How representative are online panels? Problems of coverage and selection and possible solutions

Social and Behavioral Research and the Internet: Advances in Applied Methods and Research Strategies

Volumn , Issue , 2018, Pages 105-132

  Scherpenzeel, Annette C ^a   Bethlehem, Jelke G ^b,c  

^a TILBURG UNIVERSITY   (Netherlands)

^b STATISTICS NETHERLANDS   (Netherlands)

^c UNIVERSITY OF AMSTERDAM   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 85129932085     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: None     Document Type: Chapter

References (37)

1. Aarts, K., Van der Kolk, H., & Rosema, M. (2007). Een verdeeld electoraat: De Tweede Kamerverkiezingen van 2006 [A divided electorate: The parliamentary elections of 2006]. Utrecht, the Netherlands: Het Spectrum.
2. Bethlehem, J. G. (1988). Reduction of nonresponse bias through regression estimation. Journal of Official Statistics, 4(3), 251-260.
3. Bethlehem, J. G. (2002). Weighting nonresponse adjustments based on auxiliary information. In R. M. Groves, D. A. Dillman, J. L. Eltinge, & R. J. A. Little (Eds.), Survey nonresponse (pp. 275-288). New York: John Wiley & Sons.
4. Bethlehem, J. G. (2007). Reducing the bias of Web survey based estimates. Discussion paper 07001. The Hague/Heerlen, the Netherlands: Statistics Netherlands.
5. Bethlehem, J. G. (2008a). How reliable are self-selection Web surveys? Discussion paper 08014. The Hague/Heerlen, the Netherlands: Statistics Netherlands.
6. Bethlehem, J. G. (2008b). Representativity of Web surveys-an illusion? In I. Stoop & M. Wittenberg (Eds.), Access panels and online research: Panacea or pitfall? Proceedings of the DANS symposium (pp. 19-44). Amsterdam: Aksant.
7. Bethlehem, J. G., Stamhuis, I. H., & Van Maarseveen, J. G. S. J. (2008). Complete enumerations or sampling? The historical debate about sampling for surveys. In I. H. Stamhuis, P. M. M. Klep, & J. G. S. J. Van Maarseveen (Eds.), The statistical mind in modern society: The Netherlands 1850-1940: Volume II. Statistics and scientific work. Amsterdam: Aksant.
8. Börsch-Supan, A., Elsner, D., Fassbender, H., Kiefer, R., McFadden, D., & Winter, J. (2004). Correcting the participation bias in an online survey. Report. University of Munich, Germany.
9. Cochran, W. G. (1968). The effectiveness of adjustment by subclassification in removing bias in observational studies. Biometrics, 24, 209-213.
10. Couper, M. P. (2000). Web surveys: A review of issues and approaches. Public Opinion Quarterly, 64(4), 464-494.
11. Couper, M. P., Baker, R. P., Bethlehem, J. G., Clark, C. Z. F., Martin, J., Nicholls, W. L. et al. (1998). Computer assisted survey information collection. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
12. Couper, M. P., Kapteyn, A., Schonlau, M., & Winter, J. (2007). Noncoverage and non-response in an Internet survey. Social Science Research, 36, 131-148.
13. De Hond, M. (2009). Verschillen tussen de drie peilingen in week 39-2009 [Differences between the three polls in week 39-2009]. Retrieved from http://maurice.ooip.nl/wp-content/ uploads/2009/09/Verschillen-tussen-de-drie-peilingen-sep-20091.pdf
14. De Vos, K. & Knoef, M. (2008). The representativeness of the LISS panel. Paper presented at MESS workshop, Zeist, the Netherlands.
15. Dillman, D. A. & Bowker, D. (2001). The Web questionnaire challenge to survey methodologists. In U.-D. Reips & M. Bosnjak (Eds.), Dimensions of Internet science (pp. 159-178). Lengerich, Germany: Pabst Science Publishers.
16. DPES (2006). Dutch Parliamentary Election Study 2006 [data file]. Retrieved from DANS EASY electronic archiving system, Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS), http://www.dans.knaw.nl
17. Duffy, B., Smith, K., Terhanian, G., & Bremer, J. (2005). Comparing data from online and face-to-face surveys. International Journal of Market Research, 47, 615-639.
18. Horvitz, D. G. & Thompson, D. J. (1952). A generalization of sampling without replacement from a finite universe. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 47, 663-685.
19. Kruskal, W. & Mosteller, F. (1979a). Representative sampling I: Non-scientific literature. International Statistical Review, 47, 13-24.
20. Kruskal, W. & Mosteller, F. (1979b). Representative sampling II: Scientific literature excluding statistics. International Statistical Review, 47, 111-127.
21. Kruskal, W. & Mosteller, F. (1979c). Representative sampling III: The current statistical literature. International Statistical Review, 47, 245-265.
22. Loosveldt, G. & Sonck, N. (2008). An evaluation of the weighting procedures for an online access panel survey. Survey Research Methods, 2, 93-105.
23. Malhotra, N. & Krosnick, J. A. (2007). The effect of survey mode and sampling on inferences about political attitudes and behavior: Comparing the 2000 and 2004 ANES to Internet surveys with non-probability samples. Political Analysis, 15, 286-323.
24. Rosenbaum, P. R. & Rubin, D. B. (1983). The central role of the propensity score in observational studies for causal effects. Biometrika, 70, 41-55.
25. Rosenbaum, P. R. & Rubin. D. B. (1984). Reducing bias in observational studies using subclassification on the propensity score. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 79, 516-524.
26. Schonlau, M., Fricker, R. D., & Elliott, M. N. (2003). Conducting research surveys via e-mail and the Web. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation.
27. Schonlau, M., Van Soest, A., & Kapteyn, A. (2007). Are "webographic" or attitudinal questions useful for adjusting estimates from Web surveys using propensity scoring? Survey Research Methods, 1(3), 155-163.
28. Schonlau, M., Zapert, K., Payne Simon, L., Haynes Sanstad, K., Marcus, S., Adams, J. et al. (2004). A comparison between responses from a propensity-weighted Web survey and an identical RDD survey. Social Science Computer Review, 22, 128-138.
29. Statistics Netherlands. (2007, 2009). ICT gebruik van personen naar persoonskenmerken [ICT use of people by demographics]. Retrieved from http://statline.nl
30. Taylor, H. (2000). Does Internet research work? Comparing online survey results with telephone surveys. International Journal of Market Research, 42(1), 51-63.
31. Terhanian, G., Smith, R., Bremer, J., & Thomas, R. K. (2001). Exploiting analytical advances: Minimizing the biases associated with Internet-based surveys of non-random samples. ARF/ESOMAR: Worldwide Online Measurement, 248, 247-272.
32. 21minuten.nl. (2007a). Report 21minuten.nl Editie 2007. Retrieved from http://www.21minuten.nl/21minuten/images/21minuten_2007_rapport.pdf
33. 21minuten.nl. (2007b). Report representativiteit. Retrieved from http://www.21minuten.nl/21minuten/images/21minuten_2007_representativiteit.pdf
34. Van der Laan, J. (2009). Representativity of the LISS panel. Discussion paper 09041. The Hague/Heerlen, the Netherlands: Statistics Netherlands.
35. Van Ossenbruggen, R., Vonk, T., & Willems, P. (2006). Results, Dutch online panel comparison study (NOPVO). Retrieved from http://www.nopvo.nl.
36. Vehovar, V., Batagelj, Z., & Lozar Manfreda, K. (1999). Web surveys: Can the weighting solve the problem? Proceedings of the Survey Research Methods Section, American Statistical Association, 962-967.
37. Vonk, T., Van Ossenbruggen, R., & Willems, P. (2008). A comparison study across 19 online panels (NOPVO 2006). In I. Stoop & M. Wittenberg (Eds.), Access panels and online research: Panacea or pitfall? Proceedings of the DANS symposium (pp. 53-78). Amsterdam: Aksant.