Survey methods in an age of austerity: Driving value in survey design

International Journal of Market Research

Volumn 54, Issue 1, 2012, Pages

  Williams, Joel ^a  

^a TNS BMRB   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84859958481     PISSN: 14707853     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2501/IJMR-54-1-035-047     Document Type: Article

References (9)

1. Betts, P. & Lound, C. (2010) The application of alternative modes of data collection in UK government social surveys: a report for the Government Statistical Service.
2. Cochran, W.G. (1968) The effectiveness of adjustment by subclassification in removing bias in observational studies. Biometrics, 24, pp. 295-313.
3. Dayen, N. & Farrer, Y. (2010) A structured approach for reducing bias in surveys using online access panels. Worldwide Readership Research Symposium 2009.
4. Dever, J., Rafferty, A. & Valliant, R. (2008) Internet surveys: can statistical adjustments eliminate coverage bias? Survey Research Methods, 2, 2, pp. 47-62.
5. Lee, S. (2006) Propensity score adjustment as a weighting scheme for volunteer panel web surveys. Journal of Official Statistics, 22, 2, pp. 329-349.
6. Nicolaas, G. & Tipping, S. (2006) Mode effects in social capital surveys. Survey Methodology Bulletin, Special Edition, 58, August, pp. 56-74.
7. Schonlau, M., Van Soest, A. & Kapteyn, A. (2007) Are 'webographic' or attitudinal questions useful for adjusting estimates from web surveys using propensity scoring? RAND working paper.
8. Schonlau, M., Van Soest, A., Kapteyn, A. & Couper, M. (2008) Selection bias in web surveys and the use of propensity scores. RAND working paper.
9. Schonlau, M., Zapert, K., Simon, L.P., Sanstad, K., Marcus, S., Adams, J., Spranca, M., Kan, H., Turner, R. & Berry, S. (2004) A comparison between a propensity weighted web survey and an identical RDD survey. Social Science Computer Review, 22, pp. 128-138.