Skip to end of metadata
Go to start of metadata

 

Current GSIM v1.0:

Question:

  • Definition: describes the text used to interrogate a respondent, the Concept that is measured and the allowed responses.
  • One specific type of Question is the Multiple Question Item
  • Relationships:
    • Question HasSubtypeOf Multiple Question Item 
    • Question References Variable (Cardinality: Mandatory, many)
    • Question References Value Domain (Cardinality: Mandatory, many)

Multiple Question Item:

  • Definition:  a construct that has all of the properties of a Question but additionally links to sub questions.
  • A Multiple Question Item is a specific type of Question
  • Relationships:
    • Multiple Question Item IsSubtypeOf Question
    • Multiple Question Item Includes Question (Cardinality: Mandatory, many)
    • Multiple Question Item Includes Multiple Question Item (Cardinality: Optional, many).

Question has a sub-type - Multiple Question Item. Question is also used as a sub-question within Multiple Question Item. 

 

Issue

Currently the definition of question is ambiguous. The role in which it is being used in the current model is to conceptually describe a question (in an instrument), and yet it also has a subtype 'Multiple Question Item', which further defines a particular type of question, different to 'question'.

Should 'question itself be the definition of questions 'conceptually' (ie, it covers all types of questions), and then at an implementation level, the varying types can be further defined? Or are Question and Multiple Question Item significantly different enough that they warrant being two separate objects, in which case should it really be a subtype of Question?

The rule documented in Figure 33 implies it should be possible to identify what is a "single question". This might be termed a (single) "Question Item" which would be a more constrained 'subtype' of Question as an abstract.

In order to achieve some consistency in the implementation of GSIM, it would also be useful to provide a broad indication of what can be considered a coherent Question at the conceptual level. For example, if a set of 'Question Items' have a looser conceptual relationship to each other and less similarity in response domains, at what point (roughly) is it appropriate to stop considering them as sub-questions within a Multiple Question Item and start considering them as a potentially reusable Question Block (Eurostat's Concepts and Definitions Database, drawing on a paper on Survey Design and Statistical Methodology Metadata from the US Bureau of the Census, says that a question which contains other questions is synonymous with Question Block.)

Another reason for clarifying this part of the modelling within GSIM is to be able to clearly and consistently guide, from the 'conceptual to implementation' direction, the relationship between GSIM and DDI3.2, which introduces DDI3.2 Question Grid but does not include a direct equivalent to DDI3.1 Multiple Question Item. The example of DDI3.1 Multiple Question Item provided in the documentation of DDI3.1 would correspond with a DDI3.2 Question Grid.

ABS - and we believe other agencies - have identified cases where current business practice is to assign a single 'Question Number' to a set of "Question Items" which could not be described as a DDI3.2 Question Grid. At least for the ABS examples identified so far, however, a strong case can be made for these examples that conceptually the set of "Question Items" concerned could be considered a Question Block, rather than being considered to form a single coherent Multiple Question Item.

This comes back to the logical definition of Multiple Question Item. Would a DDI3.2 Question Grid correspond to a Multiple Question Item in GSIM terms or would it be considered a 'Question Item' with a dimensional response domain?

If a DDI3.2 Question Grid would be considered a Multiple Question Item under GSIM then Figure 33 would seem to require 'sub-items' to describe (presumably) the individual 'single question' cells in the grid.

 

 Solution Options

 1. Remove Multiple Question Item as an object, and leave Question as a broader definition.

The definition of Question is broad enough that it can cover all types of question, regardless of whether it is a 'single' question or a multiple question item. To keep the model at a conceptual level, should there only be one object in this space (Question), and any further sub-types of this are decided in implementation?

2. Question as abstract object, with sub-types Question Item and Multiple Question Item.

Treat the Question object as an abstract object; and create another sub-type of Question to represent a 'single' question, called Question Item. That is, Question Item and Multiple Question Item would now both be sub-types of the abstract object Question. This would also involve changing the definition of Multiple Question Item (see picture and alternate definitions below). This option could also be expanded in the future for further types of question, for example if Question Grid was to be included as another question type.

 Alternate definitions

Question:

  • Definition: Describes the text used to interrogate a respondent, the Concept that is measured and the allowed responses.
  • Question has sub-types Question Item and Multiple Question Item
  • Relationships:
    • Question HasSubtypeOf Question Item
    • Question HasSubtypeOf Multiple Question Item

 

Question Item:

  • Defition: A Question used to interrogate a respondent, the Concept that is measures, and the allowed responses.
  • Question Item is a subtype of Question
  • Relationship:
    • Question Item IsSubtypeOf Question
    • Question Item References Variable (Cardinality: Mandatory, many)
    • Question Item References Value Domain (Cardinality: Mandatory, many)

 

Multiple Question Item:

  • Definition: A construct that has all the properties of a Question but additional links to sub-questions
  • Multiple Question Item is a subtype of Question
  • Relationships: 
    • Multiple Question Item IsSubtypeOf Question
    • Multiple Question Item Includes Question (Cardinality: Mandatory, many).

 

Recommendation

 The ABS does not have any particular recommendation of solution options for the time being. For implementation in the ABS Transitional Metadata Model that is currently being developed, we have chosen to implement the second option - having both Question Item and Multiple Question Item as subtypes of the abstract Question.

 

 

Page viewed 2040 times by 20 users since 13 Sep, 2013:
Name Last viewed Times viewed
Anonymous 01 Aug, 2014 16:04 1978
DDI MF Project 16 Jun, 2014 17:09 5
Stéphane Martineau 20 Nov, 2013 22:18 2
Helen Toole 19 Nov, 2013 10:30 8
Flavio Rizzolo 18 Nov, 2013 07:48 1
Thérèse Lalor 16 Nov, 2013 15:27 10
Guillaume Duffes 25 Oct, 2013 17:45 8
Pilar Rey del Castillo 21 Oct, 2013 15:05 1
Giorgia Simeoni 21 Oct, 2013 13:21 1
Steven Vale 20 Oct, 2013 09:43 1
Andrew Fitzgerald 18 Oct, 2013 03:17 7
Arofan Gregory 17 Oct, 2013 09:35 2
Chris Nelson 16 Oct, 2013 18:08 2
Colin Bowler 15 Oct, 2013 23:03 1
Wilhelmus Kloek 15 Oct, 2013 23:02 3
Jenny Linnerud 15 Oct, 2013 22:57 2
Gareth McGuinness 09 Oct, 2013 23:33 2
Carrie Ashley 02 Oct, 2013 08:38 4
Alistair Hamilton 18 Sep, 2013 14:53 1
Ritika Sharma 17 Sep, 2013 00:14 1

 

 

 

 

Page viewed 2040 times by 20 users since 13 Sep, 2013:
Name Last viewed Times viewed
Anonymous 01 Aug, 2014 16:04 1978
DDI MF Project 16 Jun, 2014 17:09 5
Stéphane Martineau 20 Nov, 2013 22:18 2
Helen Toole 19 Nov, 2013 10:30 8
Flavio Rizzolo 18 Nov, 2013 07:48 1
Thérèse Lalor 16 Nov, 2013 15:27 10
Guillaume Duffes 25 Oct, 2013 17:45 8
Pilar Rey del Castillo 21 Oct, 2013 15:05 1
Giorgia Simeoni 21 Oct, 2013 13:21 1
Steven Vale 20 Oct, 2013 09:43 1
Andrew Fitzgerald 18 Oct, 2013 03:17 7
Arofan Gregory 17 Oct, 2013 09:35 2
Chris Nelson 16 Oct, 2013 18:08 2
Colin Bowler 15 Oct, 2013 23:03 1
Wilhelmus Kloek 15 Oct, 2013 23:02 3
Jenny Linnerud 15 Oct, 2013 22:57 2
Gareth McGuinness 09 Oct, 2013 23:33 2
Carrie Ashley 02 Oct, 2013 08:38 4
Alistair Hamilton 18 Sep, 2013 14:53 1
Ritika Sharma 17 Sep, 2013 00:14 1
  • No labels

3 Comments

  1. Discussion 18/9: Can we get Arofan Gregory and Chris Nelson to look at the subtype recommendation??

    Having the subtypes will complicate the model. Do we want to do this?

  2. I am in favour of having an abstract Question with the two sub classes. My only question (not a another sub class!) is what is the content of the Multiple Question Item as in the suggested model it has no link to Variable and Value Domain? If its purpose is to solely act a parent for sub questions  then the definition should be changed from " A construct that has all the properties of a Question but additional links to sub-questions" to something that is consistent with the DDI use or the Eurostat/US Bureau of the Census Question Block.

    Note that there is a fundamental difference between the Question Block (in GSIM) and the ability to have Multiple Question Items: this is that the Question Block is built in the Instrument from Question(s) and is not reusable across different Instruments, whereas the Multiple Question Item is built in the Question Group and is reusable across different Instruments.

  3. Helen:

    I agree with Chris from a modelling perspective, but also from a more practical perspective. A Multiple Question Item has a set of sub-questions among which there is a dependency. The sub-questions don't exist outside of the context of the containing Multiple Question Item - without each other, the question does not make sense (or it is a different question).

    A Question block is just a list of questions, which may exist independent of each other. In my experience, these are two different things, and for very practical purposes.

    Thus, I like having an abstract Question with the two sub-classes. I think we will want to look closely at the definition of Multiple Question Item, however, to emphasize the dependency among the sub-questions.

    I just discussed this with Wendy and she agrees with me (wink)

    Cheers,

    Arofan