Advertisement

Quality & Quantity

, Volume 44, Issue 5, pp 1037–1052 | Cite as

Improving the response rate and quality in Web-based surveys through the personalization and frequency of reminder mailings

  • Francisco Muñoz-LeivaEmail author
  • Juan Sánchez-Fernández
  • Francisco Montoro-Ríos
  • José Ángel Ibáñez-Zapata
Research Note

Abstract

Internet shares some characteristics of survey making with traditional media, especially postal mail. However, there are considerable differences that justify a different focus on administration and make existing knowledge of the traditional media not directly applicable to Internet. Research is therefore necessary to discover how Web-based surveys operate under different conditioning factors, so that general behavioral patterns can be established in order to improve the administration and results of such surveys. This study thus centers on two of the parameters that can influence responses to Web-based surveys, which are personalization and the frequency of reminder mailings distributed among the sample population. The results obtained show a positive influence of personalized e-mail messages on response rate and the need to use a lower frequency for studies aiming at increasing the response rate in the shortest possible time; and longer frequency (and personalized) when the aim is to have the respondents complete the full questionnaire.

Keywords

Web-based surveys Electronic studies Personalization of invitations Frequency of messages Response rate Response quality 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Ashton R.H., Kramer S.S.: Students as surrogates in behavioral accounting research: some evidence. J. Account. Res. 18(1), 1–15 (1980)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bauman, S., Jobity, N., Airey, J., Atak, H.: Invites, intros and incentives: lessons from a Web survey. In: 55th Annual Conference of American Association for Public Opinion Research, 18–21 May 2000Google Scholar
  3. Birnholtz J.P., Horn D.B., Finholt T.A., Bae S.J.: The effects of cash, electronic, and paper gift certificates as respondent incentives for a Web-based survey of technologically sophisticated respondents. Soc. Sci. Comput. Rev. 22(1), 355–362 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bornstein M.H.: Developmental Psychology. Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ (1999)Google Scholar
  5. Boser J.A.: Teacher-education graduate surveys: variables related to response rate. J. Educ. Res. 81(6), 369 (1988)Google Scholar
  6. Bosnjak M., Tuten T.L.: Prepaid and promised incentives in Web surveys: an experiment. Soc. Sci. Comput. Rev. 21(1), 208–217 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Buchanan T., Smith J.L.: Using the Internet for psychological research: personality testing on the world wide Web. British J. Psychol. 90(1), 125–144 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Calder B.J., Phillips L.W., Tybout A.M.: Designing research for application. J. Consum. Res. 8(2), 197–207 (1981)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cho H., LaRose R.: Privacy issues in Internet surveys. Soc. Sci. Comput. Rev. 17(1), 421–434 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Claycomb C., Porter S.S., Martin C.L.: Riding the wave: response rates and the effects of time intervals between successive mail survey follow-up efforts. J. Bus. Res. 48, 157–162 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cobanoglu C., Cobanoglu N.: The effect of incentives in Web surveys: application and ethical considerations. Int. J. Mark. Res. 45, 475–488 (2003)Google Scholar
  12. Coderre F., Mathieu A., St-Laurent N.: Comparison of the quality of qualitative data obtained through telephone, postal and e-mail surveys. Int. J. Mark. Res. 46, 347–357 (2004)Google Scholar
  13. Cook C., Heath F., Thompson R.L.: A meta-analysis of response rates in Web- or Internet-based surveys. Educ. Psychol. Meas. 60(Dec), 821–836 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Couper M.P.: Web surveys: a review of issues and approaches. Public Opin. Q. 64(1), 464–494 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Couper M.P., Traugott M.W., Lamias M.J.: Web survey design and administration. Public Opin. Q. 65(1), 230–253 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Crawford S.D., Couper M.P., Lamias M.J.: Web surveys: perceptions of burden. Soc. Sci. Comput. Rev. 19, 146–162 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Deutskens E., de Ruyter K., Wetzels M., Oosterveld P.: Response rate and response quality of internet-based surveys: an experimental study. Mark. Lett. 15(1), 21–36 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Díaz de Rada V.: The effect of follow-up mailings on the response rate and response quality in mail surveys. Qual. Quant. 39, 1–18 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Dillman D.A.: Mail and Internet Surveys: The Total Design Method. Wiley, New York (2000)Google Scholar
  20. Dodd D.K., Markwiese B.J.: Survey response rate as a function of personalized signature on cover letter. J. Soc. Psy. 127, 97–98 (1987)Google Scholar
  21. Downes-Le Guin T., Janowitz P., Stone R., Khorram S.: Use of pre-incentives in an Internet survey. J. Online Res. 25, 1–7 (2002)Google Scholar
  22. Frick A., Bächtiger M.T., Reips U.D.: Financial incentives, personal information and drop-out rate in online studies. In: Reips, U.D., Bosnjak, M. (eds) Dimensions of Internet Science, pp. 209–219. Pabst Science, Lengerich, Germany (2001)Google Scholar
  23. Fricker S., Galesic M., Tourangeau R., Yan T.: An experimental comparison of Web and telephone surveys. Public Opin. Q. 69(Fall), 370–392 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. García, J., Lara, A. M.: Diseño estadístico de experimentos. Análisis de la varianza. Grupo editorial universitario, Granada (1998)Google Scholar
  25. Göritz A.S.: The impact of material incentives on response quantity, response quality, sample composition, survey outcome, and cost in online acces panels. Int. J. Mark. Res. 46, 327–345 (2004)Google Scholar
  26. Göritz A.S.: Contingent versus unconditional incentives in WWW-studies. Metodolosky Zvezki 2(1), 1–14 (2005)Google Scholar
  27. Göritz A.S.: Incentives in web studies: Methodological issues and review. Int. J. Internet Sci. 1(1), 58–70 (2006)Google Scholar
  28. Heberlein T.A., Baumgarther R.: Factors affecting response rates to mailed questionnaires: a quantitative analysis of the publisher literature. Am. Sociol. Rev. 43(4), 447–462 (1978)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Heerwegh D.: Effects of personal salutations in e-mail invitations to participate in a Web survey. Public Opin. Q. 69(1), 588–598 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Heerwegh D.: An investigation of the effect of lotteries on Web survey response rates. Field Methods 18(2), 205–220 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Heerwegh D., Loosveldt G.: Web surveys: the effect of controlling survey access using PIN numbers. Soc. Sci. Comput. Rev. 20(1), 10–21 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Heerwegh D., Loosveldt G.: An evaluation of the semiautomatic login procedure to control Web survey access. Soc. Sci. Comput. Rev. 21(1), 223–234 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Heerwegh, D., Vanhove, T., Loosveldt, G., Matthijs, K.: Effects of personalization on Web survey response rates and data quality. In: RC33 Sixth International Conference on Social Science Methodology, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, August 2004Google Scholar
  34. Heerwegh D., Vanhove T., Matthijs K., Loosveldt G.: The effect of personalization on response rates and data quality in Web surveys. Int. J. Soc. Res. Methodol. 8, 85–99 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Ilieva J., Baron S., Healey N.M.: Online surveys in marketing research: Pros and Cons. Int. J. Mark. Res. 44(3), 361–382 (2002)Google Scholar
  36. Joinson A.N.: Social desirability, anonymity, and Internet-based questionnaires. Behav. Res. Methods Instrum. Comput. 31, 433–438 (1999)Google Scholar
  37. Joinson A.N., Reips U.D.: Personalized salutation, power of sender and response rates to Web-based surveys. Comput. Hum. Behav. 23, 275–285 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Kaplowitz M.D., Hadlock T.D., Levine R.: A comparison of Web and mail survey response rates. Public Opin. Q. 68(1), 94–101 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Kelly G., McKenzie B.: Security, privacy, and confidentiality issues on the Internet. J. Med. Internet Res. 4(12), 11–22 (2002)Google Scholar
  40. Kittleson M.: Determining effective follow-up of e-mail surveys. Am. J. Health Behav. 21(3), 193–196 (1997)Google Scholar
  41. McCabe S.E., Couper M.P., Cranford J.A., Boyd C.J.: Comparison of Web and mail surveys for studying secondary consequences associated with substance use: evidence for minimal mode effects. Addict. Behav. 31, 162–168 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Musch J., Reips U.D.: The brief history of Web experimenting: a survey. In: Birnbaum, M.H. (eds) Anonymous, Psychology Experiments on the Internet, pp. 61–87. Academic Press, San Diego, CA (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Newman J.C., Des D.C., Turner C.F., Gribble J., Cooley P., Paone D.: The differential effects of face-to-face and computer interview modes. Am. J. Public Health 92, 294–297 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. National Telecommunications and Information Administration, NTIA: Falling Through the Network: Toward Digital Inclusion. US Dep Commerce, Washington, DC (2002)Google Scholar
  45. O’Neil D.: Analysis of Internet users’ level of online privacy concerns. Soc. Sci. Comput. Rev. 19, 17–31 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Oakes W.: External validity and the use of real people as subjects. Am. Psychol. 27, 959–962 (1972)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Odom M.D., Kumar A., Saunders L.: Web assurance seals: how and why they influence consumers’ decisions. J. Inf. Syst. 16(2), 231–250 (2002)Google Scholar
  48. O’Neil K.M., Penrod S.D.: Methodological variables in Web-based research that may affect results: sample type, monetary incentives, and personal information. Behav. Res. Methods Instrum. Comput. 33, 226–233 (2001)Google Scholar
  49. O’Neil K.M., Penrod S.D., Bornstein B.H.: Web-based research: methodological variables’ effects on dropout and sample characteristics. Behav. Res. Methods Instrum. Comput. 35, 217–226 (2003)Google Scholar
  50. Pearson, J., Levine, R.A.: Saludations and response rates to online surveys. In: 4th International Conference on the Impact of Technology on the Survey Process, University of Warwick, England, 19 September 2003Google Scholar
  51. Peterson P.W.: The debate about online learning: key issues for writing teachers. Comput. Compos. 40, 57–70 (2001)Google Scholar
  52. Porter S.R., Whitcomb M.E.: The impact of contact type on Web survey response rates. Public Opin. Q. 67(4), 579–588 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Reips U.D.: The Web experiment method: advantages, disadvantages, and solutions. In: Birnbaum, M.H. (eds) Psychological Experiments on the Internet, pp. 89–114. Academic Press, San Diego, CA (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Roster C.A., Rogers R.D., Albaum G.: A comparison of response characteristics from Web and telephone surveys. Int. J. Mark. Res. 46, 359–373 (2004)Google Scholar
  55. Schaefer D.R., Dillman D.A.: Development of a standard e-mail methodology: results of an experiment. Public Opin. Q. 62, 378–397 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Schwartz S.H.: Universals in the content and structure of values: theoretical advances and empirical tests in, 20 countries. Adv. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 25, 1–65 (1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Sears D.O.: College sophomores in the laboratory: influences of a narrow data base on social psychology’s view of human nature. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 51, 515–530 (1986)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Sheehan, K.B.: E-mail survey response rate: a review. J. Comput. Mediat. Commun. 6(2), (2001)Google Scholar
  59. Sheehan, K.B., Hoy, N.G.: Using e-mail to survey Internet users in the United States: methodology and assessment. J. Comput. Mediat. Commun. 4(3), (1997)Google Scholar
  60. Tourangeau R., Couper M.P., Conrad F.G.: Spacing, position, and order: interpretative heuristics for visual features of survey questions. Public Opin. Q. 68, 368–393 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Willimack D.K., Schuman H., Pennell B.E., Lepkowski J.M.: Effects of a prepaid nonmonetary incentive on response rates and response quality in a face-to-face survey. Public Opin. Q. 59, 78–92 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Yun G.W., Trumbo C.W.: Comparative response to a survey executed by post, e-mail, & Web form. J. Comput. Mediat. Commun. 6(1), 1–11 (2000)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Francisco Muñoz-Leiva
    • 1
    Email author
  • Juan Sánchez-Fernández
    • 1
  • Francisco Montoro-Ríos
    • 1
  • José Ángel Ibáñez-Zapata
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Marketing and Market Research, Faculty of Business and EconomicsUniverstity of GranadaGranadaSpain

Personalised recommendations