Review submitted answers alongside the interview evidence. AutoQC can configure checks around your questionnaire and study acceptance rules, giving your QC team specific discrepancies, supporting passages and reasons to accept, reject or review a record.
Discuss your study QCYour fieldwork batch is ready for processing, but checking a few interviews leaves questions unanswered. Did the respondent meet the study criteria? Does the entered answer match what they said? Was a required probe used? Bring those questions into one study-specific review, with the record and question identifiers your team already uses.
Provide entered answers, respondent and question IDs, and the corresponding audio. Include the mapping rules so a finding stays attached to the right submission.
Use the relevant questionnaire version, skip logic, eligibility criteria and instructions for corrections. Define which findings require escalation and who makes the final decision.
A respondent may answer early, clarify a statement later or change an answer after a probe. The review should consider that sequence before marking a mismatch. We scope question matching and correction handling with your team, so a later explanation does not become an artificial discrepancy.
Answer inconsistency, an omitted question and incomplete audio call for different actions. Configure separate findings with the submitted value, spoken evidence and applicable study rule. Missing audio receives an evidence-gap status; it should not silently count as a failed eligibility check or a completed review.
Include leading prompts, omitted questions, required consent wording or agreed probing rules where these matter to your study. Review examples in context: a short recording may support one question-level observation without establishing how the entire interview was conducted.
Agree the record-level recommendation and the findings that support it. Your reviewers can inspect disputed cases and distinguish a correctable entry error from a material study-rule breach. Batch volume, interview duration and expected review workload help define a practical handoff and delivery scope.
| Record / question | Submitted answer | Interview evidence | Review reason |
|---|---|---|---|
| DEMO-R17 / Q4 | Never used category | Later describes use last month | Check corrected response and eligibility rule |
| DEMO-R18 / Q4 | Used last month | Question segment missing | Insufficient audio evidence |
Fictional teaching example, not actual client output. The evaluation will establish the required output structure.
AutoQC offers configured fieldwork evidence review, with record joins, export structure and additional checks agreed for the project. Recommendations support your acceptance process. A discrepancy alone does not establish fabrication, and final rejection remains with your authorized reviewer.
Yes. Scope a comparison of recorded screening answers with supplied eligibility criteria. The criteria must be explicit and supported by the available recording; the review does not authenticate a respondent’s identity.
Describe the study, questionnaire structure and current QC problem. After the initial discussion, agree appropriate sample access and evaluate mappings, exceptions and reviewer decisions before defining the wider batch.
Your survey has recorded open-ended answers, but a folder of text files is not enough for coding or analysis. Each response needs the correct project, respondent and question. Define that linkage at the start so your team can reconcile the export with the survey records and inspect mapping exceptions.
Explore this use case: Survey audio transcriptionA dataset assigned to commuting may contain a suitable question about transport but an answer about food preferences. A single conversation score hides that distinction. Separate the two relationships so reviewers know whether to inspect the prompt, the response or the way the segments were paired.
Explore this use case: Semantic conversation quality controlYour interviews are complete, but the insight is scattered across long conversations. You need to compare experiences, understand why respondents differ and build an argument for the study objectives. Start with the guide and the analysis grid you want to work in, then connect each finding back to the relevant source.
Explore this use case: Qualitative research analysisDiscuss your study rules and the decisions your QC team needs to make. We will agree a representative evaluation and the review output.
Discuss your study QC