Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

Link to this comparison view

Both sides previous revision Previous revision
Last revision Both sides next revision
en:create:personal-code [22.07.2019 20:05]
admin [Separate Text Input]
en:create:personal-code [22.07.2019 20:12]
admin
Line 1: Line 1:
 ====== Request of a Personal Code ======== ====== Request of a Personal Code ========
  
-The use of a "personal code" for printed questionnaires (pen 'n paper) has proven to be effective in multi-surface surveys. In the first questionnaire, the participant should create a code from the fragments of personal information. This could look like the following:+The use of a "personal code" for printed questionnaires (pen 'n paper) has proven to be effective in multi-wave surveys. In the first questionnaire, the participant create a code from the fragments of personal information. This could look like the following:
  
   * First digit: Last letter of month of birth   * First digit: Last letter of month of birth
Line 8: Line 8:
   * etc.   * etc.
  
-If the participant enters the same code in the second questionnaire, the two data sets can be matched. Above you can see only one illustrative example -- concrete examples can be found, for example, in the following+If the participant enters the same code in the second questionnaire, the two data sets can be matched. The above example is only for illustration -- actual recommendations can be found, for example, in: 
  
 > Pöge, A. (2008). Persönliche Codes „reloaded“. Methoden – Daten – Analysen, 2(1), 59-70. [[https://www.gesis.org/fileadmin/upload/forschung/publikationen/zeitschriften/mda/Vol.2_Heft_1/2008_MDA1_Poege.pdf|German version, online available]]. > Pöge, A. (2008). Persönliche Codes „reloaded“. Methoden – Daten – Analysen, 2(1), 59-70. [[https://www.gesis.org/fileadmin/upload/forschung/publikationen/zeitschriften/mda/Vol.2_Heft_1/2008_MDA1_Poege.pdf|German version, online available]].
  
-An advantage of this solution is that the code guaranteed high anonymity in times before the Social Web and functioned relatively reliably. However, this solution also has disadvantages:+An advantage of this solution is that the code functioned relatively reliably and provided high anonymity in times before the Social Web. However, this solution also has disadvantages:
  
-  * One typo is enough to make the assignment more difficult.+  * One typo is enough to make the assignment very difficult.
   * The procedure involves a certain amount of effort for the participants, is sometimes perceived as "annoying" and the reference to personal data quickly raises concerns about data protection.   * The procedure involves a certain amount of effort for the participants, is sometimes perceived as "annoying" and the reference to personal data quickly raises concerns about data protection.
-  * If a participant reveals a lot about himself on social networks or if other data sources are available, parts of the personal code can be identified. In a limited population (e.g. students of one year) this is often enough to de-anonymise the data.+  * If a respondent reveals a lot about themself on social networks or if other data sources are available, parts of the personal code can be identified. In a small population (e.g. students of one year) this is often enough to de-anonymise the data. 
  
 ===== Alternatives in the Online Questionnaire ====== ===== Alternatives in the Online Questionnaire ======
  
-If an online questionnaire is used, further options are available for multi-wave surveys. Every solution is a compromise between data protection and convenience/reliability. The following options are arranged by data protection level, whereby the first and "worst" option already guarantees a good data protection level -- but not maximum data protection. For most purposes, serial mail is the method of choice.+If an online questionnaire is used, further options are available for multi-wave surveys. Every solution is a compromise between data protection and convenience/reliability. The following options are arranged by data protection level, whereby the first and "worst" option already guarantees a good level of data protection -- but not maximum data protection. For most purposes, serial mail is the method of choice.
  
-  * Using SoSci Survey's [[:en:survey:mailing|mailings]] function, the program assigns a personal code to each subscriber and notes it in the record if the [[:en:survey:mailing#privacy mode|privacy settings]] allows this for the address entries. In the privacy setting "pseudonym" the researcher does not get any information about which code belongs to which address entry -- after deleting the address entries anonymity is reliably guaranteed. +  * Using SoSci Survey's [[:en:survey:mailing|mailings]] function, the program assigns a personal code to each addressee and notes it in the data recordif not prohibited by the address'[[:en:survey:mailing#privacy mode|privacy settings]]. In the privacy setting "pseudonymous" the researcher does not get any information about which code belongs to which address entry -- after deleting the address entries anonymity is reliably guaranteed. 
-  * With an open text input you can query the participant's e-mail address, on the following page you can use ''[[:en:create:functions:mailsend]]]'' to schedule the sending of the invitation to the second questionnaire and then immediately delete the e-mail address using ''[[:en:create:functions:dropvalue|dropValue()]]''. The return button (if allowed in the questionnaire) should be deactivated at least on this page using ''[[:en:create:functions:option]]'' to avoid accidental storage of the e-mail address. +  * With an open text input you can query the participant's e-mail address, on the following page you can use ''[[:en:create:functions:mailsend]]]'' to schedule the sending of the invitation to the second questionnaire and then immediately delete the e-mail address using ''[[:en:create:functions:dropvalue|dropValue()]]''. The back button (if allowed in the questionnaire) should be deactivated at least on this page using ''[[:en:create:functions:option]]'' to avoid accidental storage of the e-mail address. 
-  * With a question of type [[:en:create:questions:email]] at the end of the questionnaire you can send an individual link to the second questionnaire (using the placeholder ''%caseNumber%''). The participant has to enter his e-mail address, but it will not be saved. A disadvantage compared to the serial mail function is that the link cannot be sent time-controlled because the e-mail address would have to be stored temporarily. +  * With a question of the type [[:en:create:questions:email]] at the end of the questionnaire you can send an individual link to the second questionnaire (using the placeholder ''%caseNumber%''). The participant has to enter their e-mail address, but this will not be stored. A disadvantage compared to the mailing function is that the link cannot be sent time-controlled because the e-mail address would have to be stored temporarily tto achieve this
-  * Also possible is the [[:en:create:vouchers|display of a random code at the end of the first questionnaire]]. The participant must then note this code and enter it again in the second questionnaire.+  * Also possible is the [[:en:create:vouchers|display of a random code at the end of the first questionnaire]]. The respondent must then note this code and enter it again in the second questionnaire.
  
  
en/create/personal-code.txt · Last modified: 22.07.2019 20:16 by admin
 
Except where otherwise noted, content on this wiki is licensed under the following license: CC Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International
Driven by DokuWiki