Using pencil and paper, Internet and touch-tone phones for self-administered surveys: Does methodology matter?

Computers in Human Behavior

Volumn 19, Issue 1, 2003, Pages 117-134

  Knapp, Herschel ^a   Kirk, Stuart A ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

Author keywords

Computer; Internet; Self report questionnaires; Survey; Touch tone telephone

Indexed keywords

BEHAVIORAL RESEARCH; INTERNET; PSYCHOLOGY COMPUTING; SOCIAL SCIENCES COMPUTING;

SELF-REPORT QUESTIONNARIES;

TOUCH TONE TELEPHONE SYSTEMS;

EID: 0037212114     PISSN: 07475632     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/S0747-5632(02)00008-0     Document Type: Article

References (29)

1. Anderson B.A., Silver B.D., Abramson P.R. The effects of the race of interviewer on measures of electoral participation by blacks in SRC National Election Studies. Public opinion quarterly. 52:1988;53-88.
2. Baker R.P. New technology in survey research. computer-assisted personal interviewing (CAPI) Social Science Computer Review, Summer. 10(2):1992;145.
3. Brown P., Levinson S. Politeness: some universals in language usage. 1987;Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
4. Couper M.P., Singer E., Kulka R.A. Participation in the 1990 decennial census. politics, privacy, pressure American Politics Quarterly. 26:1998;59-80.
5. DePaulo B.M., Bell K.L. Truth and investment. lies are told to those who care Journal of personality and social psychology. 71:1996;703-716.
6. Dillman D.A. Mail and Internet surveys - the Tailored Design method. 2nd ed. 2000;John Wiley & Sons, New York.
7. Donovan M.A., Drasgow F., Probst T.M. Does computerizing paper-and-pencil job attitudes scales make a difference? New IRT analysies offers insight. Journal of Applied Psychology. 85(2):2000;305-313.
8. Evan W.M., Miller J.R. Differential effects on response bias of computer vs. conventional administration of a social science questionnaire: an exploratory methodological experiment. Behavioral Science. 14:1969;216.
9. Hatchett, S., Schuman, H. (1975-1976). White respondents and race-of-interviewer effects. Public Opinion Quarterly, 39, 523-528.
10. Jones E.F., Forrest J.D. Underreporting of abortion in surveys of US women: 1976 to 1988. Demography. 29:1992;113-126.
11. Kantor J. The effects of computer administration and identification on the job descriptive index (JDI). Journal of Business and Psychology, Spring. 5(3):1991;309-323.
12. Kellogg, P.U. (1909). The Pittsburgh survey. Russell Sage Foundation.
13. Kiesler S., Sproull L.S. Response effects in the electronic survey. Public Opinion Quarterly, Fall. 1986;402.
14. King W.C., Miles E.W. A quasi-experimental assessment of the effect of computerizing noncognitive paper-and-pencil measurements. a test of measurement equivalence Journal of Applied Psychology. December. 80:1995;643-651.
15. Mead A.D., Drasgow F. Equivalence of computerized and paper-and-pencil cognitive ability tests. a meta-analysis Psychological Bulletin. 114(3):1993;449-458.
16. Millstein S.G., Irwin C.E. Acceptability of computer-acquired sexual histories in adolescent girls. Journal of Pediatrics, November. 1983;815.
17. Paperny D.M., Aono J.Y., Lehman R.M., Hammar S.L., Risser J.et al. Computer-assisted detection and intervention in adolescent high-risk health behaviors. Journal of Pediatrics, March. 1990;456.
18. Potosky D., Bobko P. Computer versus paper-and-pencil administration mode and response distortion in noncognitive selection tests. Journal of Applied Psychology. 82(2):1997;293-299.
19. Rosenfield P., Giacalone R.A., Knouse S.B., Doherty L.M., Vincino S.M., Kantor J., Greaves J. Impression management, candor, and microcomputer-based organizational surveys. an individual differences approach Computers in Human Behavior. 7:1991;23-32.
20. Rubin A., Babbie E. Research methods for social work. 2nd ed. 1993;Brooks/Cole Publishing Company, Pacific Grove, CA.
21. Schaeffer N.C. Conversation with a purpose - or conversation? Interaction in the standardized interview. Biemer P.P., Groves R.M., Lyberg L.E., Mathowetz N.A., Sudman S. Measurement error in surveys. 1991;367-391 Wiley, New York.
22. Schuman H., Converse J. The effects of black and white interviewers on white respondents in 1968. Public opinion quarterly. 35:1971;44-68.
23. Singer E., Mathiowetz N., Couper M. The impact of privacy and confidentiality concerns on survey participation. the case of the 1990 US census Public opinion quarterly. 57:1993;465-482.
24. Survey Research Center. A study of the presidential vote: november 1948 - a national survey. 1949;Institute for Social Research - University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan.
25. Tangney J.P., Fischer K. Self-conscious emotions: shame, guilt, embarrassment, and pride. 1995;Guilford Press, New York.
26. Tangney J.P., Miller R.W., Flicker L., Barlow A.D.H. Are shame, guilt, and embarrassment distinct emotions? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 70:1996;1256-1269.
27. Turner C.F., Ku L., Rogers S.M., Lindberg L.D., Pleck J.H., Sonenstein F.L. Technology, experimentation, and the quality of survey data. Science. May(8):1998;847.
28. Waterton J.J., Duffy J.C. A comparison of Computer Interviewing Techniques and traditional methods in the collection of self-report alcohol consumption data in a field survey. International Statistical Review. 52:1984;173.
29. Willis G. The use of psychological laboratory to study sensitive topics. Harrison L., Hughes A. The validity of self-reporting drug use: improving the accuracy of survey estimates. NIDA Monograph 167. 1997;416-438 National Institute on Drug Abuse, Rockville, MD.