¿Cómo mejorar la tasa de respuesta en encuestas on line?

  1. Sánchez Fernández, Juan
  2. Muñoz Leiva, Francisco
  3. Montoro, Francisco
Revista:
Revista de Estudios Empresariales. Segunda época

ISSN: 1988-9046

Año de publicación: 2009

Número: 1

Páginas: 45-62

Tipo: Artículo

DIALNET GOOGLE SCHOLAR lock_openDialnet editor

Otras publicaciones en: Revista de Estudios Empresariales. Segunda época

Resumen

La mayor parte de los estudios que han tratado el efecto que diferentes condicionantes tienen sobre la tasa de respuesta han intentado extrapolar el amplio conocimiento existente de las metodologías de encuestas personales telefónicas y postales al medio Internet. No obstante, existen bastantes diferencias que justifican un enfoque distinto en su uso y que hacen que los conocimientos existentes, por mucho que estén contrastados, no sean directamente aplicables a este nuevo medio. En esta línea el presente trabajo aborda el estudio del modo en el que el empleo de preincentivos, invitaciones a participar personalizadas y una menor periodicidad en el recuerdo (semanal frente a quincenal) influyen en la tasa de respuesta en un cuestionario web. Los resultados demuestran que una manera efectiva de mejorar la tasa de respuesta y de retención consiste en el envío semanal de invitaciones. Además se ha descubierto que la personalización de los envíos permite básicamente captar la atención de los individuos y llevarlos hasta el final del cuestionario (tasa de retención). Un resultado sorprendente consiste en que el uso conjunto de los condicionantes (envío semanal, con preincentivo e invitación personalizada) provoca un significativo aumento tanto de la tasa de respuesta en general y de retención.

Referencias bibliográficas

  • Aoki, K., y Elasmar, M. (2000): “Opportunities and challenges of conducting web-surveys: Results of a field experiment”, Annual Meeting of American Association for Public Opinion Research, May 18-21, Portland, Oregon.
  • Bauman, S., Jobity, N., Airey, J., y Atak, H. (2000): “Invites, intros and incentives: Lessons from a web survey”, 55th Annual Conference of American Association for Public Opinion Research. May, 18-21, Portland, Oregon.
  • Birnholtz, J. P., Horn, D. B., Finholt, T. A., y Bae, S. J. (2004): “The effects of cash, electronic, and paper gift certificates as respondent incentives for a web-based survey of technologically sophisticated respondents”, Social Science Computer Review, vol. 22, nº 3, pp. 355-362.
  • Boser, J. A. (1988): “Teacher-Education Graduate Surveys: Variables Related to Response Rate”, Journal of Educational Research, vol. 81, nº 6, p. 369.
  • Bosnjak, M., y Tuten, T. L. (2001): “Classifying response behaviour in web-based surveys”, Journal of Computer Mediated Communication. Retrieved October, nº 9, 2002, from www.ascuse.org/jeme/vol6/issue3/boznjak.html
  • Bosnjak, M., y Tuten, T. L. (2003): “Prepaid and promised incentives in web surveys: An experiment“, Social Science Computer Review, vol. 21, p. 2, pp. 208-217.
  • Chang, L., y Krosnick, J. (2003): “National surveys via RDD telephone interviewing vs. The internet: Comparing sample representativeness and response quality”, Paper presented at the American Association for Public Opinion Research Annual Meeting, Phoenix, Arizona.
  • Cho, H., y LaRose, R. (1999): “Privacy issues in internet surveys”, Social Science Computer Review, vol. 17, nº 4, pp. 421-434.
  • Cobanoglu, C., Warde, B., y Moreo, P. J. (2001): “A comparison of mail, fax and web-based survey methods”, International Journal of Market Research, vol. 43, nº 4, pp. 441- 452.
  • Cobanoglu, C., y Cobanoglu, N. (2003): “The effect of incentives in web surveys: Application and ethical considerations”, International Journal of Market Research, vol. 45, nº 4, pp. 475-488.
  • Coderre, F., Mathieu, A., y St-Laurent, N. (2004): “Comparison of the quality of qualitative data obtained through telephone, postal and email surveys”, International Journal of Market Research, vol. 46, nº 3, pp. 347-357.
  • Cook, C., Heath, F., y Thompson, R. L. (2000): “A meta-analysis of response rates in webor internet-based surveys”, Educational and Psychological Measurement, vol. 60, nº 6, pp. 821-836.
  • Couper, M. P. (2000): “Web surveys: A review of issues and approaches”, Public Opinion Quarterly, vol. 64, nº. 4, pp. 464-494.
  • Couper, M. P., Traugott, M. W. y Lamias, M. J. (2001): “Web survey design and administration”, Public Opinion Quarterly, vol. 65, nº 2, pp. 230-253.
  • Crawford, S., McCabe, S., Couper, M. P. y Boyd, C. (2002): “From mail to web: Improving response rates and data collection efficiencies”, International Conference on Improving Surveys, Copenhagen, Denmark.
  • Deutskens, E., de Ruyter, K. y Wetzels, M. (2006): “An Assessment of Equivalence between Online and Mail Surveys in Service Research”, Journal of Service Research, vol. 8, nº 5, pp. 346-355.
  • Deutskens, E., de Ruyter, K., Wetzels, M., y Oosterveld, P. (2004): “Response rate and response quality of internet-based surveys: An experimental study”, Marketing Letters, vol. 15, nº 1, pp. 21-36.
  • Deutskens, E., de Ruyter, K., y Wetzels, M. (2006): “An assessment of equivalence between online and mail surveys in service research”, Journal of Service Research, vol. 8, nº 4, pp. 346-355.
  • Díaz de Rada, V. (2005): “The effect of Follow-up Mailings on the Response Rate and Response Quality in Mail Surveys”, Quality & Quantity, nº 39, pp. 1-18.
  • Dillman, D. A. (2000): Mail and Internet Surveys: The Total Design Method, New York: Wiley.
  • Dillman, D. A., Singer, E., Clark, J. R., y Treat, J. B. (1996): “Effects of benefits appeals, mandatory appeals, and variations in statements of confidentiality on completion rates for census questionnaires”, Public Opinion Quarterly, nº 60, pp. 376-389.
  • Downes-Le Guin, T., Janowitz, P., Stone, R., y Khorram, S. (2002): “Use of pre-incentives in an internet survey”, Journal of Online Research, pp. 1-7.
  • Flaherty, L. M., Pearce, K. J. Y Rubin, R.B. (1998): “Internet and face-to-face communication: Not functional alternatives”, Communication Quarterly, vol. 46, nº (3), pp. 250-268.
  • Frick, A., Bächtiger, M. T., y Reips, U. D. (2001): “Financial incentives, personal information and drop-out rate in online studies” in U. D. Reips, y M. Bosnjak (Eds.), Dimensions of internet science, Lengerich, Germany: Pabst Science, pp. 209-219.
  • Fricker, S., Galesic, M., Tourangeau, R., y Yan, T. (2005): “An experimental comparison of web and telephone surveys”, Public Opinion Quarterly, vol. 69, nº 3, pp. 370-392.
  • García, J., Lara, A. M. (1998): Diseño estadístico de experimentos. Análisis de la varianza, Grupo Editorial Universitario, Universidad de Granada.
  • Göritz, A. S. (2005): “Contingent versus unconditional incentives in WWW-studies”, Metodolosky Zvezki, vol. 2, nº 1, pp. 1-14.
  • Göritz, A. S. (2006a): “Cash lotteries as incentives in online panels”, Social Science Computer Review, vol. 24, nº 4, pp. 445-459.
  • Göritz, A. S. (2006b): “Incentives in web studies: Methodological issues and review”, International Journal of Internet Science, vol. 1, nº 1, pp. 58-70.
  • Groves, R. M., Cialdini, R. B., y Couper, M. P. (1992): “Understanding the decision to participate in a survey”, Public Opinion Quarterly, vol. 56, nº 4, pp. 475-495.
  • Heberlein, T. A. y Baumgarther, R. (1978): “Factors Affecting Response Rates to Mailed Questionarires: A Quantitative Análisis of the Publisher Literatura”, American Sociology Review, vol. 43, nº 4, pp. 447-462.
  • Heerwegh, D. (2005): “Effects of personal salutations in E-mail invitations to participate in a web survey”, Public Opinion Quarterly, vol. 69, nº. 4, pp. 588-598.
  • Heerwegh, D. (2006): “An investigation of the effect of lotteries on web survey response rates”, Field Methods, vol. 18, nº 2, pp. 205-220.
  • Heerwegh, D. y Loosveldt, G. (2002): “Web Surveys: The Effect of Controlling Survey Access using PIN Numbers”, Social Science Computer Review, vol. 20, nº 1, pp. 10- 21.
  • Heerwegh, D., Vanhove, T., Matthijs, K., y Loosveldt, G. (2005): “The effect of personalization on response rates and data quality in web surveys”, International Journal of Social Research Methodology, vol. 8, nº 2, pp. 85-99.
  • Heerwegh, D., y Loosveldt, G. (2002): “Web surveys: The effect of controlling survey access using PIN numbers”, Social Science Computer Review, vol. 20, nº 1, pp. 10-21.
  • Heerwegh, D., y Loosveldt, G. (2003): “An evaluation of the semiautomatic login procedure to control web survey access”, Social Science Computer Review, vol. 21, nº 2, pp. 223- 234.
  • Ilieva, J., Baron, S., y Healey, N. M. (2002): “Online surveys in marketing research: Pros and cons”, International Journal of Market Research, vol. 44, nº 3, pp. 361-382.
  • Joinson, A. N. (1999): “Social desirability, anonymity, and internet-based questionnaires”, Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, nº 31, pp. 433-438.
  • Joinson, A. N., y Reips, U. D. (2007): “Personalized Salutation, Power of Sender and Response Rates to Web-Based Surveys”, Computers in Human Behavior, nº 23, pp. 275-285.
  • Kaplowitz, M. D., Hadlock, T. D., y Levine, R. (2004): “A comparison of web and mail survey response rates”, Public Opinion Quarterly, vol. 68, nº 1, pp. 94-101.
  • Kelly, G., y McKenzie, B. (2002): “Security, privacy, and confidentiality issues on the internet”, Journal of Medical Internet Research, vol. 4, nº 2.
  • Kittleson, M. (1997): “Determining effective follow-up of e-mail surveys”, American Journal of Health Behavior, vol. 21, nº 3, pp. 193-196.
  • McCabe, S. E., Couper, M. P., Cranford, J. A., y Boyd, C. J. (2005): “Comparison of web and mail surveys for studying secondary consequences associated with substance use: Evidence for minimal mode effects”, Addictive Behaviors, vol. 31, pp. 162-168.
  • Musch, J., y Reips, U. D. (2000): “The brief history of web experimenting” in Birnbaum, M.H, Psychologycal experiments on the internet, San Diego. C.A.: Academic Press, pp. 61-87.
  • Newman, J. C., Des Jarlais, D. C., Turner, C. F., Gribble, J. Cooley, P. y Paone, D. (2002): “The Differential Effects of Face-to-Face and Computer Interview Modes”, American Journal of Public Health, 92, pp. 294-297.
  • O’Neil, K. M., Penrod, S., D., y Bornstein, B. H. (2003): “Web-based research: Methodololical variables´ effects on dropout and sample characteristics”, Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, nº 35, pp. 217-226.
  • O’Neil, K. M., y Penrod, S., D. (2001): “Methodological variables in web-based research that may affect results: Sample type, monetary incentives, and personal information”, Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, vol. 33, nº 2, pp. 226-233.
  • Pearson, J. y Levine, R. A. (2003): “Saludations and Response Rates to Online Surveys”, 4th International Conference on the Impact of Technology on the Survey Process, September, 19, University of Warwick (England).
  • Porter, S. R. y Whitcomb, M. E. (2003): “The impact of contact type on web survey response rates”, Public Opinion Quarterly, vol. 67, nº 4, 579-588.
  • Roster, C. A., Rogers, R. D., y Albaum, G. (2004): “A comparison of response characteristics from web and telephone surveys”, International Journal of Market Research, vol. 46, nº 3, pp. 359-373.
  • Roztocki, N. (2001): “Using internet-based surveys for academic research: Opportunities and problems”, Proceedings of the 2001 American Society for Engineering Management (ASEM) National Conference, pp. 290-295.
  • Schaefer, D. R. y Dillman, D. A. (1998): “Development of a Standard e-mail methodology: Results of an experiment”, Public Opinion Quarterly, 62, pp. 378-397.
  • Sheehan, K. B. (2001): “E-mail survey response rates: A review”, Journal of ComputerMediated Communication, 6(2). Retrieved 9 March 2002 from http://www.ascusc.org/jcmc/vol6/issue2/sheehan.html.
  • Sheehan, K. B. y Hoy, N. G. (1997): “Using e-mail to survey Internet users in the United States: Methodology and assessment”, Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, vol. 4, p. 3.
  • Sheehan, K. B., y Hoy, M. G. (1999): “Flaming, complaining, abstaining: How online users respond to privacy concerns”, Journal of Advertising, vol. 28, nº 3, pp. 37-51.
  • Sheehan, K.B. y Mcmillan, S.J. (1999): “Response Variation in E-Mail Surveys: An Exploration”, Journal of Advertising Research, nº 39, pp. 45-54.
  • Tourangeau, R., Rips, L. J., y Rasinski, K. (2000): The psychology of survey response, Cambridge University Press.
  • Tuten, T. L., Galesic, M., y Bosnjak, M. (2004): “Effects of immediate versus delayed notification of prize draw results on response behaviour in web surveys: An experiment”, Social Science Computer Review, vol. 22, nº 3, pp. 377-384.
  • Weible, R., y Wallace, J. (1998): “Cyber research: The impact of the Internet on data collection”, Marketing Research, vol. 10, nº 3, pp. 19-24.
  • Willimack, D. K., Schuman, H., Pennell, B. E. y Lepkowski, J. M. (1995): “Effects of a prepaid nonmonetary incentive on response rates and response quality in a face-to-face survey”, Public Opinion Quarterly, nº 59, pp. 78-92.
  • Yun, G. W. y Trumbo, C. W. (2000): “Comparative response to a survey executed by post, email, & web form”, Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, vol. 6 , nº 1, pp. 1-11.
Fuente de los datos: Dialnet