The DOI matches its Crossref record; 6 of the 6 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Comparing the Accuracy of RDD Telephone Surveys and Internet Surveys Conducted with Probability and Non-Probability Samples
Abstract
This study assessed the accuracy of telephone and Internet surveys of probability samples and Internet surveys of non-probability samples of American adults by comparing aggregate survey results against benchmarks. The probability sample surveys were consistently more accurate than the non-probability sample surveys, even after post-stratification with demographics. The non-probability sample survey measurements were much more variable in their accuracy, both across measures within a single survey and across surveys with a single measure. Post-stratification improved the overall accuracy of some of the non-probability sample surveys but decreased the overall accuracy of others. Higher completion and response rates of the surveys were associated with less accuracy. Accuracy did not appear to change from 2004/2005 to 2009 for any of the methods, and these conclusions are reinforced by data collected in 2008 as well. These results are consistent with the conclusion that non-probability samples yield data that are neither as accurate as nor more accurate than data obtained from probability 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
Gosling, S. D., Vazire, S., Srivastava, S., & John, O. P. (2004) · American Psychologist · doi:10.1037/0003-066x.59.2.93 · Cited by 2,932
Sears, D. O. (1986) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037//0022-3514.51.3.515 · Cited by 2,119
The Effect of Social Desirability and Social Approval on Self-Reports of Physical Activity
Adams, S. A. (2005) · American Journal of Epidemiology · doi:10.1093/aje/kwi054 · Cited by 1,160
Evidence of self-report bias in assessing adherence to guidelines
Adams, A., Soumerai, S., Lomas, J., & Ross-Degnan, D. (1999) · International Journal for Quality in Health Care · doi:10.1093/intqhc/11.3.187 · Cited by 679
Struggles with Survey Weighting and Regression Modeling
Gelman, A. (2007) · Statistical Science · doi:10.1214/088342306000000691 · Cited by 604
A comparison of reliability between telephone and web-based surveys
Braunsberger, K., Wybenga, H., & Gates, R. (2007) · Journal of Business Research · doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2007.02.015 · Cited by 222
Cited by
Social Media and Fake News in the 2016 Election
Allcott, H., & Gentzkow, M. (2017) · Journal of Economic Perspectives · doi:10.1257/jep.31.2.211 · Cited by 6,767
Data quality of platforms and panels for online behavioral research
Peer, E., Rothschild, D., Gordon, A., Evernden, Z., & Damer, E. (2021) · Behavior Research Methods · doi:10.3758/s13428-021-01694-3 · Cited by 1,718
Douglas, B. D., Ewell, P. J., & Brauer, M. (2023) · PLOS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0279720 · Cited by 1,532
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
- Yeager, D. S., Krosnick, J. A., Chang, L., Javitz, H. S., Levendusky, M. S., Simpser, A., & Wang, R.
- Venue
- Public Opinion Quarterly
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2011
- Volume
- 75
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 709-747
- ISSN
- 0033-362X (ISSN-L)
- 1537-5331
- OpenAlex
- W2136621417
- Cited by
- 758
- References
- 6
- FWCI
- 138.24
- 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: Comparing the Accuracy of RDD Telephone Surveys and Internet Surveys Conducted with Probability and Non-Probability Samples. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1093/poq/nfr020
- The paper
- Yeager, D. S., Krosnick, J. A., Chang, L., Javitz, H. S., Levendusky, M. S., Simpser, A., & Wang, R. (2011). Comparing the Accuracy of RDD Telephone Surveys and Internet Surveys Conducted with Probability and Non-Probability Samples. Public Opinion Quarterly. https://doi.org/10.1093/poq/nfr020
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.
