Internet surveys as part of a mixed-mode design

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

Volumn , Issue , 2018, Pages 45-76

  de Leeuw, Edith D ^a   Hox, Joop J ^a  

^a UTRECHT UNIVERSITY   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 85129985835     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: None     Document Type: Chapter

References (71)

1. American Psychological Association. (1986). Guidelines for computer-based tests and interpretations. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association (APA).
2. Bergstrom, B. (1992). Ability measure equivalence of computer adaptive and paper and pencil tests: A research synthesis. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco (as cited by Wang et al., 2007).
3. Bethlehem, J. G. (2008). Representativity of Web surveys-An illusion? In I. Stoop & M. Wittenberg (Eds.), Access panels and online research: Panacea or pitfall? (pp. 19-44). Amsterdam: Aksant/DANS. Retrieved from http://www.jelkebethlehem.nl/surveys/ papers/bethlehem01.pdf
4. Biemer, P. P. & Lyberg, L. E. (2003). Introduction to survey quality. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
5. Blyth, B. (2008a). Mixed-mode: The only "fitness" regime? International Journal of Market Research, 50(2), 241-266.
6. Blyth, B. (2008b). The implications of variation in national data collection mode access and rate of access change: A European overview. Paper presented at the 3MC conference, Berlin.
7. Bronner, F. & Kuijlen, T. (2007). The live or digital interviewer: A comparison between CASI, CAPI, and CATI with respect to differences in response behaviour. International Journal of Market Research, 49(2), 167-190.
8. Christian, L. M., Dillman, D. A., & Smyth, J. D. (2005). Instructing Web and telephone respondents to report date answers in format desired by the surveyor. Social and Economic Sciences Research Center Technical Report 05-067. Retrieved November 4, 2009, from http://survey.sesrc.wsu.edu/dillman/papers.htm
9. Christian, L. M., Dillman, D. A., & Smyth, J. D. (2008). The effects of mode and format on answers to scalar questions in telephone and Web surveys. In J. M. Lepkowski, C. Tucker, J. M. Brick et al. (Eds.), Advances in telephone survey methodology (pp. 250-275). New York: John Wiley & Sons.
10. Cole, M. S., Bedeian, A. G., & Feild, H. S. (2006). The measurement equivalence of Web-based and paper-and-pencil measures of transformational leadership: A multinational test. Organizational Research Methods, 9(3), 339-368.
11. Cook, C., Heath, F., & Thompson, R. L. (2000). A meta-analysis of response rates in Web- or Internet-based surveys. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 60(6), 821-836.
12. Couper, M. P. (2000). Web surveys: A review of issues and approaches. Public Opinion Quarterly, 64, 464-494.
13. Couper, M. P. (2008). Designing effective Web surveys. New York: Cambridge University Press.
14. Couper, M. P. & De Leeuw, E. D. (2003). Nonresponse in cross-cultural and cross-national surveys. In J. A. Harkness, A. J. R. Van de Vijver, & P. Mohler (Eds.), Cross-cultural survey methods (pp. 157-177). New York: John Wiley & Sons.
15. Couper, M. P., Kapteyn, A., Schonlau, M., & Winter, J. (2007). Noncoverage and nonresponse in an Internet survey. Social Science Research, 36(1), 131-148.
16. De Leeuw, E. D. (1992). Data quality in mail, telephone, and face-to-face surveys. Amsterdam: TT-Publikaties. Retrieved from http://www.xs4all.nl/~edithl
17. De Leeuw, E. D. (2005). To mix or not to mix data collection modes in surveys. Journal of Official Statistics, 21, 233-255. Retrieved from http://www.jos.nu
18. De Leeuw, E. D. (2008). Choosing the method of data collection. In E. D. De Leeuw, J. J. Hox, & D. A. Dillman (Eds.), International handbook of survey methodology (pp. 113-135). European Association of Methodology Series. New York: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
19. De Leeuw, E. D., Hox, J. J., & Dillman, D. A. (2008a). The cornerstones of survey research. In E. D. De Leeuw, J. J. Hox, & D. A. Dillman (Eds.), International handbook of survey methodology (pp. 1-17). European Association of Methodology Series. New York: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
20. De Leeuw, E. D., Hox, J. J., & Dillman, D. A. (2008b). Mixed-mode surveys: When and why. In E. D. De Leeuw, J. J. Hox, & D. A. Dillman (Eds.), International handbook of survey methodology (pp. 299-316). European Association of Methodology Series. New York: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
21. De Leeuw, E. D., Hox, J. J., & Kef, S. (2003). Computer-assisted self-interviewing tailored for special populations and topics. Field Methods, 15, 223-251.
22. Dillman, D. A. (2007). Mail and Internet surveys: The tailored design method (2nd ed.). New York: John Wiley & Sons.
23. Dillman, D. A. (2008). The logic and psychology of constructing questionnaires. In E. D. De Leeuw, J. J. Hox, & D. A. Dillman (Eds.), International handbook of survey methodology (pp. 161-175). European Association of Methodology Series. New York: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
24. Dillman, D. A., Brown, T. L., Carlson, J., Carpenter, E. H., Lorenz, F. O., Mason, R. et al. (1995). Effects of category order on answers to mail and telephone surveys. Rural Sociology, 60, 674-687.
25. Dillman, D. A. & Christian, L. M. (2005). Survey mode as a source of instability across surveys. Field Methods, 17, 30-52.
26. Dillman, D. A., Phelps, G., Tortora, R., Swift, K., Kohrell, J., Berck, J. et al. (forthcoming). Response rate and measurement differences in mixed mode surveys using mail, telephone, interactive voice response, and the Internet. Retrieved from http://survey.sesrc.wsu.edu/dillman/papers.htm (earlier version).
27. Dillman, D. A., Smyth, J. D., & Christian, L. M. (2009). Internet, mail, and mixed-mode surveys: The tailored design method (3rd ed.). New York: John Wiley & Sons.
28. Dillman, D. A., Smyth, J. D., Christian, L. M., & O'Neill, A. (2008). Will a mixed-mode (mail/Internet) procedure work for random household surveys of the general public? Paper presented at the annual conference of the American Association for Public Opinion Research (AAPOR), New Orleans, Louisiana.
29. Epstein, J. & Klinkenberg, W. D. (2001). From Eliza to Internet: A brief history of computerized assessment. Computers in Human Behavior, 17, 295-314.
30. Ferrando, P. J. & Lorenzo-Seva, U. (2005). IRT-related factor analytic procedures for testing the equivalence of paper-and-pencil and Internet-administered questionnaires. Psychological Methods, 10(2), 193-205.
31. Fricker, S., Galesic, M., Tourangeau, R., & Yan, T. (2005). An experimental comparison of Web and telephone surveys. Public Opinion Quarterly, 69(3), 370-392.
32. Groves, R. M. (1989). Survey errors and survey costs. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
33. Gwaltney, C. J., Shields, A. L., & Shiffman, S. (2008). Equivalence of electronic and paper-and-pencil administration of patient-reported outcome measures: A meta-analytic review. Value in Health, 11(2), 322-333.
34. Hacking, I. (1990). The taming of chance. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
35. Heerwegh, D., Billiet, J., & Loosveldt, G. (2005). Opinies op bestelling? Een experimenteel onderzoek naar het effect van vraagverwoording en sociale wenselijkheid op de proportie voor-en tegenstanders van gemeentelijk migrantenstemrecht [Opinions on demand? An experimental investigation of the effect of question wording and social desirability on the proportion of proponents and opponents of municipal suffrage for immigrants]. Tijdschrift voor Sociologie, 26(3), 189-208.
36. Heerwegh, D. & Loosveldt, G. (2008). Face-to-face versus Web surveying in a high-Internet-coverage population: Differences in response quality. Public Opinion Quarterly, 72(5), 836-846.
37. Heiser, W. (1996). De probabilisering van het wereldbeeld [Chance and our view of the world]. Invited lecture, University of Groningen, symposium in honor of Professor Ivo Molenaar.
38. Jäckle, A., Roberts, C., & Lynn, P. (2007). Assessing the effect of data collection mode on measurement. Paper presented at the ISI conference, Lisbon, Portugal. See also ISER working paper 2006-41. Retrieved June 27, 2009, from http://www.iser.essex.ac.uk/publications/working-papers/iser/2006-41.pdf
39. Kim, J.-P. (1999). Meta-analysis of equivalence of computerized and P&P tests on ability measures. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Midwestern Educational Research Association, Chicago (retrieved from ERIC).
40. Krauter, F., Presser, S., & Tourangeau, R. (2008). Social desirability bias in CATI, IVR, and Web surveys: The effect of mode and question sensitivity. Public Opinion Quarterly, 72(5), 847-865.
41. Krug, S. (2006). Don't make me think: A common sense approach to Web usability: How we really use the Web. Retrieved April 2009 from http://www.sensible.com/chapter.html
42. Lee, S. (2006). Propensity score adjustment as a weighting scheme for volunteer panel Web surveys. Journal of Official Statistics, 22(2), 329-249. Retrieved from http://www.jos.nu
43. Link, M. W. & Mokdad, A. H. (2005). Effects of survey mode on self-reports of adult alcohol consumption: A comparison of mail, Web and telephone approaches. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 66, 239-245.
44. Lozar Manfreda, K., Bosnjak, M., Berzelak, J., Haas, I., & Vehovar, V. (2008). Web surveys versus other survey modes: A meta-analysis comparing response rates. International Journal of Market Research, 50(1), 79-104.
45. Lundstrom, S. & Sarndal, C.-E. (2002). Estimation in the presence of nonresponse and frame imperfections. Statistics Sweden.
46. Martin, E., Childs, J. H., DeMaio, T., Hill, J., Reiser, C., Gerber, E. et al. (2007). Guidelines for designing questionnaires for administration in different modes. Washington, DC: U.S. Bureau of the Census. Retrieved July 2009 from http://www.census.gov/srd/mode-guidelines.pdf
47. Mead, A. D. & Drasgow, F. (1993). Equivalence of computerized and paper-and-pencil cognitive ability tests: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 114(3), 449-458.
48. Meade, A. W., Michels, L. C., & Lautenschlager, G. J. (2007). Are Internet and paper-and-pencil personality tests truly comparable? An experimental design measurement invariance study. Organizational Research Methods, 10(2), 322-345.
49. Oosterveld, P. & Willems, P. (2003). Two modalities, one answer? Combining Internet and CATI surveys effectively in market research. In D. S. Fellows (Ed.), Technovate (pp. 141-150). Amsterdam: ESOMAR.
50. Preckel, F. & Thieman, H. (2001). Testing intellectual giftedness on the Web: Development of a new figural matrices test-online versus paper-and-pencil versions. Paper presented at the General Online Research conference (GOR '01), Göttingen, Germany. Retrieved April 2009 from www.gor.de
51. 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(5), 754-775.
52. Roberts, C. (2007). Mixing modes of data collection in surveys: A methodological review. ESRC/NCRM Methods Review Paper 008. Retrieved July 2009 from http://eprints.ncrm.ac.uk/418/1/MethodsReviewPaperNCRM-008.pdf
53. Rookey, B. D., Hanway, S., & Dillman, D. A. (2008). Does a probability-based household panel benefit from assignment to postal response as an alternative to Internet-only? Public Opinion Quarterly, 72(5), 962-984.
54. Schuman, H. & Presser, S. (1981). Questions and answers in attitude surveys. New York: Academic Press.
55. Shih, T.-H. & Fan, X. (2008). Comparing response rates from Web and mail surveys: A meta-analysis. Field Methods, 20, 249-271.
56. Sikkel, D., Hox, J. J., & De Leeuw, E. D (2009). Using auxiliary data for adjustment in longitudinal research. In P. Lynn (Ed.). Methodology of longitudinal surveys (pp. 141-155). New York: John Wiley & Sons.
57. Smyth, J. D., Christian, L. M., & Dillman, D. A. (2008). Does yes or no on the telephone mean the same as check-all-that-apply on the Web? Public Opinion Quarterly, 72(1), 103-113.
58. Smyth, J. D., Dillman, D. A., Christian, L. M., & Stern, M. J. (2006). Comparing check-all and forced-choice question formats in Web surveys. Public Opinion Quarterly, 70(1), 66-77.
59. Sudman, S. & Bradburn, N. M. (1974). Response effects in surveys: A review and synthesis. Chicago: Aldine.
60. Toepoel, V. (2008). A closer look at Web questionnaire design. CentER for Economic Research Dissertation Series, no. 220, Tilburg University, the Netherlands.
61. Tourangeau, R., Rips, L. J., & Rasinski, K. (2000). The psychology of survey response. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
62. Tourangeau, R. & Smith, T. W. (1996). Asking sensitive questions: The impact of data collection mode, question format, and question context. Public Opinion Quarterly, 60, 275-304.
63. Turner, C. F., Forsyth, B. H., O'Reilly, J. M., Cooley, P. C., Smith, T. K., Rogers, S. M. et al. (1998). Automated self-interviewing and the survey measurement of sensitive behaviors. In M. P. Couper, R. P. Baker, J. Bethlehem et al. (Eds.), Computer-assisted survey information collection (pp. 455-473). New York: John Wiley & Sons.
64. Van Buuren, S., Eyres, S., Tennant, A., & Hopman-Rock, M. (2005). Improving comparability of existing data by response conversion. Journal of Official Statistics, 21, 53-72.
65. Vandenburg, R. & Lance, C. E. (2000). A review and synthesis of the measurement invariance literature: Suggestions, practices, and recommendations for organizational research. Organizational Research Methods, 3(1), 4-70.
66. Van Ewijk, R. (2004). Onderzoek via telefoon en Internet: De verschillen [Surveys by means of telephone and Internet: The differences]. Clou, 14, 38-40.
67. Van Meurs, A., Van Ossenbruggen, R., & Nekkers, L. (2009). Rotte appels? Controle op kwaliteit van antwoordgedrag in het Intomart GfK Online Panel [Do rotten apples spoil the whole barrel? Checking the quality of responses in the Intomart GfK Online Panel]. In A. E. Bronner et al. (Eds)., Ontwikkelingen in het Marktonderzoek, Jaarboek Marktonderzoek Associatie, 34, 61-81.
68. Wang, S., Jiao, H., Young, M. J., Brooks, T., & Olson, J. (2007). A meta-analysis of testing mode effects in grade K-12 mathematics tests. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 67(2), 219-238.
69. Wang, S., Jiao, H. Young, M. J., Brooks, T., & Olson, J. (2008). Comparability of computer-based and paper-and-pencil testing in K-12 reading assessments: A meta-analysis of testing mode effects. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 68(1), 5-24.
70. Willems, P., Van Ossenbruggen, R., & Vonk, T. (2006). The effect of panel recruitment and management on research results: A study across 19 online panels. Proceedings of the ESOMAR World Research Conference, Panel Research 2006, 317, 79-99. Amsterdam: ESOMAR.
71. Wine, J. S., Cominole, M. B., Heuer, R. E., & Riccobono, J. A. (2006). Challenges of designing and implementing multimode instruments. Paper presented at the Second International Conference on Telephone Survey Methodology, Miami, Florida. Retrieved March 2009 from http://www.rti.org/pubs/TSM2006_Wine_paper.pdf