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'​s ​[[:​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