Work has a synergistic relationship to health, and workplaces are increasingly the focus for both health promotion initiatives and health research.1 Electronic technologies are a common feature of many workplaces and as such are convenient low cost survey vehicles for the health researcher. The methods and the implications of employing Internet methods for health research are covered and a wide range of issues connected with online sampling and data collection are discussed. Because the workplace does not provide a neutral research environment, the security, anonymity and associated issues of using the two main forms of Internet surveys for workplace health research are examined and their advantages and disadvantages are debated.
Daykin N , Doyal L.Health and Work: Critical Perspectives. Basingstoke: Macmillan , 1999
2.
Bailey KD . Methods in Social Science. New York: Free Press , 1994
3.
Kuhnert K , McCauley DP.Applying Alternative Survey Methods. In: Kraut AI , editor. Organizational Surveys: Tools for Assessment and Change. San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass , 1996
4.
Buchanan T , Smith JL.Using the Internet for psychological research: personality testing on the World Wide Web . Br J Psychol1999;90: 125-144
5.
Schaefer D , Dillman D.Development of a standard e-mail methodology: results of an experiment . Public Opinion Quarterly1998;62(3): 378-397
6.
Mehta R , Sivadas E.Comparing response rates and response content in mail versus electronic mail surveys . J Market Res Soc1995;37(4): 429-439
7.
Tse A.Comparing the response rate, response speed and response quality of two methods of sending questionnaires: e-mail vs. mail . J Market Res Soc1998;40(4): 353-361
8.
Sheehan KB , Hoy MG.Using e-mail to survey Internet users in the United States: methodology and assessment . J Computer Mediated Comm1999;4(3). Available online at: www.ascusc.org/jcmc/vol4/issue3/sheehan.html (cited 15 December 2002)
9.
Watt J.Using the Internet for quantitative survey research . Quirk’s Market Res Rev1997;Article No. 0248. Available online at: www.quirks.com/articles/article.asp?arg_ArticleId=248 (cited 2002 December 15)
10.
Dommeyer C , Moriarty E.Comparing two forms of an e-mail survey: embedded vs. attached . J Market Res Soc1999;42(1): 39-50
11.
Bachmann D , Elfrink J , Vazzana G.Tracking the progress of e-mail vs. snail-mail . Market Res1996;8(2): 31-35
12.
Tse ACB , Tse KC , Yin CH , Ting CB.Comparing two methods of sending out questionnaires: e-mail versus mail . J Market Res Soc1995;37(4): 441-446
13.
Couper MP , Blair J , Triplett T.A comparison of mail and e-mail for a survey of employees in federal statistical agencies . J Official Statistics1999;15(1): 39-56
14.
Sheehan K.E-mail survey response rates: a review . J Computer Mediated Comm2001;16(2). Available online at: www.ascusc.org/jcmc/vol6/issue2/sheehan.html (cited 15 December 2002)
15.
Sheehan KB , McMillan S.Response variation in e-mail surveys: an exploration . J Advertis Res1999;39(4): 45-54
16.
Shannon DM , Johnson TE , Searcy S , Lott A.Using electronic surveys: advice from survey professionals . Practical Assess Res Evaluat2001;8(1). Available online at: www.ericae.net/pare/getvn.asp?v=8&n=1 (cited 15 December 2002)
17.
Kiesler S , Sproull L.Response effects in the electronic survey . Public Opinion Quarterly1986;50: 402-413
18.
Weisband S , Kiesler S.Self disclosure on computer forms: meta-analysis and implications. University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona . Available online at: uainfo.arizona.edu/%7Eweisband/chi/chi96.html (cited 15 December 2002)
19.
Lucas RW , Mullin PJ , Luna CB , McInroy DC.Psychiatrists and a computer as interrogators of patients with alcohol-related illnesses: a comparison . Br J Psychiatry1977;131: 160-167
20.
Booth-Kewley S , Edwards JE , Rosenfeld P.Impression management, social desirability, and computer administration of attitude questionnaires: does the computer make a difference?J App Psychol1992;77(4): 562-566
21.
Lautenschlager GJ , Flaherty VL.Computer administration of questions: more desirable or more socially desirable . J App Psychol1990;75(3): 310-314
22.
Potosky D , Bobko P.Computer versus paper-and-pencil administration mode and response distortion in noncognitive selection tests . J App Psychol1997;82(2): 293-299
23.
Davis R.Web-based administration of a personality questionnaire: comparison with traditional methods . Beh Res Methods Instrum Computers1999;31(4): 572-577
24.
Joinson A.Social desirability, anonymity, and Internet-based questionnaires . Beh Res Methods Instrum Computers1999;31(3): 433-438
25.
Manfreda, K , Vehovar V , Batagelji Z.Web Versus Mail Questionnaire for an Institutional Survey. In: Westlake A , editor. Challenge of the Internet. London: Association for Survey Computing , 2001
26.
Klassen R , Jacobs J.Experimental comparison of Web, electronic and mail survey technologies in operations management . J Operations Manage2001;19(6): 713-728
27.
Dillman D , Tortora R , Conradt J , Bowker D.Influence of plain vs. fancy design on response rates for web surveys . Presented at Joint Statistical Meetings, Dallas, Texas, August 1998. Available online at: survey.sesrc.wsu.edu/dillman/papers/asa98ppr.pdf (cited 15 December 2002)
28.
Dillman DA , Christenson JA , Carpenter EH , Brooks R.Increasing mail questionnaire response: a four state comparison . Am Sociol Rev1974;39: 744-756
29.
Heberlein TA , Baumgartner R.Factors affecting response rates to mailed surveys: a quantitative analysis of the published literature . Am Sociolog Rev1978;43: 447-462
30.
NUA. How many online? Available online at: www.nua.com/surveys/how_many_online/index.html (cited 15 December 2002)
31.
Schmidt WC.World Wide Web survey research: benefits, potential problems, and solutions . Beh Res Methods Instrum Computers1997;29(2): 274-279
32.
GVU Center . GVU’s WWW User Survey Team. GVU’s 10th WWW user survey. General Demographics Summary, October 1998. Available online at: www.gvu.gatech.edu/user_surveys/survey-1998-10/reports/1998-10-General.doc (cited 15 December 2002)
33.
Stanton JM , Rogelberg SG.Using Internet/Intranet web pages to collect organizational research data . Organ Res Methods2001;4(3): 200-216
