|View Issue Details|
|ID||Project||Category||View Status||Date Submitted||Last Update|
|00557||User patches||Survey at runtime||public||2006-08-25 08:52||2012-03-06 16:38|
|Target Version||2.0||Fixed in Version|
|Summary||00557: Random Groups|
|Description||It would be nice to be able to randomize the groups during the surveys. My current workaround was to create several surveys and randomize forwarding to those surveys. (but then the data had to be merged later) I believe this feature would be valuable.|
|Additional Information||Now that a group order field has been added to the survey code, it should be possible to randomly generate the order (if desired).|
Add option: "Randomize Groups during survey?" (to admin page - html.php?)
Add conditional statements to code (common.php?) based on database selected:
MySQL/IBM DB2 - ORDER BY RAND()
PostgreSQL - ORDER BY RANDOM()
Microsoft SQL Server - ORDER BY NEWID()
Oracle - ORDER BY dbms_random.value
|Tags||No tags attached.|
|Complete LimeSurvey version number (& build)|
|The file "randomize_groups.pdf" contains a modification to accomplish randomization of groups - to be considered as a very rough workaround for the desparate and to be used with care until the feature has been implemented with the official code base by someone more familiar with LimeSurvey.|
|Sirblackadder, are you interested to create a generic patch and so have implemented that functionality into the core?|
|I assume not. Keeping it around for a little.|
Thank you Sirblackadder! I just tried it in version 1.87+ and it seems to work perfectly.
I would strongly recommend adding this feature in future versions, as randomizing between groups of questions is essential for some research in social sciences.
I have tried this workaround in version 1.90+ and it seemed to work perfectly. However when I sent out the invites and got the responses back, I found that some groups were skipped. I also noticed that questions that were marked mandatory weren't mandatory in the survey. They actually had values still in the fields from previous questions.
My survey had groups with 2 questions in each group, first question where they had to read a statement and then rate it on a scale of 1-10. Then the following question asked them to explain their answer (long text type of question).
Some of the answers stated that they didn't get to see all the questions and some people stated that they saw some groups more than once...
I agree that this feature of randomizing groups is very important and is a regular design of surveys. It is particularly important when getting people to grade a product or concept. Here the question order sometimes biases the results where more people will agree with the first one or last one they see.
|I agree with all the above. Group randomization would be a HUGE benefit to much of my work. I also used it extensively in 1.87+, and have also found the challenges Tektom describes. In fact, I was just about to try the latest build to see if it would help me overcome these problems when I came across this item in the bug tracker. It would be WONDERFUL if adding this feature this can become a priority. (I have two new projects that need it.)|
|Please create an idea in our idea tracker @ http://ideas.limesurvey.org and vote for it.|
|It's in there under the title: Need Question Group Randomization.|
Still a tricky workaround though. I am trying to implement something along these lines and will publish the result in the workaround section if I succeed.
|Only registered users can voice their support. Click here to register, or here to log in.|
|Supporters:||No one explicitly supports this issue yet.|
|Opponents:||No one explicitly opposes this issue yet.|
||Operating System||=> Debian 3.1|
||Webserver||=> Apache 1.3.34-2|
||MySQL Version||=> 4.1.11a-4sarge5|
||PHP Version||=> 5.1.4-0.1|
|2006-08-25 10:04||c_schmitz||Status||new => acknowledged|
|2007-09-14 12:46||c_schmitz||Target Version||=> 2.0|
||File Added: randomize_groups.pdf|
||Note Added: 05197|
|2010-01-14 23:48||c_schmitz||Status||acknowledged => confirmed|
|2010-03-13 16:13||c_schmitz||Status||confirmed => acknowledged|
|2010-03-14 00:08||c_schmitz||Relationship added||related to 03107|
|2010-03-14 00:09||c_schmitz||Note Added: 11336|
|2010-03-14 00:09||c_schmitz||Assigned To||=> c_schmitz|
|2010-03-14 00:09||c_schmitz||Status||acknowledged => feedback|
|2010-03-22 17:41||c_schmitz||Note Added: 11465|
|2010-03-22 17:41||c_schmitz||Assigned To||c_schmitz =>|
|2010-03-22 17:41||c_schmitz||Status||feedback => confirmed|
|2010-05-31 17:52||matteo004||Note Added: 12044|
|2010-09-30 21:04||Tektom||Note Added: 12962|
|2010-11-29 13:07||JoyLaneResearch||Note Added: 13663|
|2010-11-29 20:51||c_schmitz||Note Added: 13665|
|2010-11-30 01:54||JoyLaneResearch||Note Added: 13667|
|2010-11-30 15:00||c_schmitz||Note Added: 13669|
|2011-07-09 23:12||atiut||Note Added: 15709|