Comparing Survey Results Obtained via Mobile Devices and Computers

With the growing popularity of smartphones and tablet PCs (tablets) equipped with mobile browsers, the possibilities to administer surveys via mobile devices have expanded. To investigate the possible mode effect on answer behavior, results are compared between a mobile device–assisted web survey and a computer-assisted web survey. First, a premeasurement in the CentERpanel is conducted to analyze the user group of mobile devices. Second, the users are randomly allocated one of the three conditions: (1) conventional computer-assisted web survey, (2) hybrid version: a computer-assisted web survey with a layout similar to mobile web survey, and (3) mobile web survey. Special attention is given to the design of the mobile web questionnaire, taking small screen size, and typical functionalities for touchscreens into account. The findings suggest that survey completion on mobile devices need not lead to different results than on computers, but one should be prepared for a lower response rate and longer survey completion time. Further, the study offers considerations for researchers on survey satisfaction, location during survey completion, and preferred device to access Internet. With adaptations, surveys can be conducted on the newest mobile devices, although new challenges are emerging and further research is called for.

[1]  F. Al-Shamali,et al.  Author Biographies. , 2015, Journal of social work in disability & rehabilitation.

[2]  Shao-I Chiu,et al.  A model of the relationship between psychological characteristics, mobile phone addiction and use of mobile phones by Taiwanese university female students , 2012, Comput. Hum. Behav..

[3]  J. Masiak,et al.  P-64 - the Severity of Eating Disorders of a Group of Polish Girls Preliminarily Internet Dependent , 2012, European Psychiatry.

[4]  E. Potembska,et al.  P-78 - Involvement in the Internet and Addiction to the Mobile Phone in Polish Adolescents , 2012, European Psychiatry.

[5]  D. Yeager,et al.  Comparing the Accuracy of RDD Telephone Surveys and Internet Surveys Conducted with Probability and Non-Probability Samples , 2011 .

[6]  Andy Peytchev,et al.  Experiments in Mobile Web Survey Design , 2010 .

[7]  Michael Bosnjak,et al.  Understanding the Willingness to Participate in Mobile Surveys: Exploring the Role of Utilitarian, Affective, Hedonic, Social, Self-Expressive, and Trust-Related Factors , 2010 .

[8]  Harry Bouwman,et al.  Analysis of users and non-users of smartphone applications , 2010, Telematics Informatics.

[9]  Marek Fuchs,et al.  The Coverage Bias of Mobile Web Surveys Across European Countries , 2009 .

[10]  Roger Tourangeau,et al.  The presentation of a web survey, nonresponse and measurement error among members of web panel , 2009 .

[11]  Vera Toepoel,et al.  Words, Numbers, and Visual Heuristics in Web Surveys: Is There a Hierarchy of Importance? , 2008 .

[12]  Vera Toepoel,et al.  Effects of Design in Web Surveys Comparing Trained and Fresh Respondents , 2008 .

[13]  Lars Kaczmirek,et al.  Prenotification in Web-Based Access Panel Surveys , 2008 .

[14]  Veröffentlichungsversion,et al.  The Influence of Mobile Text Messaging Versus E-Mail on Response Rates and Sample Composition , 2008 .

[15]  F. Conrad,et al.  Color, Labels, and Interpretive Heuristics for Response Scales , 2007 .

[16]  Michael W. Link,et al.  Reaching the U.S. Cell Phone Generation Comparison of Cell Phone Survey Results with an Ongoing Landline Telephone Survey , 2007 .

[17]  Fabio Crestani,et al.  Effective search results summary size and device screen size: Is there a relationship? , 2005, Inf. Process. Manag..

[18]  F. Conrad,et al.  Spacing, Position, and Order Interpretive Heuristics for Visual Features of Survey Questions , 2004 .

[19]  Roger Tourangeau,et al.  What They See Is What We Get , 2004 .

[20]  George Buchanan,et al.  Improving web search on small screen devices , 2003, Interact. Comput..

[21]  Jack Duffy,et al.  Using large tables on small display devices , 2003, Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud..

[22]  M. Traugott,et al.  Web survey design and administration. , 2001, Public opinion quarterly.

[23]  A. Colman,et al.  Optimal number of response categories in rating scales: reliability, validity, discriminating power, and respondent preferences. , 2000, Acta psychologica.

[24]  George Buchanan,et al.  Improving Web Interaction on Small Displays , 1999, Comput. Networks.

[25]  J. Krosnick,et al.  Survey research. , 1999, Annual review of psychology.

[26]  Leslie F. Clark,et al.  RATING SCALES NUMERIC VALUES MAY CHANGE THE MEANING OF SCALE LABELS , 1991 .

[27]  Eli P. Cox,et al.  The Optimal Number of Response Alternatives for a Scale: A Review , 1980 .

[28]  Eli P. Cox,et al.  The optimal number of response alternatives for a scale: A review. , 1980 .