Online and traditional paper-and-pencil survey administration: Examining experimenter presence, sensitive material and long surveys

Canadian Journal of Human Sexuality

Volumn 15, Issue 3-4, 2006, Pages 147-155

  Wood, Eileen ^a   Nosko, Amanda ^a   Desmarais, Serge ^b   Ross, Craig ^c   Irvine, Colleen ^a  

^a WILFRID LAURIER UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

^b UNIVERSITY OF GUELPH   (Canada)

^c UNIVERSITY OF WINDSOR   (Canada)

Author keywords

Computerized surveys; Length of survey; Sensitive measures; Survey administration

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; COMPUTER ANALYSIS; CONTROLLED STUDY; FEMALE; HEALTH SURVEY; HUMAN; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; MALE; RATING SCALE; SEXUAL BEHAVIOR; SOCIAL ASPECT;

EID: 34249321947     PISSN: 11884517     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (26)

1. Aquilino, W.S., Wright, D.L., & Supple, A.J. (2000). Response effects due to bystander presence in CASI and paper-and-pencil surveys of drug use and alcohol use. Substance Use & Misuse. Special Issue: Methodological issues in the measurement of drug use, 35, 845-867.
2. Baker, R.P. (1992). New technology in survey research: Computer-assisted personal interviewing. Social Science Computer Review, 10, 145-157.
3. Chuah, S.C., Drasgow, F., & Roberts, B.W. (2006). Personality assessment: Does the medium matter? No. Journal of Research in Personality, 40, 359-376.
4. Crawford, S.D., Couper, M.P., & Lamias, M.J. (2001). Web surveys: Perceptions of burden. Social Science Computer Review, 19, 146-162.
5. Cronk, B.C., & West, J.L. (2002). Personality research on the internet: A comparison of web-based and traditional instruments in take-home and in-class settings. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments & Computers, 34, 177-180.
6. Fox, S., & Schwartz, D. (2002). Social desirability and controllability in computerized and paper-and-pencil personality questionnaires. Computers in Human Behaviour, 18, 389-410.
7. Hanauer, D., Dibble, E., Fortin, J., & Col, N.F. (2004). Internet use among community college students: implications in designing healthcare interventions. Journal of American College Health, 52, 197-202.
8. Hancock, D.R., & Flowers, C.P. (2001). Comparing social desirability responding on World Wide Web and paper-administered surveys. Educational Technology, Research and Development, 49, 5-13.
9. Joinson, A. (1999). Social desirability, anonymity, and Internet-based questionnaires. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments & Computers, 31, 433-438.
10. Knapp, H., & Kirk, S.A. (2003). Using pencil and paper, internet and touch-tone phones for self-administered surveys: Does methodology matter? Computers in Human Behavior, 19, 117-134.
11. Lautenschlager, G.J., & Flaherty, V.L. (1990). Computer administration of questions: More desirable or more social desirability? Journal of Applied Psychology, 75, 310-314.
12. Nosek, B.A., Banaji, M.R., & Greenwald, A.G. (2002). E-research: Ethics, security, design, and control in psychological research on the Internet. Journal of Social Issues, 58, 161-176.
13. Pasveer, K., & Ellard, J. (1998). The making of a personality inventory: Help from the WWW. Behavior Research methods. Instruments, & Computers, 30, 309-313.
14. Paulhus, D.L. (1984). Two-component models of socially desirable responding. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46, 598-609.
15. Pettit, F.A. (2002). A comparison of World-Wide Web and paper-and-pencil personality questionnaires. Behavioral Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 34, 50-54.
16. Reddy, M.K., Fleming, M.T., Howells, N.L., Rabenhorst, M.M., Casselman, R., & Rosenbaum, A. (2006). Effects of method on participants and disclosure rates in research on sensitive topics. Violence and Victims, 21, 499-5-6.
17. Richman, W.L., Kiesler, S., Weisband, S. & Drasgow, F. (1999). A meta-analytic study of social desirability distortion in computer-administered questionnaires, traditional questionnaires, and interviews. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84, 754-775.
18. Rosenbaum, A., Rabenhorst, M.M., Reddy, M.K., Fleming, M.T., & Howells, N.L. (2006). A comparison of methods for collecting self-report data on sensitive topics. Violence and Victims, 21, 461-471.
19. Rubin, A., & Babbie, E. (1993). Research methods for social work. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole.
20. Salgado, J.F., & Moscoso, S. (2003). Internet-based personality testing: Equivalence of measures and assesses' perceptions and reactions. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 11, 194-205.
21. Stanton, J.M., Sinar, E.F., Balzer, W.K., & Smith, P.C. (2002). Issues and strategies for reducing the length of self-report scales. Personnel Psychology, 55, 167-194.
22. Tourangeau, R. (2004). Survey research and societal change. Annual Review of Psychology. 55, 775-801.
23. Tourangeau, R., Rips, L.J., & Rasinski, K. (2000). The Psychology of Survey Response. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
24. Truell, A.D., Bartlett, J.E., & Alexander, M.W. (2002). Response rate, speed and completeness: A comparison of Internet-based and mail surveys. Behavioral Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 34, 46-49.
25. Turner, C.F., Ku, L., Rogers, S.M., Lindberg, L.D., & Pleck, J.H. (1998). Adolescent sexual behavior, drug use, and violence: Increased reporting with computer survey technology. Science, 280, 867-873.
26. Wood, E., Mueller, J., Willoughby, T., Specht, J., & DeYoung, T. (2005). Teachers' perceptions: Barriers and supports to using technology in the classroom. Education, Communication and Instruction (ECi), 5, 183-206.