The two ten-person synthetic samples differ by two favourable answers; collection context and people also differ.
Survey testing and reporting / Survey guide
Survey methods · Decision workshop
Compare survey answers across collection modes
Check collection context before combining phone and web answers into a single survey conclusion.
Opens product registration. Example questions are not imported automatically.
PLAN A BOUNDED FOLLOW-UP
Retain counts and mode notes; pilot the spoken and written presentation before combining them.
Check that revised phone and web introductions communicate the same question and response freedom.
Synthetic planning example. A repeat survey alone does not establish causation.
From question to next step
Make the feedback useful.
Run the pilot
Before mixed-mode collection, use the same fabricated question with volunteers in each intended format.
Choose a bounded action
Retain counts and mode notes; pilot the spoken and written presentation before combining them.
Check the revision
Check that revised phone and web introductions communicate the same question and response freedom.
A worked interpretation example
From a comment to a practical next step.
Illustrative scenario. These are not customer results.
Keep the finding specific
The two ten-person synthetic samples differ by two favourable answers; collection context and people also differ.
Choose an action to test
Retain counts and mode notes; pilot the spoken and written presentation before combining them.
Check the experience again
Check that revised phone and web introductions communicate the same question and response freedom.
A useful starting point
Optional free-text pilot questions
An invented phone cohort has six favourable answers among ten people; a web cohort has four among ten. Different people and collection contexts were used.
If nothing was unclear or difficult, say so. Skip questions about steps you did not experience; use not applicable where appropriate.
How did you encounter the question in this pilot?
Record mode as context without treating it as a causal assignment.
What, if anything, did another person explain before your answer?
Identify interviewer explanation that can change the experienced question.
Which part of the question was harder to revisit in this format?
Surface a format limitation such as retaining spoken choices in memory.
What would help you answer without feeling pushed toward a response?
Probe perceived pressure with room to say none.
If nothing was unclear or difficult, say so. Skip questions about steps you did not experience; use not applicable where appropriate. How did you encounter the question in this pilot? What, if anything, did another person explain before your answer? Which part of the question was harder to revisit in this format? What would help you answer without feeling pushed toward a response?
Download the questions as text ↓
Examples to adapt, rather than a validated research instrument.
Choose the response format
Make room for the explanation.
| Question | Suggested format | What to preserve |
|---|---|---|
| How did you encounter the question in this pilot? | Optional short open text | Record mode as context without treating it as a causal assignment. |
| What, if anything, did another person explain before your answer? | Optional short open text | Identify interviewer explanation that can change the experienced question. |
| Which part of the question was harder to revisit in this format? | Optional short open text | Surface a format limitation such as retaining spoken choices in memory. |
| What would help you answer without feeling pushed toward a response? | Optional short open text | Probe perceived pressure with room to say none. |
Make questions optional where appropriate. If you add a rating scale, label its endpoints, keep one idea per question, and retain a follow-up for reasons. These examples are not a validated measurement instrument.
Read the answers carefully
Keep the interpretation within the evidence
These different people and collection conditions cannot isolate a causal mode effect; sample shares remain descriptive.
The synthetic phone sample is 6/10 and web sample 4/10 favourable. These descriptive samples differ in people and mode; neither establishes a causal mode effect.
Before you send it
Check what your wording assumes.
Why does phone collection make your answer more positive?
What, if anything, did another person explain before your answer?
The prompt inspects collection context without asserting a causal mode effect.
Run a focused feedback cycle
Plan the invitation, review and follow-up.
When and whom to ask
Before mixed-mode collection, use the same fabricated question with volunteers in each intended format.
Who reviews the finding
The method owner records recruitment and mode; the pilot facilitator checks the experienced question.
What to check after a change
Check that revised phone and web introductions communicate the same question and response freedom.
Handle responses carefully
Do not record calls without appropriate consent. This worksheet uses invented totals and optional explanations.
A practical decision workshop
Inspect the example before choosing a rule
Trace an invented case, preserve the evidence limits, then adapt the manual worksheet to your own decision.
Evidence dependency diagram
What must be known first?
Scroll the diagram sideways if needed; every dependency is also written below.
- Recruitment context → Bounded comparison: who answered.
- Collection mode → Bounded comparison: how they answered.
Synthetic example · not customer data
Inspect the records
| Mode | Valid answers | Favourable | Context |
|---|---|---|---|
| Phone | 10 | 6 | Interviewer present |
| Web | 10 | 4 | Self-completed |
Wide tables scroll sideways on small screens.
Download records (.csv) · Download complete decision kit (.json)
Decision explorer
Choose an evidence situation
This returns a written example explanation. It does not inspect your records or approve a real report.
Read every situation without the interactive tool
- People and collection conditions are documented
- Describe both cohorts and their limits; do not infer a causal effect.
- Mode is mixed but not recorded
- Hold mode-specific comparison until collection context is recoverable.
- A separate controlled design is proposed
- Review assignment and analysis before making an experiment claim.
Version comparison viewer
Keep the draft and its correction visible
Draft or earlier version · review its limits
Phone collection improves satisfaction by 20 percentage points.
Revised example · limits retained
The synthetic phone sample is 6/10 and web sample 4/10 favourable. These descriptive samples differ in people and mode; neither establishes a causal mode effect.
| Review boundary | Draft to review | Revised example |
|---|---|---|
| Interpretation | Mode caused improvement | Sample difference with context limits |
| Comparability | Same wording is sufficient | People, presentation and timing also reviewed |
Wide tables scroll sideways on small screens.
Before you send it
Questions, answered.
Does identical wording guarantee identical experience?
No. Spoken presentation, interviewer help and the ability to reread can change context.
Can these numbers establish a mode effect?
No. The groups were not controlled or randomly assigned; the difference is descriptive.
Will the example import or configure a results view?
No. Copy the optional text prompts into a manual draft. Tables, coding rules and comparisons are separate educational worksheets; check supported product features in your account.
Build with SurveyTeams
Adapt these pilot questions in SurveyTeams
Use these examples to draft your questionnaire. Create a survey draft, add questions, and check the respondent preview in SurveyTeams. Additional features depend on your account and plan.
Create your survey in SurveyTeams
Opens product registration. Example questions are not imported automatically.
Learn about the product ↗Continue exploring