Meeting Notes 21.11.2024

RM-Type:

• Agreed to recommend DV_SCALE from now on when modeling PROMs. Remodeling existing DV_Ordinal models is not necessary and not feasible

• Explain Exceptions (like DV_CODED_TEXT, etc) To Do

• Create a (complex) Demo-Archetype to show the different recommendations in effect To Do

Label:

• Majority of participants favor using the “full text question” as the label Further discussion needed

• Pro:

  • this would create less confusion when implementing since there is no need for a “short form” that itself would be an interpretation of the question

  • it will not appear as if a new content “short form question” is added to the model hence likelyhood for discussion with IP-Holders is lower

  • Low code tools like better do render the data-field but currently don’t render the comment-field.

• Con:  FLAT paths are messy, more input might be needed by implementers To Do

• Still up for discussion: Handling numerations. To Do

Description:  

• Agreed: in case we ultimately recommend the usage of full text-questions in the label field the description-field should be left empty

Clusters for superordinate and subordinate questions:  

• Agreed: that clusters should be used

• Anything to add, since we did not have much time left?