We are trying to update a roster of businesses by pre-loading businesses from the previous survey round and asking if they are still running, and if yes, who is the main manager.
Then we want to ask for each business category if there was any new business over the past 6 months. If at lest one yes, we open a new business roster with a list of names of business and ask who is the manager, husband or wife.
Husband’s business: For businesses of 1 and 2 managed by husband, we want to ask further questions on assets and profits.
So far both wife and husband were interviewed together. Now, we ask the husband to give us privacy so that we can continue the interview with the wife only.
Wife’s business: Same as 3 but for wife’s businesses
Problem: We don’t manage to structure this business section like explained, unless we reorder the questions or change how we ask about new businesses and manager which we want to avoid because these two are very important concepts (so are the type of question and order).
On issue faced: appending different source list questions of roster is not possible, neither is filtering on key questions (who’s the manager, is business sill open) across rosters.
We would be very grateful to receive some help here. Happy to share the paper version or SS version on demand.
I think your problem stems from asking if there is a new business over the past 6 months for each business category. Since it opens a list question anyways, I would preload the business from the previous round into a list triggered roster also so that you can add new businesses to the end of that list question. Then you would have one roster for all your businesses (new or old) triggered by the list question. To make sure the interviewer does not delete a business from the previous round, you can protect the preloaded answers.
I would add a hidden question in the roster with an id number from the business that you will also preload (maybe business ID number from previous round?). Then I would use that hidden question to enable the questions only meant for businesses from the previous round.
This is indeed the way to go about old and new businesses (We could have the list of categories as a separate preliminary question).
Our issue is that, once we have a list of old and new together, we want to first ask ALL businesses manages by the husband, and only then ALL businesses managed by the women. This ordering inside one roster does not seems possible…
I think I found a way.
The first roster will be for all businesses old or new, but following the question on who is the manager, the rest of the roster will be asked only for businesses managed by the husband.
At the end of the first roster, I create a multiselect question linked to the list of old and new businesses and filtered on the “manager” question. I’ll ask the enumerator to select ALL businesses appearing here because they will all be businesses managed by the wife. (ideally I would not have to do this step here).
The second roster asking the same follow up questions that the 1st one will have the list of businesses (old and new) as the source question but an enabling condition based on the multiselect linked question, so that only wife’s businesses appear.
That is one way to do it but asking the enumerator to select all the options that appears in a question is indeed not ideal.
I would design this the following way:
- roster with questions for all businesses regardless of the manager - this would have the manager question in it
- roster with questions for all businesses managed by men
- roster with questions of all businesses managed by women
They would all have the list question as a source question. Roster #2 and #3 would be enabled based on the gender of the manager and then hide if disabled all the other businesses. That syntax for the enabling condition is more complicated because you have to get the gender of the manager with the selected rowcode.
Indeed, if I could have an enabling condition in the husband or wife roster filtering on the answer of who is the manager in the first roster that would be great.
Do you think you could help me with the syntax of this enabling condition?
I think it’s fine. We managed! It was much more straight forward than what we had expected. Thank you!