The DOI matches its Crossref record; 20 of the 20 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Computing Response Metrics for Online Panels
Open accessAbstract
As more researchers use online panels for studies, the need for standardized rates to evaluate these studies becomes paramount. There are currently many different ways and conflicting terminology used to compute various metrics for online panels. This paper discusses the sparse literature on how to compute response, refusal, and other rates and proposes a set of formulas and a standardized terminology that can be used to calculate and interpret these metrics for online panel studies. A description of and distinction between probability-based and volunteer opt-in panels is made since not all metrics apply to both types. A review of the existing discussion and recommendations, mostly from international organizations, is presented for background and context. In order to propose response and other metrics, the different stages involved in building an online panel are delineated. Metrics associated with these stages contribute to cumulative response rate formulas that can be used to evaluate studies using online probability-based panels. (Only completion rates can be calculated with opt-in panels.) We conclude with a discussion of the meaning of the different metrics proposed and what we think should be reported for which type of panel.
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
Cites
Eysenbach, G. (2004) · Journal of Medical Internet Research · doi:10.2196/jmir.6.3.e34 · Cited by 6,480
Nonresponse rates and nonresponse bias in household surveys
Groves, R. M. (2006) · Public Opinion Quarterly · doi:10.1093/poq/nfl033 · Cited by 2,420
Couper, M. P. (2000) · Public Opinion Quarterly · doi:10.1086/318641 · Cited by 2,078
The Impact of Nonresponse Rates on Nonresponse Bias: A Meta-Analysis
Groves, R. M., & Peytcheva, E. (2008) · Public Opinion Quarterly · doi:10.1093/poq/nfn011 · Cited by 1,434
Schlenger, W. E., Caddell, J. M., Ebert, L., Jordan, B. K., Rourke, K. M., Wilson, D., Thalji, L., Dennis, J. M., Fairbank, J. A., & Kulka, R. A. (2002) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.288.5.581 · Cited by 1,133
Oxford Handbook of Internet Psychology
(2012) · Oxford Handbooks Online · doi:10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199561803.001.0001 · Cited by 1,120
International Handbook of Survey Methodology
(2012) · Routledge eBooks · doi:10.4324/9780203843123 · Cited by 1,044
Advantages and Disadvantages of Internet Research Surveys: Evidence from the Literature
Fricker, R. D., & Schonlau, M. (2002) · Field Methods · doi:10.1177/152582202237725 · Cited by 739
Conducting Research Surveys via E-mail and the Web
(2002) · RAND Corporation eBooks · doi:10.7249/mr1480 · Cited by 597
Noncoverage and nonresponse in an Internet survey
Couper, M. P., Kapteyn, A., Schonlau, M., & Winter, J. (2007) · Social Science Research · doi:10.1016/j.ssresearch.2005.10.002 · Cited by 292
Cited by
Well-being of parents and children during the COVID-19 pandemic: A national survey
Patrick, S. W., Henkhaus, L. E., Zickafoose, J. S., Lovell, K., Halvorson, A., Loch, S., Letterie, M., & Davis, M. M. (2020) · Pediatrics · doi:10.1542/peds.2020-016824 · Cited by 1,200
Research synthesis: AAPOR report on online panels
Prepared for the AAPOR Executive Council by a Task Force operating under the auspices of the AAPOR Standards Committee, W. M. I., Baker, R., Blumberg, S. J., Brick, J. M., Couper, M. P., Courtright, M., Dennis, J. M., Dillman, D., Frankel, M. R., Garland, P., et al. (2010) · Public Opinion Quarterly · doi:10.1093/poq/nfq048 · Cited by 584
An attack on science? Media use, trust in scientists, and perceptions of global warming
Hmielowski, J. D., Feldman, L., Myers, T. A., Leiserowitz, A., & Maibach, E. (2014) · Public Understanding of Science · doi:10.1177/0963662513480091 · Cited by 461
Support for climate policy and societal action are linked to perceptions about scientific agreement
Ding, D., Maibach, E. W., Zhao, X., Roser-Renouf, C., & Leiserowitz, A. (2011) · Nature Climate Change · doi:10.1038/nclimate1295 · Cited by 441
Climate on Cable: The Nature and Impact of Global Warming Coverage on Fox News, CNN, and MSNBC
Feldman, L., Maibach, E. W., Roser-Renouf, C., & Leiserowitz, A. (2012) · The International Journal of Press/Politics · doi:10.1177/1940161211425410 · Cited by 444
Metadata
- Authors
- Callegaro, M., & DiSogra, C.
- Venue
- Public Opinion Quarterly
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2008-12-01
- Volume
- 72
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 1008-1032
- ISSN
- 0033-362X (ISSN-L)
- 1537-5331
- OpenAlex
- W2106482715
- Cited by
- 512
- References
- 20
- FWCI
- 45.30
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
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: Computing Response Metrics for Online Panels. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1093/poq/nfn065
- The paper
- Callegaro, M., & DiSogra, C. (2008). Computing Response Metrics for Online Panels. Public Opinion Quarterly. https://doi.org/10.1093/poq/nfn065
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.
