4.5 Article

Does the Recruitment of Offline Households Increase the Sample Representativeness of Probability-Based Online Panels? Evidence From the German Internet Panel

期刊

SOCIAL SCIENCE COMPUTER REVIEW
卷 35, 期 4, 页码 498-520

出版社

SAGE PUBLICATIONS INC
DOI: 10.1177/0894439316651584

关键词

online panel; probability sample; previously offline respondents; representativeness

资金

  1. German Internet Panel is the central data collection (project Z1) of Collaborative Research Center 884 Political Economy of Reforms (SFB 884) at the University of Mannheim
  2. German Research Foundation (DFG)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The past decade has seen a rise in the use of online panels for conducting survey research. However, the popularity of online panels, largely driven by relatively low implementation costs and high rates of Internet penetration, has been met with criticisms regarding their ability to accurately represent their intended target populations. This criticism largely stems from the fact that (1) non-Internet (or offline) households, despite their relatively small size, constitute a highly selective group unaccounted for in Internet panels, and (2) the preeminent use of nonprobability-based recruitment methods likely contributes a self-selection bias that further compromises the representativeness of online panels. In response to these criticisms, some online panel studies have taken steps to recruit probability-based samples of individuals and providing them with the means to participate online. Using data from one such study, the German Internet Panel, this article investigates the impact of including offline households in the sample on the representativeness of the panel. Consistent with studies in other countries, we find that the exclusion of offline households produces significant coverage biases in online panel surveys, and the inclusion of these households in the sample improves the representativeness of the survey despite their lower propensity to respond.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据