All Academic, Inc. Research Logo

Info/CitationFAQResearchAll Academic Inc.
Document

Response Patterns in Computer-Administered Surveys
Unformatted Document Text:  Computer Administered Surveys 19 A further corollary to the data gathered by Question 17 is the 17.8% of participants who declined to answer the question. While there is no way to tell if these participants simply did not wish to answer the question or if they did not know what a cookie was, some of this phenomenon was indicated in Question 24. In the Hypothesis 1 Group, 44.2% of participants indicated that they did not know what a cookie was – 12% more than answered Question 17 incorrectly (or, in some cases, answered Question 17 by admitting they did not know what cookies were). It is possible to conclude, though, by examining the data in Question 24, that most of the participants who declined to answer Question 17 did so because they lacked the knowledge of what a cookie was and did not wish to admit this. The reasoning is this: 50% of participants correctly defined a cookie in Question 17, and 44.2% of participants indicated they did not know what a cookie was in Question 24. Therefore, 55.8% of participants have at least some knowledge of what a cookie was – enough to explain their personal cookie- blocking policy – and numerically, only five more participants provided a cookie-blocking behavior in Question 24 than correctly defined a cookie in Question 17. Research Question 2 examined the responses of Groups 2 and 3, and those participants’ responses to questions 5 and 12. In examining the data gathered for question 5, most of these participants (44.8%) decided they were “not very concerned” about the privacy of their personal information on the Internet. In the response pool used in this research question, only 6 of the 87 participants declined to provide personal information in the survey (operationalized as participant e-mail addresses). This indicates that despite the concerns over Internet privacy and security, a plurality of participants in this study does not feel there are problems in these areas. In addition, when the responses to Question 6 were considered for this response pool, a majority of participants (61%) believed it was helpful for businesses to

Authors: Roseman, Joshua. and Mitrook, Michael.
first   previous   Page 20 of 25   next   last



background image
Computer Administered Surveys
19
A further corollary to the data gathered by Question 17 is the 17.8% of participants
who declined to answer the question. While there is no way to tell if these participants simply
did not wish to answer the question or if they did not know what a cookie was, some of this
phenomenon was indicated in Question 24. In the Hypothesis 1 Group, 44.2% of participants
indicated that they did not know what a cookie was – 12% more than answered Question 17
incorrectly (or, in some cases, answered Question 17 by admitting they did not know what
cookies were). It is possible to conclude, though, by examining the data in Question 24, that
most of the participants who declined to answer Question 17 did so because they lacked the
knowledge of what a cookie was and did not wish to admit this. The reasoning is this: 50%
of participants correctly defined a cookie in Question 17, and 44.2% of participants indicated
they did not know what a cookie was in Question 24. Therefore, 55.8% of participants have
at least some knowledge of what a cookie was – enough to explain their personal cookie-
blocking policy – and numerically, only five more participants provided a cookie-blocking
behavior in Question 24 than correctly defined a cookie in Question 17.
Research Question 2 examined the responses of Groups 2 and 3, and those
participants’ responses to questions 5 and 12. In examining the data gathered for question 5,
most of these participants (44.8%) decided they were “not very concerned” about the privacy
of their personal information on the Internet. In the response pool used in this research
question, only 6 of the 87 participants declined to provide personal information in the survey
(operationalized as participant e-mail addresses). This indicates that despite the concerns over
Internet privacy and security, a plurality of participants in this study does not feel there are
problems in these areas. In addition, when the responses to Question 6 were considered for
this response pool, a majority of participants (61%) believed it was helpful for businesses to


Convention
Submission, Review, and Scheduling! All Academic Convention can help with all of your abstract management needs and many more. Contact us today for a quote!
Submission - Custom fields, multiple submission types, tracks, audio visual, multiple upload formats, automatic conversion to pdf.
Review - Peer Review, Bulk reviewer assignment, bulk emails, ranking, z-score statistics, and multiple worksheets!
Reports - Many standard and custom reports generated while you wait. Print programs with participant indexes, event grids, and more!
Scheduling - Flexible and convenient grid scheduling within rooms and buildings. Conflict checking and advanced filtering.
Communication - Bulk email tools to help your administrators send reminders and responses. Use form letters, a message center, and much more!
Management - Search tools, duplicate people management, editing tools, submission transfers, many tools to manage a variety of conference management headaches!
Click here for more information.

first   previous   Page 20 of 25   next   last

©2012 All Academic, Inc.