Response latency as an indicator of optimizing in online questionnaires

Bulletin de Méthodologie Sociologique

Volumn 103, Issue 1, 2009, Pages 5-25

  Callegaro, Mario ^a   Yang, Yongwei ^b   Bhola, Dennison S ^c   Dillman, Don A ^d   Chin, Tzu Yun ^e  

^a Knowledge Networks Inc   (United States)

^b Gallup Inc   (United States)

^c Leaming and Technology Solutions   (United States)

^d WASHINGTON STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^e UNIVERSITY OF NEBRASKA LINCOLN   (United States)

Author keywords

Evaluation de la personnalit ; Impression Management; Personality Assessment; Pr sentation de soi; Questionnaire sur le Web; Response Time; Satisficing; Temps de r ponse; Web Administered Questionnaire

Indexed keywords

EID: 77950766634     PISSN: 07591063     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/075910630910300103     Document Type: Article

References (36)

1. Allsop, D., & Weisberg, H.F. (1988). Measuring change in party identification in an election campaign. American Journal of Political Science, 32, 996–1017.
2. Bassili, J.N. (1993). Response latency versus certainty as indexes of the strength of voting intentions in a CATI survey. Public Opinion Quarterly, 57, 54–61.
3. Bassili, J.N. (1995). On the psychological reality of party identification: Evidence from the accessibility of voting intentions and of partisan feelings. Political Behavior, 17, 339–357.
4. Bassili, J.N. (1996a). The how and why of response latency measurement in surveys. In N. Schwarz & S. Sudman (eds.), Answering questions: Methodology for determining cognitive and communicative processes in survey research (pp. 319–346). San Francisco: Jossey Bass.
5. Bassili, J.N. (1996b). Meta-judgmental versus operative indexes of psychological attributes: The case of measures of attitude strength. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71, 637–653.
6. Bassili, J.N. (2000). Editor's introduction: Reflections on response latency measurement in telephone surveys. Political Psychology, 21, 1–6.
7. Bassili, J.N., & Scott, B.S. (1996). Response latency as a signal to question problems in survey research. Public Opinion Quarterly, 60, 390–399.
8. Chessa, A.G., & Holleman, B.C. (2007). Answering attitudinal questions. Modeling the response process underlying contrastive questions. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 21, 203–225.
9. Draisma, S., & Dijkstra, W. (2004). Response latencies and (para)linguistic expressions as indicators of response error. In S. Presser, J. M. Rothgeb, M. P. Couper, J. T. Lessler, E. Martin, J. Martin & E. Singer (eds.), Methods for testing and evaluating survey questionnaires (pp. 131–147). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
10. Edwards, A.L. (1957). The social desirability variable in personality assessment. New York: Dryden Press.
11. Fazio, R.H., Powell, M.C., & Herr, P.M. (1983). Toward a process model of the attitude-behavior relation: Accessing one's attitude upon mere observation of the attitude object. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 44, 723–735.
12. Fazio, R.H., & Williams, C.J. (1986). Attitude accessibility as a moderator of the attitude-perception and attitude-behavior relationships: An investigation of the 1984 presidential election. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 505–514.
13. Fletcher, J.F. (2000). Two-timing: Politics and response latencies in a bilingual survey. Political Psychology, 21, 27–55.
14. Heerwegh, D. (2003). Explaining response latencies and changing answers using client-side paradata from a Web survey. Social Science Computer Review, 21, 360–373.
15. Heerwegh, D. (2004, June 4–5). Uses of client side paradata in Web surveys. Paper presented at the International symposium in honor of Paul Lazarsfeld, Brussels.
16. Holleman, B.C. (2005). Question wording effects and processes of question answering. A different way to measure response latencies. In C. van Dijkum, J. Blasius & C. Durand (eds.), Recent developments and applications in social research methodology [Cd-Rom]. Leverkusen-Opladen: Barbara Budrich.
17. Huckfeldt, R., Levine, J., Morgan, W., & Sprague, J. (1999). Accessibility and political utility of partisan and ideological orientations. American Journal of Political Science, 43, 888–911.
18. Johnson, M. (2004). Timepieces: Components of survey question response latencies. Political Psychology, 25, 679–702.
19. Krosnick, J.A. (1991). Response strategies for coping with the cognitive demands of attitude measures in surveys. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 5, 213–236.
20. Krosnick, J.A. (1992). The impact of cognitive sophistication and attitude importance on response order effects and question order effects. In N. Schwarz & S. Sudman (eds.), Context effects in social and psychological research (pp. 203–218). New York: Springer.
21. Krosnick, J.A. (1999). Survey Research. Annual Review of Psychology, 50, 537–567.
22. Krosnick, J.A., & Alwin, D.F. (1987). An evaluation of a cognitive theory of response-order effect in survey measurement. Public Opinion Quarterly, 51, 201–209.
23. Krosnick, J.A., Narayan, S., & Smith, W.R. (1996). Satisficing in surveys: Initial evidence. New Directions for Program Evaluation, 70, 29–44.
24. Luce, R.D. (1986). Response times: Their role in inferring elementary mental organization. New York: Oxford University Press.
25. Marsh, L.C., & Cormier, D.R. (2002). Spline regression models. Thousands Oaks, CA: Sage.
26. Mayerl, J. (2006). Controlling the baseline speed of respondents: An empirical evaluation of data treatment methods of response latencies. In C. van Dijkum, J. Blasius & C. Durand (eds.), Recent developments and applications in social research methodology [Cd-Rom]. Leverkusen-Opladen: Barbara Budrich.
27. Raudenbush, S.W., & Bryk, A.S. (2002). Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data analysis methods (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
28. Richman, W.L., Kiesler, S., Wiesband, 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.
29. Schnipke, D.L., & Scrams, D.J. (2002). Exploring issues of examinee behavior: Insights gained from response-time analyses. In C. N. Mills, M. Potenza, J. J. Fremer & W. C. Ward (eds.), Computer-based testing. Building the foundation for future assessments (pp. 237–266). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
30. Smith, P.L. (1979). Splines as a useful and convenient statistical tool. The American Statistician, 33, 57–62.
31. Stocké, V. (2002). Die vorhersage von fragenreihenfolgeeffekten durch antwortlatenzen: Eine validierungsstudie. In ZUMA-Nachrichten 50 (pp. 26–53). Mannheim, Germany: Zentrum für Umfragen, Methoden und Analysen.
32. Stocké, V. (2004). Measuring information accessibility and predicting response-effects: The validity of response-certainties and response-latencies. Metodološki zvezki, Advances in Methodology and Statistics, 1, 33–55.
33. Sudman, S., Bradburn, N.M., & Schwarz, N. (1996). Thinking about answers. The application of cognitive processes to survey methodology. San Francisco: Jossey Bass.
34. Tourangeau, R., Rips, L.J., & Rasinski, K. (2000). The psychology of survey response. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
35. Wise, S.L., Bhola, D.S., & Yang, S.T. (2006). Taking the time to improve the validity of low-stake tests: The effort-monitoring CBT. Educational Measurements: Issues and Practice, 25, 21–30.
36. Yan, T., & Tourangeau, R. (2008). Fast times and easy questions: The effects of age, experience and question complexity on Web survey response times. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 22, 51–68.