GESIS Survey Methods Evidence Map

Introduction: The Survey Research Evidence Gap Map by GESIS-Leibniz Institute for the Social Sciences, provides a framework for classifying, sorting, and visualizing meta-analyses and systematic reviews in the field of survey research. Specifically, it shows the availability and characteristics of the existing evidence base as well as evidence gaps in the field. Survey interventions are listed on the y-axis and the type of error in the Total Survey Error framework on the x-axis. The grid (matrix) represents the intersections between interventions and the type of error. The bubbles denote studies examining the relevant error and intervention. The size of the bubble indicates the size of the evidence base; the larger the bubble in a cell, the greater the volume of available evidence. Empty fields or lack of bubbles in a cell indicate research gaps. In addition, intersections between interactions and type of error that do not make sense within the framework of survey methodology are marked with N/A.

The color of the bubbles indicates different types of evidence. The GESIS survey research evidence gap map shows meta-analyses based on experiments (green bubbles), meta-analyses based on non-experimental designs (blue bubbles), and systematic reviews (red bubbles). By hovering over a bubble, users can access hyperlinks to the source of all studies within the bubble.

! Region, Country, Population: The studies listed here do not usually distinguish between regions, countries, or target populations, so these entries are not maintained. The filter menu is for presentational view only.

Method: The overview of "Čehovin, Bosnjak, and Lozar Manfreda (2018)" was used as a starting point for the study search. As it includes only published studies independently of their publication year, it was extended by a systematic search in the databases Web of Science, WebSM, and Ebsco. This search was also performed without publication year restrictions. Finally, the following conferences were searched for relevant studies, beginning from the year 2005: AAPOR, ESRA. A study was considered relevant by the two coders if it uses a meta-analysis methodology or a systematic review as defined in Petticrew and Roberts (2008).

Literature on Evidence Gap Maps: White, H., Albers, B., Gaarder, M., Kornør, H., Littell, J., Marshall, Z., ... & Welch, V. (2020). Guidance for producing a Campbell evidence and gap map. Campbell Systematic Reviews, 16(4), e1125.

References: Čehovin, G., Bosnjak, M., & Lozar Manfreda, K. (2018). Meta-Analyses in Survey Methodology: A Systematic Review. Public Opinion Quarterly, 82(4), 641-660. Petticrew, M., & Roberts, H. (2008). Systematic reviews in the social sciences: A practical guide. John Wiley & Sons.

Your study is missing? If your meta-analyses or systematic review is missing or you have any questions or feedback, please contact us at

Contact Person: Dr. Jessica Daikeler (