CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 2,581Survey Methodology and NonresponseEvaluation of Teaching PracticesOnline and Blended Learning

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 20 of the 22 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

The adequacy of response rates to online and paper surveys: what can be done?

Open access
Nulty, Duncan D.·2008·Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education
DOI 10.1080/02602930701293231
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

This article is about differences between, and the adequacy of, response rates to online and paper‐based course and teaching evaluation surveys. Its aim is to provide practical guidance on these matters. The first part of the article gives an overview of online surveying in general, a review of data relating to survey response rates and practical advice to help boost response rates. The second part of the article discusses when a response rate may be considered large enough for the survey data to provide adequate evidence for accountability and improvement purposes. The article ends with suggestions for improving the effectiveness of evaluation strategy. These suggestions are: to seek to obtain the highest response rates possible to all surveys; to take account of probable effects of survey design and methods on the feedback obtained when interpreting that feedback; and to enhance this action by making use of data derived from multiple methods of gathering feedback.

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 · 10.1080/02602930701293231

Cites

20 of 20 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 22 references

2 of the 22 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 6

  1. Ballantyne, C. (2003, November 24-25). Measuring quality units: Considerations in choosing mandatory questions. Paper presented at the Paper presented at Evaluations and Assessment Conference: a commitment to quality, University of South Australia, Adelaide.
  2. Goyder, J. (1987). The silent majority: non-respondents on sample surveys. Cambridge: Polity Press.
  3. Hastie, M., & Palmer, A. (1997). The development of online evaluation instruments to compliment web-based educational resources. . Paper presented at the Paper presented at the Third Australian World Wide Web Conference., Lismore, New South Wales.
  4. Kittleson, M. (1995). Determining effective follow-up of e-mail surveys. American Journal of Health Behavior, 21(3), 193-196.
  5. Nulty, D. D. (1992). Students' Opinions on Students' Opinions. In M. S. Parer (Ed.), Research and Development in Higher Education: Academia Under Pressure: Theory and Practice for the 21st Century. (Vol. 15, pp. 498-502).
  6. Pearson Assessments. (2006). Survey Tracker Plus. Retrieved 3 May 2006, from http://www.pearsonncs.com/surveytracker/index.htm

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 501–600 of 1,003

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Nulty, D. D.
Affiliations
Griffith University (AU)
Corresponding author
Nulty, Duncan D.
ORCID
Nulty, Duncan D.
Venue
Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education
Publisher
Informa UK Limited
Published
2008-06
Volume
33
Issue
3
Pages
301-314
ISSN
  • 0260-2938 (ISSN-L)
  • 1469-297X
DOI
10.1080/02602930701293231
OpenAlex
W2156725384
Cited by
2,581
References
22
Citations by year
2026: 118 · 2025: 154 · 2024: 124 · 2023: 140 · 2022: 185 · 2021: 229 · 2020: 248 · 2019: 240 · 2018: 243 · 2017: 244 · 2016: 202 · 2015: 185 · 2014: 137 · 2013: 63 · 2012: 24
FWCI
52.09
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education (publishedVersion)
  • Griffith Research Online (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Survey Methodology and Nonresponse
  • Social Sciences › Education › Evaluation of Teaching Practices
  • Social Sciences › Education › Online and Blended Learning
Keywords
survey response rates, online surveys, paper-based surveys, course evaluation, teaching evaluation, higher education assessment, survey design, assessment methods, data adequacy

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