This paper is in the following e-collection/theme issue:

Electronic/Mobile Data Capture, Internet-based Survey & Research Methodology (782)

Published on in Vol 16, No 12 (2014): December

Nonprobability Web Surveys to Measure Sexual Behaviors and Attitudes in the General Population: A Comparison With a Probability Sample Interview Survey

Nonprobability Web Surveys to Measure Sexual Behaviors and Attitudes in the General Population: A Comparison With a Probability Sample Interview Survey

Nonprobability Web Surveys to Measure Sexual Behaviors and Attitudes in the General Population: A Comparison With a Probability Sample Interview Survey

Authors of this article:

Bob Erens1, 2 Author Orcid Image ;   Sarah Burkill2 Author Orcid Image ;   Mick P Couper3 Author Orcid Image ;   Frederick Conrad3 Author Orcid Image ;   Soazig Clifton2, 4 Author Orcid Image ;   Clare Tanton2 Author Orcid Image ;   Andrew Phelps4 Author Orcid Image ;   Jessica Datta1 Author Orcid Image ;   Catherine H Mercer2 Author Orcid Image ;   Pam Sonnenberg2 Author Orcid Image ;   Philip Prah2 Author Orcid Image ;   Kirstin R Mitchell1 Author Orcid Image ;   Kaye Wellings1 Author Orcid Image ;   Anne M Johnson2 Author Orcid Image ;   Andrew J Copas2 Author Orcid Image
Article Authors Cited by (51) Tweetations (7) Metrics

Journals

  1. Burkill S, Copas A, Couper M, Clifton S, Prah P, Datta J, Conrad F, Wellings K, Johnson A, Erens B, Cardoso M. Using the Web to Collect Data on Sensitive Behaviours: A Study Looking at Mode Effects on the British National Survey of Sexual Attitudes and Lifestyles. PLOS ONE 2016;11(2):e0147983 View
  2. MacInnis B, Krosnick J, Ho A, Cho M. The Accuracy of Measurements with Probability and Nonprobability Survey Samples: Replication and Extension. Public Opinion Quarterly 2018;82(4):707 View
  3. Couper M. New Developments in Survey Data Collection. Annual Review of Sociology 2017;43(1):121 View
  4. Inns T, Curtis D, Crook P, Vivancos R, Gardiner D, McCarthy N, Mook P. Are food exposures obtained through commercial market panels representative of the general population? Implications for outbreak investigations. Epidemiology and Infection 2019;147 View
  5. Cornesse C, Blom A, Dutwin D, Krosnick J, De Leeuw E, Legleye S, Pasek J, Pennay D, Phillips B, Sakshaug J, Struminskaya B, Wenz A. A Review of Conceptual Approaches and Empirical Evidence on Probability and Nonprobability Sample Survey Research. Journal of Survey Statistics and Methodology 2020;8(1):4 View
  6. Sturgis P, Williams J, Brunton-Smith I, Moore J. Fieldwork Effort, Response Rate, and the Distribution of Survey Outcomes. Public Opinion Quarterly 2017;81(2):523 View
  7. Green N, Sherrard-Smith E, Tanton C, Sonnenberg P, Mercer C, White P. Assessing local chlamydia screening performance by combining survey and administrative data to account for differences in local population characteristics. Scientific Reports 2019;9(1) View
  8. Anderssen N, Malterud K. Oversampling as a methodological strategy for the study of self-reported health among lesbian, gay and bisexual populations. Scandinavian Journal of Public Health 2017;45(6):637 View
  9. Sakshaug J, Schmucker A, Kreuter F, Couper M, Singer E. Evaluating Active (Opt-In) and Passive (Opt-Out) Consent Bias in the Transfer of Federal Contact Data to a Third-Party Survey Agency. Journal of Survey Statistics and Methodology 2016;4(3):382 View
  10. Friedland R, Afary J, Gardinali P, Naslund C. Love in the Middle East: The contradictions of romance in the Facebook World. Critical Research on Religion 2016;4(3):229 View
  11. Geary R, Tanton C, Erens B, Clifton S, Prah P, Wellings K, Mitchell K, Datta J, Gravningen K, Fuller E, Johnson A, Sonnenberg P, Mercer C, Dalby A. Sexual identity, attraction and behaviour in Britain: The implications of using different dimensions of sexual orientation to estimate the size of sexual minority populations and inform public health interventions. PLOS ONE 2018;13(1):e0189607 View
  12. Legleye S, Charrance G, Razafindratsima N, Bajos N, Bohet A, Moreau C. The Use of a Nonprobability Internet Panel to Monitor Sexual and Reproductive Health in the General Population. Sociological Methods & Research 2018;47(2):314 View
  13. Burkill S, Smith K, Stridh P, Kockum I, Hillert J, Lindahl H, Alfredsson L, Olsson T, Piehl F, Montgomery S, Bahmanyar S. The DQB1*03:02 Genotype and Treatment for Pain in People With and Without Multiple Sclerosis. Frontiers in Neurology 2020;11 View
  14. MOOK P, KANAGARAJAH S, MAGUIRE H, ADAK G, DABRERA G, WALDRAM A, FREEMAN R, CHARLETT A, OLIVER I. Selection of population controls for aSalmonellacase-control study in the UK using a market research panel and web-survey provides time and resource savings. Epidemiology and Infection 2016;144(6):1220 View
  15. Blom A, Herzing J, Cornesse C, Sakshaug J, Krieger U, Bossert D. Does the Recruitment of Offline Households Increase the Sample Representativeness of Probability-Based Online Panels? Evidence From the German Internet Panel. Social Science Computer Review 2017;35(4):498 View
  16. Mook P, McCormick J, Kanagarajah S, Adak G, Cleary P, Elson R, Gobin M, Hawker J, Inns T, Sinclair C, Trienekens S, Vivancos R, McCarthy N. Online market research panel members as controls in case–control studies to investigate gastrointestinal disease outbreaks: early experiences and lessons learnt from the UK. Epidemiology and Infection 2018;146(4):458 View
  17. Oakley-Girvan I, Lavista J, Miller Y, Davis S, Acle C, Hancock J, Nelson L. Evaluation of a Mobile Device Survey System for Behavioral Risk Factors (SHAPE): App Development and Usability Study. JMIR Formative Research 2019;3(1):e10246 View
  18. Wang-Schweig M, Miller B, Buller D, Byrnes H, Bourdeau B, Rogers V. Using Panel Vendors for Recruitment Into a Web-Based Family Prevention Program: Methodological Considerations. Evaluation & the Health Professions 2019;42(1):24 View
  19. Frey K, Lociciro S, Blank P, Schwenkglenks M, Dubois-Arber F, Rosenbrock R, Lehner A, Staub R, Derendinger S, Schmidt A, Bize R, Kübler D, Low N. ‘Break the Chains 2015’ community-based HIV prevention campaign for men who have sex with men in Switzerland: non-randomised evaluation and cost analysis. BMJ Open 2020;10(1):e032459 View
  20. Black J, Rockhill K, Forber A, Amioka E, May K, Haynes C, Dasgupta N, Dart R. An Online Survey for Pharmacoepidemiological Investigation (Survey of Non-Medical Use of Prescription Drugs Program): Validation Study. Journal of Medical Internet Research 2019;21(10):e15830 View
  21. Erens B. Workshop Session: Maintaining Quality: Using Non-Probability web Surveys to Measure Sexual Behaviours and Attitudes in the British General Population: A Comparison with a Probability Sample Interview Survey. International Journal of Market Research 2015;57(2):300 View
  22. Copas A, Burkill S, Conrad F, Couper M, Erens B. An evaluation of whether propensity score adjustment can remove the self-selection bias inherent to web panel surveys addressing sensitive health behaviours. BMC Medical Research Methodology 2020;20(1) View
  23. Hemsworth L, Rice M, Hemsworth P, Coleman G. Telephone Survey Versus Panel Survey Samples Assessing Knowledge, Attitudes and Behavior Regarding Animal Welfare in the Red Meat Industry in Australia. Frontiers in Psychology 2021;12 View
  24. Ferri-García R, Rueda M, Cabrera-León A. Self-Perceived Health, Life Satisfaction and Related Factors among Healthcare Professionals and the General Population: Analysis of an Online Survey, with Propensity Score Adjustment. Mathematics 2021;9(7):791 View
  25. Schonlau M, Couper M. Options for Conducting Web Surveys. Statistical Science 2017;32(2) View
  26. Sakshaug J, Wiśniowski A, Ruiz D, Blom A. Supplementing Small Probability Samples with Nonprobability Samples: A Bayesian Approach. Journal of Official Statistics 2019;35(3):653 View
  27. YOSHIOKA Y. Use of Internet Longitudinal Survey. Japanese Sociological Review 2020;71(1):50 View
  28. Dema E, Copas A, Clifton S, Conolly A, Blake M, Riddell J, Boso Perez R, Tanton C, Bonell C, Sonnenberg P, Mercer C, Mitchell K, Field N. Methodology of Natsal-COVID Wave 1: a large, quasi-representative survey with qualitative follow-up measuring the impact of COVID-19 on sexual and reproductive health in Britain. Wellcome Open Research 2021;6:209 View
  29. Quigley A, Trent M, Seale H, Chughtai A, MacIntyre C. Cross-sectional survey of changes in knowledge, attitudes and practice of mask use in Sydney and Melbourne during the 2020 COVID-19 pandemic. BMJ Open 2022;12(6):e057860 View
  30. Stapleton P, Grimmett K, Adsuar J. Australian Community and Health Professionals Perceptions of Equine-Assisted Psychotherapy. Evidence-Based Complementary and Alternative Medicine 2021;2021:1 View
  31. de Neve-Enthoven N, Callens N, van Kuyk M, Verhaak C, van der Ende J, Drop S, Cohen-Kettenis P, Dessens A. Sexual Self-Concept in Women with Disorders/Differences of Sex Development. Archives of Sexual Behavior 2022;51(4):2213 View
  32. Dema E, Conolly A, Willis M, Copas A, Clifton S, Blake M, Riddell J, Bosó Pérez R, Tanton C, Bonell C, Sonnenberg P, Mercer C, Mitchell K, Field N. Methodology of Natsal-COVID Wave 2: A large, quasi-representative, longitudinal survey measuring the impact of COVID-19 on sexual and reproductive health in Britain. Wellcome Open Research 2022;7:166 View
  33. Pekari N, Lipps O, Roberts C, Lutz G. Conditional distributions of frame variables and voting behaviour in probability‐based surveys and opt‐in panels. Swiss Political Science Review 2022;28(4):696 View
  34. Al-Haboubi M, Exley J, Allel K, Erens B, Mays N. One year of digital contact tracing: Who was more likely to install the NHS COVID-19 app? Results from a tracker survey in England and Wales. DIGITAL HEALTH 2023;9:205520762311594 View
  35. McCarthy O, Palmer M, Gubijev A, Wellings K, Mann S, Leon L, Callaghan F, Patterson S, French R. Achieving proportional representation in a reproductive health survey through social media: process and recommendations. BMC Public Health 2022;22(1) View
  36. Legleye S, Charrance G. Sequential and Concurrent Internet-Telephone Mixed-Mode Designs in Sexual Health Behavior Research. Journal of Survey Statistics and Methodology 2023;11(1):75 View
  37. Anderson R, Cuccolo K. An Experimental Test of the Impact of Varying Questionnaire Response Format on Prevalence Rates for Sexual Violence Victimization and Perpetration. Journal of Interpersonal Violence 2022;37(23-24):NP23541 View
  38. Sandberg D, Gardner M. Differences/Disorders of Sex Development: Medical Conditions at the Intersection of Sex and Gender. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology 2022;18(1):201 View
  39. Perriat D, Mertens E, Dreesman J. Use of a non-probabilistic online panel as a control group for case–control studies to investigate food and waterborne outbreaks in Lower Saxony, Germany. Epidemiology and Infection 2022;150 View
  40. Barrios-Fernandez S, Gozalo M, Amado-Fuentes M, Carlos-Vivas J, Garcia-Gomez A. A Short Version of the EFECO Online Questionnaire for the Assessment of Executive Functions in School-Age Children. Children 2021;8(9):799 View
  41. Sonnenberg P, Menezes D, Freeman L, Maxwell K, Reid D, Clifton S, Tanton C, Copas A, Riddell J, Dema E, Bosó Pérez R, Gibbs J, Ridge M, Macdowall W, Unemo M, Bonell C, Johnson A, Mercer C, Mitchell K, Field N. Intimate physical contact between people from different households during the COVID-19 pandemic: a mixed-methods study from a large, quasi-representative survey (Natsal-COVID). BMJ Open 2022;12(2):e055284 View
  42. McGuire M, Vakulenko-Lagun B, Millis M, Almakias R, Cole E, Kim H. What is the adult experience of Perthes’ disease?. Bone & Joint Open 2022;3(5):404 View
  43. Brown C, Venetis M. Communicative Pathways Predicting Adherence in Type II Diabetic Patients: A Mediation Analysis. Health Communication 2023;38(13):3051 View
  44. Mitchell K, Shimonovich M, Bosó Pérez R, Dema E, Clifton S, Riddell J, Copas A, Tanton C, Macdowall W, Bonell C, Sonnenberg P, Mercer C, Field N. Initial Impacts of COVID-19 on Sex Life and Relationship Quality in Steady Relationships in Britain: Findings from a Large, Quasi-representative Survey (Natsal-COVID). The Journal of Sex Research 2023;60(1):1 View
  45. Dema E, Copas A, Clifton S, Conolly A, Blake M, Riddell J, Boso Perez R, Tanton C, Bonell C, Sonnenberg P, Mercer C, Mitchell K, Field N. Methodology of Natsal-COVID Wave 1: a large, quasi-representative survey with qualitative follow-up measuring the impact of COVID-19 on sexual and reproductive health in Britain. Wellcome Open Research 2022;6:209 View
  46. Mitchell K, Willis M, Dema E, Baxter A, Connolly A, Riddell J, Bosó Pérez R, Clifton S, Gibbs J, Tanton C, Geary R, Ratna N, Mohammed H, Unemo M, Bonell C, Copas A, Sonnenberg P, Mercer C, Field N. Sexual and reproductive health in Britain during the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic: cross-sectional population survey (Natsal-COVID-Wave 2) and national surveillance data. Sexually Transmitted Infections 2023;99(6):386 View
  47. Salvatore C. Inference with non-probability samples and survey data integration: a science mapping study. METRON 2023;81(1):83 View
  48. de Graaf H, Mitchell K, Clifton S, Lara M, Dewaele A, Dupont J, Klapilova K, Lazdāne G, Briken P, Træen B, Bajos N, Ljungcrantz D, Kontula O. Sex Surveys in Europe: Reflections on over Four Decades of Sexual Behavior and Sexual Health Surveillance. The Journal of Sex Research 2023;60(7):1020 View
  49. Dema E, Conolly A, Willis M, Copas A, Clifton S, Blake M, Riddell J, Bosó Pérez R, Tanton C, Bonell C, Sonnenberg P, Mercer C, Mitchell K, Field N. Methodology of Natsal-COVID Wave 2: A large, quasi-representative, longitudinal survey measuring the impact of COVID-19 on sexual and reproductive health in Britain. Wellcome Open Research 2024;7:166 View
  50. Jäckle A, Cornesse C, Wenz A, Couper M. Measuring Expenditure with a Mobile App: Do Probability-Based and Nonprobability Panels Differ?. Journal of Survey Statistics and Methodology 2024 View

Books/Policy Documents

  1. Awaworyi Churchill S, Farrell L, Ocloo J. Moving from the Millennium to the Sustainable Development Goals. View