SIG-SRE Sponsored Research Papers

Introduction:

Contained in this listing are all paper presentations (at Paper, Roundtable, and Poster Sessions) sponsored by the SIG on Survey Research in Education at AERA Annual Meeting Programs for the period from 1988 to date.

If you would like to contact the authors of these papers (as AERA no longer provides the contact information of presenters), please search for their contact information via Google or any other popular search engine.

SIG-SRE sponsored research papers are listed in the following order:
  • 2008 Program, New York City
  • 2007 Program, Chicago
  • 2006 Program, San Francisco
  • 2005 Program, Montreal
  • 2004 Program, San Diego
  • 2003 Program, Chicago
  • 2002 Program, New Orleans
  • 2001 Program, Seattle
  • 2000 Program, New Orleans
  • 1999 Program, Montreal
  • 1998 Program, San Diego
  • 1997 Program, Chicago
  • 1996 Program, New York City
  • 1995 Program, San Francisco
  • 1994 Program, New Orleans
  • 1993 Program, Atlanta
  • 1992 Program, San Francisco
  • 1991 Program, Chicago
  • 1990 Program, Boston
  • 1989 Program, San Francisco
  • 1988 Program, New Orleans

    2008 Program, New York City

    Measuring Time and Implementation in the Alabama Mathematics in the Alabama Mathematics, Science, and Technology Initiative. Megan Toby, Empirical Education, Inc.

    Second Look: A Research Platform for Second Life. Anthony Cocciolo,Teachers College, Columbia University.

    The Usefulness of Investigating in More Fully Mathematical Survey Research: Applying Probabilistic Models to Develop Curricula. Sharon G.Solloway, Bloomsburg University of Pennsylvania; William P. Fisher, Avatar International, Inc.

    Using Goodman's SDQ to Improve Behavior and Emotions of Children in Schools. Tim Hobbs, Dartington Social Research Unit.

    Using Measurements Principles to Construct and Restructure a Teacher Perception Survey. Jessica D. Cunningham, University of Kentucky ; Kelly D. Bradley, University of Kentucky.

    The Impact of Incorrect Responses to Reverse Coded Survey Items. Gail D. Hughes, University of Arkansas-Little Rock.

    Investigating the Controversy on Analyzing Data Measured by Likert-Type Scales. Young-Hoon Ham, University of Tennessee-Knoxville.

    Agree-Disagree: A "Strongly Disagreeable" Response Scale. Hunter Gehlbach, Harvard University.

    A Meta-Regression of Survey Response Rates in Counseling and Clinical Psychology. Kathy E. Green, University of Denver ; Pamela S. Van Horn, University of Denver ; Monica Martinussen.

    Development and Validation of a Writing Dispositions Scale for Elementary and Middle School Students. Carolyn L. Piazza, Florida State University.

    Effects of Survey Web Page Design and Reward Methods on College Students' Participation. Yanling Sun, Montclair State University.

    Evaluation and Implementation of Web Surveys in School-Based Settings. Robin Tepper Jacob, University of Michigan; Lesli Scott, University of Michigan; Ashley Bowers, University of Michigan.

    Survey Non-Response and Ratings Bias for Online Course Evaluation. Caroline G. Fidelman, Center for Applied Linguistics.

    • 2007 Program, Chicago

    Mail and Web Surveys: A Comparison of Demographic Characteristics and Response Quality When a Respondents Self-Select the Survey Administration Mode. Dawn M.Mackety, Brooks Applegate, Paula D. Kohler, Western Michigan University.

    Enhanced Reporting Survey Data: A Psychometric Approach. Andrew Swanlund, Stacie Ann Hudgens, Chloe R. Hutchinson, Learning Point Associates.

    Measuring Individual Preferences for Counselor Characteristics. Jennifer Ann Weber, University of Kentucky; Kelly D. Bradley, University of Kentucky.

    Methodological Aspects of Educational Survey Research: A Brief Historical Review. Gunapala Edirisooriya, Youngstown State University.

    Square Pegs in Round Holes: Are we using the Appropriate Statistical Methods to Evaluate the NSSE and Other Surveys? Jeanine L Romano, University of Tampa; Jeffrey D. Kromrey, University of South Florida; James T. Coraggio, University of South Florida; Jeffrey Skowronek, University of Tampa; Linda Devine, University of Tampa.

    E- Learning Systems as Research Platforms: Results From the Networked Education Database (NED) Project. Gary J. Nateriello, Mathew Pittinsky, Hui Soo Chae, Anothony Cocciolo, Teachers College, Columbia University.

    A Transverse Study of Items' Wording Impact with Rasch's Rating Scale Model. Jean- Guy Blais, University of Montreal; Julie Grodin, University of Montreal; Nathalie Loye, University of Ottawa; Gilles Raiche, Universite du Quebec-Montreal

    Impact of Number of Response Categories and Item Wording on Scale Reliability and Validity. Christine DiStefano University of South Carolina.

    Question Order Effects in Constructing Reliable Sales. Hunter Gehlbach, Harvard University.

    Serial Attenuation in Diagnostic Testing: Improving Detection of Childhood and Adolescent Psychiatric Disorders. Brooks Applegate, Western Michigan University; Benjamin B Lahley, University of Chicago; John F. Hoye, Western Michigan University.

    Who Are They and Why Don't They Finish? Answering Dropouts. Kristine E. Dicrebo, Cisco Learning Institute; Heather Darling, Cisco Learning Institute.

    An Empirical Comparison of Alternative Methods of Cognitive Testing. Tony Cm Lam, Yihua Hong, Jingshun Zhang, University of Toronto.

    The Locus of Teacher Professional Development in Two Nationwide Teacher Surveys: A Comparative Study: A Comparative Study. Yun Xiang, Boston College.

    Overall Response Rates and Mode Preferences in Web-Mail, Mixed- Mode Surveys: A Meta-Analysis. Tse- Hua Shih, University of Virginia; Xitao Fan, University of Virginia.

    Impact of Student Disposition Toward Course Evaluations on Course Ratings: A pilot Study. Carolyn G. Fidelman, Boston College.

    Investigating the Factorial Structure and Measurement Invariance of Student Satisfaction Across Ethnic and Gender Groups. Xiaohui Zhao, University of Iowa; Tammie L. Cumming, National Learning and Achievement Organization, Inc.

    Prevalence of Student Attitude and Surveys in Public Elementary and Middle Schools and a Review of the Response- Option Formats Used. Laura M. Stapleton, University of Maryland- Baltimore County.

    2006 Program, San Francisco

    Applying the Rasch Rating-Scale Model in Survey Research: A Study of Black University Students’ Perceptions of marriage. Kelly D. Bradley, University of Kentucky; William E. Harris, University of Kentucky.

    Moderators of the Accuracy of Self-Report Grade Point Average. Eileen T. Talento-Miller, Graduate Mangement Admission Council; Johnette Peyton, Graduate Management Admission Council.

    Ph.D Employment Outcomes and Doctoral Program Quality: Findings From a Survey of Graduates. Rachelle L. Brooks, University of Maryland-College Park.

    Preservice Teacher Computer Literacy Assessment: Qwik-STAT Web-Based Versus Paper-Based Survey Modes. Leslie Henrickson, Touro University International.

    Program Evaluation Through Alumni Follow-Up Surveys: Enhancing Teacher Education at a Regional Comprehensive University. Katharina E. Heyning, University of Wisconsin-Whitewater; Ann Ruff, University of Wisconsin-Whitewater.

    Response Rates for Mail- and Web-Based Surveys. Pat Converse, Florida Institute of Technology; Frederick Oswald, Michigan State University; Edward W. Wolfe, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University.

    Item-Level Nonresponse Rates for Mail- and Web-Based Surveys. Edward W. Wolfe, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University; Frederick Oswald, Michigan State University.

    Obtained Sample Characteristics for Mail- and Web-Based Surveys. Xiaoting Huang, University of California-Berkeley; Edward W. Wolfe, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University; Frederick Oswald, Michigan State University; Par Converse, Florida Institute of Technology.

    Content of Scale-Level and Item-Level Responses for Mail- and Web-Based Surveys. Linda A. Chard, Michigan State University; Edward W. Wolfe, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University; Frederick Oswald, Michigan State University; Pat Converse, Florida Institute of Technology; Xiaoting Huang, University of California-Berkeley.

    The Scale Development of Parent Involvement Attitude Questionnaire (PIAQ). Shu-Ren Chang, University of Nebraska-Lincoln; Jianjun Zhu, Harcourt Assessment, Inc.; Shu-Mei Lien, University of Nebraska-Lincoln.

    Survey Delivery Method and Differential Item Functioning. George A. Johanson, Ohio University; Teresa J. Franklin, Ohio University; Gordon P. Brooks, Ohio University.

    Using Univariate and Multivariate Generalizability Theory to Estimate Score Reliability of Student Satisfaction. Xiaohui Zhao, The University of Iowa; Tammie L. Cumming, ACT; Ping Yin, ACT.

    Validation Study of a Student Engagement Questionnaire at a Community College Setting. Hui-Ling Chen, New Hampshire Community Technical College; Jere Turner, New Hampshire Community Technical College-Manchester.

    Comparison of Web and Paper-and-Pencil Survey Formats: A Meta-Analysis. Tse-Hua Shih, University of Virginia; Xitao Fan, University of Virginia.

    Quantifying Survey Research terms: What Does Frequently Really Mean? Sheryl F. Rosenthal, Fordham University; Deanna Lynn Morgan, The College Board.

    Effects of Semantic Compatibility on Cognitive Processing in Responding to Questionnaire Items. Yihua Hong, University of Toronto; Tony Cm Lam, OISE/Univerity of Toronto.

    A Comparison of Alternative Methods of Generating Respondents’ Opinions. Gunapala Edirisooriya, Youngstown State University.

    A Meta-Analysis of Survey Response Rates and Survey Administration in Clinical and Counseling Psychology. Pamela S. Van Horn, University of Denver; Kathy E. Green, University of Denver; Monica Martinussen, Universitetet i Tromso.

    Effects of Semantic Compatibility On Rating Response. Tony Cm Lam, OISE/University of Toronto; Mary Kolic, University of Toronto.

    Nonresponse in Large-Scale Surveys: A Validation of the Wave Method. Henrick Winkelmann, Institut zur Qualitaetsentwicklung im Bildungswesen, Humboldt University Berlin; Andre A. Rupp, Institute for Quality Management in Education.

    The 12th Graders’ Refusal Bias Analysis in the 2000 NAEP and Linking 2000 High-School Transcript Study. Young Chun, American Institutes for Research.

2005 Program, Montreal

Application of Differential Item Functioning to Attitude Measures. Hui –Ling Chen, New Hampshire Community Technical College-Stratham; Jere Turner, New Hampshire Community Technical College-Manchester.

The Impact of Missing Data and Differential Item Functioning for Survey Researchers Using IRT Models. Carolyn F. Furlow, Georgia State University; Rachel T. Fouladi, Simon Fraser University.

An Examination of the Psychometric Properties of the National Doctoral Program Survey. Benita J. Barnes, Edward Wolfe, Linda Chard, Michigan State University.

Quality Control in Survey Design: Evaluating a Rating Scale of Educators’ Attitudes Toward Differentiated Compensation. Shannon o. Sampson, Kelly D. Bradley, University of Kentucky.

Refusal Rates Computer-Assisted Training and Effectiveness of Feedback. Maria Lourdes De Hoyos, University of Texas.

Factors Explaining Nonparticipation Behavior of Twelfth Graders in NAEP. Young Chan, American Institutes for Research.

Treatment (Mail or Web-based) and Demographic Differences of Survey Responding and Non-Responding Certified Athletic Trainers. Kelly A. Fiala, Salisbury University; Ann O’Connel, Dorothy E. McCoach, University of Connecticut; Donna Ritenour, Salisbury University.

The Effect of Two Incentives on Response Rates for a Questionnaire Mailed to School Counselors. Sheri Bauman, University of Arizona.

Consider the Source: Response Differences in Teacher, Principal and District Survey Data. Laura M. Desimone, Peabody College, Vanderbilt University.

Development of a Climate for Diversity Survey at a Community College District. Lourdes Del Rio-Parent, Kim Chief Elk, Jane Enright, Foothill-De Anza Community College District; Jane Miller, De Anza College; Warren Hurd, Foothill College.

The Interaction of Item Order Effects and Perceived Control Over the Survey Topic. Jeffrey M. Miller, M. David Miller, University of Florida; Randall D. Penfield, University of Miami.

Two-Step Cluster Analysis and Detecting Misresponding to Likert Scales with Given Correlated Measurement Error. Rachel T. Fouladi, Simon Fraser University; Richard G. Lambert, University of North Carolina-Charlotte.

2004 Program, San Diego

Improving Survey Quality: A Taxonomy of (or Avoiding) Survey Errors. John F. Anderson, Marsha A. Niebuhr, Anderson, Niebuhr & Associates.

A Classification of Human Errors in Data Collection. Tony C. M. Lam, OISE/University of Toronto; Wendy Yen, Francine Jacques, Ontario Institute for Studies in Education.

Attitude formation process as the foundation for attitude measurement: A new approach. Gunapala Edirisooriya, Youngstown State University.

The Impact of Misresponding to Likert Scales on the Correlation Coefficient and Coefficient Alpha Given Correlated Measurement Errors. Richard G. Lambert, University of North Carolina at Charlotte; Christopher J. McCarthy, University of Texas at Austin.

Programming and Implementation of Multi-modal Survey Data Collections. Tim Gabel, RTI International.

Data Collection Issues in Web-Based Survey Data Collections. Michael Link, RTI International.

Web/Computerized-Assisted Instrument Design and Implementation. Jennifer S. Wine, RTI International.

Comparison of Self-Administered and interviewer-Administered Respondents: Implications for the he Web Survey Experiences. Melissa Cominole, Research Triangle Institute International.

2003 Program, Chicago

Why Survey? Three Examples of Questionnaire Surveys in Educational Research.
Yukiko Inoue University of Guam.

Is Newer Better? A Comparison of Web-Administration and On-Campus Survey Modes.
Anji Sun ACT, Inc. Randy McClanahan, ACT, Inc.

Web-based Survey Techniques in the University Environment. Leslie Henrickson, UCLA

Measuring Campus Climate Through a Web-based Survey and Probing into Some Facets of Perceived Campus Climate. James McLean, East TN State University and Gunapala Edirisooriya, Youngstown State University.

Changes in Education Attainment Process Over Four Decades: A Preliminary Investigation Manyee Wong, Institute for Policy Research, Northwestern University and James Rosenbaum, Institute for Policy Research, Northwestern University.

The Effects of Response Category Definitions. Rosemarie Ataya, University of Connecticut.

An Exploration of the Validity of the Unbounded Write-in Scale. Laura Stapleton, University of Texas and Meaghan Edmonds, University of Texas.

A Construct Validation Study of the Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability Scale and the Balanced Inventory of Desirable Responding. Walter Leite, University of Texas at Austin and S. Natasha Beretvas, University of Texas at Austin.

Evaluation Survey Construction and Sampling Self-Assessment Checklist. Amy Germuth (agermuth@hotmail.com), UNC Chapel Hill, Sarah Heinemeier, UNC Chapel Hill, and Larry McKenzie, Washington State University.

Comparing Responses to Mail and Web-based Surveys. Lynda Idleman, Idleman & Associates.

Web Surveys as a Source of Nonresponse Explication. Joni Montez, Washington State University.

A Comparison of the Psychometric Qualities of Surveys Administered by Web and Traditional Methods. Craig Mertler, Bowling Green State University and Mark Earley, Bowling Green State University.

 

2002 Program, New Orleans

Accountability in the Academy: Rasch measurement of student surveys. Trevor G. Bond, James Cook University

Beyond Descriptives: Multiple Methods for the Analysis of Survey Data. Stacie A. Hudgens, Center on Outcomes, Research and Education

The 1999-2000 Schools and Staffing Survey Electronic Codebook (ECB): Easy as Can Be. Gregory A Strizek, Education Statistics Services Institute/American Institutes for Research; Kerry Gruber, Samuel Peng, National Center for Education Statistics; Daniel J. McGrath, Education Statistics Services Institute/American Institutes for Research

Web-Based Surveys: Are Schools and Educators Ready for Next-Generation Research Methods?. Johnathan D. Becker, Teachers College, Columbia University; Kara Sweeney, SUNY-Stony Brook

Web-Based Surveys for Data Gathering from Medical Educators: An exploration of the efficacy and impact of follow-up reminders. A. Curtis Lee, Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada; Jason Frank, University of Toronto Division of Emergency Medicine; Gary Cole, Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada; Nadia Z. Mikhael, Office of Education, Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada

Web-Based Surveys: Guiding Lessons for their Use. Craig A. Mertler, Bowling Green State University

A follow-up Study of. Jan J. Benjamin, Mansfield University; Naomi J. Petersen, Christopher Sink, Seattle Pacific University; Brenda Walker, Mansfield University

Automation of Survey data processing, documentation and dissemination: An application to large-scale self-reported educational survey. Eunjae Shim, Minsuk Shim, University of Rhode Island

2001 Program, Seattle

The Design and Implementation of a Web-Based National Survey of Middle Level Principals. Jerry Valentine, University of Missouri; Stephen Lucas, University of Missouri

The Influence of Web-based Questionnaire Presentation Variations on Survey Cooperation and Survey Responses. Jill T. Walston, University of Maryland and AIR/ESSI; Robert Lissitz, University of Maryland; Lawrence Rudner, University of Maryland/ERIC

Social Desirability Responding on World Wide Web and Paper Administered Surveys. Dawson R. Hancock, Claudia Flowers, University of North Carolina Charlotte

A Comparison of Factor Structures of Likert Survey Items among Six Survey Combinations of Stem and Response Set Directionality. Jack Barnette, University of Iowa

The Prevalence of Gender DIF in Survey Data. Hamzeh Dodeen, United Arab Emirates University; George Johanson, Ohio University

Using Logistic Regression to Identify Bias Due to Item Nonresponses in Surveys. Edward Wolfe, MSU

Using Person-fit Statistics to Control for the Effect of Undifferentiating Responses in Likert Scale Data. E. Matthew Schulz, ACT, Inc,; Anji Sun, ACT, Inc.

Can Survey Research in Education Measure Up?. Trevor Bond, James Cook University

Predicting GPA Using Self-Reported Data: Reporting What They Know. Bethany Silver, Uconn; Beth Warriner, NVCC

Trends in Postal Mail Survey Response Rate. Kathy Green, University of Denver; Judith A. Boser, University of Tennessee

2000 Program, New Orleans

Using Qualitative Techniques to Assess the Validity of Teachers'
Responses to Survey Items. Eric Camburn, Richard Correnti,
James Taylor University of Michigan School of Education.

The impact of instructional set on distributions of ratings on a
self-report survey of personality characteristics. Jo-Anne L. McDonald,
University of Denver.

An IRT Approach to Rank Ordering and Comparing Institutions with
Incomplete Likert Scale Survey Data. Matt Schulz, Anji Sun, ACT.

Acquiescence as Differential Person Functioning. George Johanson, Ohio
University; Cynthia J. Osborn, Kent State University.

Missing Data in Disguise and Implications for Survey Data Analysis. Lin
Wang, ACT; Xitao Fan, Utah State University.

Design and Development of a Process for Web-based Survey Research. Mike,
Carbonaro, Joyce Bainbridge, Univerity of Alberta.

The Challenge of Validity: A Case Study Exploring Pilot Testing
Strategies for Web-based Survey Development. Sarah, C. Luchs, Ohio State
University; Zulli Rebecca, University of North Carolina Chapel Hill;
Gullickson Arlen, Barbour Sharon, University of Western Michigan.

Improving Web-Based Survey Research Data Collection. James A. White, Lou
Carey, Kathleen A. Dailey, University of South Florida.

1999 Program, Montreal

Characteristics of Response Set on the Semantic Differential.
Dorothy L. Swearingen

Rank Ordering and Comparing Survey Items Using an IRT Rating
Scale Model. Anji Sun, Matthew E. Schulz, ACT

The Effects of Attitude on Perceptions of Bias in Questionnaire Items.
Dixie McGinty, Western Carolina University; Lin - Miao Lin, University
of Southern Mississippi, Gulf Coast

Application of the Rasch Model and the Hierarchical Linear Model
to Survey Evaluation and Data Analysis. Yi Du, Douglas B. Marston,
Minneapolis Public Schools

Computer - Mediated Focus Groups. Jill T. Walston, Robert W. Lissitz,
University of Maryland

Rationales of a Professional Audience for Survey Cooperation.
Kathy E. Green, University of Denver; Susan R. Hutchinson, VPI&SU

Consequences of the Midpoint Response Choice for Survey Researchers.
Dorothy L. Swearingen

Effects of Item Grouping and Positioning of the "Don't Know" Option
on Questionnaire Response. Tony Lam, University of Toronto; Kathy
E. Green, University of Denver; Cathy Bordignon, University of Toronto

Likert Response Alternative Direction: SA to SD or SD to SA; Does
it Make a Difference? Jackson Barnette, University of Iowa

Survey Data Analysis Methods: The Effect of High School Scheduling
Reform on Teaching and Learning. Gongshu Zhang, Carol T. Cobb,
NC Department of Public Instruction

A Double Method Approach for a Double Need: To Describe Teacher's
Beliefs About Grade Retention and to Explain the Persistence of These
Beliefs. Louisette Pouliot, Universite du Quebec a Trois - Rivieres

1998 Program, San Diego

Response Sets: A Significant Threat to the Validity of Survey Research
in Schools. Steven Baldridge, Barry University; Steven Hite, Vance
Randall, Brigham Young University

A Model for Using Hierarchical Linear Modeling to Analyze Multilevel
Survey Data. Richard G. Lambert, UNC, Charlotte; Martha Abbott-Shim,
Carolyn Erlinghaus, Frances McCarty, Georgia State University

Blunders and Missed Opportunities in Survey Research. George A.
Johanson, Suzy Green, James Williams, Ohio University

Extreme Responding Style and the Concreteness-Abstractness
Dimension. Dorothy L. Swearingen, University of Denver

On the Efficiency of Equally Spaced Longitudinal Designs. Frans E. S.
Tan, M.P.F. Berger, Maastricht University, The Netherlands

A Test for Linkage of Multiple Cohorts from an Accelerated Longitudinal
Design. Yasuo Miyazaki, Michigan State University

The TEAMS Multimethod Evaluation: Using Program Logic Models to
Accommodate Convergent and Divergent Data. Leslie J. Cooksy, Florida
State University; Paige Gill, Florida State Department of Environmental
Protection; Shari Damwood, Arthur Andersen Worldwide

An Exciting Marketing Research Survey Method for Educational Research:
Discrete Choice Modeling. Douglas R. Berdie, Total Research Cor.

Words and Their Value to the Survey Researcher. Chester H. McCall,
Pepperdine University

The Quantity and Quality of Data Obtained From Open and Closed
Questionnaires. Lorin W. Anderson, Virginia Poulos, University of
South Carolina, Columbia

Response Rates of Surveys Received and Returned via Postal Versus
Electronic Mail and Returned via Fascimile. Susan R. Hutchinson,
VPI&SU; Kathy E. Green, Ellen B. Bennett, University of Denver

Six Criteria for Survey Sample Design Evaluation. Lin Wang, ACT;
Xitao Fan, Utah State University

The Effects of Interpretive Latitude on Persuasive Writing. Stephen C.
Court, University of Iowa

Rater Domain and Gender Influence on Assessed Quality of Student
Writing Using Weighted and Unweighted Scores. Ismail Gyagenda,
George Engelbard, Jr., Emory University

Investigating Rating Scale Category Utility. John M. Linacre,
University of Chicago

Heightened Sensitivity of Likert Attitude Scales to Restriction of
Sample Range. James S. Roberts, Douglas H. Wedell, James E. Laughlin,
University of South Carolina

Rating Scale Analysis: Gauging the Impact of Positively and Negatively
Worded Items. Betty A. Bergstrom, Commission on Dietetic Registration;
Mary E. Lunz, American Society of Clinical Pathologists

1997 Program, Chicago

An Evaluation of the Sample Designs in Educational Survey Research.
Lin Wang, ACT; James McNamara, Texas A & M University

Use of E-mail for Data Collection and Entry in Survey Research. Mandi
Anderson Lively, Mari Kemis, Kelli Moran, Iowa State University

Research Methodology in the Information Age: A Comparison of a Mail
Methodology and the ITDCT Methodology. Judith Ouimet, Gary Hanson,
University of Texas, Austin

Effects of Population Type on Response Rate and the Efficacy of Response
Enhancers. Kathy Green, Susan Hutchinson, University of Denver;
Judith Boser, University of Tennessee

Return Rates: An Investigation of a Mathematical Model. Bruce Rogers,
University of Northern Iowa

E-Mail Survey of a Listserv Discussion Group: Lessons Learned from
Surveying an Electronic Community of Learners. Merrill Meehan,
Rebecca Burns, Appalachia Educational Laboratory

An Easy Method to Estimate Error for Disproportionally Weighted Survey
Data. James Griffith, Julie Wade, Montgomery County Public Schools

The Repertory Grid as a Qualitative Interviewing Technique for Use in
Survey Development. Richard Lambert, University of North Carolina,
Charlotte; Melissa Kirksey, Michele Hill-Carlson, Georgia State
University; Christopher McCarthy, University of Texas, Austin

Integrating Software for Sample Size Calculations, Data Entry, and
Tabulation: Software Demonstration of a System for Survey Research.
Richard Lambert, Claudia Flowers, University of North Carolina,
Charlotte; Theresa Sipe, Georgia State University; Lynda Idleman,
Idleman & Associates

A New Approach to Attitude Scaling: Linking the Decision-Making Process
to Attitude Formation. Gunapala Edirisooriya, East Tennessee State
University

Effects of Item and Response Set Reversals on Survey Statistics. Jack
Barnette, University of Alabama

1996 Program, New York City

Reviewing the Research on Mail Survey Response Rates: Meta-Analysis,
Kathy Green, Sharon Hutchinson, University of Denver

Reviewing the Research on Mail Survey Response Rates: Alternate
Approaches. Judith Boser, University of Tennessee; Sheldon Clark,
Oak Ridge Institute for Science and Education

Reliability and Validity Considerations in Survey Research. Douglas G.
Shale, University of Calgary

Simulated Nonattending Respondent Effects on Internal Consistency of
Self-Administered Questionnaires. J. Jackson Barnette, University of
Alabama

Focus Groups: A Tool For Survey Research. Elinor Katz, University of
Denver

The (Im)Personality of E-Mail: Increasing Survey Response Rates through
the Internet. Lisa A. Petrides, Stanford University

Cognitive Research Methods Conducted to Redesign the Item Assessing
Educational Attainment on the Current Population. Sylvia K. Fisher,
Bureau of Labor Statistics

Developing an Instrument to Measure Interest in Sports Used by Varied
Constituencies. Ursula R. Walsh, National Collegiate Athletic
Association

An Analysis of the Use of Survey Research in an Institutional Assessment
Design: Problems, Solutions, and Innovations. Denice Ward Hood,
Arizona State University

Exploring the Dimensionality of Survey Response Burden. Sylvia Fisher,
Leda Kydoniefs, Bureau of Labor Statistics

The Use of Pearson Fit Statistics in Mail Surveys. Kathy Green,
University of Denver

Differential Item Functioning in Survey Research. George Johanson,
Susan Johanson, Ohio University

Surveying the Milk Production of Bulls – And Other Data Fidelity Concerns
in Survey Research. Steve Siera, Kent School District

The Generalizability of Student Ratings of Academic Advising: An
Application of Generalizability Theory. Anji Sun, Mike Valiga,
Xiaohong Gao, AC

1995 Program, San Francisco

uestionnaire Response Rates: Effects of Respondents’ Socioeconomic
Status and Timing and Amount of Incentive Payment. Blaine R. Worthen,
Perry Sailor, Anuradha Parthasarathy, Utah State University

An Examination of the Effect of Telephone and Letter Prenotification on
the Return Rate of Mailed Questionnaires. Vanessa D. Moss, Xerox Cor.

An Interdisciplinary Theoretical Framework for the Survey Research
Mailed Questionnaire Process. Meribeth Christensen, Ricks College

A Meta-Analysis of Factors that Influence the Response Rate of Mailed
Questionnaires. Philip L. Rodgers, Utah State University

First Impressions: The Cover Letter. Elinor Katz, Kathy E. Green,
Raymond C. Kluever, University of Denver

The Accuracy of Student and Parent Reports about Each Other: Lessons
from the Longitudinal Study of American Youth. Linda K. Pifer, Jon D.
Miller, Chicago Academy of Sciences

A Comparison of Mail, Phone, and Face-to-Face Data Collection Methods
in a National Survey of Laboratories that Perform HIV Testing.
Richard G. Lambert, Verna Williams, Carol Hansen, George Lantzanich,
Georgia State University; Eunice Rosner, U.S. Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention

An Illustration of the Danger of Nonresponse for Survey Research.
James A. Jones, Ball State University

Components of Social Research Paradigm Preferences: Using a Cognitive
Test to Explore the Meaning of Responses to a Likert Scale. Kathleen
A. Bolland, University of Alabama

Reexamining Traditional Issues in Survey Research: Just How Evil Is
the Anathema of Low Response Rate? Sheldon B. Clark, Oak Ridge
Institute for Science and Education

Making Scannable Forms with Word-Processors. Duane M. Covrig, UC,
Riverside

Description of a Four-Cycle Action Research Process to Develop a
Quality School Survey Instrument. John L. Dryden, University of
South Australia

 
1994 Program, New Orleans

The Effects of Cover Letter Appeal and Incentive on Mail Survey
Response Rate. Margret M. Miller, University of Denver

Response Patterns in Mailed Surveys. Randy R. McClanahan, Ann W.
Wilson, Michael J. Valiga, Micheal A. Boatwright, ACT

Surveying LEP Populations: Issues Explored through an Example:
Lu Chang, University of the Pacific

Single-Item Measurement: Would You Recommend It to a Friend? George A.
Johanson, Glenn Dotson, Ohio University

How Missing Data Can Bias Survey Research in Higher Education. Anne G.
Scott, University of Arizona

Factor Structure Invariance of an Alumni Survey. Cecilia Hagamin-Younger,
University of Iowa

1993 Program, Atlanta

Coding Responses to Open-Ended Survey Items Using a Software-Driven
Conceptual Mapping Scheme. Jeffrey B. Hecht, Sara Wills, David J.
Dwyer, Illinois State University

The Effects of Two Types of Appeal on Survey Response Rates. Kathy E.
Green, University of Denver; M. Donna Jacobi, Carroll L. Hall, New
Mexico State ED; Tony C. M. Lam, University of Toronto: Judith A.
Boser, University of Tennessee

Postage Class Effects and Implications in Mailed Surveys. Randy R.
McClanahan, Michael Valiga, ACT

Survey Questionnaire Format Effect on Response Rate and Cost per Return.
John M. Enger, Tom G. Manning, Russell E. Shain, Lonnie E. Talbert,
Donald E. Wright, Arkansas State University

Response Rates in Mail Surveys: A Review of the Reviews. Judith A.
Boser, University of Tennessee: Sheldon B. Clark, Oak Ridge
Associated Universities

Issues in Surveying High School Students and Their Parents. Jeffrey B.
Hecht, Sara Wills, David J. Dwyer, Illinois State University

Paired Comparison Intrasensitivity: Useful Information or Nuisance?
George A. Johanson, Crystal J. Gips, Ohio University

A Critical Analysis of Interview, Telephone, and Mail Survey Designs.
Elinor L. Katz, University of Denver

Increasing Survey Confidentiality through the Use of a Combined Mail
and Telephone Format. Marc T. Braverman, UC, Davis; Carol N.
D’Onofrio, UC, Berkeley; Joel M. Moskowitz, Western Consortium for
Public Health

An Extension of the Covert Randomized Response Model to the Case of a
Nonmonotonic Covariate. Douglas A. Powell, University of Maryland

1992 Program, San Francisco

Enhancing Response Rates among Various Populations. Judith B. Wilde,
Ann Del Vecchio, Patrice Romanick, University of New Mexico

A Further Examination of the Effects of Item Order on Response Patterns
and an Investigation of the Implications of Item Revision. Joanne L.
Jensen, FWL; Patricia L. Busk, University of San Francisco

Desirable Mail Questionnaire Characteristics in Teacher Education
Research. Judith A. Boser, University of Tennessee; Sheldon B. Clark,
Oak Ridge Associated Universities

Response Rate of Mailed Questionnaires and the Effects of Monetary
Gratuities: A Meta-Analysis. Kenneth D. Hopkins, University of
Colorado; Arlen R. Gullickson, Western Michigan University

Measuring and Understanding Attitude: A More Complete Measure for
Survey Research. Brandt W. Pryor, Arizona State

Increasing Survey Reliability by Identifying Dishonest and Careless
Respondents. Michael R. Wrona, Norman A. Constantine, Jane E.
Sanborn, FWL

Questionnaire Design in Broad-Based Evaluation Studies: Letting
Someone Collect Comparison Group Data. Sheldon B. Clark, Oak Ridge
Associated Universities; Judith A. Boser, University of Tennessee

"If You Can’t Say Something Nice": Alternatives for Dealing with
Survey Nonresponse. George A. Johanson, Crystal J. Gips, Charles
E. Rich, Ohio University

Do Within-Person T-Score Transformations Improve the Reliability,
Validity and Interpretability of Cross-Cultural Comparisons Based on
Questionnaire Rating Scales? LeVerne S. Collet, University of Michigan

 

1991 Program, Chicago

Validation of a Survey Using Qualitative and Quantitative Data in a
Multiple Regression Analysis. Judith A. Burry, University of Alabama;
Exir Brennan, Alabama Commission on Higher Education

Mail Questionnaire Characteristics: Expert and Novice Consensus.
Kathy E. Green, University of Denver

Prenotification, Ink Color, and Return Deadline: Effects on Response
Rates and Sincerity of Responses. Somwung Pitiyanuwat, Chulongkorn
University; Sucheera Phattharayattawat, Mahidol University

Testing the Salience Hypothesis through the Use of Survey Research
Methodology. Susan P. Ackermann, UCLA

Eenie, Meenie, Minie, Moe ? Does It Matter Where They Go? An
Examination of the Effects of Item Order. Joanne L. Jensen,
UC-Berkeley; Patricia L. Busk, University of San Francisco

In Praise of the Free-Response Item in Surveys. Crystal J. Gips,
George Johanson, Ohio University


1990 Program, Boston

The Integration of Qualitative and Quantitative Information: Results
from a Survey of a Graduate School of Education. Joanne Jensen,
UC-Berkeley, Patricia L. Busk, University of San Francisco

The Noggin Factor in Survey Research: Developing New Techniques for
Assessing Nonresponse Bias. Sheldon B. Clark, Oak Ridge Associated
Universities

Increasing the Validity of Surveys of Sensitive Behaviors: A Comparison
of Two Randomized Response Models. N.J. Schers, FBI Academy; C.M.
Dayton, University of Maryland

A Comparison of Different Statistical Techniques for Assessing the
Reliability of Survey Instruments. Melvin W. Webb, II, ACT

From Raw Data to Report Tables: How to Use a Word Processor to Deal
with Responses to Open-Ended Survey Questions. Kathleen A. Bolland,
University of Alabama; Julia S. Rogers, University of Montevallo

Variations in Mail Survey Procedures: Comparisons of Response Rates
and Cost. Judith A. Boser, University of Tennessee

The Effect of Humor upon Response Rates for a Job Analysis Survey.
David L. Bolton, Florida State Department of Professional Regulation

Time-of-Response Effects in Mail Surveys. Randy R. McClanahan, Michael
J. Valiga, ACT

The Effects of Three Mailing Techniques on Survey Study Response Rates.
Dean A Colton, Michael T. Kane, Carmen A. Este, Crolyn S. Eltoft, ACT

High Interview Response Rates: Much Ado about Nothing? Doug R. Berdie,
Carlson Research Company

From Raw Data to Report Tables: How to Use a Word Processor to Deal
with Responses to Open-Ended Survey Questions. Kathleen Bolland,
University of Alabama; Julia S. Rogers, University of Montevallo

Consensus on Desirable Characteristics of Mail Questionnaires:
Illusion or Reality? Judith A. Boser, University of Tennessee;
Sheldon B. Clark, Oak Ridge Associated Universities

1989 Program, San Francisco

Looking at Response Rates on a University Placement Survey. Steven M.
Culver, Roland E. Walters, Jacqueline G. Hydro, Radford University

Effect of Booklet/Folder Questionnaire Format and Style of Type of
Survey Response Rates. Judith A. Boser, University of Tennessee

The Monetary Gratuity as a Means to Improve Response Rate for Mailed
Questionnaires: A Meta-Analysis. Arlen R. Gullickson, University
of South Dakota; Kenneth D. Hopkins, University of Colorado

Development of a Model for Predicting Mail Survey Response Rates of
College-Bound High School Students. Melvin W. Webb II, ACT

Improving the Precision of Estimates of Quantitative Traits Using the
Covariate Randomized Response Technique. N.J.M. Scheers,FBI Academy;
C. Mitchell Dayton, University of Maryland

Interpreting Nonresponse in Survey Research: Methodological Heresy?
Sheldon B. Clark, Oak Ridge Associated Universities

Obtaining a 90% Response Rate in Survey Research Through Dillman’s
Total Design Method. Leslie F. Brady, Ohio State University

The Use of Qualitative Comments in a Quantitative Job Analysis Survey.
Jodie L. Roth, Sandra Greenberg, Professional Examination Service

Seeking Consensus on Empirical Characteristics of Effective Mail
Questionnaires: A First Step. Sheldon B. Clark, Oak Ridge
Associated Universities; Judith A. Boser, University of Tennessee

The Effect of Pre-Letters on Survey Response Rates. Dean A. Colton,
Michael T. Kane, ACT

Reluctant Respondents: Differences between Early and Late Responders
to a Mail Survey. Kathy E. Green, University of Denver

Can We Increase Response Rates? Judith Busch Wilde, Deborah Mixon,
Tom Dauphinee, University of New Mexico

1988 Program, New Orleans

Four Methods of Following Up Mail Questionnaires. Steve Siera,
Northeastern State University; Timothy J. Pettibone, University of
Tennessee

Personalization and Offers of Results: Effects on Survey Response
Rates. Kathy Green, University of Denver; Robert F. Kvidahl,
University of Wyoming

Influence of Various Incentives on Mail Survey Responses. Jon J.
Denton, Chiou Yueh Tsai, Darlene Palmer, Texas A&M University

Survey Research: Why Respond? Judith Busch Wilde, Wayne I. Gordon,
J. Scott Tonigan, University of New Mexico

Using Qualitative Techniques to Design a Survey Questionnaire:
Anticipated and Unanticipated Benefits. Kathleen Bolland, Julia S.
Rogers, Gloria A. Turner, James B. McLean, University of Alabama

Questionnaire Appearance and Rate of Response: Desktop Publishing as
a Cost-Efficient and Practical Solution. Eric S. Heller, University
of Massachusetts

Private School Frames Evaluation. Elizabeth Gerald, Center for
Educational Statistics

Redesign of the Elementary and Secondary Education Surveys. Douglas
Wright, Center for Education Statistics