• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

在线调查。

Conducting Online Surveys.

机构信息

1 Department of Anthropology, Durham University, UK.

出版信息

J Hum Lact. 2019 Aug;35(3):413-417. doi: 10.1177/0890334419848734. Epub 2019 May 14.

DOI:10.1177/0890334419848734
PMID:31084575
Abstract

There is an established methodology for conducting survey research that aims to ensure rigorous research and robust outputs. With the advent of easy-to-use online survey platforms, however, the quality of survey studies has declined. This article summarizes the pros and cons of online surveys and emphasizes the key principles of survey research, for example questionnaire validation and sample selection. Numerous texts are available to guide researchers in conducting robust survey research online, however this is neither a quick nor easy undertaking. While online survey websites and software are useful for assisting in questionnaire design and delivery, they can also introduce sources of bias. Researchers considering conducting online surveys are encouraged to read carefully about how the principles of survey research can be applied to online formats in order to reduce bias and enhance rigor. In addition to alerting researchers to the pitfalls of online surveys this article also aims to equip readers of this journal with the knowledge of how to critically appraise publications based on online surveys.

摘要

已经有一套成熟的方法来进行调查研究,旨在确保严谨的研究和可靠的成果。然而,随着易于使用的在线调查平台的出现,调查研究的质量有所下降。本文总结了在线调查的优缺点,并强调了调查研究的关键原则,例如问卷验证和样本选择。有许多文本可以指导研究人员进行在线的稳健调查研究,但这既不是一件快速也不是一件容易的事情。虽然在线调查网站和软件有助于辅助问卷设计和交付,但它们也可能引入偏差源。鼓励考虑进行在线调查的研究人员仔细阅读有关如何将调查研究的原则应用于在线格式以减少偏差和提高严谨性的内容。本文除了提醒研究人员注意在线调查的陷阱外,还旨在使本刊的读者了解如何根据在线调查来批判性地评价出版物。

相似文献

1
Conducting Online Surveys.在线调查。
J Hum Lact. 2019 Aug;35(3):413-417. doi: 10.1177/0890334419848734. Epub 2019 May 14.
2
The use of advanced web-based survey design in Delphi research.在 Delphi 研究中使用先进的基于网络的调查设计。
J Adv Nurs. 2017 Dec;73(12):3168-3177. doi: 10.1111/jan.13381. Epub 2017 Jul 28.
3
Mind the Mode: Differences in Paper vs. Web-Based Survey Modes Among Women With Cancer.留意模式:癌症女性纸质和网络调查模式的差异。
J Pain Symptom Manage. 2017 Sep;54(3):368-375. doi: 10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2017.07.005. Epub 2017 Jul 13.
4
Using a web-based survey tool to undertake a Delphi study: application for nurse education research.使用基于网络的调查工具进行德尔菲研究:在护理教育研究中的应用
Nurse Educ Today. 2013 Nov;33(11):1322-8. doi: 10.1016/j.nedt.2013.02.016. Epub 2013 Mar 17.
5
Designing, Conducting, and Reporting Survey Studies: A Primer for Researchers.设计、实施和报告调查研究:研究人员入门指南。
J Korean Med Sci. 2023 Dec 11;38(48):e403. doi: 10.3346/jkms.2023.38.e403.
6
Guide to the design and application of online questionnaire surveys.在线问卷调查的设计与应用指南。
Nepal J Epidemiol. 2016 Dec 31;6(4):640-644. doi: 10.3126/nje.v6i4.17258. eCollection 2016 Dec.
7
The state of web-based research: A survey and call for inclusion in curricula.基于网络的研究现状:一项调查及纳入课程的呼吁。
Behav Res Methods. 2017 Oct;49(5):1621-1629. doi: 10.3758/s13428-017-0882-x.
8
Why Should We Use Online Research Methods? Four Doctoral Health Student Perspectives.为何我们应该采用在线研究方法?四位健康博士生的观点。
Qual Health Res. 2018 Aug;28(10):1650-1657. doi: 10.1177/1049732317721698. Epub 2017 Jul 26.
9
Methodological and practical guidance for designing and conducting online qualitative surveys in public health.公共卫生领域在线定性调查的设计与实施方法和实践指南。
Health Promot Int. 2024 Jun 1;39(3). doi: 10.1093/heapro/daae061.
10
Considerations when conducting e-Delphi research: a case study.开展电子德尔菲研究时的注意事项:一个案例研究
Nurse Res. 2017 Jun 22;25(1):10-15. doi: 10.7748/nr.2017.e1498.

引用本文的文献

1
Increasing Rigor in Online Health Surveys Through the Reduction of Fraudulent Data.通过减少欺诈性数据提高在线健康调查的严谨性。
J Med Internet Res. 2025 Aug 21;27:e68092. doi: 10.2196/68092.
2
Moral judgment of genetic technologies: validation of the genetic technologies questionnaire in the German-speaking population.基因技术的道德判断:德语区人群中基因技术问卷的验证
Front Genet. 2025 Aug 1;16:1620962. doi: 10.3389/fgene.2025.1620962. eCollection 2025.
3
Intentions in reconstructive plastic surgery among post-bariatric patients in Brazil's public health service.
巴西公共卫生服务体系中减肥后患者的整形重建手术意向
Acta Cir Bras. 2025 Aug 8;40:e405725. doi: 10.1590/acb405725. eCollection 2025.
4
An analysis of key factors related to adaptation during pregnancy that contribute to the risk of perinatal depression.对孕期适应过程中与围产期抑郁风险相关的关键因素的分析。
Womens Health (Lond). 2025 Jan-Dec;21:17455057251340822. doi: 10.1177/17455057251340822. Epub 2025 Jul 28.
5
Understanding Australian adults' preferences for setting goals to reduce unhealthy food and beverage intake: a cross-sectional study.了解澳大利亚成年人设定目标以减少不健康食品和饮料摄入量的偏好:一项横断面研究。
J Nutr Sci. 2025 Jul 16;14:e50. doi: 10.1017/jns.2025.10022. eCollection 2025.
6
Changes in ECT services in India since the implementation of its mental health care act 2017: a clinician's perspective.自2017年印度《精神卫生保健法》实施以来ECT服务的变化:临床医生视角
BMC Psychiatry. 2025 Jul 1;25(1):670. doi: 10.1186/s12888-025-07109-3.
7
Effect of an Online Educational Program on Nurses' Knowledge of Incontinence-Associated Dermatitis.在线教育项目对护士失禁相关性皮炎知识的影响。
Int Wound J. 2025 Jun;22(6):e70705. doi: 10.1111/iwj.70705.
8
The genetic technologies questionnaire in the Greek-speaking population: the moral judgement of the lay public.希腊语人群中的基因技术调查问卷:普通公众的道德判断
Front Genet. 2025 May 13;16:1594724. doi: 10.3389/fgene.2025.1594724. eCollection 2025.
9
User Perceptions of Behavioral Change Strategies in Diabetes Apps: Feedback From Online Support Groups.糖尿病应用程序中行为改变策略的用户认知:来自在线支持小组的反馈
J Diabetes Sci Technol. 2025 May 24:19322968251343918. doi: 10.1177/19322968251343918.
10
German validation of three ethics questionnaires: Consequentialist scale, ethical standards of judgment questionnaire, and revised ethics position questionnaire.三种伦理调查问卷的德语验证:结果主义量表、道德判断标准问卷和修订后的伦理立场问卷。
PLoS One. 2025 May 2;20(5):e0319937. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0319937. eCollection 2025.