Data Validation Feature

What high-level problem are you trying to solve?
Data Validation

Any ideas on how ODK could help you solve it?

I am proposing the incorporation of a Data Validation Survey feature within the ODK platform. The envisioned functionality involves enabling enumerators to submit their survey forms, after which data validators can access random submissions based on predefined criteria. The validators would then review and validate the prefilled form data in the field.

This feature would significantly enhance data quality and accuracy by introducing a systematic validation process. It aligns with the practical needs of projects and organizations that require a mechanism for on-the-spot validation, ensuring real-time accuracy and reliability of collected data.

The proposed Data Validation Survey feature would include:

Submission Assignment Criteria: Enumerators' submissions are randomly assigned to data validators based on specific criteria, ensuring a representative sample for validation.

Prefilled Form Access: Validators can access prefilled forms with data already entered by enumerators, allowing for efficient and focused validation efforts.

Validation Workflow: A streamlined workflow for validators to review and validate form data, with the ability to provide feedback or corrections directly in the field.

Implementing this feature would be a significant step forward in making ODK an even more powerful tool for data collection projects. It addresses the common challenge of data validation and quality control, ultimately enhancing the reliability of survey data.

I invite the ODK community to discuss this proposal, provide feedback, and share insights on potential improvements or additional functionalities that could complement this feature.

Thank you for considering this proposal, and I look forward to a constructive dialogue within the ODK community.

Upload any helpful links, sketches, and videos.

This should also work offline, for remote areas, please.

A problem is that a randomisation for QA should be dynamic here, to follow-up with incoming submissions.

As a workaround, we used a special mandatory QA part in forms, where the supervisor - protected per personal ID and password - has to validate the filled form locally, on the enumerator's device, before it can be send. (An IDK feature to copy the enumerator dataset to a second local mobile Android device could facilitate this QA process).

Randomisation of QA cases on server level could already be done manually, with random numbers based on the _index of the submissions. A simplier option could be a random start point and a following "systematic" sampling, e.g. each 10th submission (based on _index).