• Part of
    Ubiquity Network logo
    Join Mailing List Publish with us

    Read Chapter
  • No readable formats available
  • A Meta-Analysis of Breakoff Rates in Mobile Web Surveys

    Mick P Couper, Aigul Mavletova

    Chapter from the book: Toninelli, D et al. 2015. Mobile Research Methods: Opportunities and challenges of mobile research methodologies.

    Buy Paperback

    In this chapter, we conduct a meta-analysis of breakoff rates in mobile web surveys. We test whether the optimization of web surveys for mobile devices, invitation mode (SMS vs. email), survey length, expected duration stated in the survey invitation, survey design (scrolling vs. paging), prerecruitment, number of reminders, design complexity (grids, drop-down questions, sliders, images, progress indicator), incentives, opportunity to skip survey questions, and opportunity to select the preferred mode (PC or mobile web) have an effect on breakoffs. The meta-analysis is based on 14 studies (39 independent samples) conducted using online panels – probability-based and non-probability-based. We found that mobile optimized surveys, email invitations, shorter surveys, using prerecruitment, more reminders, a less complex design, and an opportunity to choose the preferred survey mode all decrease breakoff rates in mobile web surveys. No effect of a scrolling design, incentives, indicating expected duration in the invitation, and letting an opportunity to skip survey questions was found.

    Chapter Metrics:

    How to cite this chapter
    Couper M. & Mavletova A. 2015. A Meta-Analysis of Breakoff Rates in Mobile Web Surveys. In: Toninelli, D et al (eds.), Mobile Research Methods. London: Ubiquity Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5334/bar.f

    This is an Open Access chapter distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 license (unless stated otherwise), which permits unrestricted use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. Copyright is retained by the author(s).

    Peer Review Information

    This book has been peer reviewed. See our Peer Review Policies for more information.

    Additional Information

    Published on Sept. 25, 2015


    comments powered by Disqus