., Diedrichs, C., Rogers, S. M., Connell, T.