Comparison of Behaviors inAnswering to On-line Survey Observedin the APRC 5-Country Study
Working Group-1 / JMRA Research Technology Committee

Research Design
 Target Respondent:• Male and female aged 15 to 69 yrs old living in cities Methodology:• Online survey
 Research period:• Tuesday, May 18 - Saturday, May 29, 2010
• (Only Thailand: Monday, May 24 - Thursday, June 10, 2010)

 Collection target for the number of eligible samples:• 1,100 samples in total for each country.

1I. Comparison on the Sample Collection
 Comparison on the following:– Collection rates•–Collection speed•–

Compare the number of samples collected within a certain period(seven days) after delivering a common solicitation mail in thecountries)
Compare collection trends in cumulative base by the time unit fromthe start of the delivery sent at the same time (in local time)Achievement rates of the Collection Target•

Compare achievement rates of the collection target which is
as follows:
10's
15 - 19 yrs. oldMaleFemale

50
50

20's

30's

40's

50's

60's

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

Total

1,100

2

How to Compare the Collection Rates The solicitation mails were delivered to 150 samples in each cell of 5year-age groups by gender for each country at 2:00PM (local time) on
Tuesday, May 18, 2010. The collection situation was examined sevendays after the delivery.
 The number of the delivery by areas was decided based on thecomposition of the population.
• Number of the solicitation mails sent (unit: person)
10's
15 - 19 yrs. oldMale
Female

150
150

20's

30's

40's

50's

60's

300

300

300

300

300

300

300

300

300

300

Total

3,300

 Each country was requested to send neither the reminder nor any
additional solicitation mails for the seven days.

3Comparison of the Collection Rates
 China has the highest collection rates with 20's, in particular,accounting for 98%.
 Thailand registered the lowest in all the age groups among the 5countries.
• Collection Rates = Number of samples collected / Number of mails （3,300）・％
10's
15 - 19 yrs. old

20's

30's

40's

50's

60's

Total

* Since the collection was suspended upon the cell target being met in Japan, the final numbers collectedin each cell cannot largely exceed 33.3%.

4

Comparison of the Collection Speed
 In terms of the time required to collect 330 samples, Japan registered
the quickest with 2 hours 20 minutes, followed by Korea with 20 hours,
China with 32 hours and then Australia with 34 hours.
• Cumulative # in the Collection after sending the questionnaire to 3,300 samples
Cumulative #in Collection(unit: person)
回収サンプル数

Day 1 14:00

Day 2 14:00

Day 3 14:00

Day 4 14:00

Day 5 14:00

Day 6 14:00

Elapsed timeafter delivery* Since the collection was suspended upon the cell target being met in Japan, the final numbers collected in total cannotlargely exceed 1,100 samples that were the total collection target.

5

Achievement Rates of the Collection Target
 With regards to the cells that did not achieve their collection targets in the seven days,additional mails were sent out.
 In Korea, additional 150 mails by each 5-year-age-group were sent with the total going up
eventually to 9,900 samples in delivery. Fifty’s (50’s)-or-over groups, however, ended up
not meeting the targets.
 Additional mails were delivered to 90 males in 10’s and 150 males in 20’s in Japan.
• Achievement Rates of the Collection Target= Number of samples collected / the Collection Target ・％
10's
15 - 19 yrs. old

20's

30's

40's

50's

60's

AU

96.0

100.0

100.0

99.5

100.0

100.0

CN

88.0

100.0

100.0

93.5

38.5

11.0

JP

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

KR

96.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

75.5

42.5

TH

99.0

99.5

99.0

100.0

7.0

0.0

* With regards to the cells that did not achieve their collection targets in the seven days, additional mails weresent out and the collection continued until Saturday, May 29, 2010 ( Thursday, June 10, 2010 in Thailand)

6II. Comparison of Behaviors in Answering to Questions
 Comparison on the following:– Dropout rates•

Calculate dropout rates by types of questions based on the number of
those who responded to questions by pages.

– Length of time in answering the questionnaire•

Measure the length of time taken to answer the questionnaire bypages, and compare by types of questions.

– # of words used in Open-Ends questions•

Compare average # of English words used after translation.

– Contents of Open-Ends questions•Compare the response rates of “Nothing special” and meaninglessanswers such as “aaa”, etc.

– Tendency of choosing the answer in the middle of 5-point scale•Compare the tendency to choose the answer in the middle(“ Cannot say which”, etc.)

7

Comparison of the Dropout Rates
 The dropout rates of Japan, Korea and Thailand are low regardlessof types of questions.
 In Australia and China, high dropout rates are observed in the MA
matrix questions.
• Dropout rates by types of questions

TOTAL（Q1→Q40）

13.0%

7.8%

1.5%

3.1%

1.9%

SA

[Ave:6.7]

0.5%

0.2%

0.1%

0.1%

0.0%

MA

[Ave: 19.3]

0.8%

0.3%

0.1%

0.2%

0.1%

Matrix（SA) [Ave: 5.3×6.7]

0.3%

0.5%

0.2%

0.3%

0.1%

Matrix（MA） [Ave: 16.0×2.0]

1.2%

0.5%

0.2%

0.3%

0.1%

Numeric

0.2%

0.1%

0.0%

0.0%

0.1%

Open Ends

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.1%

8

Comparison of the Length of Time in Answering the Questionnaire Overall, the length of time in Australia was the longest, followed byChina, Korea, Japan and Thailand in descending order.
 That of China and Japan is relatively longer than that of the otherthree in Open Ends questions.
• Length of time taken in answering to questions(sec/1page)9

Average # of Words used in Open-Ends Questions
Average # of words used in open-ends questions is large in Chinaand Japan, followed by Australia and Thailand, and then Korea, thatof which is the smallest.
●

Comparison of average # of words

Q16
Number ofsamples

Q27
Average
Number ofwords

Number ofsamples

Average
Number ofwords

719

8.7

692

9.6

579

11.0

669

10.3

845

10.2

824

11.2

800

4.1

776

3.7347

5.5

338

6.7

10

“Nothing special” and Meaningless Answers
In Thailand, 40% or more answered “Nothing special”.
Those raising meaningless answers accounted for more or less 1 %in Australia and China.
●Response rates of "Nothing special" and Meaningless answers (unit:%)"Nothing special"
Q16

Meaningless Answers

Q27

Q16

Q27

21.5

25.6

1.2

1.0

8.2

5.5

1.1

0.9

23.6

25.6

0.4

0.4

12.4

14.6

0.2

0.1

43.8

46.1

0.3

011

Tendency in Answering in the middle of 5-point scale Korea responded highest to "Cannot say which" among the five countries,
followed by Japan, China and Thailand.
● Answering tendency/patterns on a 5-point scale
Q14.How much are you satisfied with each of the following aspects of your life listed ?
SatisfiedSomewhat
SatisfiedCannot say which

Somewhatdissatisfied

Dissatisfied

IncomeDurable Consumer Goods

Housing

Leisure Life12

Summary Australia has the highest dropout rate among the five countries.
It appears, however, that they take enough time to answer questions.
 A very high cooperation rate is observed among 20's in China. On theother hand, it seems difficult to conduct with consumers aged 50's andover.
 In Korea, the younger respondent groups are, the higher collection rate
is. The rate of those who answered, "Cannot say which" is the highest.
 Japan has the highest collection rate and collection speed, while
reaching the target number of collection most quickly.
 In Thailand, the internet survey can be done with consumers aged 20'to 40's. It seems difficult to be done with 50's and over.

13

Special Thanks to the companies conducting
the fieldwork in each country. They are:
– Australia:

Ekas Marketing Research & I-view– China– Japan– Korea– Thailand::::

DATA100 Market ResearchYahoo Japan Value Insight Co.
Net intelligence & research（NIR）
Infosearch Ltd.

14