SEARCH

SEARCH BY CITATION

References

  • Anderson, S., & Harris, J. (1995). Educators' use of electronic networks. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco , California .
  • Anderson, S. E., & Gansneder, B. M. (1995). Using electronic mail surveys and computer monitored data for studying computer mediated communication systems. Social Science Computer Review, 13 (1), 3346.
  • Bachmann, D., Elfrink, J., & Vazzana, G. (1996). Tracking the progress of e-mail versus snail mail. Marketing Research, 8(2), 3135.
  • Bachmann, D., Elfrink, J., & Vazzana, G. (1999). E-mail and snail mail face off in rematch. Marketing Research, 11 (4), 1115.
  • Bean, A. G., & Roszkowski, M. J. (1995). The long and short of it. Marketing Research, 7 (1), 2026.
  • Bickart, B., & Schmittlein, D. (1999). The distribution of survey contact and participation in the United States: constructing a survey-based estimate. Journal of Marketing Research, Spring, 286294.
  • Bradley, N. (1999). Sampling for Internet surveys. An examination of respondent selection for Internet research. Journal of the Market Research Society, 41(4), 387395.
  • Brown, M. (1965). Use of a postcard query in mail surveys. Public Opinion Quarterly, Winter, 635637.
  • Bruvold, N. T., & Comer, J. M. (1988). A model for estimating the response rate to a mailed survey. Journal of Business Research, 16 (2), 101116.
  • Claycomb, C., Porter S. S., & Martin, C. L. (2000). Riding the wave: response rates and the effects of time intervals between successive mail survey follow-up efforts. Journal of Business Research, 48 (2), 157162.
  • Comer, J., & Kelly, J. (1982). Follow-up techniques, the effect of method and source appeal. American Marketing Association Educators Conference Proceedings, Chicago .
  • Comley, P. (1997). The use of the Internet as a data collection tool. Paper presented at the ESOMAR Annual Conference, Edinburgh, September 1997.
  • Cook, C., Heath, F., & Thompson, R. (2000). A meta-analysis of response rates in Web- or Internet-based surveys. Educational & Psychological Measurement, 60 (6), 82136.
  • Couper, M. P., Blair J., & Triplett, T. (1997). A comparison of mail and e-mail for a survey of employees in federal statistical agencies. Paper presented at the American Association for Public opinion Research, Norfolk , VA .
  • Dillman, D. (2000). Mail and Internet surveys: The tailored design method (2nd Edition). New York : John Wiley and Sons.
  • Dommeyer, C. J., & Moriarity, E. (1999). Comparing two forms of an e-mail survey: Embedded vs. attached. International Journal of Market Research, 42 (1), 3945.
  • Eicherner, K., & Habermehl, W. (1981). Predicting the response rates to mailed questionnaires (comment on Herberlien & Baumgartner). American Sociological Review, 46, 13.
  • Flaherty, T. B., Honeycutt, E. D., Jr., & Powers, D. (1998). Exploring text-based electronic mail surveys as means of primary data collection. The 1998 Academy of Marketing Science National Conference Proceedings, 26064.
  • Fox, R., Crask, M. R., & Kim, J. (1988). Mail survey response rates: A meta-analysis of selected techniques for inducing response. Public Opinion Quarterly, 52, 467491.
  • Futrell, C., & Lamb, C. Jr. (1981). Effect on mail survey return rates of including surveys with follow-up letters. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 51, 1115.
  • Groves, R. M., Cialdini, R. B., & Courier, M. P. (1992). Understanding the decision to participate in a survey. Public Opinion Quarterly, 56, 47595.
  • Haggett, S., & Mitchell, V. (1994). Effects of industrial pre-notification on response rate, speed, quality, bias and cost. Industrial Marketing Management, 23, 101110.
  • Heberlein, T. A., & Baumgartner, R. (1978). Factors affecting response rates to mailed surveys: A quantitative analysis of the published literature. American Sociological Review, 43, 447462.
  • Jobber, D. (1986). Improving response rates in industrial mail surveys. Industrial Marketing Management, 15, 18395.
  • Jobber, D., & Sanderson, S. (1983). The effects of prior letter and coloured survey paper on mail survey response rates. Journal of the Market Research Society, 25(4), 339349.
  • Jobber, D., & Saunders, J. (1993). A note on the applicability of the Brurold-Comer model of mail survey response rates to commercial populations. Journal of Business Research, 26, 223236.
  • Kanuk, L., & Berenson, C. (1973). Mail surveys and response rates: A literature review. Journal of Marketing Research, 12, 4453.
  • Kent, R., & Lee, M. (1999). Using the Internet for market research: A study of private trading on the Internet. Journal of the Market Research Society, 41 (4), 377381.
  • Kiesler, S., & Sproull, L. S. (1986). Response effects in the electronic survey. Public Opinion Quarterly, 50, 402413.
  • Kittleson, M. J. (1995). An assessment of the response rate via the Postal Service and e-mail. Health Values, 18 (2), 2729.
  • Komsky, S. H. (1991). A profile of users of electronic mail in a university. Management Communication Quarterly, 4, 310340.
  • Landis, J. R., & Koch, G. G. (1977). The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics, 33, 159174.
  • Martin, C. L. (1994). The impact of topic interest on mail survey response behavior. Journal of the Market Research Society, 36(4), 327337.
  • Mason, W., Dressel, R., & Bain, R. (1961). An experimental study of factors affecting response to a mail survey of beginning teachers. Public Opinion Quarterly, 25(Summer), 296299.
  • Mehta, R., & Sivadas, E. (1995). Comparing response rates and response content in mail versus electronic surveys. Journal of the Market Research Society, 4(37), 429440.
  • Messaging Online (2000). Microsoft finally owns up to outlook security issues [Online Newsletter]. Available: http://www.messagingonline.com/mt/html/mt051700.html
  • Murphy, P. R., Daley, J., & Dalenberg, D. R. (1990). Improving survey responses with postcards. Industrial Marketing Management, 19, 349355.
  • Murphy, P. R., Daley, J., & Dalenberg, D. R. (1991). Exploring the effects of postcard pre-notification on industrial firms' response to mail surveys. Journal of the Market Research Society, 33 (4), 335345.
  • NUA Internet Surveys (2000a). E-mail driving growth of office workload [Online]. Available: http://www.nua.ie/surveys/?f=VS&art_id=905355873&rel-=true.
  • NUA Internet Surveys (2000b). How Many Online? [Online]. Available: http://www.nua.ie/surveys/how_many_online/index.html.
  • Opperman, M. (1995). E-mail surveys, potentials and pitfalls. Marketing Research. 7(3), 2933.
  • Paolo, A. M., Bonaminio, G. A., Gibson, C., Patridge, T., & Kallail, K. (2000). Response rate comparisons of e-mail and mail distributed student evaluations. Teaching and Learning in Medicine, 12(2), 8184.
  • Parker, L. (1992). Collecting data the e-mail way. Training and Development, 5254.
  • Roberson, M. T., & Sundstrom, E. (1990). Survey design, return rates, and response favorableness in an employee attitude survey. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75, 354357.
  • Schaefer, D. R., & Dillman, D. A. (1998). Development of a standard e-mail methodology: Results of an experiment. Public Opinion Quarterly, 3 (62), 378390.
  • Schuldt, B. A., & Totten, J. W. (1994). Electronic mail vs. mail survey response rates. Marketing Research, 6 (1), 3639.
  • Sheehan, K. B., & Gleason, T. (2000). Online privacy: Internet advertising practitioners' knowledge and practices. Paper presented at the Regulating the Internet: EU and US Perspectives Conference, in Seattle, Washington .
  • Sheehan, K. B., & Hoy, M. G. (1997). E-mail surveys: response patterns, process and potential. Proceedings of the 1997 Conference of the American Academy of Advertisers.
  • Sheehan, K. B., & Hoy, M. G. (1999). Using e-mail to survey internet users in the United States: Methodology and assessment. Journal of Computer Mediated Communication, 4 (3). [Online]. Available: http://www.ascusc.org/jcmc/vol4/issue3/sheehan.html.
  • Sheehan, K. B., & McMillan, S. J. (1999). Response variation in e-mail surveys: An exploration. Journal of Advertising Research, 39(4), 4554.
  • Smith, C. B. (1997). Casting the net: Surveying an Internet population. Journal of Computer Mediated Communication, 3 (1). [Online] Available: http://www.ascusc.org/jcmc/vol3/issue1/smith.html.
  • Stanton, J. M. (1998). An empirical assessment of data collection using the Internet. Personnel Psychology, 51(3), 709726.
  • Steele, T. J., Schwendig, W. L., & Kilpatrick, J. A. (1992). Duplicate responses to multiple survey mailings: A problem Journal of Advertising Research, 37(March/April), 2634.
  • Swoboda, S. J., Muehlberger, N., Weitkunat, R., & Schneeweiss, S. (1997). Internet surveys by direct mailing: An innovative way of collecting data. Social Science Computer Review, 15 (3), 242255.
  • Taylor, S., & Lynn, P. (1998). The effect of a preliminary notification letter on response to a postal survey of young people. Journal of the Market Research Society, 2, 40, 165178.
  • Tomaskovic-Devey, D., Leiter, J., & Thompson, S. (1994). Organisational survey non-response. Administrative Science Quarterly, 39, 439457.
  • Totten, J. W. (1999). Use of e-mail and Internet Surveys by research companies. Presented at the 1999 MAPOR Conference.
  • Tse, A. C. B., Tse, K. C., Yin, C. H., Ting, C. B., Yi, K. W., Yee, K. P., & Hong, W. C. (1995). Comparing two methods of sending out questionnaires: E-mail versus mail. Journal of the Market Research Society, 37 (4), 44146.
  • Tse, A. (1998). Comparing the response rate, response speed & response quality of two methods of sending questionnaires: E-mail vs. mail. Journal of the Market Research Society, 40 (4), 353361.
  • Walsh, J. P., Kiesler, S., Sproull, L. S., & Hesse, B. W. (1992). Self-selected and randomly selected respondents in a computer network survey. Public Opinion Quarterly, 56, 241244.
  • Watt, J. H. (1999). Internet systems for evaluation research. In G.Gay & T.Bennington (eds), Information technologies in evaluation: social, moral, epistemological and practical implications (pp. 2344). San Francisco : Josey-Bass, no. 84.
  • Weible, R., & Wallace, J. (1998). The impact of the Internet on data collection. Marketing Research, 10(3), 1923.
  • Yammarino, F. J., Skinner, S., & Childers, T. L. (1991). Understanding mail survey response behavior. Public Opinion Quarterly, 55, 613639.
  • Yun, G. W., & Trumbo, C.W. (2000). Comparative response to a survey executed by post, e-mail and web form. Journal of Computer Mediated Communication, 6 (1). [Online]. Available: http://www.ascusc.org/jcmc/vol6/issue1/yun.html.