10 Matching Annotations
  1. Feb 2016
    1. Zoomerang

      zoomerang survey software option

    2. While the display is appealing and easy to read, it is not customizable

      Polldaddy: survey software selection. List of cons.

    3. Polldaddy for iOS was a great option for this type of assessment. The layout and design are optimized for the iPad’s screen, and survey results are loaded offline. Be-cause an Internet connection is not required to administer a survey, the researcher has more flexibility in location of survey administration.

      Polldaddy did not require wireless internet access, making it a more flexible survey-software option

    4. Polldaddy software chosen for second iteration of survey offered at GSU for assessment.

    5. Google Forms

      Chosen survey-taking software for iPad surveys given to users at GSU.

    6. A two-question survey was designed to pilot the iPadas a survey delivery device in GSU Library. The first survey question was ―Why did you come to the library today? Please choose the primary reason.‖ Ten response options were listed in alphabetical order, and survey takers were allowed to select one option. The tenth response option was ―other,‖ with a text field in which survey takers could enter their own explanations. This question was included because the library is extremely busy, with an average daily door count of 10,000 during a typical semester. The door count data show heavy use of the building, but the library has little means of finding out what visitors do while they are in the buildings. The second survey question was ―What is your major?,‖ which was an open-text field.

      Georgia State Library test-survey (two questions).

    7. Bhaskaran (2010) recently weighed in on the benefits of using iPads for survey re-search, but little has been written about the use of tablet computers as mobile assess-ment devices. What literature does exist primarily relates to the healthcare professions.
    8. Over the past few years, the market research literature has reflected a concern about the quality of face-to-face market research as compared to online surveys and polls. Manfreda, Bosnjak, Berzelak, Haas, and Vehovar (2008) analyzed other studies that compared response rates from Web-based surveys to response rates of at least one other survey delivery method. Web survey responses were, on average, eleven percent lower than the other methods investigated. In their study of face-to-face survey responses as compared to online survey responses, Heerwegh and Looseveldt (2008) concluded that responses to Web surveys were of poorer quality and, overall, less suffi-cient than responses to surveys conducted face-to-face.

      face-to-face surveying produces greater results than web-based surveys.