# Research participation experience survey

Improve recruitment and scheduling for a research activity.

If nothing was unclear or difficult, say so. Skip questions about steps you did not experience; use not applicable where appropriate.

## 1. Were participation requirements explained clearly?

Answer: ____________________

## 2. Was scheduling easy to follow?

Answer: ____________________

## 3. What information did you need before agreeing?

Answer: ____________________

## 4. Were the activities consistent with the invitation?

Answer: ____________________

## 5. What would improve a future invitation?

Answer: ____________________

## Author notes / illustrative keys where applicable

1. Requirement understanding shows whether recruits know what participation entails before agreeing. Clarify activities and prerequisites without treating favorable feedback as informed agreement to the research itself.
2. Scheduling clarity determines whether participants can follow booking and attendance arrangements. Identify the relevant message or step without requesting detailed personal calendars or assuming every preferred time is available.
3. Preagreement information reveals what participants needed to make a considered choice. Route missing details to accurate study information rather than using the survey to replace the research agreement process.
4. Consistency between invitation and activities exposes expectation gaps in recruitment. Investigate the specific mismatch and revise future information without disclosing private participant or research material.
5. Invitation improvements should address a concrete misunderstanding about the study or logistics. Test accurate revised wording while keeping participation voluntary and separate from formal research agreement.

Interpretation caution: Participation feedback does not replace informed agreement for the research itself.