Changes between Version 22 and Version 23 of OnyxExportOntology


Ignore:
Timestamp:
01/31/11 10:18:36 (14 years ago)
Author:
jeff.lusted
Comment:

--

Legend:

Unmodified
Added
Removed
Modified
  • OnyxExportOntology

    v22 v23  
    387387Most categories are much more complicated than the above, particularly in a questionnaire stage, where they spawn a lower variable (like tobacco_any.N in the !RiskFactorQuestionnaire where the N is described within the previous tobacco_any variable as a Category). But the above choices (ELECTRONIC and MANUAL) are a bit like stand alone enumerations. At present for categories this simple, the choices are being overlooked and are not collected, which represents a loss of information.[[BR]]
    388388I suggest we collect this type of information by creating a lower level construct. I'm not sure what to call it, but I'm not concerned about the name provided its not misleading. What about <enum>? We can always change our minds later.
     389
     390==== Weakness Two ====
     391It is possible to have a question within a questionnaire stage where the question does not invoke an answer at all, under any circumstances. I've only encountered two of these. This one is from the !ConclusionQuestionnaire:
     392{{{
     393  <variable name="CONCLUSION" valueType="text" entityType="Participant">
     394    <attributes>
     395      <attribute name="stage" valueType="text">ConclusionQuestionnaire</attribute>
     396      <attribute name="questionnaire" valueType="text">ConclusionQuestionnaire</attribute>
     397      <attribute name="section" valueType="text">CHECKLIST</attribute>
     398      <attribute name="page" valueType="text">1</attribute>
     399      <attribute name="questionName" valueType="text">CONCLUSION</attribute>
     400      <attribute name="boilerplate" valueType="boolean">true</attribute>
     401      <attribute name="label" valueType="text" locale="en">This concludes the data collection process for this patient. Please ensure all notes are returned to the Medical Records Department.</attribute>
     402      <attribute name="required" valueType="text">true</attribute>
     403    </attributes>
     404  </variable>
     405}}}
     406Note that this is basically a statement. There is a similar construct within the !VerbalConsentQuestionnaire. They do not seem to require an answer, at least as far as I can see. I suggest we simply drop these. But it raises a good protocol: we need an exception report to highlight unusual cases when producing the intermediate ontologies.