The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Electronic Survey Methodology: A Case Study in Reaching Hard-to-Involve Internet Users
Abstract
Using the Internet to conduct quantitative research presents challenges not found in conventional research. Paper-based survey quality criteria cannot be completely adapted to electronic formats. Electronic surveys have distinctive technological, demographic, and response characteristics that affect their design, use, and implementation. Survey design, participant privacy and confidentiality, sampling and subject solicitation, distribution methods and response rates, and survey piloting are critical methodological components that must be addressed. In this article, quality criteria for electronic survey design and use based on an investigation of recent electronic survey literature are presented. The application of these criteria to reach a hard-to-involve online population-nonpublic participants of online communities (also known as "lurkers")-and survey them on their community participation, a topic not salient to the purpose of their online communities is demonstrated in a case study. The results show that a hard-to-reach audience can be reached using the quality criteria that are most important for reaching these types of audiences. The results suggest how the use of some criteria may conflict and what researchers may experience when conducting electronic surveys in an online culture in which people are not tolerant of intrusions into online lives.
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
Self-reports: How the questions shape the answers.
Schwarz, N. (1999) · American Psychologist · doi:10.1037/0003-066x.54.2.93 · Cited by 2,846
Cited by
Conducting behavioral research on Amazon’s Mechanical Turk
Mason, W., & Suri, S. (2012) · Behavior Research Methods · doi:10.3758/s13428-011-0124-6 · Cited by 3,172
Wright, K. B. (2006) · Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication · doi:10.1111/j.1083-6101.2005.tb00259.x · Cited by 2,550
Response rates of online surveys in published research: A meta-analysis
Wu, M.-J., Zhao, K., & Fils-Aime, F. (2022) · Computers in Human Behavior Reports · doi:10.1016/j.chbr.2022.100206 · Cited by 1,135
The top five reasons for lurking: improving community experiences for everyone
Preece, J., Nonnecke, B., & Andrews, D. (2004) · Computers in Human Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.chb.2003.10.015 · Cited by 1,038
Self-citationChen, G. M. (2011) · Computers in Human Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.chb.2010.10.023 · Cited by 747
Metadata
- Authors
- Andrews, D., Nonnecke, B., & Preece, J.
- Venue
- International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2003-10
- Volume
- 16
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 185-210
- ISSN
- 1044-7318 (ISSN-L)
- 1532-7590
- OpenAlex
- W2100967055
- Cited by
- 747
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 41.12
- 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: Electronic Survey Methodology: A Case Study in Reaching Hard-to-Involve Internet Users. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1207/s15327590ijhc1602_04
- The paper
- Andrews, D., Nonnecke, B., & Preece, J. (2003). Electronic Survey Methodology: A Case Study in Reaching Hard-to-Involve Internet Users. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327590ijhc1602_04
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.