CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 1,135

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 6 of the 6 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Response rates of online surveys in published research: A meta-analysis

Wu, Meng-Jia, Zhao, Kelly, Fils-Aime, Francisca·2022·Computers in Human Behavior Reports
DOI 10.1016/j.chbr.2022.100206
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.chbr.2022.100206

Cites

6 of 6 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Show all 6 references

Research works printed but not linked: 30

  1. Andrews, 2003, Electronic survey methodology: A case study in reaching hard-to-involve internet users, International Journal of Human Computer Interaction, 16, 185, 10.1207/S15327590IJHC1602_04 · DOI
  2. Archer, 2007, Characteristics associated with increasing the response rates of Web-based surveys, Practical Assessment, Research and Evaluation, 12, 12
  3. Brick, 2013, Explaining rising nonresponse rates in cross-sectional surveys, The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 645, 36, 10.1177/0002716212456834 · DOI
  4. Burgard, 2020, Response rates in online surveys with affective disorder participants, Zeitschrift für Psychologie, 10.1027/2151-2604/a000394 · DOI
  5. Cook, 2000, A meta-analysis of response rates in Web- or Internet-based surveys, Educational and Psychological Measurement, 60, 821, 10.1177/00131640021970934 · DOI
  6. Daikeler, 2020, Web versus other survey modes: An updated and extended meta-analysis comparing response rates, Journal of Survey Statistics and Methodology, 8, 513, 10.1093/jssam/smz008 · DOI
  7. Daikeler, 2021, A meta-analysis of how country-level factors affect web survey response rates, International Journal of Market Research
  8. Deutskens, 2004, Response rate and response quality of internet-based surveys: An experimental study, Marketing Letters, 15, 21, 10.1023/B:MARK.0000021968.86465.00 · DOI · Paper page
  9. Dykema, 2013, Surveying clinicians by web, Evaluation & the Health Professions, 36, 352, 10.1177/0163278713496630 · DOI
  10. Fan, 2010, Factors affecting response rates of the web survey: A systematic review, Computers in Human Behavior, 26, 132, 10.1016/j.chb.2009.10.015 · DOI
  11. Fosnacht, 2017, How important are high response rates for college surveys?, The Review of Higher Education, 40, 245, 10.1353/rhe.2017.0003 · DOI
  12. Freeman, 1950, Transformations related to the angular and the square root, The Annals of Mathematical Statistics, 607, 10.1214/aoms/1177729756 · DOI
  13. Goritz, 2006, Incentives in web studies: Methodological issues and a review, International Journal of Internet Science, 1, 58
  14. Heerwegh, 2006, An investigation of the effect of lotteries on web survey response rates, Field Methods, 18, 205, 10.1177/1525822X05285781 · DOI
  15. Hendra, 2019, Rethinking response rates: New evidence of little relationship between survey response rates and nonresponse bias, Evaluation Review, 43, 307, 10.1177/0193841X18807719 · DOI
  16. Manfreda, 2008, Web surveys versus other survey modes, International Journal of Market Research, 50, 79, 10.1177/147078530805000107 · DOI
  17. Mercer, 2015, How much gets you how much? Monetary incentives and response rates in household surveys, Public Opinion Quarterly, 79, 105, 10.1093/poq/nfu059 · DOI
  18. Millar, 2011, Improving response to web and mixed-mode surveys, Public Opinion Quarterly, 75, 249, 10.1093/poq/nfr003 · DOI
  19. Miller, 1978, The inverse of the Freeman-Tukey double arcsine transformation, The American Statistician, 32, 138
  20. Neal, 2020, Call me maybe: Using incentives and follow-ups to increase principals' survey response rates, Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, 13, 784, 10.1080/19345747.2020.1772423 · DOI
  21. Pforr, 2015, Are incentive effects on response rates and nonresponse bias in large-scale, face-to-face surveys generalizable to Germany? Evidence from ten experiments, Public Opinion Quarterly, 79, 740, 10.1093/poq/nfv014 · DOI
  22. Porter, 2004, Raising response rates: What works?, New Directions for Institutional Research, 121, 5, 10.1002/ir.97 · DOI
  23. Porter, 2006, Student survey response rates across institutions: Why do they vary?, Research in Higher Education, 47, 229, 10.1007/s11162-005-8887-1 · DOI
  24. Porter, 2003, The impact of lottery incentives on student survey response rates, Research in Higher Education, 44, 389, 10.1023/A:1024263031800 · DOI
  25. Poynton, 2019, A systematic review of online response rates in four counseling journals, Journal of Counseling and Development, 97, 33, 10.1002/jcad.12233 · DOI
  26. Saleh, 2017, Examining factors impacting online survey response rates in educational research: Perceptions of Graduate Students, Online Submission, 13, 63
  27. Sauermann, 2013, Increasing web survey response rates in innovation research: An experimental study of static and dynamic contact design features, Research Policy, 42, 273, 10.1016/j.respol.2012.05.003 · DOI
  28. Shawver, 2016, An examination of the WHOQOL-BREF using four popular data collection methods, Computers in Human Behavior, 55, 446, 10.1016/j.chb.2015.09.030 · DOI
  29. Sutton, 2000, Vol. 348
  30. Uhlig, 2014, Efficiencies of internet-based digital and paper-based scientific surveys and the estimated costs and time for different-sized cohorts, PLoS One, 9, 10.1371/journal.pone.0108441 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 1,135

Metadata

Authors
Wu, M.-J., Zhao, K., & Fils-Aime, F.
Venue
Computers in Human Behavior Reports
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2022-08
Volume
7
Pages
100206
ISSN
2451-9588
DOI
10.1016/j.chbr.2022.100206
Cited by
1,135
References
6
Language
en
Licence

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review