Literature DB >> 12109009

Personality research on the Internet: a comparison of Web-based and traditional instruments in take-home and in-class settings.

Brian C Cronk1, Jamie L West.   

Abstract

Students, faculty, and researchers have become increasingly comfortable with the Internet, and many of them are interested in using the Web to collect data. Few published studies have investigated the differences between Web-based data and data collected with more traditional methods. In order to investigate these potential differences, two important factors were crossed in this study: whether the data were collected on line or not and whether the data were collected in a group setting at a fixed time or individually at a time of the respondent's choosing. The Visions of Morality scale (Shelton & McAdams, 1990) was used, and the participants were assigned to one of four conditions: in-class Web survey, in-class paper-and-pencil survey; take-home Web survey, and take-home paper-and-pencil survey. No significant differences in scores were found for any condition; however, response rates were affected by the type of survey administered, with the take-home Web-based instrument having the lowest response rate. Therefore, researchers need to be aware that different modes of administration may affect subject attrition and may, therefore, confound investigations of other independent variables.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2002        PMID: 12109009     DOI: 10.3758/bf03195440

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Behav Res Methods Instrum Comput        ISSN: 0743-3808


  8 in total

1.  Internet-based data inclusion in a population-based European collaborative follow-up study of inflammatory bowel disease patients: description of methods used and analysis of factors influencing response rates.

Authors:  Frank L Wolters; Gilbert van Zeijl; Jildou Sijbrandij; Frederik Wessels; Colm O'Morain; Charles Limonard; Maurice G Russel; Reinhold W Stockbrugger
Journal:  World J Gastroenterol       Date:  2005-12-07       Impact factor: 5.742

2.  Cross-national comparability of the WHOQOL-BREF: a measurement invariance approach.

Authors:  Peter Theuns; Joeri Hofmans; Mehrdad Mazaheri; Frederik Van Acker; Jan L Bernheim
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2010-01-20       Impact factor: 4.147

3.  Factor Analysis of the Mystical Experience Questionnaire: A Study of Experiences Occasioned by the Hallucinogen Psilocybin.

Authors:  Katherine A Maclean; Jeannie-Marie S Leoutsakos; Matthew W Johnson; Roland R Griffiths
Journal:  J Sci Study Relig       Date:  2012-12

4.  Validation of the Restless Legs Syndrome Quality of Life Instrument (RLS-QLI): findings of a consortium of national experts and the RLS Foundation.

Authors:  M J Atkinson; R P Allen; J DuChane; C Murray; C Kushida; T Roth
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2004-04       Impact factor: 4.147

5.  Physicians' implicit and explicit attitudes about race by MD race, ethnicity, and gender.

Authors:  Janice Sabin; Brian A Nosek; Anthony Greenwald; Frederick P Rivara
Journal:  J Health Care Poor Underserved       Date:  2009-08

6.  Implicit and explicit anti-fat bias among a large sample of medical doctors by BMI, race/ethnicity and gender.

Authors:  Janice A Sabin; Maddalena Marini; Brian A Nosek
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2012-11-07       Impact factor: 3.240

7.  Validation of a general measure of treatment satisfaction, the Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire for Medication (TSQM), using a national panel study of chronic disease.

Authors:  Mark J Atkinson; Anusha Sinha; Steven L Hass; Shoshana S Colman; Ritesh N Kumar; Meryl Brod; Clayton R Rowland
Journal:  Health Qual Life Outcomes       Date:  2004-02-26       Impact factor: 3.186

8.  Does assessment type matter? A measurement invariance analysis of online and paper and pencil assessment of the Community Assessment of Psychic Experiences (CAPE).

Authors:  Marloes Vleeschouwer; Chris D Schubart; Cecile Henquet; Inez Myin-Germeys; Willemijn A van Gastel; Manon H J Hillegers; Jim J van Os; Marco P M Boks; Eske M Derks
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2014-01-22       Impact factor: 3.240

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.