Skip to main content

Nonresponse in Web Surveys

As in other types of surveys, we can distinguish between unit nonresponse,where the expected (invited) eligible units do not participate in the survey, anditem nonresponse, where the units participate, but certain responses are missingto some questions.

In addition, due to the availability of paradata – i.e., data from the process of answering a Web survey questionnaire that are stored in the log files together with the responses (Couper 2005) – a variety of additional nonresponse measures and patterns may be detected in Web surveys (Bosnjak 2000). In particular, partial nonresponse, where respondents answer only part of the questionnaire and then drop out is an issue requiring further discussion.

Here we predominantly focus on unit and partial nonresponse, while leaving the item nonresponse aside because it is not so much a problem of participation in Web surveys, but is more a problem related to Web questionnaire design issues, which is not our focus here.

When discussing the amount...

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Buying options

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • DOI: 10.1007/978-3-642-04898-2_43
  • Chapter length: 4 pages
  • Instant PDF download
  • Readable on all devices
  • Own it forever
  • Exclusive offer for individuals only
  • Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout
eBook
USD   1,100.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • ISBN: 978-3-642-04898-2
  • Instant PDF download
  • Readable on all devices
  • Own it forever
  • Exclusive offer for individuals only
  • Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout

References and Further Reading

  • Bandilla W, Bosnjak M, Altdorfer P (2003) Survey administration effects? A comparison of Web-based and traditional written self-administered surveys using the ISSP Environment module. Soc Sci Comput Rev 21(2):235–243

    Google Scholar 

  • Batagelj Z, Vehovar V (1998) WWW Surveys. In: Ferligoj A (ed) Advances in methodology, data analysis, and statistics. Faculty of Social Sciences, Ljubljana, Slovenia, pp 209–224

    Google Scholar 

  • Biffignandi S, Pratesi M (2000) The respondents profile in a Web survey on firms in Italy, Paper presented at the International Conference on Methodology and Statistics, Preddvor, Slovenia

    Google Scholar 

  • Bosnjak M (2000) Participation in non-restricted web surveys: A typology and explanatory model for item non-response. Paper presented at the 55th American Association for Public Opinion Research Annual Conference, Portland, OR

    Google Scholar 

  • Braungberger K, Wybenga H, Gates R (2007) A comparison of reliability between telephone and web-based surveys. J Business Res 60:758–764

    Google Scholar 

  • Couper MP (2001) Web surveys: A review of issues and approaches. Public Opin Q 64(4):464–494

    Google Scholar 

  • Couper MP (2005) Technology trends in survey data collection. Soc Sci Comput Rev 23(4):486–501

    Google Scholar 

  • de Leeuw ED, de Heer W (2002) Trends in household survey nonresponse: A longitudinal and international comparison. In: Groves RM, Dillman DA, Eltinge JL, Little RJA (eds) survey nonresponse. Wiley, New York, NY, pp 41–54

    Google Scholar 

  • Dillman DA, Phelps G, Tortora R, Swift K, Kohrell J, Berck J et al (2009) Response rate and measurement differences in mixed-mode surveys using mail, telephone, interactive voice response (IVR) and the Internet. Soc Sci Res 38(1):1–18

    Google Scholar 

  • Fan W, Yan Z (2009) Factors affecting response rates of the web survey: A systematic review. Comput Hum Behav 26(2):132–139

    Google Scholar 

  • Göritz AS (2006) Incentives in Web studies: Methodological issues and a review. Int J Internet Sci 1:58–70

    Google Scholar 

  • Grapentine T (2008) Top concerns for our industry. Market Res 20(2):4

    Google Scholar 

  • Greene J, Speizer H, Wiitala W (2008) Telephone and web: Mixed-mode challenge. Health Serv Res 43(1):230–248

    Google Scholar 

  • Groves RM, Peytcheva E (2008) The impact of nonresponse rates on nonresponse bias. Public Opin Q 72(2):167–189

    Google Scholar 

  • Internet World Stats (2009) Internet Usage World Stats – Internet and Population. Retrieved from Internet World Stats website http://www.internetworldstats.com/

    Google Scholar 

  • Kroth PJ, McPherson L, Leverence R, Pace W, Daniels E, Rhyne RL et al (2009) Combining web-based and mail surveys improves response rates: A PBRN study from PRIME Net. Ann Fam Med 7(3):245–248

    Google Scholar 

  • Kwak N, Radler B (2002) A comparison between mail and web surveys: Response pattern, respondent profile and data quality. J Off Stats 18(2):257–273

    Google Scholar 

  • Lee S (2006) Propensity score adjustment as a weighting scheme for volunteer panel web surveys. J Off Stat 22(2):329–349

    Google Scholar 

  • Lee S, Valliant RL (2009) Estimation of volunteer panel web surveys using propensity score adjustment and calibration adjustment. Sociolo Methods Res 37(3):319–343

    MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Lozar K, Bosnjak M, Berzelak J, Haas I, Vehovar V (2008) Web surveys versus other survey modes: A meta-analysis comparing response rates. Int J Market Res 50(1):79–104

    Google Scholar 

  • McCabea SE, Diezb A, Boydc CJ, Nelsond TF, Weitzmand CJER (2006) Comparing web and mail responses in a mixed mode survey in college alcohol use research. Addict Behav 31(9): 1619–1635

    Google Scholar 

  • Sax LJ, Gilmartin SK, Hagedorn LS, Lee JJ (2008) Using web surveys to reach community college students: An analysis of response rates and response bias. Comm College J Res Pract 32(9):712–729

    Google Scholar 

  • Schonlau M, van Soest A, Kapteyn A, Couper MP (2009) Selection bias in web surveys and the use of propensity scores. Sociolog Methods Res 37(3):291–318

    Google Scholar 

  • Stoop I (2005) The hunt for the last respondent: Nonresponse in sample surveys. The Hague, the Netherlands: Social and Cultural Planning Office of the Netherlands

    Google Scholar 

  • Taylor PA, Nelson NM, Grandjean BD, Anatchkova B, Aadland D (2009) Mode effects and other potential biases in panel-based Internet surveys: Final report. Retrieved from University of Wyoming website http://yosemite.epa.gov/ee/ epa/eerm.nsf/vwAN/EE-0519-01.pdf//EE-0519-01.pdf

    Google Scholar 

  • The American Association for Public Opinion Research (2009) Standard Definitions: Final Dispositions of Case Codes and Outcome Rates for Surveys. 6th edition. Retrieved from AAPOR website http:/​/www.aapor.org/AM/Template.cfm?Section = Standard_De finitions1&Template  = /CM /ContentDisplay.cfm & ContentID  = 1814

    Google Scholar 

  • Vehovar V, Batagelj Z, Lozar K (1999) Web surveys: Can the weighting solve the problem? Paper presented at the the Section on Survey Research Methods, Alexandria

    Google Scholar 

  • Vehovar V, Lozar K, Zaletel M, Batagelj Z (2002) Survey nonresponse. In: Groves RM, Eltinge JL, Little RJA (eds) Survey nonresponse New York. Wiley, NY, pp 229–242

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

Copyright information

© 2011 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this entry

Cite this entry

Manfreda, K.L., Berzelak, N., Vehovar, V. (2011). Nonresponse in Web Surveys. In: Lovric, M. (eds) International Encyclopedia of Statistical Science. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-04898-2_43

Download citation