This study examined the feasibility of collecting health risk behavior data from undergraduate students using a Web-based survey. Undergraduates were randomly selected and assigned randomly to a mail survey group and a Web survey group. There were no statistically significant differences between the two groups for demographics, response rates, item completion, and item completion errors. Yet differences were found for response time and sensitive item completion. This is the first study to demonstrate the feasibility of collecting health risk behavior data from undergraduates using the Web. Undergraduates are just as likely to respond to a Web survey compared with a mail survey and more likely to answer socially threatening items using this method. Also, the Web format and protocol required less time to administer. Researchers and practitioners conducting health survey research with college students or other homogeneous populations who have access to e-mail and the Web should consider using a Web-based survey design as an alternative to a mail, self-administered survey. In such a population, a Web-based survey should not discourage participation, particularly if participants are interested in the questionnaire content.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
1. Soetikno RM, Mrad R, Pao V, Lenert LA: Quality-of-life research on the Internet: Feasibility and potential biases in patients with ulcerative colitis. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association4(6): 426-435, 1997.
2.
2. Houston JD, Fiore DC: Online medical surveys: Using the Internet as a research tool. MD Comput15(2): 116-120, 1998.
3.
3. Bell DS, Kahn CE: Health status assessment via the World Wide Web. Proceedings From the American Medical Informatics Association Annual Fall Symposium: 338-342, 1996.
4.
4. Kiesler S, Sproull LS: Response effects in the electronic survey. Public Opinion Quarterly50: 402-413, 1986.
5.
5. Good KP: A study of factors affecting responses in electronic mail surveys (Ph. D. dissertation, Western Michigan University). Dissertation Abstracts International 58(10): AAT 9813581, 1997.
6.
6. Kittleson MJ: An assessment of the response rate via the postal service and e-mail. Health Values18(2):27-29, 1995.
7.
7. Schuldt BA, Totten JW: Electronic mail vs. mail survey response rates. Marketing Research6(1): 36-39, 1994.
8.
8. Wu HFM: Use of Web-based survey instrument to collect, analyze and present course evaluation data (Ph.D. dissertation, George Washington University). Dissertation Abstracts International 58(10): AAT 9817201, 1997.
9.
9. Stones A, Perry D: Survey questionnaire data on panic attacks gathered using the World Wide Web. Depression and Anxiety6(2): 86-87, 1997.
10.
10. Schmidt WC: World-Wide Web survey research: Benefits, potential problems, and solutions. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers29(2): 274-279, 1997.
11.
11. Turner JL, Turner DB: Using the Internet to perform survey research. Syllabus12(4): 58-61, 1998.
12.
12. Isaac S, Michael WB: Handbook in Research and Evaluation (3rd ed.). San Diego, CA, EdITS/Educational and Industrial Testing Services, 1995.
13.
13. Rossi PH, Wright JD, Anderson AB (eds.): Handbook of Survey Research. Orlando, FL, Academic Press, 1983.
14.
14. Hewson CM, Laurent D, Vogel CM: Proper methodologies for psychological and sociological studies conducted via the Internet. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers28(2): 186-191, 1996.
15.
15. Emerging Technologies Research Group: The American Internet User Survey [Online]. Available: http://etrg.findsvp.com/Internet/highlights.html (1995).
16.
16. Commerce Net Research Center: World Wide Internet Statistics [Online]. Available: http://www.commercenet.net/research/stats/wwwstats.html (1998).
17.
17. Nielsen Media Research: CommerceNet/Nielsen Internet Demographics Survey [Online]. Available: http://www.commercenet/work/pilot/nielsen_96/index.html (1997).
18.
18. Relevant Knowledge®: Relevant Knowledge’s Most Recent Enumeration Study [Online]. Available: http://www.relevantknowlege.com/Press/release/05_04_98.html (1998).
19.
19. Division of Adolescent and School Health, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion: Youth risk behavior surveillance: National college health risk behavior survey—United States, 1995. Morb Mortal Wkly Rep46(SS-6): 1-56, 1997.
20.
20. Truppin A, Benson D, Nelson P, Washburn S, Henning J: Perseus Survey Solutions for the Web: User Guide. Braintree, MA, Perseus Development, 1997.
21.
21. Douglas KA, Collins JL, Warren C, Kann L, Gold R, Clayton S, Ross JG, Kolbe LJ: Results from the 1995 National College Health Risk Behavior Survey. J Am Coll Health46(2): 55-66, 1997.
22.
22. Soetikno RM, Provenzale D, Lenert LA: Studying ulcerative colitis over the World Wide Web. Am J Gastroenterology92(3): 457-460, 1997.
23.
23. Johnston J, Walton C: Reducing response effects for sensitive questions: A computer assisted self interview with audio. Soc Sci Comput Review13(3): 304-319, 1995.
24.
24. Paperny DM, Aono JY, Lehman RM, Hammar SL, Risser J: Computer-assisted detection and intervention in adolescent high-risk health behaviors. J Pediatrics116(3): 456-462, 1990.
25.
25. Aday LA: Designing and Conducting Health Surveys (2nd ed.). San Francisco, Jossey-Bass, 1996.
26.
26. Denton JJ, Tsai CT, Chevrette P: Effects on survey responses of subjects, incentives, and multiple mailings. J Experimental Education56(2): 77-82, 1988.
27.
27. O’Rourke DP, O’Rourke TW: Improving response rates to health surveys using mail questionnaires. The Eta Sigma Gamman (15)1: 12-16, 1983.
28.
28. Booth-Kewley S, Edwards JE, Rosenfeld P: Impression management, social desirability, and computer administration of attitude questionnaires: Does the computer make a difference?J Applied Psychology77(4): 562-266, 1992.
29.
29. Finegan JE, Allen NJ: Computerized and written questionnaires: Are they equivalent?Computers in Human Behavior10(4): 483-496, 1994.
30.
30. Martin CL, Nagao DH: Some effects of computerized interviewing on job applicant responses. J Applied Psychology74: 72-80, 1989.
31.
31. Skinner HA, Allen BA: Does the computer make a difference? Computerized versus face-to-face versus self-report assessment of alcohol, drug, and tobacco use. J Consult Clin Psychol51(2): 267-275, 1983.
32.
32. Tourangeau R, Smith TW: Asking sensitive questions: The impact of data collection mode, question format, and question context. Public Opinion Quarterly60: 275-304, 1996.
33.
33. Beebe TJ, Harrison, PA, McRae JA, Anderson RE, Fulkerson JA: An evaluation of computerassisted self-interviews in a school setting. Public Opinion Quarterly62(4): 623-624, 1998.
