AllisonJ., & O'KonisC. (2002) If given the choice.Quirk's Marketing Research Review, 20, July/August.
2.
BronnerF., TchaoussoglouC., & RossR. (2003) The virtual interviewer. Proceedings of Worldwide Readership Research Symposium, Cambridge, Mass., pp. 121–130.
3.
de HeerW. (1999) International response trends, results of an international survey.Journal of Official Statistics, 15, 2, pp. 129–142.
4.
de LeeuwE. (2005) To mix or not to mix data collection modes in surveys.Journal of Official Statistics, 21, 2, pp. 233–255.
5.
de LeeuwE., HoxJ., KefS., & van HattumM. (2000) Computer assisted self-interviewing tailored for special populations: a guide on how to overcome the problems of special interviews and sensitive topics. Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Logic and Methodology, Cologne, CDROM/PDF022302.
6.
DeutskensE., de JongA., de RuyterK., & WetzelsM. (2006) Comparing the generalizability of online and mail surveys in cross-national service quality research.Marketing Letters, 17, pp. 119–136.
7.
DillmanD.A., & ChristianL.M. (2003) Survey mode as a source of instability in responses across surveys.Field Methods, 15, 2, pp. 1–22.
8.
DillmanD.A., PhelpsG., TortoraR., SwiftK., KohrellJ., & BerckJ. (2001) Response rate measurement differences in mixed mode surveys using mail, telephone, interactive voice response and internet. Proceedings of AAPOR Annual Conference, Montreal.
9.
DuffyB., SmithK., TerhanianG., & BremerJ. (2005) Comparing data from online and face-to-face surveys.International Journal of Market Research, 47, 6, pp. 615–639.
10.
EpsteinJ., BarkerP., & KroutilL. (2001) Mode effects in self-reported mental health data.Public Opinion Quarterly, 65, pp. 529–549.
11.
HavermansJ. (2003) The strength is in online research.Research World, 1, pp. 4–6.
KrosnickJ. (2000) The threat of satisficing in surveys: the shortcuts respondents take in answering questions.Survey Methods Newsletter, 20, pp. 4–8.
14.
LindnerG., & MallettD. (1995) The interviewer effect on readership levels. Proceedings of 7th Worldwide Readership Research Symposium, Berlin, pp. 209–217.
15.
MacerT. (2003) We seek them here, we seek them there. In: BanksR. (eds) Survey and Statistical Computing IV, the Impact of Technology on the Survey Process.Association for Survey Computing, Berkeley, UK.
MosmannH. (1998) Finding the Facts: Response Patterns PAPI-CAPI-CATI.Mölln: INRA Deutschland.
18.
NewmanJ., Des JarlaisD., TurnerC., GribbleJ., CooleyP., & PaoneD. (2002) The differential effects of face-to-face and computer interview modes.American Journal of Public Health, 92, 2, pp. 294–297.
19.
NichollsW.L., BakerR.P., & MartinJ. (1997) The effect of new data collection technologies on survey data quality. In: LybergL. (eds) Survey Measurement and Process Quality.New York: Wiley.
20.
OosterveldP., & WillemsP. (2003) Two modalities: one answer. Proceedings of ESOMAR Technovate Conference, Cannes.
StoopI.A.L. (2005) The Hunt for the Last Respondent: Nonresponse in Sample Surveys.Den Haag: SCP.
23.
TaylorH. (2000) Does internet research work?International Journal of Market Research, 42, 1, pp. 51–63.
24.
TaylorH., KraneD., & ThomasR.K. (2005) How does social desirability affect responses? Differences in telephone and online.Public Opinion Pros, February.