The infusion of internet-based surveys and postal mail surveys: Guidelines for counselors

Journal of Technology in Counseling

Volumn 3, Issue 1, 2003, Pages

  McGlothlin, Jason M ^a  

^a KENT STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 3042672718     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Review

References (24)

1. Association for Counselor Education and Supervision Technology Interest Network. (1999). Technical competencies for counselor education students: Recommended guidelines for program development. Retrieved May 22, 2002, from http://filebox.vt.edu/users/thohen/competencies.htm
2. Bachman, D., Elfrink, & Vazzana, G. (1996). Tracking the progress of e-mail vs. snail mail. Marketing Research, 8(2), 30-35.
3. Best, S. J., Krueger, B., Hubbard, C., & Smith, A. (2001). An assessment of the generalizability of Internet surveys. Social Sciences Computer Review, 19 (2), 131-145.
4. Bosnjak, M. & Tuten, T. L. (2001, April). Classifying response behaviors in web-based surveys. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 6 (3). Retrieved March 11, 2002, from http://www.ascusc.org/jcmc/vol6/issue3/boznjak.html
5. Cook, C., Heath, F., Thompson, R. L., & Thompson, B. (2001, Aug.). Score reliability in web- or Internet-based surveys: Unnumbered graphic rating scales versus likert-type scales. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 61 (4), 697-706.
6. Council for Accreditation of Counseling and Related Educational Programs. (2001). Accreditation standards and procedures manual. Alexandria, VA: American Counseling Association.
7. Crawford, S. D., Couper, M. P., & Lamias, M. J. (2001). Web surveys: Perceptions of burden. Social Sciences Computer Review, 19 (2), 146-162.
8. Epstein, J., Klinkenberg, W. D., Wiley, D., & McKinley, L. (2001, May). Insuring sample equivalence across Internet and paper-and-pencil assessments. Computers in Human Behavior, 17 (3), 339-346.
9. Guterbock, T. M., Meekins, B. J., Weaver, A. C., & Fries, J. C. (2000, May). Web versus paper: A mode experiment in a survey of university computing. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Association of Public Opinion Research, Portland, OR.
10. Kiesler, S., & Sproull, L. S. (1986). Response effects in the electronic survey. Public Opinion Quarterly, 50, 402-413.
11. Kittleson, M. J. (1995, Mar.-Apr.). Assessment of the response rate via the postal service and e-mail. Health Values, 19 (2), 27-39.
12. Kwak, N., & Radler, B.T. (2000, May). Using the Web for public opinion research: A comparative analysis between data collected via mail and the Web. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Association of Public Opinion Research, Portland, OR.
13. McGlothlin, J. (2001). Council for Accreditation of Counseling and Related Educational Programs: An evaluation of the perceived benefit of core curriculum standards to professional practice. Digital Dissertations International. (AAT 3022998).
14. Medin, C., Roy, S., & Ham Chai, T. (1999). World Wide Web versus mail surveys: A comparison and report. Paper presented at ANZMAC99 Conference: Marketing in the Third Millennium, Sydney, Australia.
15. Mehta, R., & Sivada, E. (1995). Comparing response rates and response content in mail versus electronic mail surveys. Journal of the Market Research Society, 17(4), 429-440.
16. Mehta, R., & Sivadas, E.. (1995, Oct.). Comparing response rates and response content in mail versus electronic mail surveys. Journal of the market Research Society, 37 (4), 429-439.
17. National Board of Certified Counselors, Inc. (1997). Standards for the ethical practice of webcounseling. Retrieved August 8, 2002, from http://www.nbcc.org/wcstandards.htm.
18. NUA Internet Surveys. (2002). How many online? Retrieved August 8, 2002, from http://www.nua.ie/surveys/how_many_online/index.html
19. Paolo, A. M., Bonaminio, G. A., Gibson, C., Partridge, T., & Kallail, K. (2000). Response rate comparisons of e-mail- and mail-distributed student evaluations. Teaching and Learning in Medicine, 12 (2), 81-84.
20. Ranchhod, A., & Zhou, F. (2000). Comparing respondents of e-mail and mail surveys: Understanding the implications of technology. Marketing Intelligence and Planning, 19 (4), 254-262.
21. Schaefer, Dr. R., & Dillman, D. A. (1998). Development of a standard e-mail methodology: Results of an experiment. Public Opinion Quarterly, 62(3), 378-397.
22. Sheehan, K. (2001, Jan.). E-mail survey response rates: A review. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 6 (2). Retrieved March 11, 2002, from http://www.ascusc.org/jcmc/vol6/issue2/sheehan.html
23. Sheehan, K. B. & Hoy, M. G. (2001, Jan.). Using E-mail to survey Internet users in the United States: Methodology and assessment. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 6 (2). Retrieved March 11, 2002, from http://www.ascusc.org/jcmc/vol4/issue3/sheehan.html
24. Tse, A., Tse, K. C., Yin, C. H., Ying, C. B., Yi, K. W., Yee, K. P., & Hong, W. C. (1995). Comparing two methodologies of sending out questionnaires: E-mail versus mail. Journal of the Market Research Society, 17(4), 441-445.