Which issues, if any, did you encounter during the task?
Allow more than one issue and a none route without assuming difficulty.
Survey design and interpretation / Survey guide
Survey methods · Worked example
Percentages for multiple survey selections or themes
Choose between respondent shares and selection shares when one person can contribute multiple survey categories.
Opens product registration. Example questions are not imported automatically.
WHAT TO READ · WHAT TO TEST
Observation
Synthetic coding from 12 people: connection issues mentioned by five, access by four and instructions by seven; 16 mentions include overlap.
Interpretation boundary
A multi-theme count is not a single-choice distribution. Define whether the unit is people, answers or mentions and do not imply statistical independence.
Next experiment
Report instructions as seven of 12 people, approximately 58.3%, or seven of 16 mentions, 43.75%, with the denominator stated.
Illustrative scenario. These are not real response counts or findings.
A useful starting point
Free-text pilot questions
A reviewer has coded optional free-text answers from 12 people into three issue categories. Some people mention more than one issue, and the draft treats the chart as a single-choice split.
If nothing was unclear or difficult, say so. Skip questions about steps you did not experience; use not applicable where appropriate.
Which issue most affected your next step?
Distinguish a primary concern from a list of all mentioned themes.
Were two issues part of the same incident or separate experiences?
Avoid treating multiple mentions as independent people or incidents.
What issue category is missing or poorly described?
Check category meaning before coding free-text responses.
If nothing was unclear or difficult, say so. Skip questions about steps you did not experience; use not applicable where appropriate. Which issues, if any, did you encounter during the task? Which issue most affected your next step? Were two issues part of the same incident or separate experiences? What issue category is missing or poorly described?
Download the questions as text ↓
Examples to adapt, rather than a validated research instrument.
Before you send it
Check what your wording assumes.
Choose the only issue you had.
Which issues, if any, did you encounter during the task?
The revision allows multiple or no issues; the subsequent coding rule must preserve that distinction.
Choose the response format
Make room for the explanation.
| Question | Suggested format | What to preserve |
|---|---|---|
| Which issues, if any, did you encounter during the task? | Optional short open text | Allow more than one issue and a none route without assuming difficulty. |
| Which issue most affected your next step? | Optional short open text | Distinguish a primary concern from a list of all mentioned themes. |
| Were two issues part of the same incident or separate experiences? | Optional short open text | Avoid treating multiple mentions as independent people or incidents. |
| What issue category is missing or poorly described? | Optional short open text | Check category meaning before coding free-text responses. |
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 the category descriptions after a specific task, before using them to code a broader response set.
Invite relevant voices
Report instructions as seven of 12 people, approximately 58.3%, or seven of 16 mentions, 43.75%, with the denominator stated.
Choose an action
Reconcile the per-person coding ledger before comparing percentages; preserve people with no issue and multiple themes.
A worked interpretation example
From a comment to a practical next step.
Illustrative scenario. These are not customer results.
Keep the finding specific
Synthetic coding from 12 people: connection issues mentioned by five, access by four and instructions by seven; 16 mentions include overlap.
Choose an action to test
Report instructions as seven of 12 people, approximately 58.3%, or seven of 16 mentions, 43.75%, with the denominator stated.
Check the experience again
Reconcile the per-person coding ledger before comparing percentages; preserve people with no issue and multiple themes.
Read the answers carefully
Limits to preserve
A multi-theme count is not a single-choice distribution. Define whether the unit is people, answers or mentions and do not imply statistical independence.
Chart note: instructions appear in seven of 12 people’s answers (58.3%) and seven of 16 coded mentions (43.75%). The views answer different questions.
Run a focused feedback cycle
Plan the invitation, review and follow-up.
When and whom to ask
Pilot the category descriptions after a specific task, before using them to code a broader response set.
Who reviews the finding
The analyst owns the person-versus-mention denominator; the questionnaire reviewer checks category wording.
What to check after a change
Recalculate both views from the same coded records and verify that totals reconcile without assuming categories are exclusive.
Handle responses carefully
The pilot uses free-text questions. Category counts are a separate manual coding example; no native multi-select, scoring or import feature is promised.
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
| Theme | People mentioning | Share of 12 people | Share of 16 mentions |
|---|---|---|---|
| Connection | 5 | 5/12 ≈41.7% | 5/16 =31.25% |
| Access | 4 | 4/12 ≈33.3% | 4/16 =25% |
| Instructions | 7 | 7/12 ≈58.3% | 7/16 =43.75% |
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
Mentions = 5+4+7=16. Respondent shares sum to 16/12×100≈133.3% because people can mention multiple themes. Mention shares sum to 100%.
Chart note: instructions appear in seven of 12 people’s answers (58.3%) and seven of 16 coded mentions (43.75%). The views answer different questions.
Keep evidence and inference separate
Observed
Three coded counts with an explicit overlap rule
Supports respondent or mention shares when labelled.
Unknown
Independent incident counts or population prevalence
Do not treat overlapping mentions as separate people.
Next check
Reconcile counts to the per-person coding ledger
Retain none and multi-theme cases.
Before you send it
Questions, answered.
May percentages add to more than 100%?
Yes when the denominator is people and each can appear in several categories. Explain the coding rule.
When should the shares sum to 100%?
The mention-share view divides each category by all mentions; it describes mentions rather than people.
Does this require a multi-select product field?
No. These examples can be coded manually from free text; supported product fields must be checked separately.
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