View Issue Details
ID | Project | Category | View Status | Date Submitted | Last Update |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
07400 | Feature requests | Conditions | public | 2010-03-26 15:53 | 2021-11-10 11:46 |
Reporter | Matherion | Assigned To | galads | ||
Priority | normal | Severity | feature | ||
Status | closed | Resolution | fixed | ||
Summary | 07400: Randomly assigning users to a group (i.e. for experiments) | ||||
Description | For 'us psychologists' (researchers) it is often necessary to randomise participants over 'conditions' (in the research sense, not in the LimeSurvey sense). For example, we may want to present 50% with group 3 and 50% with group 4. To make matters a bit more, eh, challenging, it can sometimes be useful to make this randomisation dependent on earlier answers (i.e., only randomise participants with a certain profile; present all others with group 5), or to randomise different proportions of participants to different groups (i.e. 60% to group 3, 20% to group 4, 10% to group 5, and 10% to group 6). So I thought it would be pretty cool if that could be implemented :-) | ||||
Additional Information | A possible solution: Create group combinations with rules determining which group is presented | ||||
Tags | No tags attached. | ||||
Bug heat | 8 | ||||
Story point estimate | |||||
Users affected % | |||||
PS: I will gladly help developing this, but my PHP/MySQL skills are pretty basic (see e.g. http://bugs.limesurvey.org/view.php?id=4247). I know how to get stuff from MySQL databases, but that's about it (I can specify which users' data I want, for example, but that's the limit of my skills I'm afraid). But if there's anything I can do, please let me know! |
|
Alternative solution: Hidden question |
|
I believe I have a working solution this feature request |
|
Dear Matherion , Thank you for suggesting a feature. However, we will not be picking this up because the use case is too specific or the use case might not fit to the latest versions of LimeSurvey. Other reasons why the feature is dropped could also be, it has been implemented already. Please check on the latest versions and if the issue still exists, feel free to re-open the report. kind regards, |
|