IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/rbs/ijbrss/v8y2019i1p20-29.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Web Survey’s Completion Rates: Effects of Forced Responses, Question Display Styles, and Subjects’ Attitude

Author

Listed:
  • Chatpong Tangmanee

    (Chulalongkorn University,Bangkok)

  • Phattharaphong Niruttinanon

    (Chulalongkorn University,Bangkok)

Abstract

In anticipating a high completion rate for web surveys, researchers must be attentive to the design features, two of which are the forced responses (i.e., 100%-, 50%, or 0%-forced) and the questionnaire item display (i.e., paging or scrolling). Moreover, the respondents’ favorable attitude towards questionnaires is a key factor driving them to complete the questionnaires. However, no studies have examined the effects of these three variables on web survey completion rates. This research thus attempts to fill this gap. Using a quasi-experiment, we obtained 401 responses to six (i.e., 3 levels of forced responses x 2 display styles) comparable online questionnaires with identical contents. The analysis confirmed the statistically significant effects of the forced responses, the item display and the subjects’ attitudes toward questionnaires on completion rates. In addition to extending theoretical insights into the factors leading to a web survey’s completion rates, practical recommendations are suggested based on the findings. Key Words: Web Survey, Completion Rates, Forced Responses, Question Display Styles

Suggested Citation

  • Chatpong Tangmanee & Phattharaphong Niruttinanon, 2019. "Web Survey’s Completion Rates: Effects of Forced Responses, Question Display Styles, and Subjects’ Attitude," International Journal of Research in Business and Social Science (2147-4478), Center for the Strategic Studies in Business and Finance, vol. 8(1), pages 20-29, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:rbs:ijbrss:v:8:y:2019:i:1:p:20-29
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.ssbfnet.com/ojs/index.php/ijrbs/article/view/183/178
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: http://www.ssbfnet.com/ojs/index.php/ijrbs/article/view/183
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Vera Toepoel & Corrie Vis & Marcel Das & Arthur van Soest, 2009. "Design of Web Questionnaires," Sociological Methods & Research, , vol. 37(3), pages 371-392, February.
    2. Karen Yuan Wang & Dilek Zamantili Nayir, 2009. "Procedural justice, participation and power distance: Information sharing in Chinese firms," Management Research Review, Emerald Group Publishing, vol. 33(1), pages 66-78, December.
    3. Gao, Baojun & Li, Xiangge & Liu, Shan & Fang, Debin, 2018. "How power distance affects online hotel ratings: The positive moderating roles of hotel chain and reviewers’ travel experience," Tourism Management, Elsevier, vol. 65(C), pages 176-186.
    4. Stefan Stieger & Ulf‐Dietrich Reips & Martin Voracek, 2007. "Forced‐response in online surveys: Bias from reactance and an increase in sex‐specific dropout," Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 58(11), pages 1653-1660, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Chatpong Tangmanee & Phattharaphong Niruttinanon, 2015. "Effects of Forced Responses and Question Display Styles on Web Survey Response Rates," International Journal of Research in Business and Social Science (2147-4478), Center for the Strategic Studies in Business and Finance, vol. 4(2), pages 54-62, April.
    2. Hui-Ju Wang, 2022. "Understanding reviewer characteristics in online reviews via network structural positions," Electronic Markets, Springer;IIM University of St. Gallen, vol. 32(3), pages 1311-1325, September.
    3. Lindhjem, Henrik & Navrud, Ståle, 2011. "Using Internet in Stated Preference Surveys: A Review and Comparison of Survey Modes," International Review of Environmental and Resource Economics, now publishers, vol. 5(4), pages 309-351, September.
    4. Zhu, John Jianjun & Chang, Yung-Chun & Ku, Chih-Hao & Li, Stella Yiyan & Chen, Chi-Jen, 2021. "Online critical review classification in response strategy and service provider rating: Algorithms from heuristic processing, sentiment analysis to deep learning," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 129(C), pages 860-877.
    5. David d'Acunto & Raffaele Filieri & Stefano Amato, 2023. "Hotels’ environmentally-framed eWOM. The moderating role of environmental culture," Post-Print hal-04781820, HAL.
    6. Marios Kokkodis & Theodoros Lappas, 2020. "Your Hometown Matters: Popularity-Difference Bias in Online Reputation Platforms," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 31(2), pages 412-430, June.
    7. Hyun-Jeong Ban & Hayeon Choi & Eun-Kyong Choi & Sanghyeop Lee & Hak-Seon Kim, 2019. "Investigating Key Attributes in Experience and Satisfaction of Hotel Customer Using Online Review Data," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(23), pages 1-13, November.
    8. Michał Jakubczyk & Dominik Golicki, 2020. "Elicitation and modelling of imprecise utility of health states," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 88(1), pages 51-71, February.
    9. Tobias Gummer & Joss Roßmann & Henning Silber, 2021. "Using Instructed Response Items as Attention Checks in Web Surveys: Properties and Implementation," Sociological Methods & Research, , vol. 50(1), pages 238-264, February.
    10. Weijters, Bert & Millet, Kobe & Cabooter, Elke, 2021. "Extremity in horizontal and vertical Likert scale format responses. Some evidence on how visual distance between response categories influences extreme responding," International Journal of Research in Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 38(1), pages 85-103.
    11. Natalja Menold & Vera Toepoel, 2024. "Do Different Devices Perform Equally Well with Different Numbers of Scale Points and Response Formats? A test of measurement invariance and reliability," Sociological Methods & Research, , vol. 53(2), pages 898-939, May.
    12. Zhang, Chonghui & Zhang, Na & Su, Weihua & Balezentis, Tomas, 2024. "Online commodity recommendation model for interaction between user ratings and intensity-weighted hierarchical sentiment: A case study of LYCOM," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 129(C).
    13. Chong Guan & Yu-Chen Hung & Wenting Liu, 2022. "Cultural differences in hospitality service evaluations: mining insights of user generated content," Electronic Markets, Springer;IIM University of St. Gallen, vol. 32(3), pages 1061-1081, September.
    14. Raksmey Sann & Pei-Chun Lai & Hui-Chen Chang, 2020. "Does Culture of Origin Have an Impact on Online Complaining Behaviors? The Perceptions of Asians and Non-Asians," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(5), pages 1-37, February.
    15. Zhang, Ziqiong & Qiao, Shuchen & Chen, Ying & Zhang, Zili, 2022. "Effects of spatial distance on consumers' review effort," Annals of Tourism Research, Elsevier, vol. 94(C).
    16. Marcello M. Mariani & Michela Matarazzo, 2021. "Does cultural distance affect online review ratings? Measuring international customers’ satisfaction with services leveraging digital platforms and big data," Journal of Management & Governance, Springer;Accademia Italiana di Economia Aziendale (AIDEA), vol. 25(4), pages 1057-1078, December.
    17. Yüksel, Atila, 2017. "A critique of “Response Bias” in the tourism, travel and hospitality research," Tourism Management, Elsevier, vol. 59(C), pages 376-384.
    18. Ali B. Mahmoud & Dieu Hack-Polay & Nicholas Grigoriou & Iris Mohr & Leonora Fuxman, 2021. "A generational investigation and sentiment and emotion analyses of female fashion brand users on Instagram in Sub-Saharan Africa," Journal of Brand Management, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 28(5), pages 526-544, September.
    19. Radojevic, Tijana & Stanisic, Nemanja & Stanic, Nenad, 2019. "The culture of hospitality: From anecdote to evidence," Annals of Tourism Research, Elsevier, vol. 79(C).
    20. Mariani, Marcello M. & Borghi, Matteo & Laker, Benjamin, 2023. "Do submission devices influence online review ratings differently across different types of platforms? A big data analysis," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 189(C).

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:rbs:ijbrss:v:8:y:2019:i:1:p:20-29. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Umit Hacioglu (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/ssbffea.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.