# Pilot a survey invitation’s completion-time claim

Inspect timed pilot attempts before communicating how long a questionnaire might take.

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

## 1. What did you expect the invitation’s time statement to include?

Answer: ____________________

## 2. Where did you pause, if anywhere, during this attempt?

Answer: ____________________

## 3. Which prompt required additional thought or information?

Answer: ____________________

## 4. What wording would describe the effort without promising your exact completion time?

Answer: ____________________

## Author notes / illustrative keys where applicable

1. Test whether elapsed time and expected effort are confused.
2. Record an interruption only if the volunteer chooses to explain it.
3. Identify content-driven effort separately from a pause.
4. Improve a qualified invitation without inventing a universal duration.

Interpretation caution: Three invented attempts do not justify a universal time promise. Elapsed-minus-interruption is a convention rather than observed cognitive effort.


## Illustrative finding and follow-up

Observation: The three invented elapsed durations are two, three and seven minutes; subtracting the known interruption yields two, three and three under that convention.

Action to test: Remove the universal promise; describe the optional written prompts and test a qualified effort statement.

Follow-up: Time fresh optional attempts on the revised questionnaire and record pauses with the declared convention.


## Collection protocol

When and whom to ask: After the draft content is stable, invite optional volunteers to attempt it with timing explained beforehand.

Decision owner: The survey owner owns the invitation claim; the pilot facilitator records the timing convention.

Follow-up: Time fresh optional attempts on the revised questionnaire and record pauses with the declared convention.

Response handling: Do not infer personal ability from a slow attempt. Avoid recording identities or private reasons for interruptions.

## Decision workshop

Synthetic examples only. Manual worksheet; no automatic import or product writes.

### Synthetic pilot and reporting records

Synthetic pilot | Elapsed minutes | Recorded interruption | Elapsed minus interruption
--- | --- | --- | ---
p1 | 2 | 0 | 2
p2 | 3 | 0 | 3
p3 | 7 | 4 | 3

### Version changes

Boundary | Draft | Revised
--- | --- | ---
Timing | One exact promise | Pilot range and interruption context
Evidence | Elapsed minus pause called mental effort | A duration convention, not observed cognitive effort

### Draft or earlier version (review its limits)

Everyone finishes in three minutes.

### Revised example

These three synthetic attempts range from two to seven elapsed minutes; one includes a four-minute interruption. This tiny pilot does not support a universal three-minute promise.

### Decision situations

- Attempt times and pauses are documented: Review a qualified description and retest the current questionnaire.
- No timing evidence exists: Describe the number and type of prompts instead of inventing minutes.
- The questionnaire changed since timing: Repeat a relevant pilot before reusing its estimate.

### Complete message drafts (review before use)

#### Invitation draft without a guessed time

This draft contains optional written questions about your experience. You may skip any prompt or stop at any time. We are piloting the wording before making a completion-time estimate.

#### Timing review request

Please check whether timing used the current questionnaire and whether interruptions were recorded. Three pilot attempts do not support a promise that everyone finishes in three minutes.

### Method references

- GOV.UK moderated usability testing: https://www.gov.uk/service-manual/user-research/using-moderated-usability-testing — Observed task attempts and participant interpretation; small pilots are not benchmarks.