Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Face-to-face Rekrutierung für ein probabilistisches Onlinepanel

Einfluss auf die Repräsentativität

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Methodische Probleme von Mixed-Mode-Ansätzen in der Umfrageforschung

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 49.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Literatur

  • ADM Arbeitskreis Deutscher Markt- und Sozialforschungsinstitute e.V. (2013). Stichproben-Verfahren in der Umfrageforschung: Eine Darstellung für die Praxis. Wiesbaden: Springer-Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • Couper, M.P. (2000). Review: Web Surveys: A Review of Issues and Approaches. Public Opinion Quarterly 64, 464-494.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • Dever, J.A., Rafferty, A., & Valliant, R. (2008). Internet Surveys: Can Statistical Adjustments Eliminate Coverage Bias? Survey Research Methods 2, 47-62.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • Groves, R.M., Couper, M.P. (1998). Nonresponse in Household Interview Surveys. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Jackman, S. (1998). Correcting surveys for non-response and measurement error using auxiliary information. Electoral Studies 18, 7-27.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • Rubin, D.B. (1976). Inference and Missing Data. Biometrika 63, 581–92.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schnell, R. (1997). Nonresponse in Bevölkerungsumfragen: Ausmaß, Entwicklung und Ursachen, Kapitel 4. Opladen: Leske + Budrich.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Simmons, E., & Wilmot, A. (2004). Incentive Payment on Social Surveys. A Literature Review. Social Survey Methodology Bulletin 53, 1-11.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Singer, E. (2011). Toward a benefit-cost theory of survey participation: evidence, further tests, and implications. Journal of Official Statistics 27, 379.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stoop, I. (2005). The Hunt for the Last Respondent. The Hague: Sociaal en Cultureel Planbu.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Van der Laan, J. (2009). Representativity of the LISS Panel. Discussion Paper 09041. Statistics Netherlands.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Universität Mannheim, Mannheim, Deutschland

    Annelies G. Blom & Jessica M. E. Herzing

Authors
  1. Annelies G. Blom
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jessica M. E. Herzing
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Annelies G. Blom .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Katholische Universität Eichstätt-Ingolstadt, Eichstätt, Germany

    Stefanie Eifler

  2. Universität Duisburg-Essen, Duisburg, Nordrhein-Westfalen, Germany

    Frank Faulbaum

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2017 Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Blom, A.G., Herzing, J.M.E. (2017). Face-to-face Rekrutierung für ein probabilistisches Onlinepanel. In: Eifler, S., Faulbaum, F. (eds) Methodische Probleme von Mixed-Mode-Ansätzen in der Umfrageforschung. Schriftenreihe der ASI - Arbeitsgemeinschaft Sozialwissenschaftlicher Institute. Springer VS, Wiesbaden. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-15834-7_4

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-15834-7_4

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer VS, Wiesbaden

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-658-15833-0

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-658-15834-7

  • eBook Packages: Social Science and Law (German Language)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation