Effects of E-Mailed Versus Mailed Invitations and Incentives on Response Rates, Data Quality, and Costs in a Web Survey of University Faculty

Abstract

While a large literature indicates that using a mixed-mode approach to notify or contact potential respondents can be effective in increasing response rates, surprisingly little research examines the impact the mode of invitation has on participation in a web survey. To assess the effects of invitation mode on response rates, costs, and demographic representativeness, university faculty members (N ¼ 280) were randomly assigned to experimental groups and sent a mailed invitation letter and a $2 cash incentive; a mailed invitation letter only; or an e-mailed invitation. Nonresponding faculty received up to two reminders to participate, by e-mail. Results indicated that the response rates were higher for the groups invited using a postal letter, but the inclusion of $2 did not significantly increase the response rates. Consistent with expectations, while costs were higher for the mailed invitation groups, the mailed invitations improved the demographic representativeness of the respondents, especially for the $2 incentive group. This study builds on a small body of literature that explicitly examines the mode of invitation on survey participation in web surveys and adds to previous findings by examining costs and effects on the demographic representativeness of the respondents.

Sleep patterns and insomnia in young adults: A national survey of Norwegian university students

“…Still, a response of 31% means that care should be taken when generalizing the findings to the whole student population. It is possible that the use of a web‐based survey approach contributed to the moderate response rate, as electronic platforms typically yield lower overall participation rates when compared with traditional postal mail approaches, such as paper‐based surveys or face‐to‐face interviews (Dykema, Stevenson, Klein, Kim, & Day, ). Related to this is the 69% female composition of the sample, which may represent a bias for the overall estimates, as females generally report worse sleep across most parameters compared with men.…”

A Systematic Review of Online Response Rates in Four Counseling Journals

“…Meta‐analyses of techniques for improving response rates have shown that university sponsorship, prenotification, return postage, follow‐up letters, first‐class postage, color of questionnaire, and the use of cash incentives all increase response rates in mail‐based surveys (Fox et al, 1988; Yammarino et al, 1991). In web‐based surveys, personalized communications (Cook, Heath, & Thompson, 2000; Sánchez‐Fernández, Muñoz‐Leiva, & Montoro‐Ríos, 2012), activity in online communities and the use of a plea for help (Petrovčič, Petrič, & Manfreda, 2016), cash incentives (Dykema, Jones, Piché, & Stevenson, 2013), and lotteries for tangible incentives (Heerwegh, 2006) have been shown to increase response rates. The use of humor, tailored to the voice of the audience, can also increase response rates among young adults (Rath et al, 2016).…”

Examining the Effect of Prenotification Postcards on Online Survey Response Rate in a University Graduate Sample

“…For example, the effectiveness of mailed prenotification may depend on the accuracy of the population's mail and/or e-mail contact information. Specifically, mailed prenotification may increase response rates for populations with less reliable e-mail addresses by ensuring that individuals are notified of the study (Dykema et al 2013) but be ineffective for populations with accurate e-mail addresses. Individual differences may also correspond to increased likelihoods of responding when mail prenotification is used.…”