The effect of personalization on response rates and data quality in web surveys

International Journal of Social Research Methodology: Theory and Practice

Volumn 8, Issue 2, 2005, Pages 85-99

  Heerwegh, Dirk ^b   Vanhove, Tim ^a   Matthijs, Koen ^a   Loosveldt, Geert ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF LEUVEN   (Belgium)

^b Centre for Survey Methodology   (Belgium)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 18444371468     PISSN: 13645579     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/1364557042000203107     Document Type: Article

References (19)

1. Bosnjak, M., Tuten, T. L., & Bandilla, W. (2001). Participation in web surveys - A typology. ZUMA Nachrichten, 25, 7-17.
2. Cho, H., & LaRose, R. (1999). Privacy issues in Internet surveys. Social Science Computer Review, 17, 421-434.
3. Crawford, S. D., Couper, M. P., & Lamias, M. J. (2001). Web surveys: Perceptions of burden. Social Science Computer Review, 19, 146-162.
4. Dillman, D. A. (2000). Mail and Internet surveys: The tailored design method (2nd ed.). New York: Wiley.
5. Dodd, D. K., & Markwiese, B. J. (1987). Survey response rate as a function of personalized signature on cover letter. Journal of Social Psychology, 127, 97-98.
6. Eisinger, R. A., Janicki, W. P., Stevenson, R. L., & Thompson, W. L. (1974). Increasing returns in international mail surveys. Public Opinion Quarterly, 38, 124-130.
7. Goyder, J., & McKenzie Leiper, J. (2002). The decline in survey response: A social values interpretation. In D. de Vaus (Ed.), Social surveys volume four (pp. 191-210). London: Sage.
8. Heerwegh, D. (2003). Explaining response latencies and changing answers using client side paradata from a web survey. Social Science Computer Review, 21, 360-373.
9. Heerwegh, D. & Loosveldt, G. (2002). Web surveys: The effect of controlling survey access using PIN numbers. Social Science Computer Review, 20, 10-21.
10. Heerwegh, D. & Loosveldt, G. (2003). An evaluation of the semiautomatic login procedure. Social Science Computer Review, 21, 223-234.
11. Henson, R., Cannell, C. F., & Roth, A. (1978). Effect of interview mode on reporting of moods, symptoms, and need for social approval. Journal of Social Psychology, 105, 123-129.
12. Krosnick, J. A. (1991). Response strategies for coping with the cognitive demands of attitude measures in surveys. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 5, 213-236.
13. Krosnick, J. A., Holbrook, A. L., Berent, M. K., Carson, R. T., Hanemann, W. M., Kopp, R. J., et al. (2002). The impact of 'no opinion' response options on data quality. Public Opinion Quarterly, 66, 371-403.
14. Lozar Manfreda, K. (2001). Web survey errors. Unpublished PhD dissertation, University of Ljubljana, Slovenija.
15. Newman, J. C., Des Jarlais, D. C., Paone, D., Turner, C. F., Gribble, J., & Cooley, P. (2002). The differential effects of face-to-face and computer interview modes. American Journal of Public Health, 92, 294-297.
16. Phillips, D., & Clancy, K. J. (2002). Some effects of 'social desirability' in survey studies. In D. de Vaus (Ed.), Social surveys volume three (pp. 37-55). London: Sage.
17. Schaefer, D. R., & Dillman, D. A. (1998). Development of a standard e-mail methodology: Results of an experiment. Public Opinion Quarterly, 62, 378-397.
18. Tourangeau, R., & Smith, T. W. (1996). Asking sensitive questions: The impact of data collection mode, question format and question context. Public Opinion Quarterly, 60, 275-304.
19. Tourangeau, R., Rasinski, K., Jobe, J. B., Smith, T. W., & Pratt, W. F. (1997). Sources of error in a survey on sexual behavior. Journal of Official Statistics, 13, 341-365.