What support interaction would you use when answering this question?
Establish the experience behind the answer without asking for private ticket details.
Survey design and interpretation / Survey guide
Survey methods · Worked example
Missing survey answers and eligible denominators
Separate skipped questions, not-applicable cases and valid answers before interpreting an item’s answer percentage.
Opens product registration. Example questions are not imported automatically.
WHAT TO READ · WHAT TO TEST
Observation
Synthetic cohort: 50 people finished the survey; 12 experienced the support interaction, eight answered the item and four eligible people skipped it.
Interpretation boundary
Do not recode missing or not-applicable answers as neutral or dissatisfied. Item eligibility can be unknown and must then be reported as unknown.
Next experiment
Report eight of 12 eligible people answering the item, with four eligible skips and 38 out-of-scope cases retained separately.
Illustrative scenario. These are not real response counts or findings.
A useful starting point
Free-text pilot questions
A question about a support interaction is relevant to only part of a feedback cohort. Use a pilot to clarify exposure, then record the item-level denominator separately from survey participation.
If nothing was unclear or difficult, say so. Skip questions about steps you did not experience; use not applicable where appropriate.
What would you do if you had not had that interaction?
Check whether not applicable is distinguishable from a skipped relevant question.
Which part of the question makes an answer difficult to give?
Separate unclear recall from missing experience.
What wording would make the skip instruction easier to understand?
Test a respondent-visible instruction rather than forcing a neutral rating.
If nothing was unclear or difficult, say so. Skip questions about steps you did not experience; use not applicable where appropriate. What support interaction would you use when answering this question? What would you do if you had not had that interaction? Which part of the question makes an answer difficult to give? What wording would make the skip instruction easier to understand?
Download the questions as text ↓
Examples to adapt, rather than a validated research instrument.
Before you send it
Check what your wording assumes.
How good was support? Everyone must answer.
What support interaction would you use when answering this question?
The revision establishes exposure before collecting an evaluation.
Choose the response format
Make room for the explanation.
| Question | Suggested format | What to preserve |
|---|---|---|
| What support interaction would you use when answering this question? | Optional short open text | Establish the experience behind the answer without asking for private ticket details. |
| What would you do if you had not had that interaction? | Optional short open text | Check whether not applicable is distinguishable from a skipped relevant question. |
| Which part of the question makes an answer difficult to give? | Optional short open text | Separate unclear recall from missing experience. |
| What wording would make the skip instruction easier to understand? | Optional short open text | Test a respondent-visible instruction rather than forcing a neutral rating. |
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.
From question to next step
Make the feedback useful.
Set the decision
Pilot after a recent support interaction with exposed and unexposed volunteers; allow a skip at every prompt.
Invite relevant voices
Report eight of 12 eligible people answering the item, with four eligible skips and 38 out-of-scope cases retained separately.
Choose an action
Repeat the pilot after clarifying the eligibility prompt and check whether people can distinguish not applicable from choosing to skip.
A worked interpretation example
From a comment to a practical next step.
Illustrative scenario. These are not customer results.
Keep the finding specific
Synthetic cohort: 50 people finished the survey; 12 experienced the support interaction, eight answered the item and four eligible people skipped it.
Choose an action to test
Report eight of 12 eligible people answering the item, with four eligible skips and 38 out-of-scope cases retained separately.
Check the experience again
Repeat the pilot after clarifying the eligibility prompt and check whether people can distinguish not applicable from choosing to skip.
Read the answers carefully
Limits to preserve
Do not recode missing or not-applicable answers as neutral or dissatisfied. Item eligibility can be unknown and must then be reported as unknown.
Item note: eight valid answers, four eligible skips and 38 not-exposed cases; 66.7% of known eligible people answered. No missing answer is assigned an attitude.
Run a focused feedback cycle
Plan the invitation, review and follow-up.
When and whom to ask
Pilot after a recent support interaction with exposed and unexposed volunteers; allow a skip at every prompt.
Who reviews the finding
The questionnaire reviewer owns exposure wording; the analyst records the item disposition rule.
What to check after a change
Inspect item-level reasons for missingness separately from overall survey participation.
Handle responses carefully
Do not collect account credentials, ticket contents or private conversation extracts. Pilot participation and explanation of a skip remain optional.
A worked measurement study
Inspect the data. Trace the decision.
Every record here is synthetic. Use the rule to review your own evidence before taking action.
Invented records · inspect every count
| Disposition | People |
|---|---|
| Valid item answers | 8 |
| Eligible item skips | 4 |
| Not exposed to this interaction | 38 |
On small screens, scroll a wide table sideways to see all columns.
Download example data (.csv) · Download method worksheet (.json)
Try the arithmetic
Local calculation sandbox
Change the invented inputs to explore the rule. Inputs stay in this browser; nothing is sent or saved.
The written example remains below if JavaScript is unavailable. A calculation does not validate a sample, instrument or forecast.
Work through the rule
Known eligible item denominator = 8+4=12. Answer fraction = 8÷12×100 ≈66.7%. Using all 50 gives 16%, which answers a different question.
Item note: eight valid answers, four eligible skips and 38 not-exposed cases; 66.7% of known eligible people answered. No missing answer is assigned an attitude.
Keep evidence and inference separate
Observed
Exposure and three disposition counts
Supports the known-eligible item denominator.
Unknown
Attitudes of people who skipped
Do not fill their answers with an assumed rating.
Next check
Pilot the exposure and skip instructions
Retain unknown eligibility when it cannot be resolved.
Before you send it
Questions, answered.
Should not applicable count as a neutral answer?
No. It describes lack of applicable experience, not an attitude on the rating scale.
Can the denominator differ by question?
Yes, if different questions concern different experiences. Show each denominator explicitly.
Why keep eligible skips visible?
They indicate unanswered relevant items; merging them with not-exposed cases hides a different limitation.
Can I load this example automatically?
No. Copy or download the free-text pilot questions and adapt them in your draft. The registration link does not import them. The calculation worksheet is a separate manual example; verify supported fields and 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