Web Survey Bibliography
Title Use and non-use of clarification features in web surveys
Access date 10.05.2004
Full text pdf (364k)
Abstract Survey respondents sometimes interpret the words in survey questions differently than intended by question authors and this can lead to inaccurate answers. One way to clarify the intended meaning is to make definitions available. In Web surveys, it is possible to link words and their definitions so that respondents can click for clarification if they realize they might benefit from doing so and are willing to perform the necessary steps. In this paper we report an experiment in which we varied the familiarity of question terms (e.g. antioxidant vs. beer), the informativeness of the definitions (e.g. vegetables includes French fries vs. beef includes meat from cows) and the number of clicks required to obtain definitions (one, two or more). The experiment was embedded in a survey administered to a sample obtained from Survey Sampling Inc., yielding over 2,500 respondents, randomly assigned to the different conditions. Respondents were asked four questions about their consumption of food and nutrition. Overall, respondents were unlikely to obtain definitions (only about one sixth of respondents obtained one or more definitions) suggesting that many misconceptions go uncorrected. When respondents obtained at least one definition, they did so far more often for unfamiliar than familiar terms, indicating that they rarely recognize mismatched interpretations of words that they believe they know. On those occasions when definitions were obtained for familiar terms, they were more often informative than uninformative suggesting that respondents recognized the mismatch; the pattern was reversed for unfamiliar terms. Finally definitions were more likely to be obtained the fewer the number of required clicks reflecting respondents? willingness to expend truly minimum effort to clarify meaning. We discuss the results in terms of designing interactive Web survey features that are likely to be used, thus reducing measurement error.
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.