View Issue Details

This bug affects 1 person(s).
 10
IDProjectCategoryView StatusLast Update
04585Bug reportsAssessmentspublic2012-01-30 18:41
ReporterBagfire Assigned ToTMSWhite  
PriorityhighSeveritypartial_block 
Status closedResolutionfixed 
Product Version1.90+ 
Fixed in Version1.92RC3 
Summary04585: Assessment rules for question type "multiple options" better solved in 1.87+
Description

Unfortunately in version 1.90+ you can just define one specific value per checked checkbox. In version 1.87+ I'm able to define several values customized for each answer. This seems to be the much more flexible solution. When I want to weight one answer negative and one positive I just habe this possibiliy with verson 1.87. Can this be changed again? What's the intention with just counting one value?

Thanks for your work and best regards
Michael

TagsNo tags attached.
Bug heat10
Complete LimeSurvey version number (& build)9118
I will donate to the project if issue is resolved
BrowserFirefox 3.6.8
Database type & versionmysql 6
Server OS (if known)Linux
Webserver software & version (if known)Apache
PHP VersionPHP5

Relationships

has duplicate 04612 closedc_schmitz Can't add different assessment values at multiple choice questions 

Users monitoring this issue

There are no users monitoring this issue.

Activities

TMSWhite

TMSWhite

2011-07-13 22:09

reporter   ~15764

Can you provide an example of what you are trying to do?

Are you wanting something like this?

Q1: What do you do with our brand of beer?
SubQ1: Drink it? Daily, Weekly, Never
SubQ2: Rave about it to friends? Daily, Weekly, Never
SubQ3: Post hateful messages about it on Facebook? Daily,Weekly, Never
SubQ4: Write nasty letters to the CEO? Daily, Weekly, Never

Although each has answer choices of Daily, Weekly, Never, the underlying scale scores should point in two different directions.

TMSWhite

TMSWhite

2012-01-20 17:35

reporter   ~16877

1.92 with Expression Manager lets you create arbitrarily complex assessments (without using the Assessments user interface). This is a viable work-around.

c_schmitz

c_schmitz

2012-01-30 18:41

administrator   ~17069

1.92RC3 released

Issue History

Date Modified Username Field Change
2010-09-09 01:09 Bagfire New Issue
2010-09-10 12:03 c_schmitz Assigned To => c_schmitz
2010-09-10 12:03 c_schmitz Status new => acknowledged
2010-09-28 12:25 c_schmitz Relationship added has duplicate 04612
2010-10-21 22:31 c_schmitz Assigned To c_schmitz =>
2011-07-13 22:09 TMSWhite Note Added: 15764
2012-01-20 17:35 TMSWhite Note Added: 16877
2012-01-20 17:35 TMSWhite Status acknowledged => resolved
2012-01-20 17:35 TMSWhite Resolution open => fixed
2012-01-20 17:35 TMSWhite Assigned To => TMSWhite
2012-01-24 21:41 c_schmitz Fixed in Version => 1.92RC3
2012-01-30 18:41 c_schmitz Note Added: 17069
2012-01-30 18:41 c_schmitz Status resolved => closed