The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
National Surveys Via Rdd Telephone Interviewing Versus the Internet
Abstract
In a national field experiment, the same questionnaires were administered simultaneously by RDD telephone interviewing, by the Internet with a probability sample, and by the Internet with a nonprobability sample of people who volunteered to do surveys for money. The probability samples were more representative of the nation than the nonprobability sample in terms of demographics and electoral participation, even after weighting. The nonprobability sample was biased toward being highly engaged in and knowledgeable about the survey's topic (politics). The telephone data manifested more random measurement error, more survey satisficing, and more social desirability response bias than did the Internet data, and the probability Internet sample manifested more random error and satisficing than did the volunteer Internet sample. Practice at completing surveys increased reporting accuracy among the probability Internet sample, and deciding only to do surveys on topics of personal interest enhanced reporting accuracy in the nonprobability Internet sample. Thus, the nonprobability Internet method yielded the most accurate self-reports from the most biased sample, while the probability Internet sample manifested the optimal combination of sample composition accuracy and self-report accuracy. These results suggest that Internet data collection from a probability sample yields more accurate results than do telephone interviewing and Internet data collection from nonprobability samples.
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
Accounting for the effects of accountability.
Lerner, J. S., & Tetlock, P. E. (1999) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.125.2.255 · Cited by 2,383
A meta-analytic review of the distribution of practice effect: Now you see it, now you don’t
Donovan, J. J., & Radosevich, D. J. (1999) · Journal of Applied Psychology · doi:10.1037/0021-9010.84.5.795 · Cited by 696
Mode Effects in a Survey of Medicare Prostate Surgery Patients
Fowler, Jr., Roman, A. M., & Di, Z. X. (1998) · Public Opinion Quarterly · doi:10.1086/297829 · Cited by 70
Cited by
Financial literacy and stock market participation
van Rooij, M., Lusardi, A., & Alessie, R. (2011) · Journal of Financial Economics · doi:10.1016/j.jfineco.2011.03.006 · Cited by 3,554
From Tweets to Polls: Linking Text Sentiment to Public Opinion Time Series
O'Connor, B., Balasubramanyan, R., Routledge, B., & Smith, N. (2010) · Proceedings of the International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media · doi:10.1609/icwsm.v4i1.14031 · Cited by 1,923
The Influence of Partisan Motivated Reasoning on Public Opinion
Bolsen, T., Druckman, J. N., & Cook, F. L. (2014) · Political Behavior · doi:10.1007/s11109-013-9238-0 · Cited by 891
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
Self-citationDoes Survey Mode Still Matter? Findings from a 2010 Multi-Mode Comparison
Ansolabehere, S., & Schaffner, B. F. (2014) · Political Analysis · doi:10.1093/pan/mpt025 · Cited by 573
Metadata
- Authors
- Chang, L., & Krosnick, J. A.
- Venue
- Public Opinion Quarterly
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2009
- Volume
- 73
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 641-678
- ISSN
- 0033-362X (ISSN-L)
- 1537-5331
- OpenAlex
- W2148709190
- Cited by
- 955
- References
- 3
- FWCI
- 157.39
- 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: National Surveys Via Rdd Telephone Interviewing Versus the Internet. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1093/poq/nfp075
- The paper
- Chang, L., & Krosnick, J. A. (2009). National Surveys Via Rdd Telephone Interviewing Versus the Internet. Public Opinion Quarterly. https://doi.org/10.1093/poq/nfp075
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.