We conduct research to evaluate and improve the quality of web and mobile web surveys. We implement experiments to test the impact of different layouts on respondents' behavior, data quality and survey evaluation. We investigate new ways of collecting web data and how new technologies can be used to improve the respondents' participation and experience. We pay particular attention to the use of mobile devices in web surveys. We consider both probability-based (CRONOS, ELIPSS, GIP, NCP) and non probability-based online panels (Netquest). This research is developed in collaboration with both other academic researchers and online fieldwork companies.  
 
 
Research Projects:
 

Netquest methodological research unit, R2online, Research on Research Online (November 2012- 2019). PI: Melanie Revilla. Additional information

Synergies for Europe's Research Infrastructures in the Social Sciences (SERISS) (June 2015 – May 2018). Work package 7. PI: Wiebke Weber.  Additional information

 

Selected Publications:

Bosch, O.J., Revilla, M., and E. Paura (2018). Do Millennials differ in terms of survey participation? International Journal of Market Research. First Published Online December 4, 2018. doi: 10.1177/1470785318815567

Bosch, O.J., Revilla, M., and E. Paura (2018). Answering mobile surveys with images: an exploration using a computer vision API. Social Science Computer Review. Published online first August 2018.doi: 10.1177/0894439318791515

Bosch, O.J, Revilla, M., DeCastellarnau, A. and W. Weber (2018). Measurement reliability, validity and quality of slider versus radio button scales in an online probability-based panel in Norway. Social Science Computer Review, first published online: March 15, 2018. doi: 10.1177/0894439317750089

Höhne J.K., Revilla, M., and T. Lenzner (2018). Comparing the Performance of Agree/Disagree and Item-Specific Questions across PCs and Smartphones. Methodology, 14(3), 109–118. doi: 10.1027/1614-2241/a000151

DeCastellarnau, A. and M. Revilla. (2017). Two approaches to evaluate measurement quality in online surveys: An application using the Norwegian Citizen Panel. Survey Research Methods, 11(4), 415-433. doi: 10.18148/srm/2017.v11i4.7226

Dobney, S., Ochoa, C., and M. Revilla (2017). More Realism in Conjoint Analysis: The Effect of Textual Noise and Visual Style. International Journal of Market Research, 59(4), 495-516.

Revilla, M., Couper, M.P., and C. Ochoa (2018). Giving Respondents Voice? The Feasibility of Voice Input for Mobile Web Surveys. Survey Practice 11(2), 1-12. doi: 10.29115/SP-2018-0007  

Revilla, M., and Couper, M.P. (2018). Testing Different Rank Order Question Layouts for PC and Smartphone Respondents. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 21(6), 695-712. First published online: 16 Jun 2018. doi: 10.1080/13645579.2018.1471371

Revilla, M., and Couper, M.P. (2018). Comparing grids with vertical and horizontal item-by-item formats for PCs and Smartphones. Social Science Computer Review, 36(3), 349-368. Published Online First on June 22, 2017. doi: 10.1177/0894439317715626

Revilla, M. (2017). Analyzing the survey characteristics, participation, and evaluation across 186 surveys in an online opt-in panel in Spain. Methods, data, analyses, 11(2), 135-162. doi: 10.12758/mda.2017.02

Revilla, M. and C. Ochoa (2017). Ideal and maximum length for a web survey. International Journal of Market Research, 59 (5), 557-565.

Revilla, M., Ochoa, C., and A. Turbina (2017). Making use of Internet interactivity to propose a dynamic presentation of web questionnaires. Quality and Quantity, 51(3), 1321-1336. First published online on 29 March 2016. doi:10.1007/s11135-016-0333-2.

Revilla, M. (2017). Are there differences depending on the device used to complete a web survey (PC or smartphone) for order-by-click questions? Field Methods, 29(3),  266-280. First Published Online February 16, 2017. doi: 10.1177/1525822X16674701.

Revilla, M., Toninelli, D., and  Ochoa, C. (2017). An experiment comparing grids and item-by-item formats in web surveys completed through PCs and smartphones. Telematics and Informatics, 34(1), 30-42, February 2017. First published online: April 20, 2016. doi:10.1016/j.tele.2016.04.002.

Revilla, M., Toninelli, D., Ochoa, C., and Loewe, G. (2016). Do online access panels really need to allow and adapt surveys to mobile devices? Internet Research, 26(5), 1209 - 1227. Available at: http://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/abs/10.1108/IntR-02-2015-0032

Revilla, M., and C. Ochoa (2016). Open narrative questions in PC and smartphones: is the device playing a role?Quality and Quantity, 50 (6), 2495–2513. First published online on October 13, 2015. doi: 10.1007/s11135-015-0273-2

Revilla, M., Cornilleau, A., Cousteaux, A.S., Legleye, S., and P. de Pedraza (2016). What is the gain in a probability-based online panel of providing Internet access to sampling units who previously had no access?Social Science Computer Review, 34(4), 479-496. First published online: 16 June 2015. doi: 10.1177/0894439315590206

Revilla, M. (2016). Impact of raising awareness of respondents on the measurement quality in a web survey. Quality and Quantity, 50(4), 1469-1486. First published online on May 9, 2015. doi: 10.1007/s11135-015-0216-y

Revilla, M., Toninelli, D., and Ochoa, C. (2016). PCs versus Smartphones in answering web surveys: does the device make a difference? Survey Practice, 9(4). Available at: http://www.surveypractice.org/index.php/SurveyPractice/article/view/338/pdf_72

Toninelli, D. and Revilla, M. (2016). Smartphones vs PCs: Does the Device Affect the Web Survey Experience and the Measurement Error for Sensitive Topics? A Replication of the Mavletova & Couper’s 2013 Experiment.Survey Research Methods, 10(2),153-169. doi 10.18148/srm/2016.v10i2.6274

Revilla, M., Toninelli, D., Ochoa, C., and G. Loewe (2015). Who has access to mobile devices in an online opt-in panel? An analysis of potential respondents for mobile surveys. In D. Toninelli, R. Pinter, and P. de Pedraza (eds), Mobile Research Methods: Opportunities and challenges of mobile research methodologies, Chapter 8, (pp. 119-139). London: Ubiquity Press. ISBN: 978-1-909188-53-2. doi: 10.5334/bar.h. License: CC-BY 4.0. 

Revilla, M., and C. Ochoa (2015). Quality of Different Scales in an Online Survey in Mexico and Colombia. Journal of Politics in Latin America, 7(3), 157–177. Available at: http://journals.sub.uni-hamburg.de/giga/jpla/article/view/903/910.

Revilla, M., Saris, W.E., Loewe, G, and C. Ochoa (2015). Can a non-probabilistic online panel get similar question quality as the ESS? International Journal of Market Research. 57(3), 395-412. Available at: https://www.mrs.org.uk/ijmr_article/article/104501

Revilla, M. and C. Ochoa (2015). What are the links in a web survey among response time, quality, and auto-evaluation of the efforts done? Social Science Computer Review, 33(1), 97-114. First published online on May 14, 2014. doi:10.1177/0894439314531214

Revilla, M., and W.E. Saris (2015). Estimating and comparing the quality of different scales of an online survey using an MTMM approach. In Engel, U. (Ed), Survey Measurements: Techniques, Data Quality and sources of Error. Chapter 5, (pp. 53-74). Campus. Frankfurt. New York. ISBN: 9783593502809. 

Revilla, M. (2015). Effect of using different labels for the scales in a web survey. International Journal of Market Research, 57(2), 225-238. First published online on June 1, 2014. doi:10.2501/IJMR-2014-028

Revilla, M. (2015). Comparison of the quality estimates in a mixed-mode and a unimode design: an experiment from the European Social Survey, Quality and Quantity, 49(3), 1219-1238. Published online first 13 of June 2014. doi: 10.1007/s11135-014-0044-5

Revilla, M., Ochoa, C., and G. Loewe (2014). How the form of asking respondents’ three preferred brands changes the results.  Metodología de Encuestas, 16, 67-82.

Toninelli, D., & Revilla, M. (in press). How mobile devices screen size affects data collected in web surveys. In Paul C. Beatty, Amanda Wilmot, Debbie Collins, Lyn Kaye, Jose Luis Padilla, and Gordon Willis (Eds.),  Advances in Questionnaire Design, Development, Evaluation and Testing. John Wiley and Sons, USA.