Home > Publications . Search All . Browse All . Country . Browse PSC Pubs . PSC Report Series

PSC In The News

RSS Feed icon

Work by Geronimus cited in account of Serena Williams' maternal health complications

Alexander and Massey compare outcomes for children whose parents did and did not take part in Great Migration

Geronimus on pushing past early dismissal of her weathering hypothesis

More News

Highlights

Remembering Jim Morgan, founding member of ISR and creator of the PSID

1/17/18: ISR screening and discussion of documentary "Class Divide" at Michigan Theater

Bailey et al. find higher income among children whose parents had access to federal family planning programs in the 1960s and 70s

U-M's campus climate survey results discussed in CHE story

More Highlights

Next Brown Bag

Mon, Jan 22, 2018, noon: Narayan Sastry

What They See Is What We Get - Response Options for Web Surveys

Archived Abstract of Former PSC Researcher

Couper, Mick P., Roger Tourangeau, F.G. Conrad, and S.D. Crawford. 2004. "What They See Is What We Get - Response Options for Web Surveys." Social Science Computer Review, 22(1): 111-127.

Several alternative response formats are available to the web survey designer, but the choice of format is often made with little consideration of measurement error. The authors experimentally explore three common response formats used in web surveys: a series of radio buttons, a drop box with none of the options initially displayed until the respondent clicks on the box, and a scrollable drop box with some of the options initially visible, requiring the respondent to scroll to see the remainder of the options. The authors reversed the order of the response options for half the sample. The authors find evidence of response order effects but stronger evidence that visible response options are endorsed more frequently, suggesting that visibility may be a more powerful effect than primacy in web surveys. The results suggest that the response format used in web surveys does affect the choices made by respondents.

DOI:10.1177/0894439303256555 (Full Text)

Browse | Search : All Pubs | Next