Does the use of mobile devices (tablets and smartphones) affect survey quality and choice behaviour in web surveys?

Web surveys are becoming increasingly popular in survey research including stated preference surveys. Compared with face-to-face, telephone and mail surveys, web surveys may contain a different and new source of measurement error and bias: the type of device that respondents use to answer the survey questions. This is the first study that tests whether the use of mobile devices, tablets or smartphones, affects survey characteristics and stated preferences in a web-based choice experiment. The web survey on expanding renewable energy production in Germany was carried out with 3182 respondents, of which 12% used a mobile device. Propensity score matching is used to account for selection bias in the use of mobile devices for survey completion. We find that mobile device users spent more time than desktop/laptop users to answer the survey. Yet, desktop/laptop users and mobile device users do not differ in acquiescence tendency as an indicator of extreme response patterns. For mobile device users only, we find a negative correlation between screen size and interview length and a positive correlation between screen size and acquiescence tendency. In the choice experiment data, we do not find significant differences in the tendency to choose the status quo option and scale between both subsamples. However, some of the estimates of implicit prices differ, albeit not in a unidirectional fashion. Model results for mobile device users indicate a U-shaped relationship between error variance and screen size. Together, the results suggest that using mobile devices is not detrimental to survey quality.

Tabulation of multiple responses

Although multiple response questions are quite common in survey research, Stata's official release does not provide much possibility for an effective analysis of multiple response variables. For example, in a study on drug addiction an interview question might be, "Which substances did you consume during the last four weeks?" The respondents just list all the drugs they took if any, e.g., an answer could be "cannabis, cocaine, heroin" or "ecstasy, cannabis" or "none", etc. Usually, the responses to such questions are held as a set of variables and, therefore, cannot be easily tabulated. I will address this issue and present a new module to compute one- and two-way tables of multiple responses. The module supports several types of data structure, provides significance tests, and offers various options to control the computation and display of the results.

Using multiple landscape genetic approaches to test the validity of genetic clusters in a species characterized by an isolation-by-distance pattern

Bayesian clustering methods are typically used to identify barriers to gene flow, but they are prone to deduce artificial subdivisions in a study population characterized by an isolation-by-distance pattern (IbD). Here we analysed the landscape genetic structure of a population of wild boars (Sus scrofa) from south-western Germany. Two clustering methods inferred the presence of the same genetic discontinuity. However, the population in question was characterized by a strong IbD pattern. While landscape-resistance modelling failed to identify landscape features that influenced wild boar movement, partial Mantel tests and multiple regression of distance matrices (MRDMs) suggested that the empirically inferred clusters were separated by a genuine barrier. When simulating random lines bisecting the study area, 60% of the unique barriers represented, according to partial Mantel tests and MRDMs, significant obstacles to gene flow. By contrast, the random-lines simulation showed that the boundaries of the inferred empirical clusters corresponded to the most important genetic discontinuity in the study area. Given the degree of habitat fragmentation separating the two empirical partitions, it is likely that the clustering programs correctly identified a barrier to gene flow. The differing results between the work published here and other studies suggest that it will be very difficult to draw general conclusions about habitat permeability in wild boar from individual studies.