Comparing Data Quality and Response Behavior Between Smartphone, Tablet, and Computer Devices in Responsive Design Online Surveys

DECIEUX, Jean Philippe Pierre; SISCHKA, Philipp

doi:10.1177/21582440241252116

Article (Scientific journals)

Comparing Data Quality and Response Behavior Between Smartphone, Tablet, and Computer Devices in Responsive Design Online Surveys

DECIEUX, Jean Philippe Pierre; SISCHKA, Philipp

2024 • In SAGE Open, 14 (2)

Peer Reviewed verified by ORBi Dataset

Permalink
https://hdl.handle.net/10993/61919

DOI
10.1177/21582440241252116

Files (1)Send to Details Statistics Bibliography Similar publications

Files

Full Text

Decieux, Sischka (2024) - Comparing data quality and response behavior between smartphone, tablet and computer devices.pdf

Publisher postprint (814.2 kB)

Download

All documents in ORBilu are protected by a user license.

Send to

RIS BibTex APA Chicago Permalink X Linkedin

Details

Keywords :

answer quality; dropout; mobile device; online survey research; response behavior; responsive design; smartphone; tablet; Arts and Humanities (all); Social Sciences (all)

Abstract :

[en] Mobile device usage in online surveys has steadily increased in recent years. As mobile devices differ, for example, in their handling, from computers, device effects within online surveys are found for several data quality indicators. However, results concerning these device effects are neither comprehensive nor conclusive because existing research are often based on non-optimized designs or do not account for the type of mobile device, for example, smartphone or tablet. This study uses data from the emigrant sample of the German Emigration and Remigration Panel Study (GERPS) a probability-based online survey (n = 4,888)—which made use of a mobile-optimized design—to compare data quality between smartphone, tablet, and computer respondents. Propensity score weighting was employed to account for device choice selectivity effects. The data quality indicators showed mixed results and smaller data quality differences across computers, smartphones, and tablets compared to previous studies. Higher dropout rates on mobile devices and here especially on smartphones remain the major challenge for survey participation, especially on small screens. However, our results render mixed-device data collection via mobile-optimized online surveys as a promising data collection approach, especially for exploiting the large response potentially associated with smartphone and tablet respondents.

Disciplines :

Social & behavioral sciences, psychology: Multidisciplinary, general & others

Author, co-author :

DECIEUX, Jean Philippe Pierre ; University of Luxembourg ; Federal Institute for Population Research, Germany (BiB), Wiesbaden, Germany ; University of Duisburg, Essen, Germany

SISCHKA, Philipp ; University of Luxembourg > Faculty of Humanities, Education and Social Sciences (FHSE) > Department of Behavioural and Cognitive Sciences (DBCS) > Health and Behaviour

External co-authors :

yes

Language :

English

Title :

Comparing Data Quality and Response Behavior Between Smartphone, Tablet, and Computer Devices in Responsive Design Online Surveys

Publication date :

April 2024

Journal title :

SAGE Open

eISSN :

2158-2440

Publisher :

SAGE Publications Inc.

Volume :

Issue :

Peer reviewed :

Peer Reviewed verified by ORBi

Additional URL :

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/21582440241252116

Funders :

German Federal Institute for Population Research
Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft

Funding number :

345626236

Data Set :

GERPS

Available on ORBilu :

since 03 September 2024

Statistics

Number of views

79 (2 by Unilu)

Number of downloads

77 (0 by Unilu)

More statistics

Scopus citations^®

Scopus citations^®
without self-citations

OpenCitations

OpenAlex citations

WoS citations^™

Bibliography

AAPOR. (2019). Standard definitions: Final dispositions of case codes and outcome rates for surveys (9th ed.) AAPOR.
Andreadis I. (2015). Web surveys optimized for smartphones: Are there differences between computer and smartphone users? Methods, Data, Analyses, 9(2), 16. https://doi.org/10.12758/mda.2015.012
Antoun C. (2015). Mobile web surveys: A first look at measurement, nonresponse, and coverage errors [Doctoral dissertation]. University of Michigan.
Antoun C. Cernat A. (2019). Factors affecting completion times: A comparative analysis of smartphone and PC web surveys. Social Science Computer Review, 38(4), 477–489. https://doi.org/10.1177/0894439318823703
Antoun C. Couper M. P. Conrad F. G. (2017). Effects of mobile versus PC web on survey response quality: A crossover experiment in a probability web panel. Public Opinion Quarterly, 81(S1), 280–306. https://doi.org/10.1093/poq/nfw088
Antoun C. Katz J. Argueta J. Wang L. (2017). Design heuristics for effective smartphone questionnaires. Social Science Computer Review, 36(5), 557–574. https://doi.org/10.1177/0894439317727072
Austin P. C. (2009). Balance diagnostics for comparing the distribution of baseline covariates between treatment groups in propensity-score matched samples. Statistics in Medicine, 28(25), 3083–3107. https://doi.org/10.1002/sim.3697
Austin P. C. Stuart E. A. (2015). Moving towards best practice when using inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) using the propensity score to estimate causal treatment effects in observational studies. Statistics in Medicine, 34(28), 3661–3679. https://doi.org/10.1002/sim.6607
Bowling N. A. Huang J. L. Brower C. K. Bragg C. B. (2021). The quick and the careless: The construct validity of page time as a measure of insufficient effort responding to surveys. Organizational Research Methods, 26(2), 323–352. https://doi.org/10.1177/10944281211056520
Caliendo M. Kopeinig S. (2008). Some practical guidance for the implementation of propensity score matching. Journal of Economic Surveys, 22(1), 31–72. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6419.2007.00527.x
Callegaro M. (2013). From mixed-mode to multiple devices: Web surveys, smartphone surveys and apps: Has the respondent gone ahead of us in answering surveys? International Journal of Market Research, 55(2), 317–320. https://doi.org/10.2501/ijmr-2013-026
Cazañas A. Parra E. (2016). Strategies for mobile web design [Conference session]. International Conference on Information Systems and Computer Science.
Cefalu M. Ridgeway G. McCaffrey D. Morral A. Griffin B. A. Burgette L. (2021). twang: Toolkit for weighting and analysis of nonequivalent groups. R package version 2.3. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=twang
Cook W. A. (2014). Is mobile a reliable platform for survey taking? Defining quality in online surveys from mobile respondents. Journal of Advertising Research, 54(2), 141–148.
Couper M. P. (2008). Designing effective web surveys. Cambridge University Press.
Couper M. P. Antoun C. Mavletova A. (2017). Mobile web surveys. In Biemer P. P. de Leeuw E. Eckman S. Edwards B. Kreuter F. Lyberg L. E. Tucker N. C. West B. T. (Eds.), Total survey error in practice (pp. 133–154). Wiley.
Couper M. P. Peterson G. J. (2017). Why do web surveys take longer on smartphones? Social Science Computer Review, 35(3), 357–377. https://doi.org/10.1177/0894439316629932
Dale T. Walsoe H. (2020). Optimizing grid questions for smartphones: A comparison of optimized and non-optimized designs and effects on data quality on different devices. In Beatty P. Collins D. Kaye L. Padilla J. L. Willis G. Wilmot A. (Eds.), Advances in questionnaire design, development, evaluation and testing (pp. 375–402). Wiley. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119263685.ch15
Deaton A. Cartwright N. (2018). Understanding and misunderstanding randomized controlled trials. Social Science & Medicine, 210, 2–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2017.12.005
De Bruijne M. Wijnant A. (2013). Comparing survey results obtained via mobile devices and computers: An experiment with a mobile web survey on a heterogeneous group of mobile devices versus a computer-assisted web survey. Social Science Computer Review, 31(4), 482–504. https://doi.org/10.1177/0894439313483976
De Bruijne M. Wijnant A. (2014). Mobile response in web panels. Social Science Computer Review, 32(6), 728–742. https://doi.org/10.1177/0894439314525918
Décieux J. P. (2021). Is there more than the answer to the question? Device use and completion time as indicators for selectivity bias and response convenience in online surveys. In Erlinghagen M. Ette A. Schneider N. Witte N. (Eds.), The global lives of German migrants (pp. 309–324). Springer.
Décieux J. P. (2022). Sequential on-device multitasking within online surveys: A data quality and response behavior perspective. Sociological Methods & Research. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/00491241221082593
Décieux J. P. Heinen A. Willems H. (2019). Social media and its role in friendship-driven interactions among young people: A mixed methods study. Young, 27(1), 18–31. https://doi.org/10.1177/1103308818755516
Décieux J. P. Mergener A. Sischka P. Neufang K. (2015). Implementation of the forced answering option within online surveys: Do higher item response rates come at the expense of participation and answer quality? Psihologija, 48(4), 311–326. https://doi.org/10.2298/PSI1504311D
de Leeuw E. D. Toepoel V. (2018). Mixed-mode and mixed-device surveys. In Vannette D. L. Krosnick J. A. (Eds.), The Palgrave handbook of survey research (pp. 51–61). Springer.
Desai R. J. Franklin J. M. (2019). Alternative approaches for confounding adjustment in observational studies using weighting based on the propensity score: A primer for practitioners. British Medical Journal, 367, l5657. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.l5657
Dillman D. A. (2017). The promise and challenge of pushing respondents to the web in mixed-mode surveys. Survey Methodology, 43(1), 3–30.
Dillman D. A. Smyth J. D. Christian L. M. (2014). Internet, phone, mail, and mixed-mode surveys: The tailored design method. Wiley.
Elwert F. Winship C. (2014). Endogenous selection bias: The problem of conditioning on a collider variable. Annual Review of Sociology, 40, 31–53.
Erlinghagen M. Schneider N. F. (2020). Wave 1 of the German emigration and remigration panel study (GERPS). BiB Daten- und Methodenberichte. Bundesinstitut für Bevölkerungsforschung. https://doi.org/10.4232/1.13479
Erzen E. Odaci H. Yeniçeri İ. (2019). Phubbing: Which personality traits are prone to phubbing? Social Science Computer Review, 39(1), 56–69. https://doi.org/10.1177/0894439319847415
Ette A. Décieux J. P. Erlinghagen M. Auditor J. G. Sander N. Schneider N. F. Witte N. (2021). Surveying across borders: The experiences of the German emigration and remigration panel study. In Erlinghagen M. Ette A. Schneider N. Witte N. (Eds.), The global lives of German migrants (pp. 21–39). Springer.
Ette A. Décieux J. P. Erlinghagen M. Genoni A. Auditor J. G. Knrisch F. Kühne S. Mörchen L. Sand M. Schneider N. F. Witte N. (2020). German emigration and remigration panel study: Methodology and data manual of the baseline survey (Wave 1). Bundesinstitut für Bevölkerungsforschung.
Ette A. Erlinghagen M. (2021). Structures of German emigration and remigration: Historical developments and demographic patterns. In Erlinghagen M. Ette A. Schneider N. F. Witte N. (Eds.), Consequences of international migration across the life course: Global lives of German migrants (pp. 21–39). Springer.
Firchow P. Mac Ginty R. (2017). Including hard-to-access populations using mobile phone surveys and participatory indicators. Sociological Methods & Research, 49(1), 133–160. https://doi.org/10.1177/0049124117729702
Goldammer P. Annen H. Stöckli P. L. Jonas K. (2020). Careless responding in questionnaire measures: Detection, impact, and remedies. The Leadership Quarterly, 31(4), 101384.
Greifer N. (2021). cobalt: Covariate balance tables and plots. R package version 4.3.1. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=cobalt
Griggs A. K. Smith A. C. Berzofsky M. E. Lindquist C. Krebs C. Shook-Sa B. (2021). Examining the impact of a survey’s email timing on response latency, mobile response rates, and breakoff rates. Field Methods, 33(3), 253–267. https://doi.org/10.1177/1525822X21999160
Gummer T. (2020). Adaptive and responsive survey designs. In Atkinsoson P. Delamont S. Cernat A. Sakshaug J. W. Williams R. A. (Eds.), SAGE research methods foundations. Sage.
Gummer T. Daikeler J. (2018). A note on how prior survey experience with self-administered panel surveys affects attrition in different modes. Social Science Computer Review, 38(4), 490–498. https://doi.org/10.1177/0894439318816986
Gummer T. Quoß F. Roßmann J. (2018). Does increasing mobile device coverage reduce heterogeneity in completing web surveys on smartphones? Social Science Computer Review, 37(3), 371–384. https://doi.org/10.1177/0894439318766836
Gummer T. Roßmann J. (2015). Explaining interview duration in web surveys: A multilevel approach. Social Science Computer Review, 33(2), 217–234.
Gummer T. Roßmann J. Silber H. (2018). Using instructed response items as attention checks in web surveys: Properties and implementation. Sociological Methods & Research, 50(1), 238–264. https://doi.org/10.1177/0049124118769083
Guo S. Fraser M. W. (2015). Propensity score analysis statistical methods and applications. Advanced quantitative techniques in the social sciences (2nd ed.). Sage.
Ha L. Zhang C. Jiang W. (2020). Data quality comparison between computers and smartphones in different web survey modes and question formats. Internet Research, 30(6), 1763–1781. https://doi.org/10.1108/INTR-09-2018-0417
Haan M. Lugtig P. Toepoel V. (2018). Using mobile devices for survey participation: Toward a model-based approach. Utrecht University.
Haan M. Lugtig P. Toepoel V. (2019). Can we predict device use? An investigation into mobile device use in surveys. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 22(5), 517–531.
Haenschen K. (2019). Self-reported versus digitally recorded: Measuring political activity on Facebook. Social Science Computer Review, 38(5), 567–583. https://doi.org/10.1177/0894439318813586
Hainmueller J. (2012). Entropy balancing for causal effects: A multivariate reweighting method to produce balanced samples in observational studies. Political Analysis, 20(1), 25–46. https://doi.org/10.1093/pan/mpr025
Haukoos J. S. Lewis R. J. (2015). The propensity score. JAMA, 314(15), 1637–1638. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2015.13480
Höhne J. K. Schlosser S. (2017). Investigating the adequacy of response time outlier definitions in computer-based web surveys using paradata survey focus. Social Science Computer Review, 36(3), 369–378. https://doi.org/10.1177/0894439317710450
Höhne J. K. Schlosser S. Couper M. P. Blom A. G. (2020). Switching away: Exploring on-device media multitasking in web surveys. Computers in Human Behavior, 111, 106417. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2020.106417
Hopp T. Vargo C. J. Dixon L. Thain N. (2018). Correlating self-report and trace data measures of incivility: A proof of concept. Social Science Computer Review, 38(5), 584–599. https://doi.org/10.1177/0894439318814241
Hünermund P. Louw B. (2020). On the nuisance of control variables in regression analysis. Maastricht. https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:arx:papers:2005.10314
Kassambara A. Kosinski M. Biecek P. (2021). survminer: Drawing survival curves using ‘ggplot2’. R package version 0.4.9. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=survminer
Keusch F. Bähr S. Haas G.-C. Kreuter F. Trappmann M. (2020). Coverage error in data collection combining mobile surveys with passive measurement using apps: Data from a German National Survey. Sociological Methods & Research, 52(2), 841–878. https://doi.org/10.1177/0049124120914924
Keusch F. Yan T. (2016). Web versus mobile web: An experimental study of device effects and self-selection effects. Social Science Computer Review, 35(6), 751–769. https://doi.org/10.1177/0894439316675566
King G. Nielsen R. (2019). Why propensity scores should not be used for matching. Political Analysis, 27(4), 435–454. https://doi.org/10.1017/pan.2019.11
Kroh M. Karmann A. Kühne S. (2021). Estimating mode effects in panel surveys: A multitrait multimethod approach. In Cernat A. Sakshaug J. (Eds.), Measurement error in longitudinal data (pp. 89–110). Oxford University Press.
Lee H. Kim S. Couper M. P. Woo Y. (2018). Experimental comparison of PC web, smartphone web, and telephone surveys in the new technology era. Social Science Computer Review, 37(2), 234–247. https://doi.org/10.1177/0894439318756867
Leiner D. J. (2019). Too fast, too straight, too weird: Non-reactive indicators for meaningless data in internet surveys [Paper presentation]. Survey Research Methods.
Liang K.-Y. Zeger S. L. (1995). Inference based on estimating functions in the presence of nuisance parameters. Statistical Science, 10(2), 158–173. https://doi.org/10.1214/ss/1177010028
Liebe U. Glenk K. Oehlmann M. Meyerhoff J. (2015). Does the use of mobile devices (tablets and smartphones) affect survey quality and choice behaviour in web surveys? Journal of Choice Modelling, 14, 17–31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jocm.2015.02.002
Liu M. Cernat A. (2018). Item-by-item versus matrix questions: A web survey experiment. Social Science Computer Review, 36(6), 690–706.
Lugtig P. Toepoel V. (2016). The use of PCs, smartphones, and tablets in a probability-based panel survey: Effects on survey measurement error. Social Science Computer Review, 34(1), 78–94. https://doi.org/10.1177/0894439315574248
Lugtig P. Toepoel V. Haan M. Zandvliet R. Klein Kranenburg L. (2019). Recruiting young and urban groups into a probability-based online panel by promoting smartphone use. Methods, Data, Analyses, 13(2), 291–306. https://doi.org/10.12758/mda.2019.04
Lynn P. (2018). Tackling panel attrition. In Vannette D. L. Krosnick J. A. (Eds.), The Palgrave handbook of survey research (pp. 143–153). Springer.
Maslovskaya O. Durrant G. B. Smith P. W. F. Hanson T. Villar A. (2019). What are the characteristics of respondents using different devices in mixed-device online surveys? Evidence from six UK surveys. International Statistical Review, 87(2), 326–346. https://doi.org/10.1111/insr.12311
Maslovskaya O. Smith P. Durrant G. (2020). Do respondents using smartphones produce lower quality data? Evidence from the UK understanding society mixed-device survey. http://eprints.ncrm.ac.uk/4322/1/DataQuality_UnderstandingSociety_NCRMWorkingPaper.pdf
Mavletova A. (2013). Data quality in PC and mobile web surveys. Social Science Computer Review, 31(6), 725–743. https://doi.org/10.1177/0894439313485201
Mavletova A. Couper M. P. (2015). A meta-analysis of breakoff rates in mobile web surveys. In Toninelli D. Pinter R. de Pedraza P. (Eds.), Mobile research methods: Opportunities and challenges of mobile research methodologies (pp. 81–98). Ubiquity Press.
Mavletova A. Couper M. P. (2016). Device use in web surveys: The effect of differential incentives. International Journal of Market Research, 58(4), 523–544. https://doi.org/10.2501/IJMR-2016-034
Mavletova A. Couper M. P. Lebedev D. (2017). Grid and item-by-item formats in PC and mobile web surveys. Social Science Computer Review, 36(6), 647–668. https://doi.org/10.1177/0894439317735307
McCaffrey D. F. Griffin B. A. Almirall D. Slaughter M. E. Ramchand R. Burgette L. F. (2013). A tutorial on propensity score estimation for multiple treatments using generalized boosted models. Statistics in Medicine, 32(19), 3388–3414. https://doi.org/10.1002/sim.5753
McCaffrey D. F. Ridgeway G. Morral A. R. (2004). Propensity score estimation with boosted regression for evaluating causal effects in observational studies. Psychological Methods, 9(4), 403–425. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.9.4.403
Metzler A. (2020). The effect of assigning sample members to their preferred device on nonresponse and measurement in web surveys [Doctoral dissertation]. Darmstadt University of Technology. https://doi.org/10.25534/tuprints-00008788
Montgomery J. M. Rossiter E. L. (2019). So many questions, so little time: Integrating adaptive inventories into public opinion research. Journal of Survey Statistics and Methodology, 8(4), 667–690. https://doi.org/10.1093/jssam/smz027
Pan W. Bai H. (2018). Propensity score methods for causal inference: An overview. Behaviormetrika, 45(2), 317–334. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41237-018-0058-8
Park S. Kim J. K. Kim K. (2019). A note on propensity score weighting method using paradata in survey sampling. Survey Methodology, 45(3), 451–464. http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/12-001-x/2019003/article/00002-eng.htm
Peterson G. (2012). Unintended mobile respondents [Conference session]. CASRO Technology Conference.
Peytchev A. (2020). Split-sample design with parallel protocols to reduce cost and nonresponse bias in surveys. Journal of Survey Statistics and Methodology, 8(4), 748–771. https://doi.org/10.1093/jssam/smz033
R-Core-Team. (2021). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing.
Revilla M. Couper M. P. (2017). Comparing grids with vertical and horizontal item-by-item formats for PCs and smartphones. Social Science Computer Review, 36(3), 349–368. https://doi.org/10.1177/0894439317715626
Revilla M. Toninelli D. Ochoa C. Loewe G. (2016). Do online access panels need to adapt surveys for mobile devices? Internet Research, 26(5), 1209–1227. https://doi.org/10.1108/IntR-02-2015-0032
Roßmann J. (2015). RSPEEDINDEX: Stata module to compute a response speed index and perform outlier identification [Statistical Software Components, s458007]. Department of Economics, Boston College.
Roßmann J. (2017). RESPDIFF: Stata module for generating response differentiation indices [Computer software]. Department of Economics, Boston College.
Roßmann J. Gummer T. (2016). PARSEUAS: Stata module to extract detailed information from user agent strings [Computer software]. Department of Economics, Boston College.
Roßmann J. Gummer T. Kaczmirek L. (2020). Working with user agent strings in stata: The PARSEUAS command. Journal of Statistical Software, 92, 1–16. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v092.c01
Roßmann J. Gummer T. Silber H. (2018). Mitigating satisficing in cognitively demanding grid questions: Evidence from two web-based experiments. Journal of Survey Statistics and Methodology, 6(3), 376–400. https://doi.org/10.1093/jssam/smx020
Rubin D. B. (1973). The use of matched sampling and regression adjustment to remove bias in observational studies. Biometrics, 29(1), 185–203. https://doi.org/10.2307/2529685
Rubin D. B. Thomas N. (2000). Combining propensity score matching with additional adjustments for prognostic covariates. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 95(450), 573–585. https://doi.org/10.1080/01621459.2000.10474233
Sakshaug J. Hülle S. Schmucker A. Liebig S. (2019). Panel survey recruitment with or without interviewers? Implications for nonresponse, panel consent, and total recruitment bias. Journal of Survey Statistics and Methodology, 8(3), 540–565. https://doi.org/10.1093/jssam/smz012
Schlosser S. Höhne J. K. (Producer). (2018). ECSP—Embedded client side paradata. Zenodo: Research Shared.
Schlosser S. Mays A. (2018). Mobile and dirty: Does using mobile devices affect the data quality and the response process of online surveys? Social Science Computer Review, 36(2), 212–230. https://doi.org/10.1177/0894439317698437
Shadish W. Campbell D. (2002). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for generalized causal inference. Houghton Mifflin.
Sischka P. E. Décieux J. P. Mergener A. Neufang K. M. Schmidt A. F. (2022). The impact of forced answering and reactance on answering behavior in online surveys. Social Science Computer Review, 40(2), 405–425. https://doi.org/10.1177/0894439320907067
Sommer J. Diedenhofen B. Musch J. (2017). Not to be considered harmful: Mobile-device users do not spoil data quality in web surveys. Social Science Computer Review, 35(3), 378–387. https://doi.org/10.1177/0894439316633452
Stapleton C. (2013). The smart (phone) way to collect survey data. Survey Practice, 6(2), 1–7.
Struminskaya B. Weyandt K. Bosnjak M. (2015). The effects of questionnaire completion using mobile devices on data quality: Evidence from a probability-based general population panel. Methods, Data, Analyses, 9(2), 32. https://doi.org/10.12758/mda.2015.014
Stuart E. A. (2010). Matching methods for causal inference: A review and a look forward. Statistical Science, 25(1), 1.
Therneau T. M. Lumley T. Atkinson E. Crowson C. (2021). Survival: Survival analysis. R package version 3.2-11. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=survival
Toepoel V. Lugtig P. (2014). What happens if you offer a mobile option to your web panel? Evidence from a probability-based panel of internet users. Social Science Computer Review, 32(4), 544–560. https://doi.org/10.1177/0894439313510482
Toepoel V. Lugtig P. Struminskaya B. Elevelt A. Haan M. (2020). Adapting surveys to the modern world: Comparing a research messenger design to a regular responsive design for online surveys. Survey Insights: Methods from the Field, 13(1), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.29115/SP-2020-0010
Toninelli D. Revilla M. (2020). How mobile device screen size affects data collected in web surveys. In Beatty P. C. Collins D. Kaye L. Padilla J. L. Willis G. B. Wilmot A. (Eds.), Advances in questionnaire design, development, evaluation and testing (pp. 349–373). Wiley.
Tourangeau R. Sun H. Yan T. Maitland A. Rivero G. Williams D. (2018). Web surveys by smartphones and tablets: Effects on data quality. Social Science Computer Review, 36(5), 542–556. https://doi.org/10.1177/0894439317719438
Williamson E. Morley R. Lucas A. Carpenter J. (2012). Propensity scores: From naive enthusiasm to intuitive understanding. Statistical Methods in Medical Research, 21(3), 273–293.
Zanutto E. L. (2006). A comparison of propensity score and linear regression analysis of complex survey data. Journal of Data Science, 4(1), 67–91.
Zou S. Tan K. P. S. Liu H. Li X. Chen Y. (2021). Mobile vs. PC: The device mode effects on tourism online survey response quality. Current Issues in Tourism, 24(10), 1345–1357. https://doi.org/10.1080/13683500.2020.1797645