The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Comparative Response to a Survey Executed by Post, E-mail, & Web Form
Abstract
Recent developments in communication technologies have created alternative survey methods through e-mail and Web sites. Both methods use electronic text communication, require fewer resources, and provide faster responses than traditional paper and pencil methods. However, new survey methodologies also generate problems involving sampling, response consistency and participant motivation. Empirical studies need to be done to address these issues as researchers implement electronic survey methods. In this study we conduct an analysis of the characteristics of three survey response modes: post, e-mail, and Web site. Data are from a survey of the National Association of Science Writers (NASW), in which science writers' professional use of e-mail and the Web is evaluated. Our analysis offers two lessons. First, a caution. We detect a number of potentially important differences in the response characteristics of these three groups. Researchers using multi-mode survey techniques should keep in mind that subtle effects might be at play in their analyses. Second, an encouragement. We do not observe significant influences of survey mode in our substantive analyses. We feel, at least in this case, that the differences detected in the response groups indicate that using multi-mode survey techniques improved the representativeness of the sample without biasing other results.
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
Social psychological aspects of computer-mediated communication
Kiesler, S., Siegel, J., & McGuire, T. W. (1984) · American Psychologist · doi:10.1037/0003-066x.39.10.1123 · Cited by 2,630
The Design and Administration of Mail Surveys
Dillman, D. A. (1991) · Annual Review of Sociology · doi:10.1146/annurev.so.17.080191.001301 · Cited by 1,311
World-Wide Web survey research: Benefits, potential problems, and solutions
Schmidt, W. C. (1997) · Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers · doi:10.3758/bf03204826 · Cited by 620
Cited by
Wright, K. B. (2006) · Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication · doi:10.1111/j.1083-6101.2005.tb00259.x · Cited by 2,550
Participation Rates in Epidemiologic Studies
Galea, S., & Tracy, M. (2007) · Annals of Epidemiology · doi:10.1016/j.annepidem.2007.03.013 · Cited by 1,877
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
Response Rates and Responsiveness for Surveys, Standards, and the Journal
Fincham, J. E. (2008) · American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education · doi:10.5688/aj720243 · Cited by 1,294
LaRose, R., & Eastin, M. S. (2004) · Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media · doi:10.1207/s15506878jobem4803_2 · Cited by 888
Metadata
- Authors
- Yun, G. W., & Trumbo, C. W.
- Venue
- Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2006-06-23
- Volume
- 6
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 0-0
- ISSN
- 1083-6101 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W1982897041
- Cited by
- 464
- References
- 3
- FWCI
- 112.97
- 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: Comparative Response to a Survey Executed by Post, E-mail, & Web Form. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1083-6101.2000.tb00112.x
- The paper
- Yun, G. W., & Trumbo, C. W. (2006). Comparative Response to a Survey Executed by Post, E-mail, & Web Form. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1083-6101.2000.tb00112.x
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.