Group B must be after group A
Group A position must be randomized (at position 1, 2, 3 etc ...)

I understand - I would put the contents of group B in group A and initially hide the group B stuff.

tpartner wrote:

Group B must be after group A
Group A position must be randomized (at position 1, 2, 3 etc ...)

I understand - I would put the contents of group B in group A and initially hide the group B stuff.

Yes , it's the solution of 1st line, not for 2nd

1.Group B must be after group A ! Javascript solution to "cut" a group visually
2. Group A position must be randomized (at position 1, 2, 3 etc ...) : ?

For 2 : maybe create
- add befor all ShowGroupA equation with {if(is_empty(self.NAOK),rand(1,4),self.NAOK)} -(unsure it work like that, didn' remnd)
- AB1 at position 1 with condition ShowGroupA ==1
- AB2 at position 2 with condition ShowGroupA ==2
- AB3 at position 3 with condition ShowGroupA =
- AB4 at position 4 with condition ShowGroupA ==4

etc ...

Finally :! make a plugin (in 4.X) can be more easy ...

That is how I made it at the end. Looking forward to using V4.0 soon to hopefully to this fast and easy

I don't see the need for a plugin. I thought all groups are randomized - "My question groups need to occur randomly, so I assigned them to "randomization groups", and this works fine.".

They all should be randomized up to B. Question group B should always follow question group A. The bundle AB however should be randomly occur. As your comment above - hiding B in A - is one option, but not ideal. It would be much better for us to have a separate page for B hence I created a separate question group for B and tried to let it follow A. Being able to do exactly this is what I mean by a nice plugin for V4.0.

DenisChenu wrote:

holch wrote: If we would have a real "page" concept besides the "group" concept, this would be easy peasy. But we don't. And from the opinion in some of my feature requests we probably will never get a real "page" concept.

You can not say be easy ...

It can be done in plugin on LimeSurvey 4, but still not easy.

I am not saying that implementing a page concept into Limesurvey would be easy.

I am no developer and thus I am in no position to reliably estimate the effort it would take to implement a page concept in addition to the group concept that we already have. Due to the complexity of Limesurvey, I would guess that it would have many touch points in different functionalities in Limesurvey and is probably quite some work.

What I am saying is, that IF WE WOULD HAVE a page concept, besides the group concept, it would be easy to do what OP wants to do. Not more, not less. Or call it something like "visual question groups" (pages) and "logical question groups" (current question groups). In some projects these might be actually the same, but sometimes, like here, you need to group questions logically, but you want to separate them visually (different pages).

Hi,
as it is frequently recommended "In a good questionnaire there is one question per page", you obviously may merge the two groups.
I really don't know why the developers of LimeSurvey decided to set "group by group" as the default setting.

And as long as there is no flexible "group concept", like a question type "group" that may contain several other "questions", as you see here in a commercial survey tool, it is difficult.

You see there are normal questions like "NumSlider", "SimpleMulti", but then there is a group that contains two questions, which you may display horizontally or vertically.
But you also see, that this commercial tool shows question by question by default, what is the natural way to answer a questionnaire.

I personally don't like to scroll down, I don't like to scroll up again, because I missed one answer option in an array at the top of the page, then down again.
And of course, you may get a bias, if people see which question will follow and - if there are filters - see the results of their choices. I mean, if I see that I later have to answer questions to each object I selected in a multiple question, the number of answers will decrease.

Just to consider.

Joffm

holch wrote: What I am saying is, that IF WE WOULD HAVE a page concept, besides the group concept, it would be easy to do what OP wants to do. Not more, not less.

But here : it's not simple like you say/write.

OP want something really specific

Position of a group at a randome position followed by another group.

Have a group + page concept give some facility, but even with page + group + randomization group : we don't have an easy solution ....

Hey Joffm,

Thank you for your contribution. But I have my reasons for the study setup.

Actually, the way you order your questions depends on the research you do. In my case, the mentioned bias is desired. I investigate cognitive biases in energy-related consumer behaviour, e.g. the study design hides effects in follow-up tasks for control and treatment groups.

OP want something really specific

Position of a group at a randome position followed by another group.

Have a group + page concept give some facility, but even with page + group + randomization group : we don't have an easy solution ....

I don't see a problem here. I would put A and B into the same logical group, but separate them onto two pages. When I randomize the logical groups, they are always together, because they are in ONE logical group. Problem solved. Or am I missing something?

From what I understand, having a page concept AND a group concept in parallel would be perfect for these kind of cases.

I don't see a problem here. I would put A and B into the same logical group, but separate them onto two pages. When I randomize the logical groups, they are always together, because they are in ONE logical group. Problem solved. Or am I missing something?

Can you specify what you mean by a "logical group"?

Sorry rakittam, I am discussing with Denis a theoretical concept that I had suggested to be implemented into LS a while ago. IT IS NOT IMPLEMENTED, so it is no solution for you. This is a "theoretical no problem" if we would have the page concept in addition to the question group concept implemented, not a "real life" "no problem".

Currently we have "question groups" as a concept. They can either be used as a visual group (== page) or as a logical group (questions that belong together logically, but not necessarily visual - on the same page).

My proposal was something like this: