# Audit reversed survey item codes before combining them

Align oppositely worded example item codes before comparing descriptive responses.

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

## 1. What does agreeing with the clear-instructions statement mean to you?

Answer: ____________________

## 2. What does agreeing with the confusing-instructions statement mean to you?

Answer: ____________________

## 3. Which statement, if any, requires more effort to interpret?

Answer: ____________________

## 4. What experience are you using to interpret both statements?

Answer: ____________________

## Author notes / illustrative keys where applicable

1. Verify the favourable meaning of the positive item.
2. Verify the opposite direction rather than guessing from a numeric code.
3. Probe wording difficulty before recommending reverse-worded items.
4. Check that both interpretations refer to a comparable experience.

Interpretation caution: Reverse mapping aligns these codes only. It does not establish equal category spacing, construct validity or a justified composite score.


## Illustrative finding and follow-up

Observation: The synthetic answers four and two point in the same favourable direction once the second item’s polarity is acknowledged.

Action to test: Retain raw codes and the full reverse mapping; pilot wording before proposing any score.

Follow-up: Ask volunteers to explain each item’s direction after revision and verify recoding against all five categories.


## Collection protocol

When and whom to ask: Before fielding a questionnaire containing opposite-direction statements, show the actual wording and all labels.

Decision owner: The questionnaire reviewer owns wording; the analyst owns the versioned code mapping.

Follow-up: Ask volunteers to explain each item’s direction after revision and verify recoding against all five categories.

Response handling: Do not collect real sensitive answers for a mapping test. The numbered scale is a separate illustration, not a native field promise.

## Decision workshop

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

### Synthetic pilot and reporting records

Invented item | Raw code | Direction | Aligned example code
--- | --- | --- | ---
Clear instructions | 4 | Higher agreement favourable | 4
Confusing instructions | 2 | Higher agreement unfavourable | 6−2=4

### Version changes

Boundary | Draft | Revised
--- | --- | ---
Direction | Raw codes treated alike | Negative item direction reversed
Validity | Matching codes prove a valid scale | Coding alignment only

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

The raw code average is three, so the two answers disagree.

### Revised example

For this explicitly defined five-category coding exercise, reverse the negative item with 6−x: its two becomes four. Both aligned codes are four; this does not validate averaging or a combined scale.

### Decision situations

- Labels and coding direction are recorded: Check the 1→5, 2→4, 3→3, 4→2, 5→1 mapping manually.
- Only numeric exports remain: Recover labels and direction before recoding.
- A composite score is proposed: Review construct validity and the scoring method separately.

### Method references

- Pew Research Center question design: https://www.pewresearch.org/writing-survey-questions/ — Wording and response-option consistency.