Volume 54 - Article 42 | Pages 1375–1412  

Click, collect, compare: Evaluating a nonprobability web survey for family demography

By Leonie Diffené, Thomas Leopold, Zafer Buyukkececi, Marcel Raab

References

Adler, M.A. (2023). The complexities of family diversity in the contemporary US. In: Adler, M.A. and Lenz, K. (eds.). The changing faces of families. Routledge: 187–212.

Weblink:
Download reference:

Albertini, M. and Kohli, M. (2013). The generational contract in the family: An analysis of transfer regimes in Europe. European Sociological Review 29(4): 828–840.

Weblink:
Download reference:

Alburez-Gutierrez, D., Williams, I., and Caswell, H. (2023). Projections of human kinship for all countries. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 120(52): e2315722120.

Weblink:
Download reference:

Ansolabehere, S. and Rivers, D. (2013). Cooperative survey research. Annual Review of Political Science 16(1): 307–329.

Weblink:
Download reference:

Ansolabehere, S. and Schaffner, B.F. (2014). Does survey mode still matter? Findings from a 2010 multi-mode comparison. Political Analysis 22(3): 285–303.

Weblink:
Download reference:

Arndt, A.D., Ford, J.B., Babin, B.J., and Luong, V. (2022). Collecting samples from online services: How to use screeners to improve data quality. International Journal of Research in Marketing 39(1): 117–133.

Weblink:
Download reference:

Baker, R., Brick, J.M., Bates, N.A., Battaglia, M., Couper, M.P., Dever, J.A., Gile, K.J., and Tourangeau, R. (2013). Summary report of the AAPOR task force on non-probability sampling. Journal of Survey Statistics and Methodology 1(2): 90–143.

Weblink:
Download reference:

Batrinca, B. and Treleaven, P.C. (2015). Social media analytics: A survey of techniques, tools and platforms. AI and Society 30(1): 89–116.

Weblink:
Download reference:

Bengtson, V.L. and Roberts, R.E.L. (1991). Intergenerational solidarity in aging families: An example of formal theory construction. Journal of Marriage and the Family 53(4): 856–870.

Weblink:
Download reference:

Benson, H. (2020). Divorce rates are falling across Europe and the UK is leading the way. Romford: Marriage Foundation.

Bergmann, M. (2011). IPFWEIGHT: Stata module to create adjustment weights for surveys. Boston College Department of Economics.

Bishop, C.D., Leite, W.L., and Snyder, P.A. (2018). Using propensity score weighting to reduce selection bias in large-scale data sets. Journal of Early Intervention 40(4): 347–362.

Weblink:
Download reference:

Bornstein, M.H., Jager, J., and Putnick, D.L. (2013). Sampling in developmental science: Situations, shortcomings, solutions, and standards. Developmental Review 33(4): 357–370.

Weblink:
Download reference:

Buhrmester, M., Kwang, T., and Gosling, S.D. (2011). Amazon’s Mechanical Turk: A new source of inexpensive, yet high-quality, data? Perspectives on Psychological Science 6(1): 3–5.

Weblink:
Download reference:

Callegaro, M., Baker, R., Bethlehem, J., Göritz, A.S., Krosnick, J.A., and Lavrakas, P.J. (2014). Online panel research: Data quality perspective. Wiley.

Weblink:
Download reference:

Campisi, N., Kulu, H., Mikolai, J., Klüsener, S., and Myrskylä, M. (2020). Spatial variation in fertility across Europe: Patterns and determinants. Population, Space and Place 26(4): e2308.

Weblink:
Download reference:

Castrén, A.M., Česnuitytė, V., Crespi, I., Gauthier, J.A., Gouveia, R., Martin, C., Moreno Mínguez, A., and Suwada, K. (2021). The Palgrave handbook of family sociology in Europe. Palgrave Macmillan.

Weblink:
Download reference:

Caswell, H. (2020). The formal demography of kinship II: Multistate models, parity, and sibship. Demographic Research 42(38): 1097–1146.

Weblink:
Download reference:

Caswell, H. (2022). The formal demography of kinship IV: Two-sex models and their approximations. Demographic Research 47(13): 359–396.

Weblink:
Download reference:

Caswell, H. (2019). The formal demography of kinship: A matrix formulation. Demographic Research 41(24): 679–712.

Weblink:
Download reference:

Caswell, H. and Song, X. (2021). The formal demography of kinship III: Kinship dynamics with time-varying demographic rates. Demographic Research 45(16): 517–546.

Weblink:
Download reference:

Chen, Y., Li, P., and Wu, C. (2020). Doubly robust inference with nonprobability survey samples. Journal of the American Statistical Association 115(532): 2011–2021.

Weblink:
Download reference:

Chmielewski, M. and Kucker, S.C. (2020). An MTurk crisis? Shifts in data quality and the impact on study results. Social Psychological and Personality Science 11(4): 464–473.

Weblink:
Download reference:

Chong, M., Alburez-Gutierrez, D., Alexander, M.J., and Zagheni, E. (2022). Correcting historical mortality rate bias in big crowd-sourced online genealogies. Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research Working Paper WP-2022-005, Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research Working Paper WP-2022-005.

Weblink:
Download reference:

Cochran, W.G. (1977). Sampling techniques. Wiley.

Download reference:

Colasurdo, A. and Omenti, R. (2024). Using online genealogical data for demographic research: An empirical examination of the FamiLinx database. Demographic Research 51(41): 1299–1350.

Weblink:
Download reference:

De Bel, V., Bokányi, E., Hank, K., and Leopold, T. (2024). A parallel kinship universe? Using Dutch kinship network data to replicate Kolk et al.’s (2023) demographic account of kinship networks in Sweden. OSF preprint.

Weblink:
Download reference:

Dudel, C. and Klüsener, S. (2021). Male–female fertility differentials across 17 high-income countries: Insights from a new data resource. European Journal of Population 37(2): 417–441.

Weblink:
Download reference:

Elliott, M.R. and Valliant, R. (2017). Inference for nonprobability samples. Statistical Science 32(2): 249–264.

Weblink:
Download reference:

Erens, B., Burkill, S., Couper, M.P., Conrad, F., Clifton, S., Tanton, C., Phelps, A., Datta, J., Mercer, C.H., Sonnenberg, P., Prah, P., Mitchell, K.R., Wellings, K., Johnson, A.M., and Copas, A.J. (2014). Nonprobability web surveys to measure sexual behaviors and attitudes in the general population: A comparison with a probability sample interview survey. Journal of Medical Internet Research 16(12): e276.

Weblink:
Download reference:

Feng, K., Song, X., and Caswell, H. (2025). The present and future dementia burden in China: Kinship-based projections and global comparison. Demography 62(6): 1917–1944.

Weblink:
Download reference:

Fingerman, K.L., Huo, M., and Birditt, K.S. (2020). Mothers, fathers, daughters, and sons: Gender differences in adults’ intergenerational ties. Journal of Family Issues 41(9): 1597–1625.

Weblink:
Download reference:

Freese, J. and Jin, O. (2025). Online nonprobability samples. Annual Review of Sociology 51: 109–128.

Weblink:
Download reference:

Gil-Clavel, S. and Mulder, C.H. (2024). Does Twitter data mirror the European North–South family ties divide? A comparative analysis of tweets about family. Population Research and Policy Review 43(4): 48.

Weblink:
Download reference:

Gittelman, S.H., Thomas, R.K., Lavrakas, P.J., and Lange, V. (2015). Quota controls in survey research: A test of accuracy and intersource reliability in online samples. Journal of Advertising Research 55(4): 368–379.

Weblink:
Download reference:

Hank, K. (2007). Proximity and contacts between older parents and their children: A European comparison. Journal of Marriage and Family 69(1): 157–173.

Weblink:
Download reference:

Hays, R.D., Liu, H., and Kapteyn, A. (2015). Use of internet panels to conduct surveys. Behavior Research Methods 47(3): 685–690.

Weblink:
Download reference:

Herbell, K. and Zauszniewski, J.A. (2018). Facebook or Twitter? Effective recruitment strategies for family caregivers. Applied Nursing Research 41: 1–4.

Weblink:
Download reference:

Hünteler, B., Hank, K., Alburez-Guiterrez, D., and Leopold, T. (2026). A typology of younger adults’ nuclear and extended family relations in the United States. Journal of Marriage and Family 88(1): 284–298.

Weblink:
Download reference:

Jerit, J. and Barabas, J. (2023). Are nonprobability surveys fit for purpose? Public Opinion Quarterly 87(3): 816–840.

Weblink:
Download reference:

Kaplanis, J., Gordon, A., Shor, T., Weissbrod, O., Geiger, D., Wahl, M., Gershovits, M., Markus, B., Sheikh, M., Gymrek, M., Bhatia, G., MacArthur, D.G., Price, A.L., and Erlich, Y. (2018). Quantitative analysis of population-scale family trees with millions of relatives. Science 360(6385): 171–175.

Weblink:
Download reference:

Kennedy, C., Mercer, A., Keeter, S., Hatley, N., McGeeney, K., and Gimenez, A. (2016). Evaluating online nonprobability surveys. Vendor choice matters; widespread errors found for estimates based on blacks and Hispanics. Pew Research Center (Numbers, Facts and Trends Shaping the World).

Kocar, S. and Baffour, B. (2023). Comparing and improving the accuracy of nonprobability samples: Profiling Australian surveys. Methods, Data, Analyses 17(2): 36.

Weblink:
Download reference:

Kohut, A., Keeter, S., Doherty, C., Dimock, M., and Christian, L. (2012). Assessing the representativeness of public opinion surveys. Pew Research Center.

Kolk, M., Andersson, L., Pettersson, E., and Drefahl, S. (2023). The Swedish kinship universe: A demographic account of the number of children, parents, siblings, grandchildren, grandparents, aunts/uncles, nieces/nephews, and cousins using national population registers. Demography 60(5): 1359–1385.

Weblink:
Download reference:

Kuhnt, A.K. and Steinbach, A. (2014). Diversität von Familie in Deutschland. In: Steinbach, A., Hennig, M., and Arránz Becker, O. (eds.). Familie im Fokus der Wissenschaft. Wiesbaden: Springer Fachmedien: 41–70.

Weblink:
Download reference:

Lavrakas, P.J., Pennay, D., Neiger, D., and Phillips, B. (2022). Comparing probability-based surveys and nonprobability online panel surveys in Australia: A total survey error perspective. Survey Research Methods 16(2): 241–266.

Weblink:
Download reference:

Lee, S. and Valliant, R. (2009). Estimation for volunteer panel web surveys using propensity score adjustment and calibration adjustment. Sociological Methods and Research 37(3): 319–343.

Weblink:
Download reference:

Lehdonvirta, V., Oksanen, A., Räsänen, P., and Blank, G. (2021). Social media, web, and panel surveys: Using non‐probability samples in social and policy research. Policy and Internet 13(1): 134–155.

Weblink:
Download reference:

Leopold, T., Becker, C.C., Buyukkececi, Z., Çineli, B., and Raab, M. (2025). KINMATRIX - Uncovering the kinship matrix (Version 1.0.0) [electronic resource]. GESIS.

Weblink:
Download reference:

Leopold, T., Becker, C.C., Buyukkececi, Z., Çineli, B., and Raab, M. (2024). KINMATRIX: A new data resource for studies of families and kinship. Demographic Research 51(25): 789–808.

Weblink:
Download reference:

Leopold, T. and Kalmijn, M. (2026). Kinship in Black and White families: The strength of horizontal ties. American Journal of Sociology (forthcoming).

Download reference:

Leopold, T., Raab, M., Becker, C.C., Buyukkececi, Z., and Çineli, B. (2025). Mapping modern kinship networks: First results from the KINMATRIX survey. Journal of Marriage and Family 87(2): 478–504.

Weblink:
Download reference:

Levy, P.S. and Lemeshow, S. (2008). Sampling of populations: Methods and applications. Wiley.

Weblink:
Download reference:

Lindner, J.R., Murphy, T.H., and Briers, G.E. (2001). Handling nonresponse in social research. Journal of Agricultural Education 42(4): 43–53.

Weblink:
Download reference:

MacInnis, B., Krosnick, J.A., Ho, A.S., and Cho, M.J. (2018). The accuracy of measurements with probability and nonprobability survey samples: Replication and extension. Public Opinion Quarterly 82(4): 707–744.

Weblink:
Download reference:

Mercer, A.W., Kreuter, F., Keeter, S., and Stuart, E.A. (2017). Theory and practice in nonprobability surveys. Public Opinion Quarterly 81(S1): 250–271.

Weblink:
Download reference:

Mocho, H., Martins, C., Dos Santos, R., and Nunes, C. (2024). Parental involvement and stress in children’s quality of life: A longitudinal study with Portuguese parents during the COVID-19 pandemic period. Children 11(4): 440.

Weblink:
Download reference:

Mondal, M., Punuru, A., Cheng, T.W.S., Vargas, K., Gundry, C., Driggs, N.S., Schill, N., Carlson, N., Bedwell, J., Lorenc, J.Q., Ghosh, I., Li, Y., Fulda, N., and Page, X. (2023). A tale of two cultures: Comparing interpersonal information disclosure norms on Twitter. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction 7(CSCW2): 1–40.

Weblink:
Download reference:

Mönkediek, B. and Bras, H. (2014). Strong and weak family ties revisited: Reconsidering European family structures from a network perspective. The History of the Family 19(2): 235–259.

Weblink:
Download reference:

Nandram, B., Choi, J.W., and Liu, Y. (2021). Integration of nonprobability and probability samples via survey weights. International Journal of Statistics and Probability 10(6): 5.

Weblink:
Download reference:

Paolacci, G. and Chandler, J. (2014). Inside the Turk: Understanding Mechanical Turk as a participant pool. Current Directions in Psychological Science 23(3): 184–188.

Weblink:
Download reference:

Pasek, J. (2016). When will nonprobability surveys mirror probability surveys? Considering types of inference and weighting strategies as criteria for correspondence. International Journal of Public Opinion Research 28(2): 269–291.

Weblink:
Download reference:

Peer, E., Rothschild, D., Gordon, A., Evernden, Z., and Damer, E. (2021). Data quality of platforms and panels for online behavioral research. Behavior Research Methods 54(4): 1643–1662.

Weblink:
Download reference:

Pesando, L.M., Dorélien, A., St-Denis, X., and Santos, A. (2023). Demography as a field: Where we came from and where we are headed. Canadian Studies in Population 50(4).

Weblink:
Download reference:

Pruchno, R.A., Brill, J.E., Shands, Y., Gordon, J.R., Genderson, M.W., Rose, M., and Cartwright, F. (2008). Convenience samples and caregiving research: How generalizable are the findings? The Gerontologist 48(6): 820–827.

Weblink:
Download reference:

Reher, D.S. (1998). Family ties in Western Europe: Persistent contrasts. Population and Development Review 24(2): 203–234.

Weblink:
Download reference:

Reher, D.S. (2004). The demographic transition revisited as a global process. Population, Space and Place 10(1): 19–41.

Weblink:
Download reference:

Rohr, B., Silber, H., and Felderer, B. (2025). Comparing the accuracy of univariate, bivariate, and multivariate estimates across probability and non-probability surveys with population benchmarks. Sociological Methodology 55(1): 121–154.

Weblink:
Download reference:

Rosenbaum, P.R. and Rubin, D.B. (1983). The central role of the propensity score in observational studies for causal effects. Biometrika 70(1): 41–55.

Weblink:
Download reference:

Salvatore, C. (2023). Inference with non-probability samples and survey data integration: A science mapping study. METRON 81(1): 83–107.

Weblink:
Download reference:

Sivak, E. and Smirnov, I. (2018). Gender bias in sharenting: Both men and women mention sons more often than daughters on social media.

Weblink:
Download reference:

Smith, M.B., Blakemore, J.K., Ho, J.R., and Grifo, J.A. (2021). Making it (net)work: A social network analysis of “fertility” in Twitter before and during the COVID-19 pandemic. F&S Reports 2(4): 472–478.

Weblink:
Download reference:

Smith, T.W. (1995). Trends in non-response rates. International Journal of Public Opinion Research 7(2): 157–171.

Weblink:
Download reference:

Stelter, R. and Alburez-Gutierrez, D. (2022). Representativeness is crucial for inferring demographic processes from online genealogies: Evidence from lifespan dynamics. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 119(10): e2120455119.

Weblink:
Download reference:

Sytkina, K. and Leopold, T. (2026). Parental separation and the quality of ties to extended kin. (forthcoming).

Download reference:

Tofallis, C. (2015). A better measure of relative prediction accuracy for model selection and model estimation. Journal of the Operational Research Society 66(8): 1352–1362.

Weblink:
Download reference:

Tourangeau, R., Michael Brick, J., Lohr, S., and Li, J. (2017). Adaptive and responsive survey designs: A review and assessment. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A: Statistics in Society 180(1): 203–223.

Weblink:
Download reference:

United Nations (2024). World population prospects 2024: Summary of results. United Nations, UN DESA/POP/2024/TR/NO. 9.

Vehovar, V., Toepoel, V., and Steinmetz, S. (2016). Non-probability sampling. In: Wolf, C., Joye, D., Smith, T., and Fu, Y. (eds.). The SAGE handbook of survey methodology. Newcastle: SAGE: 329–345.

Weblink:
Download reference:

Vicente, P. (2023). Sampling Twitter users for social science research: Evidence from a systematic review of the literature. Quality and Quantity 57(6): 5449–5489.

Weblink:
Download reference:

Williams, I. and Alburez-Gutierrez, D. (2025). DemoKin: Estimate population kin distribution. GitHub.

Weblink:
Download reference:

Williams, I., Alburez-Gutierrez, D., Song, X., and Caswell, H. (2021). DemoKin: An R package to implement demographic matrix kinship models. CRAN.

Weblink:
Download reference:

Wiśniowski, A., Sakshaug, J.W., Perez Ruiz, D.A., and Blom, A.G. (2020). Integrating probability and nonprobability samples for survey inference. Journal of Survey Statistics and Methodology 8(1): 120–147.

Weblink:
Download reference:

Yeager, D.S., Krosnick, J.A., Chang, L., Javitz, H.S., Levendusky, M.S., Simpser, A., and Wang, R. (2011). Comparing the accuracy of RDD telephone surveys and internet surveys conducted with probability and non-probability samples. Public Opinion Quarterly 75(4): 709–747.

Weblink:
Download reference:

Zack, E.S., Kennedy, J., and Long, J.S. (2019). Can nonprobability samples be used for social science research? A cautionary tale. Survey Research Methods 13(2): 215–227.

Weblink:
Download reference:

Back to the article