Designing a questionnaire (internal)
Internal 3 credits Question wording Target population Piloting Bias EthicsAS 91263, 3 credits. The standard requires evidence of using EACH component of the questionnaire design process — so a good questionnaire with no visible design process cannot pass. Merit links the components to the context; Excellence integrates statistical and contextual knowledge throughout.
1 Reading the notation
Two distinct checking steps are named — a desk review AND a pilot — both required.📖 Terms the schedule grades you on
5 terms- Design (Achieved)
- Evidence of using EACH component of the questionnaire design process.
- With justification (Merit)
- Link components to the context; explain relevant decisions made.
- With statistical insight (Excellence)
- Integrate statistical and contextual knowledge, relevant to purpose, THROUGHOUT.
- Desk review
- Checking the questions on paper/with peers, before any real respondent sees them.
- Pilot survey
- Trialling the questionnaire on a small group, collecting and recording real data.
2 The design process, with evidence at each step
Each component needs something to show for it.| Component | The evidence it leaves |
|---|---|
| Purpose and investigative questions | A written purpose, and the questions it breaks into |
| Target population | Who, why them, and how you will reach them |
| Variables to measure | Each question mapped to a variable and its type |
| Draft questions | The draft itself |
| Desk review | A record of what was checked, and by whom |
| Pilot | Who piloted it, what confused them, what you changed |
| Revision | Before-and-after of the reworded questions |
| Ethics | The consent and anonymity statement used |
The before-and-after of a reworded question is the single most valuable artefact — it evidences the pilot AND the revision at once.
3 Question wording and structure
Most faults are visible in the wording itself, before a single response is collected. ✕The double-barrelled question
"Was the service fast and friendly?" cannot be answered by anyone who found it fast but rude. Every answer you get back is uninterpretable, and no amount of analysis fixes it — which is why the pilot exists.4 Piloting and ethics
The pilot is where the strongest, most specific evidence for this standard comes from.What good pilot evidence looks like
- Who piloted it, and how many.
- A SPECIFIC problem a pilot respondent revealed (not a general "it went fine").
- The exact wording BEFORE and AFTER the fix.
- Why the fix addresses the specific problem found.
5 What each grade requires
Justification links to context; insight integrates throughout.| Grade | What it takes | The half people drop |
|---|---|---|
| Achieved | Evidence of using EACH component of the process | Missing one component entirely — every one needs visible evidence |
| Merit ("with justification") | Link components to the context; support findings with evidence from the work | Asserting a decision instead of explaining WHY, for this context |
| Excellence ("with statistical insight") | Integrate statistical and contextual knowledge THROUGHOUT | Treating it as one closing paragraph rather than woven through every component |
"With statistical insight" often means reflecting on the process itself, or naming another variable/explanation the data cannot rule out.
Practice
Recall it first, then use it — testing yourself builds the memory, where rereading the notes above only feels easier.
Recall and application shuffled together — you have to work out what each item wants before you can answer it, which is the part the exam actually tests. Both kinds feed the same spacing schedule, so anything you miss comes back sooner.
Say the answer out loud before flipping — that attempt is where the learning happens, even when you get it wrong.
Exam-style only. Instant feedback, shuffled each attempt, best score saved on this device.