No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
L'efficacité de l'échantillonnage passif pour obtenir un portrait représentatif de l'électorat: Le cas de Vote au pluriel – Québec
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 26 March 2015
Abstract
The use of active sampling methods for online surveys is generally considered superior to passive sampling methods, both for recruiting new participants and in terms of sample representativity. In active sampling, specialized firms contact respondents directly, whereas in passive sampling participants are required to visit a Web platform and complete the survey on their own, without being directly recruited to do so. In this article, we evaluate the relative efficiency of passive sampling in the context of the Web experiment Votes Quebec, which was conducted during the 2012 Quebec provincial election. This project had a media outreach dimension whose goal was to increase the number of participants and to increase the representativity of the sample. Our results suggest that the media outreach had a significant but limited impact on these two dimensions. The results also show that passive sampling was less efficient than active sampling at generating a truly representative sample. However, our analyses show that a better and more intensive use of traditional medias may lessen the digital divide often observed in these contexts and improve the representativity of the final sample.
Résumé
On estime généralement que l'utilisation d'une méthode d’échantillonnage actif pour la conduite de sondage Internet est plus efficace que l'utilisation d’échantillonnage passif, autant en ce qui a trait au recrutement des participants que de la représentativité de l’échantillon. Dans le premier cas, des firmes spécialisées contactent directement des répondants, alors que dans le deuxième cas les participants doivent se rendre par eux-mêmes sur une plate-forme de sondage en ligne. Dans cet article, nous évaluons empiriquement l'efficacité relative d'une stratégie d’échantillonnage passif à l'aide d'une campagne médiatique mise en place dans le cadre de l'expérience Web Vote au pluriel – Québec. Cette stratégie avait pour objectif d'augmenter le nombre de participants et d'améliorer la représentativité de l’échantillon obtenu par échantillonnage passif. Nos résultats suggèrent que la stratégie a eu un impact significatif, mais limité, sur le recrutement des participants. De plus, la représentativité de l’échantillon complet comprend d'importantes lacunes, surtout lorsque celui-ci est comparé à un échantillon Web obtenu par échantillonnage actif. Nos analyses démontrent cependant que l'utilisation des médias traditionnels, dans le cadre d'une stratégie plus large, pourrait diminuer l'impact négatif du digital divide, qui nuit à la représentativité des échantillons récoltés sur le Web.
- Type
- Research Article
- Information
- Canadian Journal of Political Science/Revue canadienne de science politique , Volume 47 , Issue 4 , December 2014 , pp. 697 - 715
- Copyright
- Copyright © Canadian Political Science Association (l'Association canadienne de science politique) and/et la Société québécoise de science politique 2015
References
Références
Alvarez, R. Michael, Sherman, Robert P. et VanBeselaere, Carla. 2003. «Subject Acquisition for Web-Based Surveys». Political Analysis
11 (1): 23–43.Google Scholar
Bélanger, Éric et Gélineau, François. 2011. «Le vote économique en contexte de crise financière : l'élection provinciale de 2008 au Québec». Revue canadienne de science politique
44 (3): 529–51.Google Scholar
Berrens, Robert P., Bohara, Alok K., Jenkins-Smith, Hank, Silva, Carol et Weimer, David L.. 2003. «The Advent of Internet Surveys for Political Research: A Comparison of Telephone and Internet Samples». Political Analysis
11 (1): 1–22.Google Scholar
Best, Samuel J., Krueger, Brian, Hubbard, Clark et Smith, Andrew. 2001. «An assessment of the generalizability of Internet surveys». Social Science Computer Review
19 (2): 131–45.Google Scholar
Bilodeau, Antoine et Turgeon, Luc. 2014. «L'immigration : Une menace pour la culture québécoise? Portrait et analyses des perceptions régionales». Revue canadienne de science politique
47 (2): 281–305.Google Scholar
Blais, André, Héroux-Legault, Maxime, Stephenson, Laura, Cross, William et Gidengil, Elisabeth. 2012. «Assessing the Psychological and Mechanical Impact of Electoral Rules: A Quasi-Experiment». Electoral Studies
31 (4): 829–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blumberg, Stephen J. et Luke, Julian V., «Wireless Substitution : Early Release of Estimates From the National Health Interview Survey, July-December 2009», Center for Disease Control and Prevention, 2010.Google Scholar
Casady, Robert J. et Lepkowski, James M.. 1993. «Stratified Telephone Survey Designs». Survey Methodology
19 : 103–13.Google Scholar
Chang, Linchiat et Krosnick, Jon A.. 2009. «National Surveys via RDD Telephone Interviewing Versus the Internet: Comparing Sample Representativeness and Response Quality». Public Opinion Quarterly
73 (4): 641–78.Google Scholar
Clarke, Harold D., Sanders, David, Stewart, Marianne C. et Whiteley, Paul. 2008. «Internet Surveys ans National Election Studies: A Symposium». Journal of Elections, Public Opinion and Parties
18 (4): 327–30.Google Scholar
Cochrane, Christopher et Perrella, Andrea. 2012. «Regions, Regionalism and Regional Differences in Canada». Revue canadienne de science politique
45 (4): 829–53.Google Scholar
Couper, Mick P.
2000. «Web Surveys: A Review of Issues and Approches». Public Opinion Quarterly
64 (4): 464–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crête, Jean et Stephenson, Laura. 2008. «Internet and Telephone Survey Methodology: An Evaluation of Mode Effects». Communication préparée pour le congrès annuel du Midwest Political Science Association. Chicago.Google Scholar
Dillman, Don A.
2000. Mail and Internet Surveys: The Tailored Design Method. New York: John Wiley.
Google Scholar
Dostie-Goulet, Eugénie, Blais, André, Fournier, Patrick et Gidengil, Elisabeth. 2012. «L'abstention sélective, ou pourquoi certains jeunes qui votent au fédéral boudent les élections municipales». Revue canadienne de science politique
45 (4): 909–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Faas, Thorsten. 2004. «Online or Not Online? A Comparison of Offline and Online Surveys Conducted in the Context of the 2002 German Federal Election». Bulletin de Méthodologie Sociologique
85 : 42–57.Google Scholar
Fournier, Patrick, Cutler, Fred, Soroka, Stuart N., Stolle, Dietlind et Bélanger, Éric. 2013. «Riding the Orange Wave: Leadership, Values, Issues, and the 2011 Canadian Election». Revue canadienne de science politique
46 (4): 863–97.Google Scholar
Fricker, Scott, Galesic, Mirta, Tourangeau, Roger et Yan, Ting. 2005. «An Experimental Comparison of Web and Telephone Surveys». Public Opinion Quarterly
69 (3): 370–92.Google Scholar
Frippiat, Didier, Marquis, Nicolas et Wiles-Portier, Elizabeth. 2010. «Web Surveys in the Social Sciences: An overview». Population
65 (2): 285–311.
Google Scholar
Gibson, Rachel et McAllister, Ian. 2008. «Designing Online Election Surveys: Lessons from the 2004 Australian Election». Journal of Elections, Public Opinion & Parties
18 (4): 387–400.Google Scholar
Gibson, Rachel et McAllister, Ian. 2009. «Online Election Surveys: Keeping the Voters Honest ?». Journal of Political Marketing
8 (2): 105–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gravelle, Timothy B.
2014. «Love Thy Neighbo(u)r? Political Attitudes, Proximity and the Mutual Perceptions of the Canadian and American Publics». Revue canadienne de science politique
47 (1): 135–57.Google Scholar
Heerwegh, Dirk. 2009. «Mode Difference Between Face-to-Face and Web Surveys: An Experimental Investigation of Data Quality and Social Desirability Effect». International Journal of Public Opinion Research
21 (1): 111–21.Google Scholar
Holbrook, Allyson L., Green, Melanie C. et Krosnick, Jon A.. 2003. «Telephone Versus Face-to-face Interviewing of National Probability Samples With Long Questionnaires». Public Opinion Quarterly
67 (1): 79–125.Google Scholar
Kanji, Mebs, Bilodeau, Antoine et Scotto, Thomas J. (dir). 2012. The Canadian Elections Studies. Vancouver: UBC Press.Google Scholar
Lee, Sunghee et Valliant, Richard. 2009. «Estimation fo Vulunteer Panel Web Surveys Using Propensity Score Adjustment and Calibration Adjustment». Sociological Methods & Research
37 (3): 319–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Loosveldt, Geert et Sonck, Nathalie. 2008. «An Evaluation of the Weighting Procedures for an Online Access Panel Survey». Survey Research Methods
2 (2): 93–105.Google Scholar
Malhotra, Neil et Krosnick, Jon A.. 2007. «The Effect of Survey Mode and Sampling on Inferences about Political Attitudes and Behavior: Comparing the 2000 and 2004 ANES to Internet Surveys with Nonprobability Samples». Political Analysis
15 (3): 286–323.Google Scholar
Montigny, Éric, Gélineau, François et Pétry, François. 2012. «La Boussole électorale québécoise». Dans Les Québécois aux urnes, dir. Bastien, Frédérick, Bélanger, Éric et Gélineau, François. Montréal: Les Presses de l'Université de Montréal.Google Scholar
Sanders, David, Clarke, Harold D., Stewart, Marianne C., Whiteley, Paul F. et Twyman, Joe. 2004. «The 2001 British Election Study Internet Poll: A Methodological Experiment». Journal of Political Marketing
3 (4): 29–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sanders, David, Clarke, Harold D., Stewart, Marianne C. et Whiteley, Paul. 2007. «Does Mode Matter for Modeling Political Choice ? Evidence from the 2005 British Election Study». Political Analysis
15 (3): 257–85.Google Scholar
Schillewaert, Niels et Meulemeester, Pascale. 2005. «Comparing Response Distributions of Offline and Online Data Collection Methods». International Journal of Market Research
47 (2): 163–78.Google Scholar
Schoen, Harald et Faas, Thorsten. 2005. «When Methodology Interferes With Substance: The Difference of Attitudes Toward E-Campaigning and E-Voting in Online and Offline Surveys». Social Science Computer Review
23 (3): 326–33.Google Scholar
Sills, Stephen J. et Song, Chunyan. 2002. «Innovations in survey research: an application of Web-based surveys». Social Science Computer Review
20 (2): 22–30.Google Scholar
Smith, Tom W.
1995. «Trends in Nonresponse Trend». International Journal of Public Opinion Research
7 (2): 157–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Steeh, Charlotte, Kirgis, Nicole, Cannon, Brian et DeWitt, Jeff. 2001. «Are They Really as Bad as They Seem ? Nonresponse Rates'at the End of the Twentieth Century». Journal of Official Statistics
17 (2): 227–47.Google Scholar
Sylvester, Dari E. et McGlynn, Adam J.. 2010. «The Digital Divide, Political Participation, and Place». Social Science Computer Review
28 (1): 64–74.Google Scholar
Thomas, Paul E. J., Loewen, Peter John et MacKenzie, Michael K.. 2013. «Fair Isn't Always Equal: Constituency Population and the Quality of Representation in Canada». Revue canadienne de science politique
46 (2): 273–93.Google Scholar
Tucker, Clyde, Lepkowski, James et Piercarski, Linda. 2002. «The Current Efficiency of List-Assisted Telephone Sampling Designs». Public Opinion Quarterly
66 (3): 321–38.Google Scholar
Tucker, Clyde, Bricks, J. Michael et Meekins, Brian. 2007. «Household Telephone Service and Usage Patterns in the United States in 2004: Implications for Telephone Samples». Public Opinion Quarterly
71 (1): 3–22.Google Scholar
Twyman, Joe. 2008. «Getting it Right: YouGov and Online Survey Research in Britain». Journal of Elections, Public Opinion & Parties
18 (4): 343–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vavreck, Lynn et River, Douglas. 2008. «The 2006 Cooperative Congressional Election Study». Journal of Elections, Public Opinion & Parties
18 (4): 355–66.Google Scholar
Waksberg, Joseph. 1978. «Sampling Methods for Random Digit Dialing». Journal of The American Statistical Association
73 (361): 40–46.Google Scholar
Yeager, David S., Krosnick, Jon A., Chang, Linchiat, Javitz, Harold S., Lavendusky, Matthew S., Simpser, Alberto et Wang, Rui. 2011. «Comparing the Accuracy of RDD Telephone Surveys and Internet Surveys Conducted With Probability and Non-probability Samples». Public Opinion Quarterly
75 (4): 709–47.Google Scholar
Tessier supplementary material
Annexe A
File
14.2 KB
Tessier supplementary material
Annexe B
File
285.5 KB