|
|
Post by regina on Jun 26, 2020 13:00:45 GMT
Hi all,
is it possible to save the endcode in a separate file to ensure complete anonymization of participants? We ask participants to send us their endcode via email, so that we can compensate them for their participation. If the endcode is saved in a separate file, we could verify the endcode without being able to connect the email-address with participant data.
Thank you!
|
|
|
|
Post by PsyToolkit on Jun 27, 2020 8:56:28 GMT
I understand your reasoning.
That is currently not possible.
I will put it on the *wish list* for a future version.
|
|
|
|
Post by regina on Jun 29, 2020 6:22:29 GMT
Thank you, that would be great!
|
|
|
|
Post by alexandra (AEC) on Jun 29, 2020 9:02:32 GMT
Hi there,
we had a similar problem as students can get credits for their participation by showing their endcode. I extracted the endcode from the rest of the data using R and created an Excel table only containing the endcodes. Students can now get their participation checked by the secretary of the department using the endcode list.
|
|
|
|
Post by PsyToolkit on Jun 30, 2020 11:49:23 GMT
Yes, I agree this is a really good idea. In the next version in September/October, I will add it as a feature. Let me know if this would work: - I plan to have an option "separate" for a question item - If that is choosen, a separate file will be created with the endcodes (or any answer) which will be saved entirely separately so that it is technically impossible to determine who had what code. This can not only be endcode, but also, for example, be an email some people wish to leave for follow up. It will be nice to be able to say that this cannot be linked to questions.
Adding such features takes a lot of time. If you like this, please respond, or say if you have a suggestion, or make a donation! www.psytoolkit.org/donate.html
|
|
|
|
Post by alexandra (AEC) on Jun 30, 2020 12:22:40 GMT
I think the proposed option "separate" would be a great addition. It would allow participants, for example, to provide an email address, if they would like to participate in a "raffle" for a price and/or would like to be informed about the results at the end of data collection. I am not sure how this would work for the endcode, because this is not a question type right now as far as I understand it. Is this correct?
|
|
|
|
Post by PsyToolkit on Jun 30, 2020 13:17:24 GMT
That is correct, but for the "endcode" there will be tickbox in the survey design screen where the researcher can state if they want to save the end code separately.
This will be available in the September 2020 version 3.1.1.
|
|
|
|
Post by regina on Aug 12, 2020 16:31:17 GMT
I agree that the proposed option "separate" is a very good solution because it allows a lot of flexibility. Thank you!
|
|
|
|
Post by PsyToolkit on Aug 16, 2020 11:16:35 GMT
Sure, I am still working on this.
It is important, though, to realize that there are limitations to such a system.
For example, if you use this to give credits for just doing a questionnaire, okay fine that will work.
But what if a participant takes a questionnaire (or experiment) not seriously? For example, they might always give the same answer or make 100% mistakes in your experiment. If you save the data separately, you have no way to distinguish these types of participants, so in that way, it is not ideal. I think the anonymity only makes sense if you do a questionnaire about very "sensitive" topics, that is, answers that people really do not wish to be identified with. Now, I wonder if people who are afraid to be identified are then still willing to give their email (while you as a researcher might know and trust the system that the email is really separately saved, a participant might not have that trust in either the software or the researcher).
All in all, I agree it is nice to have this function and I will have it ready at the end of this month. That said, I think I would only when you really need their email and yet the questions are too sensitive. It will also help your ethics committee who might want something like this.
|
|
|
|
Post by PsyToolkit on Aug 23, 2020 19:23:45 GMT
This is now possible in version 3.2.0 (which is still in testing mode, but I just wanted to show the documentation here):
The version is already available for testing, but it is not yet stable. It will soon be. Follow Twitter for updates:
|
|
