Developments in Electronic Survey Design 

for Establishment Surveys 

Grace E. O’Neill 

United States Census Bureau 

Room 7K130E, Washington DC 20233 

This report is released to inform interested parties of ongoing research and to encourage discussion of 

work in progress. Any views expressed on statistical, methodological, technical, or operational issues are 

those of the author and not necessarily those of the U.S. Census Bureau. 

Key words: electronic form design, usability testing, establishment surveys, web surveys 

Abstract 

As electronic-based surveys grow in popularity, many agencies have developed their own sets of electronic 

form design practices. Some of these practices developed from research while other practices developed 

from field-based experience. This paper acts to synthesize a variety of electronic form design practices used 

by the establishment surveys at the U.S. Census Bureau. These practices are based on research and findings 

from cognitive and usability testing. Because these findings evolved out of respondent testing, the Census 

Bureau has been able to develop electronic survey design features for establishment surveys that integrate 

well with the activities and tasks respondents perform to complete surveys. This provides for a more 

respondent-centered electronic survey design. In this paper, we discuss topics such as working with internal 

Information Technology staff, addressing the visual differences between paper and electronic forms, 

respondents use of paper associated with electronic response, and the use of real-time edits and other 

electronic-only features. The paper will also discuss the potential implications of the Census Bureau’s 

findings for both household and establishment-based surveys, and outline areas that need more research. 

1.0 Introduction 

As concerns for establishment survey nonresponse rates increase, survey managers have investigated 

alternative ways to encourage survey participation. One alternative is to offer multiple response modes 

including mail, fax, and electronic data collection. Electronic data collection includes both downloadable 

and Web computerized self-administered questionnaires (CSAQ). Downloadable CSAQs are executable 

files that are either mailed to the respondent on a disk or CD or are downloaded from a Web site onto the 

respondent’s computer. Respondents enter their data directly into the application, which stores the data on 

their computers until they submit the information to the survey agency. Web CSAQs, on the other hand, 

exist on a secure Web site that respondents log into in order to enter their data. The data are then stored on 

the survey agency’s computer servers. 

As electronic data collection has grown in popularity, the U.S. Census Bureau has developed both a Web 

and downloadable CSAQ application. In the Economic Directorate the Web CSAQ is primarily used by 

company-based surveys, while the downloadable CSAQ is primarily used by establishment-based surveys, 

including the economic census. Since many establishment surveys use either the Web or the downloadable 

CSAQ application, the Economic Directorate has developed a set of specific design practices for both. This 

paper acts to synthesize the variety of electronic form design practices used by establishment surveys at the 

Census Bureau and to provide an understanding as to why these practices were developed. This paper will 

conclude with a discussion of the implications of these practices for both household and establishmentbased surveys and outlines areas that need more research. 

2.0 Background 

In addition to maintaining and improving response rates, survey managers undertake electronic data 

collection methods for two main reasons: to improve data quality and to decrease cost. Both downloadable 

and Web CSAQs affect data quality and cost, however, in a different manner than a paper form. First, 

electronic methods can improve data quality by providing additional help screens and other visual or 

1 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

audible media applications that can help to simplify the response task. A poorly designed electronic form, 

however, may not only complicate the response task, but may also cause a respondent to abandon the mode 

or the survey altogether. An additional challenge programmers face is that each computer and Internet 

browser has a different array of settings that forces them to take into consideration several design 

possibilities. Another challenge for downloadable CSAQs is that some respondents are required to get 

special permission or involve the company’s Information Technology staff before they can download an 

application. This process can add additional time and burden that may affect the respondent’s mode 

decision and the timeliness of survey completion. 

Next, electronic methods can reduce cost by limiting the amount of data entry and response follow-up 

needed by a survey. For paper forms, respondents write their responses on the form, submit the form to the 

data collection agency, and an individual at the agency enters the responses into a database. By using an 

electronic form, the respondent is entering the data directly into the database, thus eliminating the need for 

additional staff to enter the data for the respondent. Equally, data edits internal to the electronic system help 

to reduce missing or questionable data, which in turn reduces the number of follow-up calls and data 

review conducted by a survey office. While the lack of both data entry and response follow-up help to 

reduce cost, there are some additional costs associated with electronic data collection. Electronic data 

collection methods, unlike paper forms, require more up front costs to create a system and maintenance 

costs to maintain the system throughout its use. Offering multiple modes can also complicate data 

integration between the different modes, survey operations, and data analysis, all of which can increase 

cost. (Cohen et al, 2006; Rosen, 2007) 

2.1 Types of instrument testing 

Currently, the Census Bureau conducts two main types of instrument testing with respondents: cognitive 

testing and usability testing. Both testing types have the ultimate goal of building a form that will increase 

response rates and data quality while reducing respondent burden. Cognitive testing focuses on the 

cognitive process used by a respondent to answer questions, including question wording and context. 

Usability testing focuses on the interaction of the response process with the electronic reporting application, 

including form navigation, visual formatting, and various electronic reporting functionalities. Testing 

results are then used to identify common patterns across all test subjects, which are then used to make 

informed design decisions. The main limitation to the testing is that it is qualitative in nature. Thus, the 

results cannot be inferred to the population, however, more quantitative research is often too time and cost 

prohibitive. 

At the Census Bureau, both types of instrument testing are conducted by cognitive or usability experts at 

business respondents’ locations, using either the respondents’ computers or a Census Bureau laptop. Both 

types involve a protocol and usually include both a cognitive/ usability expert and a subject area expert. 

The protocol usually includes three sections: one that gathers general information about the respondent and 

the business, one that gathers detailed information about the questions or the application and one that 

gathers overall feedback on either the questions or the applications. (Anderson, 2003) The protocol usually 

incorporates different testing techniques including think aloud questioning, probes, task based scenarios 

and application prototypes. 

2.2 Establishment surveys 

Much of the research that currently exists in the survey field focuses on household surveys. While there are 

many similarities between household and establishment surveys, there are also several differences. 

Unlike many non-Government household surveys, establishment surveys rarely ask opinion or attitude 

questions and instead focus primarily on factual questions with definite answers. In general, factual 

questions tend to include technical concepts with precise definitions and tend to require record based 

retrieval, both of which may increase respondent burden. Also, unlike household surveys in general, 

establishments often require higher-level authorization before completing and submitting a survey to the 

Census Bureau. (Morrison, et al 2002). Many establishment surveys at the Census Bureau are panel surveys 

with units remaining in the sample for several years; if the unit is sampled with certainty and then it is 
 

 

3.1 Form Design 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

always in the sample. Respondent burden also differs for establishment surveys because they often require 

multiple respondents across multiple sessions to complete one survey form. 

The Census Bureau has conducted research focusing on the use of both downloadable and Web CSAQ 

survey electronic forms. This research, coupled with the results of extensive cognitive and usability testing, 

helped to shape the practices outlined in this paper. 

3.0 Design Practices 

The following design practices have been divided into two categories: those that effect form design and 

those that effect data collection. The practices included in the form design section focus on the layout of the

electronic form while the practices in the data collection section focus on the information collected by the 

electronic form. 

Design Practice #1: Instructions and Text 

Establishment surveys tend to have a significant amount of text accompanying the questions. 

Standard question writing principles, such as keeping a question short and only asking one concept per 

question, apply to both paper and electronic modes. Both Dillman (2000) and Sudman et al, (1982) provide 

standard guides to question writing and formatting. Paper and electronic modes, however, have different 

ways of presenting text in a useable manner. 

At the Census Bureau, we have tested two main ways to increase the readability of an electronic form. One 

way is to use visual cues to call attention to important information. Visual cues include items like arrows or 

bold typeface. Another way is to use help buttons and hyperlinks to remove text from the main page and 

place it on a secondary page with a link from the main page. This helps to eliminate text from the main 

page, but still makes it accessible to the respondent. Whether or not to use visual cues or help buttons and 

hyperlinks depends on the importance of the information. If the information appears with the question on 

paper, then it is presented with the question on the electronic form. If the information is in an instruction 

booklet or some other supplemental materials, a help button or hyperlink is the best place to present the 

information to the respondent. 

Design Practice #2: Pre-filled Information 

Some establishment surveys include pre-filled items that survey managers do not want respondents to 

change such as unit name and address, industry identifying codes, or other identifying information. 

While there is no research on pre-filled items in either paper or electronic forms, Census Bureau 

researchers have observed how respondents react to incorrect pre-filled items in the test setting. On paper 

forms, respondents often make corrections to pre-filled items by crossing out the incorrect information and 

writing new information directly on the paper form. On electronic forms, however, respondents are often 

left with no way to correct incorrectly pre-filled items. This often frustrates respondents because it forces 

them to submit incorrect information. 

Currently the Census Bureau uses two methods to allow respondents to correct pre-filled items. One 

method is to allow respondent to correct the pre-filled item directly in the pre-filled response boxes and 

handle the corrections in post –collection processing. The other method does not allow respondents to 

change the pre-filled item; instead either a second set of response boxes or a remarks box is provided. This 

way a respondent is able to update and submit correct information without changing the needed information 

to identify each unit for processing purposes. Either response or remarks boxes must appear on the same 

page as the original information. From a respondent’s perceptive, we recommend the former, however, due 

to processing limitations the latter maybe necessary. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Design Practice #3: Tables 

Many establishment surveys collect data using table or matrices. 

Tables and matrices must be carefully designed to maximize usability while collecting the necessary survey 

data. This task is complicated for electronic form design because people have a harder time comprehending 

tables on a computer screen versus a paper form. It is further complicated for Web forms where the 

respondent’s browser and computer settings may affect the ultimate table appearance. 

Through testing we have found that horizontal and vertical scrolling increases respondent burden by 

making the table more difficult to navigate. As programming languages have become more sophisticated, 

programmers are able, in most cases, to ensure that a page does not scroll horizontally unless the screen is 

minimized to a smaller size. However, depending on the programming language used, there may be other 

issues with justification, indenting, and numbering. Vertical scrolling should also be minimized by 

breaking up large tables from the paper form into multiple tables of similar items on the electronic form. 

All table elements, including scrolling, should be tested across several platforms in order to ensure optimal 

table design. 

Design Practice #4: Edits 

A major benefit of electronic forms is the ability to use edits to check for erroneous data prior to 

submission. 

Anderson, et. all (2004) showed that well-designed edits can reduce cost by reducing data follow-up and 

increase data quality while maintaining respondent cooperation. They found that increasing the number of 

edits did not necessarily increase unit nonresponse and/or survey abandonment rates. They also suggest 

allowing respondents to override edits, submitting data with unresolved edit failures, and reminding 

respondents of remaining unresolved edit failures will help to reduce response burden associated with edits. 

The Census Bureau testing has found that effective edits are ones that provide clear explanation of both the 

error and, if applicable, its possible solutions. This is especially important when a survey uses complex 

edits based on ratios or other calculation. When using these edits it is important that the respondent not only 

understands what number(s) is incorrect but also what calculations occurred so the edit is transparent to the 

respondent. Testing has also shown that the edit messages should be located near the edit-failing data in 

order to aid the respondent’s comprehension. Overall, survey managers should only use edits for the most 

important data items as too many edits or poorly designed edits can increase response burden and can 

complicate post-data collection processing. 

Design Practice #5: Remarks Box 

A standard feature of most Census Bureau paper surveys is a remarks box at the end of each form. 

Remarks boxes provide respondents with space to clarify their data prior to submission. On a paper form 

this space is usually the last item because navigation between individual items and the remarks box is as 

simple as turning between pages. On an electronic form, testing shows that respondents need remarks boxes 

on any page where they may need to include additional information. This is because navigation within an 

electronic form is potentially more difficult and respondents are less likely to move to the end of the form 

to enter a remark. 

3.2 Data Collection 

Design Practice #6: Electronic Form Uptake 

Survey managers often view electronic forms as a solution to survey nonresponse only to be disappointed 

by low uptake for the new mode. 

Hak et. al (2003b) studied the factors that influence a respondent’s decision to complete a paper or 

electronic form in multiple mode surveys. They found that respondents base their mode selection decision 

on subjective reasons rather than objective reasons. Subjective reasons varied from reduced chance of their 

form getting lost during submission to electronic forms being better aligned with company priorities to go 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

paper-less. Objective reasons include number of pages or stated burden hours. Hak et. al also found that 

actively contacting respondents to convert to electronic reporting either via the telephone or personal visits, 

improved the likelihood they would of respondents adopt the electronic mode. They found that once a 

respondent switched to electronic forms, they rarely reverted back to paper forms. Census Bureau testing 

confirms these findings. 

Census Bureau usability testing has found that respondents are often unaware that an electronic option is 

available for a survey. While the most effective method is active recruiting, making the electronic option 

more visible to respondents is often necessary. Some possible methods include mentioning the electronic 

option directly on the paper form or on a separate postcard or letter mailed with the advance letter or in 

separate but closely timed mailing. Marketing the electronic option may be more effective if it focuses 

more on subjective reasons rather than objective reasons for respondent uptake. 

Design Practice #7: Navigation 

The navigation of an electronic form is important regardless of the survey type, but it is especially 

important for establishment surveys. 

Testing found that the Census Bureau’s electronic forms often violated the respondent’s expectation of how 

the form should appear and how it should function. Often respondents stated that they want a form to 

operate like other familiar web forms or applications. When the electronic form fails to meet their 

expectations, some respondents may abandon the survey while other may struggle thought it. Navigation is 

also complicated because establishment surveys are often completed in multiple sessions, using multiple 

respondents and multiple data sources. 

First, because respondents often complete the electronic form in multiple sessions and in a non-sequential 

manner, navigation within the electronic form must be clear. This includes clear navigation from the login 

page to the last completed item, clearly labeled navigation buttons and drop down menus, and unique page 

headers that the respondents can use as page identifiers. Another navigation issue involves the use of skip 

patterns within electronic forms. Skip patterns should be applied carefully as overuse or complex skip 

patterns may make skipping around within the electronic form difficult. 

Design Practice #8: Entering and Exiting 

The login, submission, and save function of an electronic form must be transparent to both respondents and 

survey agencies. 

Logging into an electronic form requires a balance between security and ease of access. Often respondents 

realize that the complex login feature is necessary to protect their data. However, because the paper form is 

still a secure reporting method, respondents may abandon the electronic form if login is too difficult. Until 

a secure but simple login function is developed and accepted, survey organizations should develop a 

straightforward page that clearly provides directions on how to login to the form and how to get help if they 

have difficulty logging in. 

When a respondent completes a paper form, they sign the form certifying the reported data is correct, and 

then they either mail or fax the form back to the survey agency. This process demonstrates to both the 

respondent and the survey agency that the respondent is finished with the form and that the agency can 

begin to process the data. Downloadable CSAQs and paper submission are similar because in both 

instances the data resides on the respondent’s computer and an action must be taken to definitively submit 

to the agency. Web CSAQ submission, however, differs because the data resides on the agency’s servers 

and the submission process is not as apparent. 

At the end of a Web CSAQ, the respondent is presented with a certification page that is similar to the paper 

form sans the physical signature. Next, respondents are asked to review any outstanding data edits and 

select whether they are, in Web CSAQ terms, “finished” or “finished with problems” before submitting the 

form to the Census Bureau. The respondent is then presented with a completion certification, which appears 

on the same page as the main menu. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

In testing, we have found that respondents need clear submission instructions and reinforcement that they 

have certified and submitted their final form. This is challenging in electronic forms because a respondent 

cannot physically sign the form and are often confused by the submission process. First, respondents are 

able to submit a form with unresolved edit failures, which some respondents view as an incomplete 

submission even though they may have legitimate reasons for submitting edit-failed data. Next, we have 

found that respondents associate the word “submit” with submitting a completed form and not other terms 

like “finish.” Finally, testing has shown that many respondents expect the completion certificate to appear 

on its own page with a clear print feature, as they often need a copy of the certification for their records. 

Saving data is another important feature of an electronic form. Because respondents often compete survey 

forms in multiple sessions, requiring them to “quit” and reenter, it is necessary that their data be saved in a 

transparent manner. It is also necessary for the reentered form to be repopulated with the saved data. 

Design Practice #9: Use of Paper Forms 

Establishment survey respondents often use the paper form in conjunction with the electronic form. 

Both Hak et. al (2003) and Census Bureau testing showed that respondents who opt to report electronically 

often use the paper form in conjunction with the electronic form. First, respondents sometimes find it is 

easier to use paper to collect information from multiple people or multiple source documents. Another 

reason is that people are often unsure if the electronic form will allow multiple sessions and prefer to enter 

the data all in one session. Finally, most economic survey respondents are required to keep a copy of their 

completed form for the company records and many still prefer a paper to an electronic copy. 

To help respondents complete the electronic form while cutting back on cost, it is important that 

respondents can easily access an electronic copy of the paper form. A link to the form can be located 

directly on the front page or main menu of the form’s Web site or on a separate survey home page. At the 

end of the survey, it is important to provide the respondent with a paper and/or electronic copy of the form 

for their records. In testing, we have found that most respondents prefer a .PDF file that is populated with 

their answers and is visually similar to the paper form. It can also be a list of questions and their answers. 

Ultimately, electronic form design, just like paper form design, is challenging and there is only one 

universal rule regardless of the target population: Be consistent. This is why good research and testing 

should play an important role in the lifecycle of a survey. 

4.0 Discussion 

This paper has outlined nine Census Bureau electronic form design practices for economic surveys. These 

practices are based on research and findings from both cognitive and usability testing in establishment 

surveys. Good design practices, however, are only one part of the development equation. Electronic form 

development also includes understanding the impact of design practices on survey uptake and the use of an 

effective development strategy to integrate the desired design practices into the final application. The 

following discussion focuses the interconnection of these three aspects of electronic forms design: design 

practices, survey uptake, and development strategy and consider their implication for both household and 

establishment-based surveys and outlines areas that need further research. 

4.1 Electronic Form Uptake 

A well-designed and well-tested electronic form is only worth the time and monetary investment if 

respondents use the data collection mode. Groves et. al (2000) explain a respondent’s survey decision 

process using the framework of leverage and saliency. Leverage suggests that any survey attribute, for 

example survey topic or incentive, holds a certain amount of leverage or importance for any sample person. 

Saliency suggests that the activation of the leverage depends on whether the survey attribute is made salient 

to the sample person by the survey organization. Groves et. al show that not only is it important to 

understand what concepts or features increase a person’s response propensity but also that it is important to 

present them in a manner that is noticeable by the respondent. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Currently, there is little research on electronic form uptake and the factors that affect a respondent’s 

decision to use an electronic form over another reporting method. Hak et. al (2003a) found that in an 

establishment survey, a person’s propensity to use the electronic mode was not based on objective concerns 

like burden hours or page length, but subjective concerns, like the ability to complete the form without 

leaving their desk. Hak et. al also found that perceived reward plays a significant role in a respondent’s 

decision to convert to electronic reporting, noting that respondents will take on large amounts of burden if 

the perceived reward is great enough. Thus, although respondents recognize that some features of an 

electronic instrument may be more burdensome, like login procedures or edits, they are willing to convert if 

perceived benefits accrue, such as becoming a paperless office or gaining confidence in the correctness of 

their reporting. 

Similarly, Dowling and Stettler (2007) found that in national establishment surveys, a person’s response 

propensity is based on their perception of Web forms as global progress, the Web as a more efficient means 

of data collection, and specific design features that simplify the response process. They note that while 

statistical organizations have little influence over the first two factors, the third factor is entirely in their 

control and that it is vitally important that they get the functionality right. They show that design features 

are important to respondents and that respondents carry specific expectation into Web form completion. If 

Web forms fail to met these expectations, a respondent may abandon the form, unless the perceived 

benefits outweigh counter-intuitive design features. 

4.2 Electronic Form Development 

Because electronic design features are important to respondents, influencing their uptake decisions, it is 

important t hat they receive prominent attention during instrument development. Electronic form design 

requires cooperation between subject area, usability, and information technology experts, each with their 

own set of design priorities. For subject area experts the priorities include minimizing processing cost while 

maintaining data quality and comparability. For usability experts the priority is the respondent’s 

perspective and form use, while IT experts focus on the actual layout, form design, and functionality. 

Understanding each group’s priorities and working together to design the optimal electronic form is often a 

challenging task. This is often complicated by survey agencies’ development approaches and their 

management structure. 

Fox et al, (2003) describe two main design approaches used by survey agencies to develop electronic 

forms: the waterfall lifecycle model and the user-centric model. The waterfall model is a design approach 

where one step follows after another step with little feedback back to the previous step. Respondent 

feedback via usability testing is only one step in the process and usually occurs just before final application 

dissemination. This model, while used by many large survey projects, is a relatively inefficient design 

method that can allow unresolved usability issues to remain in the final application while increasing 

processing and programming costs. A user-centric model, however, requires both iterative design that 

incorporates the respondent’s perspective at multiple points in the development process, and integrated 

design that simultaneously coordinates work across all design components. In this way respondents’ 

expectations for specific design elements are integrated early in the development process. This model helps 

to reduce cost and programming time as issues are resolved early in the process and fewer usability issues 

are likely to remain in the final application. This model is not only more efficient but also incorporates 

usability findings throughout the development process, helping to reduce later cost and frustration. 

Another component of electronic form design is the decision to have a single agency wide Web application. 

Levi et. al, (2002) found that the Bureau of Labor Statistic’s decision to centralize its electronic reporting 

infrastructure while distributing instrument development to the survey offices was a good decision but not 

cost-free. They found that sharing a common infrastructure reduced the burden on each program office; 

however, each program office would likely be shortchanged by the inability of the infrastructure to meet 

the structural needs of their surveys. As a result, respondents’ expectations may not be met. Moreover, the 

main cost was not the decision itself, but rather trying to make disparate areas work together to create one 

corporate application. This process was further complicated because information technology programmers 

are often independent of the program office and answer directly to someone other than the survey manager. 

In some instances, programmers may be outside of the traditional management hierarchy altogether. They 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

may not be compelled to program feature that meet respondents’ expectations, even when they are included 

in the specifications. 

4.3 Future research 

As electronic-based surveys continue to grow in popularity, survey organizations must further understand 

the effects of design decisions not only on cost, but also on data quality. One of the continuing challenges 

facing survey researchers is how to define and measure data quality. And how do survey managers know if 

the electronic form is actually making their survey data better? 

In addition, most establishment surveys use an electronic form as only one of several modes for collecting 

data, thus raising the further question of data consistency. Data consistency does not mean that the survey 

forms should look identical, but rather that the information collected by each mode is the same regardless 

of which mode the respondent uses. While both paper and electronic forms are self-administered forms 

with a visual question presentation, careful consideration should be used when designing and implementing 

both modes together. While research on data consistency with electronic forms is limited, cognitive and 

usability testing have shown that respondents interact with paper differently than a computer screen and 

these differences need to be taken into account when designing both modes. (See Dillman et al., in press, 

for further discussion.) 

Ultimately, the study and application of good survey design practice is key. This is especially important, as 

survey organizations continue to use multiple mode surveys with electronic reporting options to collect 

survey data. This also makes research on data quality from electronic reporting and its uptake imperative, 

especially as the focus on nonresponse error increases. 

5.0 Reference 

Anderson, A.E. (2003). Usability Testing of Electronic Surveys and Web Sites for Establishment Data 

Collection. Presented at the American Statistical Association Joint Statistical Meetings, San Francisco, Ca. 

Anderson, A. E., Murphy, E., Nichols, E., Sigman, R., Willimack, D.K. (2004). Designing Edits for 

Electronic Surveys: Issues and Guidelines. Presented at the Annual Conference of the American 

Association for Public Opinion Research, Phoenix, AZ 

Cohen, S., McCathy, D., Rosen, R., Wiatrowski, W. (2006) Internet Collection at the Bureau of Labor 

Statistics: An Option to Report Data. Monthly Labor Review, February 2006. 

Dillman, D.A. (2000). Mail and Internet Survey: The Tailored Design Method (second ed.) John Wiley & 

Sons. 

Dillman, D.A., Phelps, G., Tortora, R., Swift, K., Kohrell, J., and Berek, K. (in press). Response Rates and 

Measurement Differences in Mixed Mode Surveys: Using Mail, Telephone, Interactive Voice Response, 

and the Internet. Draft document available at: http://survey.sesrc.wsu.edu/dillman/papers 

Dowling, Z., Stettler, K. (2007) Factors Influencing Business Respondents’ Decision to Adopt Web 

Returns. Presented at the Third International Conference on Establishment Surveys, Montreal, Canada. 

Fox, J.E., Mockovak, W. Fisher, S.K, Rho, C. (2003). Usability Issues Associated with Converting 

Establishment Surveys to Web-based Data Collection. Document available at: 

http://www.bls.gov/ore/abstract/st/st030320.htm 

Groves, R.M., Singer, E., Corning, A., (2000) Leverage-Saliency Theory of Survey Participation: 

Description and an Illustration. Public Opinion Quarterly, 64, 299-308. 

Hak, T., Anderson, A.E., Willimack, D.K. (2003a) Response Process and Burden in Establishment 

Surveys. Presented at the American Statistical Association Joint Statistical Meetings, San Francisco, Ca. 
 

 

 

 

Hak, T., Anderson, A.E., Willimack, D.K. (2003b). Determinants of Web Reporting: A Qualitative Study 

of Mode Selection. Presented at the Federal Committee on Statistical Methodology Research, Washington, 

DC. http://www.fcsm.gov/03papers/Hak_Anderson.pdf 

Levi, M.D., and Fecher, R.W. (2002) Web Data Collection at the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics: An 

Organizational View. Invited paper at Conference of European Statisticians, Geneva, Switzerland. 

Document available at: http://www.bls.gov/ore/abstract/st/st020010.htm 

Morrison, R.L, Stettler, K, Anderson, A.E. (2004). Using Vignettes in Cognitive Research on 

Establishment Surveys. Journal of Official Statistics, 20, 319-340. 

Rosen, R.J., (2007) Multi-Mode Data Collection: Why, When, How. Presented at the Third International 

Conference on Establishment Surveys, Montreal, Canada. 

Sudman, S., Bradburn, N. M., (1982). Asking Questions: A Practical Guide to Questionnaire Design. 

Jossey-Bass Publisher.