The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Development of a Standard E-Mail Methodology: Results of an Experiment
Abstract
DAVID R. SCHAEFER, DON A. DILLMAN; Development of a Standard E-Mail Methodology: Results of an Experiment, Public Opinion Quarterly, Volume 62, Issue 3, 1
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
Cited by
A Comparison of Web and Mail Survey Response Rates
Kaplowitz, M. D., Hadlock, T. D., & Levine, R. (2004) · Public Opinion Quarterly · doi:10.1093/poq/nfh006 · Cited by 1,661
E-mail Survey Response Rates: A Review
Sheehan, K. B. (2006) · Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication · doi:10.1111/j.1083-6101.2001.tb00117.x · Cited by 1,441
Comparing Response Rates from Web and Mail Surveys: A Meta-Analysis
Shih, T.-H., & Fan, X. (2008) · Field Methods · doi:10.1177/1525822x08317085 · Cited by 1,159
Exploring physician specialist response rates to web-based surveys
Cunningham, C. T., Quan, H., Hemmelgarn, B., Noseworthy, T., Beck, C. A., Dixon, E., Samuel, S., Ghali, W. A., Sykes, L. L., & Jetté, N. (2015) · BMC Medical Research Methodology · doi:10.1186/s12874-015-0016-z · Cited by 995
Response Rate and Response Quality of Internet-Based Surveys: An Experimental Study
Deutskens, E., de Ruyter, K., Wetzels, M., & Oosterveld, P. (2004) · Marketing Letters · doi:10.1023/b:mark.0000021968.86465.00 · Cited by 835
Metadata
- Authors
- Schaefer, D. R., & Dillman, D. A.
- Venue
- Public Opinion Quarterly
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 1998
- Volume
- 62
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 378
- ISSN
- 0033-362X (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2084188419
- Cited by
- 830
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 58.88
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Development of a Standard E-Mail Methodology: Results of an Experiment. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1086/297851
- The paper
- Schaefer, D. R., & Dillman, D. A. (1998). Development of a Standard E-Mail Methodology: Results of an Experiment. Public Opinion Quarterly. https://doi.org/10.1086/297851
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
