Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 1,000

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 7 of the 7 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Web Surveys versus other Survey Modes: A Meta-Analysis Comparing Response Rates

Manfreda, Katja Lozar, Bosnjak, Michael, Berzelak, Jernej, Haas, Iris, Vehovar, Vasja·2008·International Journal of Market Research

Abstract

One question that arises when discussing the usefulness of web-based surveys is whether they gain the same response rates compared to other modes of collecting survey data. A common perception exists that, in general, web survey response rates are considerably lower. However, such unsystematic anecdotal evidence could be misleading and does not provide any useful quantitative estimate. Metaanalytic procedures synthesising controlled experimental mode comparisons could give accurate answers but, to the best of the authors' knowledge, such research syntheses have so far not been conducted. To overcome this gap, the authors have conducted a meta-analysis of 45 published and unpublished experimental comparisons between web and other survey modes. On average, web surveys yield an 11% lower response rate compared to other modes (the 95% confidence interval is confined by 15% and 6% to the disadvantage of the web mode). This response rate difference to the disadvantage of the web mode is systematically influenced by the sample recruitment base (a smaller difference for panel members as compared to one-time respondents), the solicitation mode chosen for web surveys (a greater difference for postal mail solicitation compared to email) and the number of contacts (the more contacts, the larger the difference in response rates between modes). No significant influence on response rate differences can be revealed for the type of mode web surveys are compared to, the type of target population, the type of sponsorship, whether or not incentives were offered, and the year the studies were conducted. Practical implications are discussed.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/147078530805000107

Cites

7 of 7 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

Show all 7 references

Cited by

See all 1,000

Metadata

Authors
Manfreda, K. L., Bosnjak, M., Berzelak, J., Haas, I., & Vehovar, V.
Venue
International Journal of Market Research
Published
2008-01
Volume
50
Issue
1
Pages
79-104
ISSN
  • 1470-7853 (ISSN-L)
  • 2515-2173
OpenAlex
W1493524810
Cited by
1,000
References
7
FWCI
45.97
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: Web Surveys versus other Survey Modes: A Meta-Analysis Comparing Response Rates. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1177/147078530805000107
The paper
Manfreda, K. L., Bosnjak, M., Berzelak, J., Haas, I., & Vehovar, V. (2008). Web Surveys versus other Survey Modes: A Meta-Analysis Comparing Response Rates. International Journal of Market Research. https://doi.org/10.1177/147078530805000107

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.