The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Use of Internet panels to conduct surveys
Open accessAbstract
The use of Internet panels to collect survey data is increasing because it is cost-effective, enables access to large and diverse samples quickly, takes less time than traditional methods to obtain data for analysis, and the standardization of the data collection process makes studies easy to replicate. A variety of probability-based panels have been created, including Telepanel/CentERpanel, Knowledge Networks (now GFK KnowledgePanel), the American Life Panel, the Longitudinal Internet Studies for the Social Sciences panel, and the Understanding America Study panel. Despite the advantage of having a known denominator (sampling frame), the probability-based Internet panels often have low recruitment participation rates, and some have argued that there is little practical difference between opting out of a probability sample and opting into a nonprobability (convenience) Internet panel. This article provides an overview of both probability-based and convenience panels, discussing potential benefits and cautions for each method, and summarizing the approaches used to weight panel respondents in order to better represent the underlying population. Challenges of using Internet panel data are discussed, including false answers, careless responses, giving the same answer repeatedly, getting multiple surveys from the same respondent, and panelists being members of multiple panels. More is to be learned about Internet panels generally and about Web-based data collection, as well as how to evaluate data collected using mobile devices and social-media platforms.
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
NIH Toolbox for Assessment of Neurological and Behavioral Function
Gershon, R. C., Wagster, M. V., Hendrie, H. C., Fox, N. A., Cook, K. F., & Nowinski, C. J. (2013) · Neurology · doi:10.1212/wnl.0b013e3182872e5f · Cited by 895
Cited by
Patient burden and quality of life in atopic dermatitis in US adults
Silverberg, J. I., Gelfand, J. M., Margolis, D. J., Boguniewicz, M., Fonacier, L., Grayson, M. H., Simpson, E. L., Ong, P. Y., & Chiesa Fuxench, Z. C. (2018) · Annals of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology · doi:10.1016/j.anai.2018.07.006 · Cited by 648
Chiesa Fuxench, Z. C., Block, J. K., Boguniewicz, M., Boyle, J., Fonacier, L., Gelfand, J. M., Grayson, M. H., Margolis, D. J., Mitchell, L., Silverberg, J. I., et al. (2019) · Journal of Investigative Dermatology · doi:10.1016/j.jid.2018.08.028 · Cited by 419
Two-item PROMIS® global physical and mental health scales
Hays, R. D., Schalet, B. D., Spritzer, K. L., & Cella, D. (2017) · Journal of Patient-Reported Outcomes · doi:10.1186/s41687-017-0003-8 · Cited by 265
Self-citationTrent, M., Seale, H., Chughtai, A. A., Salmon, D., & MacIntyre, C. R. (2022) · Vaccine · doi:10.1016/j.vaccine.2021.06.048 · Cited by 257
Predictive biases in natural language processing models: A conceptual framework and overview
Shah, D. S., Schwartz, H. A., & Hovy, D. (2020) · Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics · doi:10.18653/v1/2020.acl-main.468 · Cited by 241
Metadata
- Authors
- Hays, R. D., Liu, H., & Kapteyn, A.
- Venue
- Behavior Research Methods
- Published
- 2015-07-14
- Volume
- 47
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 685-690
- ISSN
- 1554-351X (ISSN-L)
- 1554-3528
- OpenAlex
- W882142775
- Cited by
- 341
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 68.66
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
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: Use of Internet panels to conduct surveys. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.3758/s13428-015-0617-9
- The paper
- Hays, R. D., Liu, H., & Kapteyn, A. (2015). Use of Internet panels to conduct surveys. Behavior Research Methods. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-015-0617-9
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.