A comparison of reliability between telephone and web-based surveys (original) (raw)

Abstract

The purpose of the present study was to compare a methodologically sound telephone interviewing technique to the most promising web survey technique. Specifically, the web survey conducted for the present study randomly selected respondents who were members of a consumer panel whereas the telephone survey used a "cold-calling" method to randomly selected respondents. Two waves of each telephone surveys and web-panel surveys were conducted. The present study is one of the first to empirically show that web panels can produce more reliable data estimates than telephone surveys. Further, web panels are cheaper and less time consuming to conduct than telephone surveys. Even though web panels might not be appropriate for all survey research endeavors, the results show that they can be a viable alternative to telephone surveys that allows researchers to conduct high-quality research.

Loading...

Loading Preview

Sorry, preview is currently unavailable. You can download the paper by clicking the button above.

References (35)

  1. Abdel-Aty MA. Hybrid distribution and response techniques for an origin- destination travel survey. ITE J 2003;73(2):22-7.
  2. Beatty P. Understanding the standardized/non-standardized interviewing con- troversy. J Off Stat 1995;11:147-60.
  3. Carmines EG, Zeller RA. Reliability and validity assessment. Beverly Hills (CA): Sage Publications; 1979.
  4. Chaudhuri A, Flamm KS, Horrigan J. An analysis of the determinants of internet access. Telecommun Policy 2005;29:731-55.
  5. Conrad FG, Schober MF. Clarifying question meaning in a household telephone survey. Pub Opin Q 2000;64(1):1-28.
  6. Cooley PC, Miller HG, Gribble JN, Turner CF. Automating telephone surveys: using T-ACASI to obtain data on sensitive topics. Comput Hum Behav 2000;16:1-11.
  7. Council for Marketing and Opinion Research. 2003 respondent cooperation and industry image survey. Cincinnati, OH: CMOR; 2003.
  8. Couper MP. Web surveys: a review of issues and approaches. Pub Opin Q 2000;64:464-94.
  9. Couper MP, Traugott MW, Lamias MJ. Web survey design and administration. Pub Opin Q 2001;65(2):230-53.
  10. Dillman DA. Mail and internet surveys: the tailored design method. New York (NY): John Wiley and Sons; 2000.
  11. Elvin J. Hi, my name is … (click!). Insight on the news 2000;16(10)(March 13):34.
  12. Fadner R., Mandese J. Net-ratings: Internet is 75% full; comscore; they're full of it. MediaPost's Media Daily News (http://www.mediapost.com/dtls\_dsp\_news. cfm?newsID=242865& newsDate=03/19/2004.
  13. Fox S, Rainie L. E-patients and the online health care revolution. Physician Exec 2002;28(6):14-7.
  14. Gorman JW. An opposing view of online surveying. Mktg News 2000;34(9):48 (Apr 24).
  15. Hair Jr JF, Bush RP, Ortinau DJ. Marketing research: within a changing infor- mation environment. New York (NY): McGraw-Hill; 2003.
  16. InterStudy. The InterStudy competitive edge 13.1. St. Paul (MN): InterStudy Publications; 2003.
  17. James D. The future of online research. Mark News 2003:1 (January 3).
  18. Johnson TP, Fendrich M, Shaligram C. An evaluation of the effects of inter- viewer characteristics in an RDD telephone survey of drug use. J Drug Issues 2000;30(1):77-101.
  19. Keeter S, Miller C, Kohut A, Groves RM, Presser S. Consequences of reducing nonresponse in a national telephone survey. Pub Opinion Q 2000;64(2): 125-48.
  20. Kiecker P, Nelson JE. Do interviewers follow telephone survey instructions? J Mark Res Soc 1996;38(2):161-76.
  21. Krasilovsky P. Surveys in cyberspace. Am Demogr 1996:18-22 (Nov-Dec).
  22. Link MW, Oldendick RM. Call screening: is it really a problem for survey research? Pub Opin Q 1999;63(4):577-89.
  23. Lueptow LB, Moser SL, Pendleton BF. Gender and response effects in tele- phone interviews about gender characteristics. Sex Roles 1990;22(1-2): 29-42.
  24. McCullough D. Web-based market research ushers in new age. Mark News 1998;32(19):27-8.
  25. McDaniel C, Gates R. Marketing research. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley; 2005.
  26. McDonald H, Adam S. A comparison of online and postal data collection methods in marketing research. Mark Intell Plann 2003;21(2):85-95.
  27. Melymuka K. Not another #$!&!$ survey! Computerworld 1997;31:82 (November 24).
  28. Remington T. Telemarketing and declining survey response rates. J Advert Res 1992;32(3):RC6-7.
  29. SSI. Statistics supplied by SSI on; 2003. 3/10/.
  30. Roster CA, Rogers RD, Albaum G, Klein D. A comparison of response cha- racteristics from web and telephone surveys. Int J Mark Res 2004;46(3): 359-74.
  31. Struebbe JM, Kernan JB, Grogan TJ. The refusal problem in telephone surveys. J Advert Res 1986:29-37 June/July.
  32. Tourangeau R, Smith TW. Asking sensitive questions: the impact of data col- lection mode, question format, and question context. Pub Opin Q 1996;60: 275-304.
  33. Tuckel P, O'Neill H. The vanishing respondent in telephone surveys. J Advert Res 2002;42(5):26-48.
  34. Walker AH, Restuccia JD. Obtaining information on patient satisfaction with hospital care: mail versus telephone. Health Serv Res 1984;19(3):291-306.
  35. Zhang Y. Using the internet for survey research: a case study. J Am Soc Inf Sci 2000;51(1):57-68.