The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Effects of Questionnaire Length on Participation and Indicators of Response Quality in a Web Survey
Open accessAbstract
This paper investigates how expected and actual question naire length affects cooperation rates and a variety of indicators of data quality in web surveys. We hypothesized that the expected length of a web-based questionnaire is negatively related to the initial willingness to participate. Moreover, the serial position of questions was predicted to influence four indicators of data quality. We hypothesized that ques tions asked later in a web-based questionnaire will, compared to those asked earlier, be associated with (a) shorter response times, (b) higher item-nonresponse rates, (c) shorter answers to open-ended questions, and (d) less variability to items arranged in grids. To test these assump tions, we manipulated the stated length (10, 20, and 30 minutes) and the position of questions in an online questionnaire consisting of ran domly ordered blocks of thematically related questions. As expected, the longer the stated length, the fewer respondents started and completed the questionnaire. In addition, answers to questions positioned later in the questionnaire were faster, shorter, and more uniform than answers to questions positioned near the beginning.
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
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
Hur, W.-M., Kim, H., & Woo, J. (2014) · Journal of Business Ethics · doi:10.1007/s10551-013-1910-0 · Cited by 538
Ward, M. K., & Meade, A. W. (2023) · Annual Review of Psychology · doi:10.1146/annurev-psych-040422-045007 · Cited by 512
Eisele, G., Vachon, H., Lafit, G., Kuppens, P., Houben, M., Myin-Germeys, I., & Viechtbauer, W. (2022) · Assessment · doi:10.1177/1073191120957102 · Cited by 459
Victor, S. E., & Klonsky, E. D. (2016) · Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment · doi:10.1007/s10862-016-9547-9 · Cited by 470
Examining Completion Rates in Web Surveys via Over 25,000 Real-World Surveys
Liu, M., & Wronski, L. (2018) · Social Science Computer Review · doi:10.1177/0894439317695581 · Cited by 223
Careless responding in questionnaire measures: Detection, impact, and remedies
Goldammer, P., Annen, H., Stöckli, P. L., & Jonas, K. (2020) · The Leadership Quarterly · doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2020.101384 · Cited by 200
An AI-based decision support system for predicting mental health disorders
Tutun, S., Johnson, M. E., Ahmed, A., Albizri, A., Irgil, S., Yesilkaya, I., Ucar, E. N., Sengun, T., & Harfouche, A. (2023) · Information Systems Frontiers · doi:10.1007/s10796-022-10282-5 · Cited by 177
Strohmaier, S., Jones, F. W., & Cane, J. E. (2021) · Mindfulness · doi:10.1007/s12671-020-01512-5 · Cited by 128
Principles and Guidelines for Evaluating Social Robot Navigation Algorithms
Francis, A., Pérez-D’Arpino, C., Li, C., Xia, F., Alahi, A., Alami, R., Bera, A., Biswas, A., Biswas, J., Chandra, R., et al. (2025) · ACM Transactions on Human-Robot Interaction · doi:10.1145/3700599 · Cited by 107
Effects of gamification on participation and data quality in a real-world market research domain
Cechanowicz, J., Gutwin, C., Brownell, B., & Goodfellow, L. (2013) · Proceedings of the First International Conference on Gameful Design, Research, and Applications · doi:10.1145/2583008.2583016 · Cited by 103
What Predicts Software Developers’ Productivity?
Murphy-Hill, E., Jaspan, C., Sadowski, C., Shepherd, D., Phillips, M., Winter, C., Knight, A., Smith, E., & Jorde, M. (2021) · IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering · doi:10.1109/tse.2019.2900308 · Cited by 100
Schneider, F., van Osch, L., & de Vries, H. (2012) · Journal of Medical Internet Research · doi:10.2196/jmir.1863 · Cited by 75
Development of the Spence Children’s Anxiety Scale - Short Version (SCAS-S)
Ahlen, J., Vigerland, S., & Ghaderi, A. (2018) · Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment · doi:10.1007/s10862-017-9637-3 · Cited by 69
Özkan, S., Zale, E. L., Ring, D., & Vranceanu, A.-M. (2017) · Annals of Behavioral Medicine · doi:10.1007/s12160-017-9877-1 · Cited by 54
Brown, R. J., Burton, A. L., & Abbott, M. J. (2022) · Journal of Clinical Psychology · doi:10.1002/jclp.23370 · Cited by 39
Toepoel, V., & Lugtig, P. (2022) · Social Science Computer Review · doi:10.1177/0894439318784882 · Cited by 30
Detecting careless responding in multidimensional forced-choice questionnaires
Kupffer, R., Frick, S., & Wetzel, E. (2024) · Educational and Psychological Measurement · doi:10.1177/00131644231222420 · Cited by 17
Miller, A., Unruh, L., Wharton, T., Liu, X. “., & Zhang, N. “. (2017) · International Journal of Police Science & Management · doi:10.1177/1461355717717995 · Cited by 17
Establishing the construct and predictive validity of brief measures of affective polarization
Kasper, J., Schumacher, G., & Bakker, B. N. (2025) · European Journal of Political Research · doi:10.1111/1475-6765.70022 · Cited by 5
Ashmawy, R., Zeina, S., Kamal, E., Shelbaya, K., Gawish, N., Sharaf, S., Redwan, E. M., & Mehanna, A. (2025) · Journal of the Egyptian Public Health Association · doi:10.1186/s42506-025-00187-x · Cited by 3
(2020) · UCL Discovery (University College London) · Cited by 1
Metadata
- Authors
- Galesic, M., & Bosnjak, M.
- Venue
- Public Opinion Quarterly
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2009-05-28
- Volume
- 73
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 349-360
- ISSN
- 0033-362X (ISSN-L)
- 1537-5331
- OpenAlex
- W1989597713
- Cited by
- 1,297
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 64.04
- 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
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.
