Ankieta internetowa jako element mixed-mode survey design: zastosowania, wyzwania perspektywy

• Authors: Rybak Adam

Title variants

EN

Online questionnaire as part of mixed-mode survey design. Applications. Challenges. Perspectives

• Languages of publication: PL EN

Abstracts

EN

The aim of the article is to present the current knowledge on the possibilities and the advisability of the use of online survey mode in conducting surveys in the mixed-mode design. Due to the increasing difficulty in the realization of survey research in the traditional way, it is necessary to search for new solutions. The article presents the main difficulties associated with the use of Web mode, and ways of minimizing them in some areas, mainly by mixing modes in all stages of research. The solutions are based on experiments results published in international methodological literature. Eventually it indicates areas where the current knowledge is inadequate and it is necessary to carry out further experimental research.

Keywords

PL

ankieta internetowa; sondaż internetowy; kwestionariusz internetowy; mieszanie technik sondażu

EN

web survey; online questionnaire; mixed-mode survey design

• Publisher: Uniwersytet Opolski
• Journal: Studia Krytyczne/ Critical Studies
• Year: 2017
• Issue: 4
• Pages: 27-43

Contributors

author

Rybak Adam

• Uniwersytet im. Adama Mickiewicza w Poznaniu

References

• Argaez, Enrique De. 2017. „Internet World Stats”. Pobrano 22 wrzesień 2017 (www.internetworldstats.com).
• Baruch, Yehuda i Brooks C. Holtom. 2008. „Survey response rate levels and trends in organizational research”. Human Relations 61(8):1139–60.
• Bergstrom, Betty. 1992. Ability measure equivalence of computer adaptive and paper and pencil tests: A research synthesis. San Francisco.
• Buskirk, Trent D. i Charles H. Andrus. 2014. „Making Mobile Browser Surveys Smarter”. Field Methods 26(4):322–42.
• Cole, Michael S., Arthur G. Bedeian, i Hubert S. Feild. 2006. „The Measurement Equivalence of Web-Based and Paper-and-Pencil Measures of Transformational Leadership”. Organizational Research Methods 9(3):339–68.
• Couper, Mick. 2013. „Is the sky falling? New technology, changing media, and the future of surveys”. Survey Research Methods 7(3):145–56.
• Couper, Mick P. 2011. „The future of modes of data collection”. Public Opinion Quarterly 75(5 SPEC. ISSUE):889–908.
• Couper, Mick P. i Peter V. Miller. 2008. „Web survey methods: Introduction”. Public Opinion Quarterly 72(5):831–35.
• Couper, Mick P. i Gregg J. Peterson. 2017. „Why Do Web Surveys Take Longer on Smartphones?” Social Science Computer Review 35(3):357–77.
• Dillman, Don A., Jolene D. Smyth, i Leah Melani Christian. 2014. Internet, phone, mail, and mixed mode surveys: The tailored design method (4th ed.). Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons Inc.
• Edwards, Michelle L., Don A. Dillman, i Jolene D. Smyth. 2014. „An experimental test of the effects of survey sponsorship on internet and mail survey response”. Public Opinion Quarterly 78(3):734–50.
• Groves, Robert. 2006. „Nonresponse rates and nonresponse bias in household surveys: What Do We Know about the Linkage between Nonresponse Rates and Nonresponse Bias?” Public Opinion Quarterly 70(5):646–75.
• Groves, Robert M. 2011. „Three eras of survey research”. Public Opinion Quarterly 75(5 SPEC. ISSUE):861–71.
• Gwaltney, Chad J., Alan L. Shields, i Saul Shiffman. 2008. „Equivalence of Electronic and Paper-and-Pencil Administration of Patient-Reported Outcome Measures: A Meta-Analytic Review”. Value in Health 11(2):322–33.
• Jabkowski, Piotr. 2015. Reprezentatywność badań reprezentatywnych?: analiza wybranych problemów metodologicznych oraz praktycznych w paradygmacie całkowitego błędu pomiaru. Poznań: Wydawnictwo Naukowe Uniwersytetu im. Adama Mickiewicza.
• de Leeuw, Edith D. 1992. Data Quality in Mail, Telephone and Face to Face surveys. Amsterdam: TT-Publikaties.
• de Leeuw, Edith D. 2008. „Choosing the Method of Data Collection”. Ss. 113–35 w International Handbook of Survey Methodology, zredagowane przez E. D. de Leeuw, J. J. Hox, i D. A. Dillman. New York: L. Erlbaum Associates.
• de Leeuw, Edith D. i Joop. J. Hox. 2011. „Internet surveys as part of a mixed-mode design”. Ss. 45–76 w Social and Behavioral Research and the Internet. London: Taylor & Francis.
• Mead, Alan D. i Fritz Drasgow. 1993. „Equivalence of computerized and paper-and-pencil cognitive ability tests: A meta-analysis.” Psychological Bulletin 114(3):449–58.
• Meade, A. W., L. C. Michels, i G. J. Lautenschlager. 2007. „Are Internet and paper-andpencil personality tests truly comparable? An experimental design measurement invariance study”. Organizational Research Methods 10(2):322–45.
• Medway, Rebecca L. i Jenna Fulton. 2012. „When more gets you less: A meta-analysis of the effect of concurrent web options on mail survey response rates”. Public Opinion Quarterly 76(4):733–46.
• Millar, Morgan M. i Don A. Dillman. 2011. „Improving response to web and mixed-mode surveys”. Public Opinion Quarterly 75(2):249–69.
• Ministerstwo Cyfryzacji. 2017. „Udostępnianie danych z rejestru PESEL”. Pobrano 18 styczeń 2018 (https://www.gov.pl/cyfryzacja/udostepnianie-danych-z-rejestru-pesel1).
• Neyman, Jerzy. 1934. „On the Two Different Aspects of the Representative Method?: The Method of Stratified Sampling and the Method of Purposive Selection Author(s): Jerzy Neyman Source?: Journal of the Royal Statistical Society , Vol . 97 , No . 4 (1934), pp . 558-625 Pub”. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society 97(4):558–625.
• Olson, Kristen, Jolene D. Smyth, i Heather M. Wood. 2012. „Does giving people their preferred survey mode actually increase survey participation rates? an experimental examination”. Public Opinion Quarterly 76(4):611–35.
• Porter, Stephen R. i Michael E. Whitcomb. 2007. „Mixed-mode contacts in web surveys”. Public Opinion Quarterly 71(4):635–48.
• Preckel, Franzis i Helge Thiemann. 2003. „Online- versus paper-pencil-version of a high potential intelligence test”. Swiss Journal of Psychology 62(2):131–38.
• Sakshaug, Joseph W., Ting Yan, i Roger Tourangeau. 2010. „Nonresponse error, measurement error, and mode of data collection: Tradeoffs in a multi-mode survey of sensitive and non-sensitive items”. Public Opinion Quarterly 74(5):907–33.
• Shudong Wang, Hong Jiao, M. J. Young, T. Brooks, i J. Olson. 2007. „A Meta-Analysis of Testing Mode Effects in Grade K-12 Mathematics Tests”. Educational and Psychological Measurement 67(2):219–38.
• Smyth, Jolene D. i Jennie E. Pearson. 2011. „Internet Survey Methods: A Review of Strengths, Weaknesses, and Innovations”. Ss. 11–44 w Social and Behavioral Research and the Internet, zredagowane przez M. Das, P. Ester, i L. Kaczmirek. New York: Routledge.
• Stoop, Ineke, Jaak Billiet, Achim Koch, i Rory Fitzgerald. 2010. Improving Survey Response: Lessons Learned from the European Social Survey. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
• Sztabiński, Franciszek i Teresa Żmijewska-Jędrzejczyk. 2012. „Mixed Mode Survey Design: problem efektu techniki”. Przegląd Socjologiczny 61(1):31–63.
• Sztabiński, Paweł B. i Franciszek Sztabiński. 2016. „Does Mixed Mode Data Collection Improve the Achieved Sample? A Comparison of the ESS PAPI Survey and a Mixed Mode Experiment”. Pobrano 22 wrzesień 2017 (www.ifispan.pl/wp-content/uploads/ 2016/03/PBS_FS_Sztabinski_ESS7_dissconf.pdf).
• Vannieuwenhuyze, J. T. A. i Melanie Revilla. 2013. „Evaluating Relative Mode Effects on Data Quality in Mixed-Mode Surveys”. Survey Research Methods 7(3):157–68.
• Vehovar, Vasja, Katja Lozar Manfreda, i Gašper Koren. 2008. „Internet Surveys”. Ss. 271–83 w The SAGE Handbook of Public Opinion Research, zredagowane przez W. Donsbach i M. Traugott. London: SAGE Publications Ltd.
• Wells, Tom, Justin T. Bailey, i Michael W. Link. 2014. „Comparison of Smartphone and Online Computer Survey Administration”. Social Science Computer Review 32(2): 238–55.
• Zając, Jan M. i Dominik Batorski. 2007. „Jak skłonić do udziału w badaniach internetowych: zwiększanie realizacji próby”. Psychologia Społeczna 2 3–4(5):234–247.

Identifiers

ISSN

2450-9078