Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-m42fx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-19T10:14:25.590Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Subject Acquisition for Web-Based Surveys

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 January 2017

R. Michael Alvarez ,
Robert P. Sherman  and
Carla VanBeselaere
R. Michael Alvarez
Affiliation:
California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, CA 91125. e-mail: rma@hss.caltech.edu
Robert P. Sherman
Affiliation:
California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, CA 91125. e-mail: sherman@hss.caltech.edu
Carla VanBeselaere
Affiliation:
California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, CA 91125. e-mail: carla@hss.caltech.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article provides a basic report about subject recruitment processes for Web-based surveys. Using data from our ongoing Internet Survey of American Opinion project, two different recruitment techniques (banner advertisement and subscription campaigns) are compared. This comparison, together with a typology of Web-based surveys, provides insight into the validity and generalizability of Internet survey data. The results from this analysis show that, although Internet survey respondents differ demographically from the American population, the relationships among variables are similar across recruitment methods and match those implied by substantive theory. Thus, our research documents the basic methodology of subject acquisition for Web-based surveys, which, as we argue in our conclusion, may soon become the survey interview mode of choice for social scientists.

Type
Web Surveys
Information
Political Analysis , Volume 11 , Issue 1 , Winter 2003 , pp. 23 - 43
Copyright
Copyright © Political Methodology Section of the American Political Science Association 2003 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

The American Association for Public Opinion Research. 2000. Standard Definitions: Final Dispositions of Case Codes and Outcome Rates for Surveys. Ann Arbor, MI: AAPOR. (Available from www.aapor.org/ethics/stddef.html.) Google Scholar
Berrens, R. P., Bohara, A. K., Jenkins-Smith, H., Silva, C., and Weimer, D. L. 2003. “The Advent of Internet Surveys for Political Research: A Comparison of Telephone and Internet Samples.” Political Analysis 11:1–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brehm, John. 1993. The Phantom Respondents: Opinion Surveys and Political Representation. Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Couper, Mick P. 2000. “Web Surveys: A Review of Issues and Approaches.” Public Opinion Quarterly 64:464–494.Google Scholar
Couper, Mick P., Traugott, Michael W., and Lamias, Mark J. 2001. “Web Survey Design and Administration.” Public Opinion Quarterly 65:230–253.Google Scholar
Dillman, Don A. 2000. Mail and Internet Surveys: The Tailored Design Method. 2nd ed. New York: John Wiley and Sons.Google Scholar
Federal Communications Commission. 2000. “Trends in Telephone Service.” Industry Analysis Division, Common Carrier Bureau, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
Federal Communications Commission. 2002. “Trends in Telephone Service.” Industry Analysis Division, Common Carrier Bureau, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
Green, Melanie C., Holbrook, Allyson L., and Krosnick, Jon A. 2001. “The Survey Response Process in Telephone and Face-to-Face Surveys: Differences in Respondent Satisficing and Social Desirability Response Bias.” Manuscript, Ohio State University.Google Scholar
Groves, Robert M. 1989. Survey Errors and Survey Costs, New York: John Wiley and Sons.Google Scholar
Krosnick, Jon A., and Chait Chang, Lin. 2001. “A Comparison of the Random Digit Dialing Telephone Survey Methodology with Internet Survey Methodology as Implemented by Knowledge Networks and Harris Interactive.” Manuscript, Ohio State University.Google Scholar
U.S. Department of Commerce. 1995. “Falling Through the Net.” (Available from www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/fallingthru.html.) Google Scholar
U.S. Department of Commerce. 1998. “Falling Through the Net II: New Data on the Digital Divide.” (Available from www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/net2/falling.html.) Google Scholar
U.S. Department of Commerce. 2000. “Falling Through the Net: Towards Digital Inclusion.” (Available from www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/digitaldivide.) Google Scholar
U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics. 2000. “Current Population Survey: Design and Methodology,” Technical Paper 63. (Available from www.b1s.census.gov/cps/tp/tp63.html.) Google Scholar
VanBeselaere, Carla. 2001. “Sample Selection Issues in the Internet Survey of American Opinion (ISAO).” Manuscript, California Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: PDF

Alvarez et al. supplementary material

Appendix

Download Alvarez et al. supplementary material(PDF)
PDF 120.6 KB