Advertisement

Face-to-face Rekrutierung für ein probabilistisches Onlinepanel

Einfluss auf die Repräsentativität
  • Annelies G. BlomEmail author
  • Jessica M. E. Herzing
Chapter
Part of the Schriftenreihe der ASI - Arbeitsgemeinschaft Sozialwissenschaftlicher Institute book series (SASI)

Zusammenfassung

Onlineumfragen haben für die sozialwissenschaftliche Forschung in den vergangen Jahren zunehmend an Bedeutung gewonnen, nicht zuletzt wegen der Möglichkeit, viele Personen innerhalb kurzer Zeit kosteneffizient befragen zu können. Im Vergleich zu interviewer-administrierten Befragungen haben Onlineinterviews aufgrund der selbst-administrierten Befragung einen geringeren Messfehler (Kreuter et al. 2008). Hauptkritikpunkt bei Onlineumfragen ist die Repräsentativität dieser Studien im Hinblick auf die Allgemeinbevölkerung.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Literatur

  1. ADM Arbeitskreis Deutscher Markt- und Sozialforschungsinstitute e.V. (2013). Stichproben-Verfahren in der Umfrageforschung: Eine Darstellung für die Praxis. Wiesbaden: Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
  2. AAPOR. (2016). Standard Definitions Final Dispositions of Case Codes and Outcome Rates for Surveys. 9. Ausgabe. AAPOR. http://www.aapor.org/AAPOR_Main/media/publications/Standard-Definitions-20169theditionfinal.pdf. Zugegriffen: 15. Juli 2016.
  3. Atrostic, B.K., Bates, N., Burt, G., & Silberstein, A. (2001). Nonresponse in US Government Household Surveys: Consistent Measures, Recent Trends, and New Insights. Journal of Official Statistics 17, 209-26.Google Scholar
  4. Bethlehem, J., & Stoop, I. (2007). Online Panels – A Paradigm Theft. In Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference of the Association for Survey Computing (S. 113-131). Berekley: Association for Survey Computing.Google Scholar
  5. Blom, A.G. (2012). Explaining cross-country differences in survey contact rates: application of decomposition methods. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series A (Statistics in Society) 175.1, 217-242.Google Scholar
  6. Blom, A.G., Gathmann, C., & Krieger, U. (2015). Setting Up an Online Panel Representative of the General Population: The German Internet Panel. Field Methods 27, 391-408.Google Scholar
  7. Blom, A.G., Bosnjak, M., Cornilleau, A., Cousteaux, A.-S., Das, M., Douhou, S., & Krieger, U. (2016a). A Comparison of Four Probability-Based Online and Mixed-Mode Panels in Europe. Social Science Computer Review 34, 8-25.Google Scholar
  8. Blom, A.G., Herzing, J.M.E., Cornesse, C., Sakshaug, J., Krieger, U. and Bossert, D. (2016b). Does the Recruitment of Offline Households Increase the Sample Representativeness of Probability-Based Online Panels? Evidence from the German Internet Panel. Social Science Computer Review. Online First erschienen am 2. Juni 2016. DOI:  10.1177/0894439316651584
  9. Bosnjak, M., Haas, I., Galesic, M., Kaczmirek, L., Bandilla, W., & Couper, M.P. (2013). Sample Composition Discrepancies in Different Stages of a Probability-Based Online Panel. Field Methods 25, 339-360.Google Scholar
  10. Brick, J.M., & Williams, D. (2013). Explaining Rising Nonresponse Rates in Cross-Sectional Surveys. ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 645, 36-59.Google Scholar
  11. Campanelli, P., Sturgis, P., & Purdon, S. (1997). Can You Hear Me Knocking? An Investigation into the Impact of Interviewers on Survey Response Rates. London: Social and Community Planning Research.Google Scholar
  12. Couper, M.P. (2000). Review: Web Surveys: A Review of Issues and Approaches. Public Opinion Quarterly 64, 464-494.Google Scholar
  13. Couper, M.P., Kapteyn, A., Schonlau, M., & Winter, J. (2007). Noncoverage and Nonresponse in an Internet Survey. Social Science Research 36, 131-148.Google Scholar
  14. de Leeuw, E.D., & de Heer, W. (2002). Trends in Household Survey Nonresponse: A Longitudinal and International Comparison. In R.M. Groves, D.A. Dillman, J.L. Eltinge, & R.J.A. Little (Hrsg.), Survey Nonresponse (Kapitel 3). New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  15. Dever, J.A., Rafferty, A., & Valliant, R. (2008). Internet Surveys: Can Statistical Adjustments Eliminate Coverage Bias? Survey Research Methods 2, 47-62.Google Scholar
  16. DiSogra, C., Callegaro, M., & Hendarwan, E. (2009). Recruiting Probability- Based Web Panel Members using an Address-Based Sample Frame: Results from a Pilot Sutdy Conducted by Knowledge Networks. Präsentiert beim Joint Statistical Meetings, Washington D.C., August.Google Scholar
  17. Eckman, S. (2016). Does the Inclusion of Non-Internet Households in a Web Panel Reduce Coverage Bias? Social Science Computer Review 34, 41-58.Google Scholar
  18. Groves, R.M., Couper, M.P. (1998). Nonresponse in Household Interview Surveys. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.Google Scholar
  19. Groves, R.M., Singer, E., Corning, A. (2000). Leverage-saliency theory of survey participation: description and an illustration. Public Opinion Quarterly 64, 299-308.Google Scholar
  20. Jackman, S. (1998). Correcting surveys for non-response and measurement error using auxiliary information. Electoral Studies 18, 7-27.Google Scholar
  21. Keeter, S., Kenedy, C., Dimock, M., Best, J., & Craighill, P. (2006). Gauging the impact of growing nonresponse on estimates from a national RDD telephone survey. Public Opinion Quarterly 70, 759-779.Google Scholar
  22. Kreuter, F., Presser, S., Tourangeau, R. (2008). Social Desirability Bias in CATI, IVR, and Web Surveys: The Effects of Mode and Question Sensitivity. Public Opinion Quarterly 72, 847-865.Google Scholar
  23. Leenheer, J., & Scherpenzeel, A.C. (2013). Does it Pay Off to Include Non- Internet Households in an Internet Panel? International Journal of Internet Science 8, 17-29.Google Scholar
  24. Loosveldt, G., & Sonck, N. (2008). An evaluation of the weighting procedures for an online access panel survey. Survey Research Methods 2, 93-105.Google Scholar
  25. Lynn, P., & Clarke, P. (2002). Separating refusal bias and non-contact bias: evidence from UK national surveys. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series D (The Statistician) 51, 319-333.Google Scholar
  26. Pforr, K., Blohm, M., Blom A.G., Erdel, B., Felderer, B., Fräßdorf, M., Hajek, K., Helmschrott, S., Kleinert, C., Koch, A., Krieger, U., Kroh, M., Martin, S., Saßenroth, D., Schmiedeberg, C., Trüdinger, E.-M., & Ramm stedt, B. (2015). Are incentive effects on response rates and nonresponse bias in large-scale, face-to-face surveys generalizable to Germany? Evidence from ten experiments. Public Opinion Quarterly 79, 740-768.Google Scholar
  27. Revilla, M., Cornilleau, A., Cousteaux, A.-S., Legleye, S., & de Pedraza, P. (2015). What Is the Gain in a Probability-Based Online Panel of Providing Internet Access to Sampling Units Who Previously Had No Access? Social Science Computer Review, advance access online.Google Scholar
  28. Rubin, D.B. (1976). Inference and Missing Data. Biometrika 63, 581–92.Google Scholar
  29. Schnell, R. (1997). Nonresponse in Bevölkerungsumfragen: Ausmaß, Entwicklung und Ursachen, Kapitel 4. Opladen: Leske + Budrich.Google Scholar
  30. Schonlau, M., van Soest, A., Kapteyn, A., & Couper, M. (2009). Selection Bias in Web Surveys and the Use of Propensity Scores. Sociological Methods and Research 37, 291-318.Google Scholar
  31. Simmons, E., & Wilmot, A. (2004). Incentive Payment on Social Surveys. A Literature Review. Social Survey Methodology Bulletin 53, 1-11.Google Scholar
  32. Singer, E., van Hoewyk, J., Gebler, N., Raghunathan, T., & McGonagle, K. (1999). The effect of incentives on response rates in interviewer-mediated surveys. Journal of Official Statistics 15, 217-30.Google Scholar
  33. Singer, E. (2011). Toward a benefit-cost theory of survey participation: evidence, further tests, and implications. Journal of Official Statistics 27, 379.Google Scholar
  34. Stoop, I. (2005). The Hunt for the Last Respondent. The Hague: Sociaal en Cultureel Planbu.Google Scholar
  35. Struminskaya, B., & Bosnjak, M. (2015). Attrition in a Probability-Based Mixed-Mode Panel: Does Survey Mode Matter? Präsentiert auf der 70th Annual Conference of the American Association for Public Opinion Research, Hollywood, Florida, May.Google Scholar
  36. Van der Laan, J. (2009). Representativity of the LISS Panel. Discussion Paper 09041. Statistics Netherlands.Google Scholar
  37. Yeager, D.S., Krosnick, J.A., Chang, L., Javitz, H.S., Levendusky, M.S., Simpser, A., & Wang, R. (2011). Comparing the Accuracy of RDD Telephone Surveys and Internet Surveys Conducted with Probability and Non-Probability Samples. Public Opinion Quarterly 75, 709-747.Google Scholar
  38. Zhang, C., Callegaro, M., Thomas, M., & DiSogra, C. (2009). Investigating the Differences Between Internet and non-Internet Users On Attitudes and Behaviors. Proceedings of the Section on Survey Research Methods, American Statistical Association.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Universität MannheimMannheimDeutschland

Personalised recommendations