Literature DB >> 20160305

Differences in responses to Web and paper surveys among school professionals.

Georgette Yetter1, Kristen Capaccioli.   

Abstract

This experiment investigated the effects of survey administration mode (Web vs. paper and pencil) and survey length (short or long) on the responses of a large sample of primary and secondary school professionals in the U.S. The 812 participants in this study were part of an initial random sample of 1,000 individuals representing 5.81% of the membership of a national professional organization. The participants were randomly assigned to each of the four treatment conditions. Results indicated (1) substantially lower response rates for Web surveys than for same-length paper surveys; (2) a higher response rate for short surveys than for long surveys with paper, but not Web, questionnaires; and (3) a younger age for Web respondents, as compared with their paper counterparts. In light of prior research, we suggest that paper-and-pencil methods be used for surveying professionals in primary and secondary school settings.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20160305     DOI: 10.3758/BRM.42.1.266

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Behav Res Methods        ISSN: 1554-351X


  20 in total

1.  Do clinicians understand the size of treatment effects? A randomized survey across 8 countries.

Authors:  Bradley C Johnston; Pablo Alonso-Coello; Jan O Friedrich; Reem A Mustafa; Kari A O Tikkinen; Ignacio Neumann; Per O Vandvik; Elie A Akl; Bruno R da Costa; Neill K Adhikari; Gemma Mas Dalmau; Elise Kosunen; Jukka Mustonen; Mark W Crawford; Lehana Thabane; Gordon H Guyatt
Journal:  CMAJ       Date:  2015-10-26       Impact factor: 8.262

2.  Mentoring early-career preventionists: current views from mentors and protégés.

Authors:  Marie-Hélène Véronneau; Jessica Duncan Cance; Ty A Ridenour
Journal:  Prev Sci       Date:  2012-10

3.  Weight concerns scale applied to college students: comparison between pencil-and-paper and online formats.

Authors:  Juliana Chioda Ribeiro Dias; João Maroco; Juliana Alvares Duarte Bonini Campos
Journal:  Cyberpsychol Behav Soc Netw       Date:  2015-03

4.  Feasibility and acceptability of alternate methods of postnatal data collection.

Authors:  Lacey A McCormack; Christa Friedrich; Nancy Fahrenwald; Bonny Specker
Journal:  Matern Child Health J       Date:  2014-05

5.  Why do we pay? A national survey of investigators and IRB chairpersons.

Authors:  Elizabeth Ripley; Francis Macrina; Monika Markowitz; Chris Gennings
Journal:  J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics       Date:  2010-09       Impact factor: 1.742

6.  Reaching the "Hard-to-Reach" Sexual and Gender Diverse Communities for Population-Based Research in Cancer Prevention and Control: Methods for Online Survey Data Collection and Management.

Authors:  Katie J Myers; Talya Jaffe; Deborah A Kanda; V Shane Pankratz; Bernard Tawfik; Emily Wu; Molly E McClain; Shiraz I Mishra; Miria Kano; Purnima Madhivanan; Prajakta Adsul
Journal:  Front Oncol       Date:  2022-06-08       Impact factor: 5.738

7.  Serious Games as a Method for Enhancing Learning Engagement: Student Perception on Online Higher Education During COVID-19.

Authors:  Manuel Arias-Calderón; Javiera Castro; Silvina Gayol
Journal:  Front Psychol       Date:  2022-04-27

8.  Shifts in Drug Use Behavior Among Electronic Dance Music Partygoers in New York During COVID-19 Social Distancing.

Authors:  Joseph J Palamar; Austin Le; Patricia Acosta
Journal:  Subst Use Misuse       Date:  2020-12-14       Impact factor: 2.164

9.  "Yes, we know!" (Over)confidence in general knowledge among Austrian entrepreneurs.

Authors:  Viktorija Ilieva; Thomas Brudermann; Ljubomir Drakulevski
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2018-05-08       Impact factor: 3.240

10.  Comparison of response rates on invitation mode of a web-based survey on influenza vaccine adverse events among healthcare workers: a pilot study.

Authors:  Xiaochen Tai; Alanna M Smith; Allison J McGeer; Eve Dubé; Dorothy Linn Holness; Kevin Katz; Linda McGillis Hall; Shelly A McNeil; Jeff Powis; Brenda L Coleman
Journal:  BMC Med Res Methodol       Date:  2018-06-20       Impact factor: 4.615

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.