Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.14279/15759
DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorTriga, Vasiliki-
dc.contributor.authorManavopoulos, Vasilis-
dc.date.accessioned2020-02-12T12:44:43Z-
dc.date.available2020-02-12T12:44:43Z-
dc.date.issued2019-
dc.identifier.citationSurvey Research Methods, 2019, vol. 13, no. 2, pp. 181-194en_US
dc.identifier.issn18643361-
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/20.500.14279/15759-
dc.description.abstractThis paper compares two modes of administering an election survey: A traditional, door-to-door survey and an identical online version promoted via a Voting Advice Application. Whereas online political surveys are known to suffer from self-selection bias of politically interested respondents, traditional surveys are plagued with socially desirable responding and are susceptible to the effects of satisficing and other fatigue-related effects. Using a propensity score matching methodology, we examine the extent to which such differences exist between the two modes of administration. While we report mixed findings regarding the structure of respondents’ answer patterns, significant differences emerged in relation to social desirability bias with the offline group being more “affected” than the online group.en_US
dc.formatpdfen_US
dc.language.isoenen_US
dc.relation.ispartofSurvey Research Methodsen_US
dc.rights© European Survey Research Associationen_US
dc.subjectSatisficingen_US
dc.subjectVoting advice applicationsen_US
dc.subjectSurvey modesen_US
dc.subjectOnline surveysen_US
dc.subjectPropensity score matchingen_US
dc.subjectMode effectsen_US
dc.subjectSocial desirabilityen_US
dc.titleDoes mode of administration impact on quality of data? Comparing a traditional survey versus an online survey via a voting advice applicationen_US
dc.typeArticleen_US
dc.collaborationCyprus University of Technologyen_US
dc.subject.categoryMedia and Communicationsen_US
dc.journalsOpen Accessen_US
dc.countryCyprusen_US
dc.subject.fieldSocial Sciencesen_US
dc.publicationPeer Revieweden_US
dc.identifier.doi10.18148/srm/2019.v13i2.7392en_US
dc.identifier.scopus2-s2.0-85073295756-
dc.identifier.urlhttps://api.elsevier.com/content/abstract/scopus_id/85073295756-
dc.relation.issue2en_US
dc.relation.volume13en_US
cut.common.academicyear2018-2019en_US
dc.identifier.spage181en_US
dc.identifier.epage194en_US
item.fulltextNo Fulltext-
item.cerifentitytypePublications-
item.grantfulltextnone-
item.openairecristypehttp://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_6501-
item.openairetypearticle-
item.languageiso639-1en-
crisitem.journal.journalissn1864-3361-
crisitem.journal.publisherEuropean Survey Research Association-
crisitem.author.deptDepartment of Communication and Marketing-
crisitem.author.deptDepartment of Communication and Internet Studies-
crisitem.author.facultyFaculty of Communication and Media Studies-
crisitem.author.facultyFaculty of Communication and Media Studies-
crisitem.author.orcid0000-0001-6932-5389-
crisitem.author.parentorgFaculty of Communication and Media Studies-
crisitem.author.parentorgFaculty of Communication and Media Studies-
Appears in Collections:Άρθρα/Articles
CORE Recommender
Show simple item record

SCOPUSTM   
Citations

1
checked on Mar 14, 2024

WEB OF SCIENCETM
Citations

2
Last Week
0
Last month
0
checked on Oct 29, 2023

Page view(s)

263
Last Week
2
Last month
9
checked on May 11, 2024

Google ScholarTM

Check

Altmetric


Items in KTISIS are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.