Open Probability-Based Panel Infrastructures



Increasingly, survey data are collected over the Internet, which greatly eases the process of data collection, but also often makes it harder to know how samples have been drawn and consequently what valid statistical inferences can be made. Probability-based survey panels that collect high-quality, representative data on the Internet are still relatively rare. Most of those that do exist share three common characteristics: openness in terms of being accessible for academic researchers from any substantive area to field primary studies and to use the data collected, probability-based sampling and therefore optimized for yielding unbiased population estimates in the respective countries, and transparency in terms of the processes by which these infrastructures have been built and are being operated.

References and Further Reading

  1. Avendano, M., Scherpenzeel, A., Mackenbach, J. P. (2011). Can Biomarkers be Collected in an Internet Survey? A Pilot Study in the LISS Panel. In: Social and Behavioral Research and the Internet: Advances in Applied Methods and Research Strategies (eds. Das, M, P. Ester, & L. Kaczmirek), New York: Taylor & Francis, 77–104.Google Scholar
  2. Bosnjak, M., Dannwolf, T., Enderle, T., Schaurer, I., Struminskaya, B., Tanner, A., & Weyandt, K.W. (in press). Establishing an open probability-based mixed-mode panel of the general population in Germany: The GESIS Panel. Social Science Computer Review,
  3. Crossley, T. F., De Bresser, J., Delaney, L., & Winter, J. (2016). Can Survey Participation Alter Household Saving behaviour? Economic Journal,
  4. Das, M., Toepoel, V., & Van Soest, A. (2011). Non-parametric Tests of Panel Conditioning and Attrition Bias in Panel Surveys, Sociological Methods and Research, 40(1), 32–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Geurs, K. T., Thomas, T., Bijlsma, M., & Douhou, D. (2015). Automatic Trip and Mode Detection with Move Smarter: First Results from the Dutch Mobile Mobility Panel, Transportation Research Procedia, 11, 247–262.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Hays, R. D., Liu, H., & Kapteyn, A. (2015). Use of Internet Panels to Conduct Surveys, Behavior Research Methods, 47, 685–690.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Kapteyn, A., Saw, H.-W., Banks, J., Hamer, M., Koster, A., Smith, J. P., Steptoe, A., & Van Soest, A. (2016). What They Say and What They Do: Comparing Physical Activity Across U.S., England, and the Netherlands, Working Paper, Center for Economic and Social Research, University of Southern California.Google Scholar
  8. Kooreman, P., & Scherpenzeel, A. (2014). High Frequency Body Mass Measurement, Feedback, and Health Behaviors, Economics & Human Biology, 14, 141–153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Mehl, M. R., Robbins, M. L., & Deters, F. G. (2012). Naturalistic Observation of Health-Relevant Social Processes: The Electronically Activated Recorder Methodology in Psychosomatics, Psychosomatic Medicine, 74, 410–417.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Picard, R. W., Fedor, S., & Ayzenberg, Y. (2016). Multiple Arousal Theory and Daily-Life Electrodermal Activity Asymmetry, Emotion Review, 8, 62–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Scherpenzeel, A., & Das, M. (2011). True Longitudinal and Probability-Based Internet Panels: Evidence from the Netherlands. In: Social and Behavioral Research and the Internet: Advances in Applied Methods and Research Strategies (eds. Das, M, P. Ester & L. Kaczmirek), New York: Taylor & Francis, 77–104.Google Scholar
  12. Scherpenzeel, A., & Fernee, H. (2013). New and Emerging Methods. The Smartphone in Survey Research, Experiments for Time Use Data, The Survey Statistician, 67, 19–25.Google Scholar
  13. Toepoel, V., Das, M., & Van Soest, A. (2009). Relating Question Type to Panel Conditioning: A Comparison Between Trained and Fresh Respondents, Survey Research Methods, 3(2), 73–80.Google Scholar
  14. Toepoel, V., Das, M., & Van Soest, A. (2008). Design Effects in Web Surveys: Comparing Trained and Fresh Respondents, Public Opinion Quarterly, 72(5), 985–1007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Tilburg UniversityTilburgThe Netherlands
  2. 2.University of Southern CaliforniaLos AngelesUSA
  3. 3.ZPID - Leibniz Institute for Psychology InformationTrierGermany

Personalised recommendations