I'm just guessing, but I suggest you change the field name UNIQUE to something else. It is not a good idea to have a field with a name that is the same as one of the EpiData words.
Jamie
On 2013-09-20, at 4:14 AM, epidata-list@lists.umanitoba.ca wrote:
Dear Jan and all Listers,
I am sorry for not providing detailed information earlier.
Well, I am using EpiData 3.1, and extract of the check file is provided at the end.
I wished to do data validation using the Double Entry Verification mode, but when I used an automatically generated unique identifier for the records using three fields(district,school and student) it could not prompt for correction even when there was discordance.
The key-field I selected *to prepare for double entry verification* was '* UNIQUE*'. However, when I selected key-field as '*STUDENT*' there was prompting for discordance. And yet student number alone may not uniquely identify records in the data set.
What is the solution?
DISTRICT COMMENT LEGAL USE label_district MUSTENTER REPEAT TYPE COMMENT END
SCHOOL MUSTENTER REPEAT END
SCHNAME MUSTENTER REPEAT END
STUDENT RANGE 1 100 MUSTENTER AFTER ENTRY UNIQUE=DISTRICT+"-"+SCHOOL+"-"+STUDENT END END
UNIQUE KEY UNIQUE NOENTER TYPE STATUSBAR "DIST-SCH-STD=" GREEN END