Response representativeness is more important than response rate in survey research. However, response rate is important if it bears on representativeness. The present meta-analysis explores factors associated with higher response rates in electronic surveys reported in both published and unpublished research. The number of contacts, personalized contacts, and precontacts are the factors most associated with higher response rates in the Web studies that are analyzed.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Studies used in the meta-analyses are designated by asterisks. Studies with a single asterisk were used in conducting the bivariate analyses, whereas studies with double asterisks were also used in the regression analysis.
2.
Anderson, C. M. (1998, May). The use of computer technology by academics to communicate internationally: Computer mediated communication and the invisible college. (Doctoral dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst). Dissertation Abstracts Digital Dissertations, AAT98-41,836.
3.
Anderson, S. E. , & Gansneder, B. M. (1995). Using electronic mail surveys and computer-monitored data for studying computer-mediated communication systems. Social Science Computer Review, 13(1), 33-46.
4.
Aoki, K. , & Elasmar, M. (2000, May). Opportunities and challenges of conducting Web surveys: Results of a field experiment. Paper presented at the annual meeting of American Association for Public Opinion Research, Portland, Oregon.
5.
Bachmann, D. , Elfrink, J., & Vazzana, G. (1996). Tracking the progress of e-mail vs. snail mail. Marketing Research, 8(2), 31-35.
6.
Bachmann, D. , Elfrink, J., & Vazzana, G. (1999/2000). E-mail and snail mail face off in a rematch. Marketing Research, 11(4), 10-15.
7.
Baruch, Y. (1999).Response rates in academic studies—a comparative analysis. Human Relations, 52,421-434.
8.
Bertot, J. C. , & McClure, C. R. (1996).Electronic surveys: Methodological implications for using the World Wide Web to collect survey data. Proceedings of the ASIS Annual Meeting, 33,173-185.
9.
Bullen, N., & Mills, T. (1996, July 4). The MIDAS scene: 1996 MIDAS user forum. Report of the 2nd MIDAS user forum, Manchester, U.K. [Online]. Available: http://www.mimas. ac.uk/newsletters/9607/960702.htm
10.
Comley, P. (1996). The use of the Internet as a data collection method. SGA ESOMAR paper. SGA market research. Available: http://www.sga.co.uk/esomar.html
11.
Courville, T. , & Thompson, B. (2000, April). Use of structure coefficients in published multiple regression articles. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED forthcoming)
12.
Dillman, D. (2000). Mail and Internet surveys: The total design method (2nd ed.). New York: Wiley.
13.
Dillman, D. A. , & Bowker, D. K. (2000). The Web questionnaire challenge to survey methodologists [Online]. Available: http://survey.sesrc.wsu.edu/dillman/papers.htm
14.
Dillman, D. A. , Tortora, R. D., Conradt, J., & Bowker, D. (1998, August). Influence of plain vs. fancy design on response rates for Web surveys. Paper presented at Joint Statistical Meetings, Dallas, Texas [Online]. Available: http://survey.sesrc.wsu.edu/dillman/papers.htm
15.
Division of Information Technology, University of Wisconsin-Madison . (1999a, February 9). 1999 UW online computing survey [Online]. Available: http://www.doit.wisc.edu/research/99online/
16.
Division of Information Technology, University of Wisconsin-Madison . (1999b, June 3). 1999 student computing survey—trends [Online]. Availabonlinele: http://www.doit.wisc.edu/research/99student/trends/trends.html
17.
Drommeyer, C. J. , & Moriarty, E. (2000).Comparing two forms of an e-mail survey: Embedded vs. detached. International Journal of Market Research, 42(1), 39-50.
18.
Eley, S. (1999).Nutrition discussion forum: Nutrition research using electronic mail. British Journal of Nutrition, 81,413-416.
19.
Fisher, S. L. (1998). The role of goal orientation in a self-regulation framework. (Doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University). Dissertation Abstracts Digital Dissertations,AAT 98-39,639.
20.
Fox, R. , Crask, M., & Kim, J. (1988).A meta-analysis of selected techniques for inducing response. Public Opinion Quarterly, 52,467-491.
21.
Hallowell, C.M.P. , Patel, R. V., Bales, G. T., & Gerber, G. S. (2000).Internet and postal survey of endourologic practice patterns among American urologists. The Journal of Urology, 163,1779-1782.
22.
Heberlein, T. , & Baumgartner, R. (1978).Factors affecting response rates to mailed questionnaires: A quantitative analysis of the published literature. American Sociological Review, 43,447-462.
23.
Hertz, K. , Zook, E., Chitwood, K. S., & O’Carroll, P. W. (1996). E-mail versus phone: Is there a winner? Experiences from the field. Paper presented at Survey 1996 conference [Online]. Available: http://www.ai.mit.edu/projects/iiip/conferences/survey96/hertz/wonder.html
24.
Horst, P. (1966). Psychological measurement and prediction. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
25.
Hox, J. J. , & deLeeuw, E. D. (1994).A comparison of nonresponse in mail, telephone, and face-to-face surveys—Applying multilevel modeling to metaanalysis. Quality and Quantity, 28,329-344.
26.
Hunter, J. , Schmidt, F., & Jackson, G. (1982). Meta-analysis: Cumulating research findings across studies: Studying organizations. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
27.
Jones, R. , & Pitt, N. (1999).Health surveys in the workplace: Comparison of postal, e-mail and World Wide Web methods. Occupational Medicine, 49,556-558.
28.
Kawaura, Y. , Kawakami, Y., & Yamshita, K. (1998).Keeping a diary in cyberspace. Japanese Psychological Research, 40,234-245.
29.
Kehoe, C. , & Pitkow, J. (1996). Surveying the territory: GVU’s five WWW user surveys. The World Wide Web Journal [Online], 1(3). Available: http://www.w3j.com/3/s3.kehoe.html
30.
Kerlinger, F. N. (1986). Foundations of behavioral research (3rd ed.). New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
31.
Kerns, I. (2000, February). E-survey quality ranks higher than print. ASBPE Newsletter [Online]. Available: http://www.asbpe.org/archives/2000/02esurveys.htm
32.
Kiesler, S. , & Sproull, L. (1986).Response rates in the electronic survey. Public Opinion Quarterly, 50,402-413.
33.
Kittleson, M. (1995).An assessment of the response rate via the postal service and e-mail. Health Values, 18(2), 27-29.
34.
Kittleson, M. (1997).Determining effective follow-up of e-mail surveys. American Journal of Health Behavior, 21(3), 193-196.
35.
Krosnick, J. (1999).Survey research. Annual Review of Psychology, 50,537-567.
36.
Ludbrook, J. , & Dudley, H. (1998).Why permutation tests are superior to t and F tests in medical research. The American Statistician, 52,127-132.
37.
Marsh, J. , Jones, J., & Boehnker, D. (1999). Development of a system for on-line evaluation of teaching. ESEP Series [Online]. Available: http://www.cityu.edu.hk/pdqs/esep/ha.html
38.
Mavis, B. , & Brocato, J. (1998).Postal surveys versus electronic mail surveys: The tortoise and the hare revisited. Evaluation and the Health Professions, 21,395-408.
39.
Mehta, R. , & Sivadas, E. (1995).Comparing response rates and response content in mail versus electronic surveys. Journal of the Market Research Society, 37,429-440.
40.
Muhumuza, R. , Moles, D. R., & Bedi, R. (1999).A survey of dental practitioners on their use of electronic mail. British Dental Journal, 186(3), 131-134.
41.
Paolo, A. M. , Bonaminio, G. A., Gibson, C., Partridge, T., & Kallail, K. (2000).Response rate comparisons of e-mail and mail-distributed student evaluations. Teaching and Learning in Medicine, 12(20), 81-84.
42.
Parker, L. (1992, July). Collecting data the e-mail way. Training and Development, 52-54.
43.
Parks, M. R. , & Floyd, K. (1996).Making friends in cyberspace. Journal of Communication, 46(1), 80-97.
44.
Pease, P. , Zuniga, R., & Dailey, D. (1998, May). Evaluating the virtual institution: The flashlight project evaluation of International University. Paper presented at the Association for Institutional Research Annual Forum, Minneapolis, MN.
45.
Schaefer, D. , & Dillman, D. (1998).Development of a standard e-mail methodology: Results of an experiment. Public Opinion Quarterly, 62,378-397.
46.
Schillewaert, N. , Langerak, F., & Duhamel, T. (1998).Non-probability sampling for WWW surveys: A comparison of methods. Journal of the Market Research Society, 40,307-322.
47.
Schmidt, W. (1997).World-Wide Web survey research: Benefits, potential problems and solutions. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 29, 274-279.
48.
Schuldt, B. , & Totten, J. (1994).Electronic mail vs. mail survey response rates. Marketing Research, 6,36-39.
49.
Sell, R. L. (1997).Research and the Internet: An e-mail survey of sexual orientation. American Journal of Public Health, 87(2), 297-297.
50.
Shaw, D. , & Davis, C. H. (1996).The Modern Language Association: Electronic and paper surveys of computer-based tool use. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 47,932-940.
51.
Sheehan, K. B. , & Hoy, M. G. (1999a).Flaming, complaining, abstaining: How online users respond to privacy concerns. Journal of Advertising, 28(3), 37-51.
52.
Sheehan, K. B. , & Hoy, M. G. (1999b, March). Using e-mail to survey internet users in the United States: Methodology and assessment. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication [Online], 4(3). Available: http://www.ascusc.org/jcmc/vol4/issue3/sheehan.html
53.
Sheehan, K. , & McMillan, S. (1999).Response variation in e-mail surveys: An exploration. Journal of Advertising Research, 39,45-54.
54.
Shermis, M. D. , & Lombard, D. (1999).A comparison of survey data collected by regular mail and electronic mail questionnaires. Journal of Business and Psychology, 14,341-354.
55.
Skarlicki, D. P. , Lucas, C., Procuik, T., & Latham, G. P. (2000).Factors explaining why people join, remain in, or leave a scholarly society: The Canadian Psychological Association. Canadian Psychology, 41(1), 69-74.
56.
Slevin, J. , & Chisholm, J. (1997). CustomerSat.com: Billion technology firm conducts worldwide customer satisfaction survey via the Internet [Online]. Available: http://www.customersat.com/bsp/008bmain.html
57.
Smith, C. (1997). Casting the net: Surveying an Internet population. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication [Online], 4(3). Available: http://www.ascusc.org/jcmc/vol3/issue1/smith.html
58.
Smith, T. (1996, May). Uniform resource locators (URLs): Powerful reference tools for librarians and information. East Lansing, MI: National Center for Research on Teacher Learning. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 401 942)
59.
Steeh, C. (1981).Trends in nonresponse rates, 1952-1979. Public Opinion Quarterly, 45,40-57.
60.
Swoboda, W. , Muhlberger, N., Weitkunat, R., & Schneeweib, S. (1997).Internet surveys by direct mailing. Social Science Computer Review, 15,242-255.
61.
Taulois-Braga, W. , & Marcenes, W. (1995).Electronic mail: A new tool for data collection in dental public health. Community Dentistry and Oral Epidemiology, 23,379-380.
62.
Thompson, B. , & Borrello, G. M. (1985).The importance of structure coefficients in regression research. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 45,203-209.
63.
Treadwell, J. R. , Soetikno, R. M., & Lenert, L. A. (1999).Feasibility of quality-of-life research on the Internet: A follow-up study. Quality of Life Research, 8,743-747.
64.
Tse, A.C.B. (1998).Comparing the response rate, response speed and response quality of two methods of sending questionnaires: E-mail vs. mail. Journal of the Market Research Society, 40,353-362.
65.
University of Colorado at Boulder . (1996). Senior and alumni survey data collection: Sampling methodology and response rates [Online]. Available: http://www.colorado.edu/SARS/srsurvey/sample.htm
66.
Weible, R. , & Wallace, J. (1998).The impact of the Internet on data collection. Market Research, 10(3), 19-23.
67.
Wilkinson, L. , & APA Task Force on Statistical Inference. (1999). Statistical methods in psychology journals: Guidelines and explanations. American Psychologist, 54, 594-604. [reprint available through the APA Home Page: http://www.apa.org/journals/amp/amp548594.html]
68.
Witte, J. C. ,Amoroso, L. M., & Howard, P.E.N. (2000).Research methodology: Method and representation in Internet-based survey tools—mobility, community, and cultural identity in Survey2000. Social Sciences Computer Review, 18,179-195.
69.
Zelwietro, J. (1998).The politicization of environmental organizations through the Internet. Information Society, 14,45-56.
70.
Zhang, Y. (1999).Using the Internet for survey research: A case study. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 51(1), 57-68.
