Cited by 2,932Survey Methodology and NonresponseMobile Crowdsensing and CrowdsourcingFocus Groups and Qualitative Methods

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 68 of the 72 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Should We Trust Web-Based Studies? A Comparative Analysis of Six Preconceptions About Internet Questionnaires.

Abstract

The rapid growth of the Internet provides a wealth of new research opportunities for psychologists. Internet data collection methods, with a focus on self-report questionnaires from self-selected samples, are evaluated and compared with traditional paper-and-pencil methods. Six preconceptions about Internet samples and data quality are evaluated by comparing a new large Internet sample (N = 361,703) with a set of 510 published traditional samples. Internet samples are shown to be relatively diverse with respect to gender, socioeconomic status, geographic region, and age. Moreover, Internet findings generalize across presentation formats, are not adversely affected by nonserious or repeat responders, and are consistent with findings from traditional methods. It is concluded that Internet methods can contribute to many areas of psychology.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1037/0003-066x.59.2.93

Cites

68 of 68 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Citations

Cites

Show all 72 references

Research works printed but not linked: 7

  1. Azar, 2000, A web of research: They're fun, they're fast, and they save money, but do Web experiments yield quality results?, Monitor on Psychology, 31, 42
  2. 10.1037/0022-3514.75.3.729 · DOI · Paper page
  3. Dillman. 1998 · DOI
  4. Locke, 1995, Method of psychological assessment, self-disclosure, and experiential differences: A study of computer, questionnaire, and interview assessment formats., Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 10, 255
  5. 2000, Digest of education statistics 2000.
  6. Skitka, (in press). Social psychological research and me Internet: The promise and the perils of a new methodological frontier.
  7. 2000, Population, 1

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 601–700 of 1,012

Metadata

Authors
Gosling, S. D., Vazire, S., Srivastava, S., & John, O. P.
Affiliations
  • The University of Texas at Austin (US)
  • Stanford University (US)
  • University of California, Berkeley (US)
Venue
American Psychologist
Published
2004
Volume
59
Issue
2
Pages
93-104
ISSN
  • 0003-066X (ISSN-L)
  • 1935-990X
OpenAlex
W1992490637
Cited by
2,932
References
72
Citations by year
2026: 40 · 2025: 64 · 2024: 72 · 2023: 85 · 2022: 123 · 2021: 135 · 2020: 157 · 2019: 163 · 2018: 148 · 2017: 170 · 2016: 181 · 2015: 192 · 2014: 218 · 2013: 184 · 2012: 189
FWCI
261.73
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • American Psychologist (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Survey Methodology and Nonresponse
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Science Applications › Mobile Crowdsensing and Crowdsourcing
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Focus Groups and Qualitative Methods
Keywords
online data collection, paper-and-pencil questionnaires, sample representativeness, data quality, response format effects, generalizability, self-report questionnaire
MeSH terms
Adult, Aged, Attitude, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Psychology, Surveys and Questionnaires, Evidence-Based Medicine, Internet

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