Comparison of US panel vendors for online surveys

Journal of Medical Internet Research

Volumn 15, Issue 11, 2013, Pages

  Craig, Benjamin M ^a,b   Hays, Ron D ^c,d   Pickard, A Simon ^e   Cella, David ^f   Revicki, Dennis A ^g   Reeve, Bryce B ^h  

^a H LEE MOFFITT CANCER CENTER AND RESEARCH INSTITUTE   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH FLORIDA   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^d RAND CORPORATION   (United States)

^e UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS AT CHICAGO   (United States)

^f NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^g EVIDERA   (United States)

^h UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA   (United States)

Author keywords

Community surveys; Data sources; Internet; Sampling bias; Selection bias; Survey methods

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; COMMUNITY SURVEYS; DATA SOURCES; HUMAN; INFORMATION PROCESSING; INTERNET; SAMPLING BIAS; SELECTION BIAS; SURVEY METHODS; UNITED STATES;

COMMUNITY SURVEYS; DATA SOURCES; INTERNET; SAMPLING BIAS; SELECTION BIAS; SURVEY METHODS;

ADULT; DATA COLLECTION; HUMANS; INTERNET; UNITED STATES;

MLCS; MLOWN;

EID: 84902300508     PISSN: None     EISSN: 14388871     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2196/jmir.2903     Document Type: Article

References (29)

1. Baker R, Blumberg S, Brick JM, Couper MP, Courtright M, Dennis M, et al. AAPOR Report on Online Panels. 2010 Mar. URL: http://www.aapor.org/AM/Template.cfm?Section=AAPOR_Committee_and_Task_Force_Reports&Template=/CM/ContentDisplay.cfm&ContentID=2223 [accessed 2013-11-12] [WebCite Cache ID 6L4jObT1S]
2. Berrens RP, Bohara AK, Jenkins-Smith H, Silva C, Weimer DL. The advent of Internet surveys for political research: A comparison of telephone and Internet samples. Polit Anal 2003;11:1-22. [doi: 10.1093/pan/11.1.1]
3. Duffy B, Smith K, Terhanian G, Bremer J. Comparing data from online and face-to-face surveys. Int J Market Res 2005;47:615-639.
4. Grandjean BD, Taylor PA, Nelson NM. Comparing an Internet panel survey to mail and phone surveys on “willingness to pay” for environmental quality: a national mode test. In: The American Association for Public Opinion Research (AAPOR) 64th Annual Conference, May. Hollywood, FL; 2009 Presented at: The American Association for Public Opinion Research (AAPOR) 64th Annual Conference; May 14-17, 2009; Hollywood, FL p. 5779-5793.
5. Hirsch O, Hauschild F, Schmidt MH, Baum E, Christiansen H. Comparison of Web-based and paper-based administration of ADHD questionnaires for adults. J Med Internet Res 2013;15(3):e47 [FREE Full text] [doi: 10.2196/jmir.2225] [Medline: 23518816]
6. Leece P, Bhandari M, Sprague S, Swiontkowski MF, Schemitsch EH, Tornetta P, et al. Internet versus mailed questionnaires: a randomized comparison (2). J Med Internet Res 2004 Sep 24;6(3):e30 [FREE Full text] [doi: 10.2196/jmir.6.3.e30] [Medline: 15471756]
7. Rao K, Kaminska O, McCutcheon AL. Recruiting probability samples for a multi-mode research panel with Internet and mail components. Public Opinion Quarterly 2010 Feb 16;74(1):68-84. [doi: 10.1093/poq/nfp091]
8. Roster CA, Rogers RD, Albaurn G, Klein D. A comparison of response characteristics from web and telephone surveys. Int J Market Res 2004;46:359-373.
9. Whitehead L. Methodological issues in Internet-mediated research: a randomized comparison of internet versus mailed questionnaires. J Med Internet Res 2011;13(4):e109 [FREE Full text] [doi: 10.2196/jmir.1593] [Medline: 22155721]
10. Yeager DS, Krosnick JA, Chang L, Javitz HS, Levendusky MS, Simpser A, et al. Comparing theaccuracy of RDD telephone surveys and Internet surveys conducted with probability and non-probability samples. Public Opinion Quarterly 2011 Oct 05;75(4):709-747. [doi: 10.1093/poq/nfr020]
11. ESOMAR. 26 Questions To Help Research Buyers Of Online Samples. Amsterdam: ESOMAR; 2008. Knowledge and StandardsURL: http://www.esomar.org/uploads/public/knowledge-and-standards/codes-and-guidelines/ESOMAR_26-Questions-To-Help-Research-Buyers-Of-Online-Samples.pdf [accessed 2013-04-09] [WebCite Cache ID 6KuZxVobQ]
12. American Association For Public Opinion Research. 2013. URL: http://www.aapor.org/Home.htm [accessed 2013-05-16] [WebCite Cache ID 6JsInebXC]
13. Quirk's Marketing Research Review. Saint Paul, MN: Quirk Enterprises; 2011 Nov. 2011 Research Panels DirectoryURL: http://www.quirks.com/pdf/201111_quirks.pdf [accessed 2011-11-01] [WebCite Cache ID 6KucHafFY]
14. Council of American Survey Research Organizations. 2013. URL: http://www.casro.org/ [accessed 2013-05-16] [WebCite Cache ID 6JsJ0CRsX]
15. Craig BM, Reeve BB. Methods Report on the PROMIS Valuation Study: Year 1. 2012 Sep 27. URL: http://labpages.moffitt.org/craigb/Publications/Report120928.pdf [accessed 2013-09-24] [WebCite Cache ID 6JsJHcdnH]
16. United States Census Bureau. United States Census 2010. URL: http://www.census.gov/2010census/pdf/2010_Questionnaire_Info.pdf [accessed 2013-11-05] [WebCite Cache ID 6KudgfQrS]
17. Zip Code Tabulation Areas (ZCTAs). 2012. United States Census BureauURL: http://www.census.gov/geo/reference/zctas. html [accessed 2013-03-13] [WebCite Cache ID 6Kucl3NLD]
18. Selected Social Characteristics in the United States: 2010 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates. 2010. United States Census BureauURL: http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?pid=ACS_10_1YR_DP03&prodType=table [accessed 2013-05-16]
19. Selected Social Characteristics in the United States: 2010 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates. 2010. United States Census BureauURL: http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?pid=ACS_10_1YR_DP02&prodType=table [accessed 2013-05-16]
20. Eysenbach G, Wyatt J. Using the Internet for surveys and health research. J Med Internet Res 2002;4:e13. [doi: 10.2196/jmir.4.2.e13]
21. Liu H, Cella D, Gershon R, Shen J, Morales LS, Riley W, et al. Representativeness of the patient-reported outcomes measurement information system Internet panel. J Clin Epidemiol 2010 Nov;63(11):1169-1178 [FREE Full text] [doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2009.11.021] [Medline: 20688473]
22. Brick JM. The future of survey sampling. Public Opinion Quarterly 2011 Dec 15;75(5):872-888. [doi: 10.1093/poq/nfr045]
23. Sparrow N. Developing reliable online polls. Int J Market Res 2006;48:659-680.
24. Sparrow N. Quality issues in online research. J Advert Res 2007;47:179-182.
25. Wood FB, Benson D, LaCroix EM, Siegel ER, Fariss S. Use of Internet audience measurement data to gauge market share for online health information services. J Med Internet Res 2005 Jul 1;7(3):e31 [FREE Full text] [doi: 10.2196/jmir.7.3.e31] [Medline: 15998622]
26. PROMIS Health Organization, PROMIS Cooperative Group. PROMIS-29 Profile v1.0. Investigator Format 2008-2012. URL: https://www.assessmentcenter.net/ac1//files/pdf/44b7636201a34267a9213db7f69f2c6d.pdf [accessed 2012-08-28] [WebCite Cache ID 6KubEo6qZ]
27. Sugiura H, Ohkusa Y, Akahane M, Sano T, Okabe N, Imamura T. Development of a web-based survey for monitoring daily health and its application in an epidemiological survey. J Med Internet Res 2011;13(3):e66 [FREE Full text] [doi: 10.2196/jmir.1872] [Medline: 21946004]
28. Fox S, Rainie L. The online health care revolution: How the Web helps Americans take better care of themselves. Washington, DC: Pew Internet & American Life Project; 2000 Nov. URL: http://www.pewinternet.org/ [accessed 2013-11-05] [WebCite Cache ID 6KueySfNc]
29. Callegaro M, DiSogra C. Computing response metrics for online panels. Public Opinion Quarterly 2009 Jan 29;72(5):1008-1032. [doi: 10.1093/poq/nfn065]