Comparing Data from Online and Face-to-face Surveys

By B. Duffy, Kate Smith, George Terhanian, J. Bremer. 2005

618 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Communication, Sociology and Political Science, Statistics and Probability

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/431858f1e38600e7cb9ce5f39d592e8491a6d81e

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Communication

1. Dieter Hoffmann
2. J. Petrick
3. Xiang Li
4. G. Szolnoki

In Sociology and Political Science

1. J. Petrick
2. Xiangping Li
3. Xiang Li
4. Dieter Hoffmann
5. G. Szolnoki
6. Geert Loosveldt
7. Simon Hudson
8. Nathalie Sonck

In Statistics and Probability

1. Dieter Hoffmann
2. G. Szolnoki
3. Xiangping Li
4. J. Petrick
5. Xiang Li

Citations in the corpus

• Job insecurity and employee health: The buffering potential of job control and job self-efficacy (2010, neutral): “a weighting technique that corrects for differences caused by the varying inclination of individuals to participate in online access panel surveys; Duffy, Smith, Terhanian, & Bremer, 2005 ).”
• Consumers' and producers' expectations towards geographical indications Empirical evidence for a German case study (2011, background): “This bias is assumed to be more pronounced in face-to-face interviews than in online surveys because of the presence of an interviewer in the former case (Duffy et al., 2005).”
• Reexamining the Dimensionality of Brand Loyalty: A Case of the Cruise Industry (2008, result): “This study utilized an online panel survey, which is a fairly commonplace method in marketing research (Dennis, 2001 ; Deutskens, de Jong, de Ruyter, & Wetzels, 2006 ; Duffy, Smith, Terhanian, & Bremer, 2005 ; Hansen, 2005 ; Sparrow & Curtice, 2004 ; Van Ryzin, 2004 ).”
• An evaluation of the weighting procedures for an online access panel survey (2008, background): “A possible solution is the propensity score adjustment of the online panel data (Duffy et al. 2005; Taylor 2005).”
• Examining the Antecedents of Brand Loyalty from an Investment Model Perspective (2008, methodology): “Although several researchers have expressed concern regarding its potential for sampling bias (Duffy et al. 2005; McWilliams and Nadkarni 2005), recent studies (Dennis 2001; Deutskens et al. 2006; Duffy et al. 2005) have found that despite minor differences, online panel and traditional…”
• The application of generational theory to tourism consumer behavior: An American perspective (2013, result): “, mail or phone survey) generate largely equivalent results (Dennis, 2001; Deutskens, Ruyter, & Wetzels, 2006; Duffy et al., 2005).”
• Online, face-to-face and telephone surveys—Comparing different sampling methods in wine consumer research (2013, methodology): “However, even this mode has problems with representativeness (see Duffy et al., 2005; Taylor et al., 2009).”