Search results

The purpose of this paper is to provide a comprehensive review of the respondents’ fraud phenomenon in online panel surveys, delineate data quality issues from surveys of broad and narrow populations, alert fellow researchers about higher incidence of respondents’ fraud in online panel surveys of narrow populations, such as logistics professionals and recommend ways to protect the quality of data received from such surveys.

This general review paper has two parts, namely, descriptive and instructional. The current state of online survey and panel data use in supply chain research is examined first through a survey method literature review. Then, a more focused understanding of the phenomenon of fraud in surveys is provided through an analysis of online panel industry literature and psychological academic literature. Common survey design and data cleaning recommendations are critically assessed for their applicability to narrow populations. A survey of warehouse professionals is used to illustrate fraud detection techniques and glean additional, supply chain specific data protection recommendations.

Surveys of narrow populations, such as those typically targeted by supply chain researchers, are much more prone to respondents’ fraud. To protect and clean survey data, supply chain researchers need to use many measures that are different from those commonly recommended in methodological survey literature.

For the first time, the need to distinguish between narrow and broad population surveys has been stated when it comes to data quality issues. The confusion and previously reported “mixed results” from literature reviews on the subject have been explained and a clear direction for future research is suggested: the two categories should be considered separately.

Specific fraud protection advice is provided to supply chain researchers on the strategic choices and specific aspects for all phases of surveying narrow populations, namely, survey preparation, administration and data cleaning.

This paper can greatly benefit researchers in several ways. It provides a comprehensive review and analysis of respondents’ fraud in online surveys, an issue poorly understood and rarely addressed in academic research. Drawing from literature from several fields, this paper, for the first time in literature, offers a systematic set of recommendations for narrow population surveys by clearly contrasting them with general population surveys.

This paper aims to provides a brief review of the dashboard literature, an account of the development of performance dashboards for field data collection at Westat, and more specifically for the first cycle of the Programme for the International Assessment of Adult Competencies (PIAAC). A brief concluding section offers suggestions for improvements in survey dashboards for PIAAC’s next cycle.

To manage field work at Westat, the authors create views into various paradata databases and present them in a dashboard, showing key performance indicators at a glance. Users can drill down from the dashboard into underlying databases to investigate potential problems. The US PIAAC dashboard is a monitoring system that supports daily review of many activities. For example, it provides overnight alerts to the field supervisor when global positioning system (GPS) data from an interviewer’s smartphone shows the interview occurred far from the respondent’s home.

Performance dashboards may represent best practice for monitoring field activities. Paradata sources and systems vary greatly across the PIAAC countries, but a multitude of process data exists in every country and can be used to create quality indicators and a monitoring system. PIAAC can establish standards/guidelines to improve visualization of quality metrics and management data, regardless of the local survey infrastructure.

The core of the paper is a case study of the experiences on the US PIAAC implementation of dashboards to monitor survey quality, production and costs, with special attention to the issue of fabrication.

The purpose of this paper is to examine the effect of smartphones and computers as web survey entry response devices on the quality of responses in different question formats and across different survey invitations delivery modes. The respondents’ preference of device and the response immediacy were also compared.

Two field experiments were conducted with a cluster sampling and a census of all students in a public university in the USA.

Device effect on response quality was only found when using computer-aided self-interviews, but not in e-mail delivered web surveys. Even though the computer was the preferred device, but the smartphone’s immediate response was significantly higher than the computer.

The sample was restricted to college students who are more proficient users of smartphones and have high access to computers. But the direct comparison in the two studies using the same population increases the internal validity of the study comparing different web survey delivery modes.

Because of the minor differences in device on response quality, researchers can consider using more smartphones for field work such as computer-aided self-interviews to complement e-mail delivered surveys.

This is the first study that compares the response device effects of computer-aided self-interviews and e-mailed delivered web surveys. Because web surveys are increasingly used and various devices are being used to collect data, how respondents behave in different devices and the strengths and weaknesses of different methods of delivery survey help researchers to improve data quality and develop effective web survey delivery and participant recruitment.

Purpose — The paper aims at an improvement of the understanding, how mobility is reported in longitudinal surveys and to develop ideas how to assess the completeness of the reported mobility.

Methodology/approach — Analyses of data quality and completeness are performed on the multiday and multiperiod data of the German Mobility Panel. Distinctions are made between differing reporting behaviours of individuals who either reported three times, two times or only once.

Findings — It can be shown that the reporting behaviours are different depending on the number of repetitions. The results illustrate that on the one hand individuals who repeat the survey in a consecutive wave tend to report with greater motivation, endurance and accuracy. On the other hand, participants who have not reported completely and accurately are more likely to drop out. These effects positively influence the quality and completeness and therefore the reliability of recorded mobility figures in multiperiod mobility surveys.

Practical implications — The analytical possibilities of combined multiday and multiperiod data in terms of the assessment of data quality will be demonstrated. Hints to identify such types of survey artefacts are presented.

This paper aims to explore the likelihood that face-to-face (FTF) interviewing will continue to be the “gold standard” survey interviewing method, to which all other modes are compared, in an era in which daily communicative habits for many now involve selecting among many alternative modes.

After outlining what is known about the purported benefits and drawbacks of FTF interviewing, the paper reviews recent findings that raise questions about whether FTF interviewing still produces the highest rates of participation, best data quality and greatest respondent satisfaction.

Results of several studies suggest that at least for some respondents, asynchronous interviewing modes that reduce the interviewer’s social presence and allow respondents to participate while they are mobile or multitasking (in particular, text messaging) may well lead to higher quality data and greater respondent satisfaction.

To the extent that these findings generalize, the implication is that FTF interviewing will continue to be needed for at least some respondents, but multiple trends suggest that it is likely to be one mode among many, and that the assumption that it is always needed or that it always leads to the highest quality data no longer holds.

Exploring when and how FTF interviewing will continue to be needed is particularly important given FTF’s financial and social costs, in an era of budgetary challenges and new questioning about which data sources are essential and lead to trustworthy information.

Surveys in multinational, multiregional and multicultural contexts (or “3MC” surveys) are becoming increasingly important to global and regional decision-making and theory building. To serve this purpose, the surveys need to be well managed, with an awareness of key sources of survey error and how to minimize them, mechanisms in place to control the implementation process and an ability to intervene in that process when necessary in a spirit of continuous improvement (Pennell et al., 2017). One key approach for managing and assessing the quality of 3MC surveys is the total survey error (TSE) framework and associated survey process quality. This paper aims to examine the application of the TSE framework and survey process quality to the Programme for the International Assessment of Adult Competencies (PIAAC).

The authors begin with a background on TSE and discuss recent adaptations of TSE and survey process quality for 3MC surveys. They then presents a TSE framework tailored with examples of potential contributions to error for PIAAC and ways to address those through effective quality assurance (QA) and quality control (QC) approaches.

Overall, the authors find that the design and implementation of the first cycle of PIAAC largely reflect the current best practice for 3MC surveys. However, the authors identify several potential contributions to error that may threaten comparability in PIAAC and ways these could be addressed in the upcoming cycle.

With a view toward continuous improvement, the final section draws on the survey process quality approach adapted from Hansen et al.’s study (2016) to summarize the recommendations in terms of additional QA elements (inputs and activities) and associated QC elements (measures and reports) for PIAAC’s consideration in the next cycle.

At the 2008 International Conference on Transport Survey Methods in Annecy, France, transport survey methodologists and practitioners shared their experience with keeping abreast of the data needs of a rapidly changing world. Over the past decade, this has translated into the need for: an expanded travel survey toolkit; methodological innovation for surveys of freight and public transport operations; a growing use of data collection and processing technologies; a need to align surveys with other data streams; and an increased interest in the comparability of international datasets on personal travel and commodity movements in an era of globalisation. We discuss how these guided the choice and scope of the five themes around which both the Annecy Conference and this book were organised.