Hi Nathalie, I think you should not wait for that. Anyway you will need to enter the data completely the second time.
Vladimir Prikazsky
On 29 May 2013, at 19:47, epidata-list@lists.umanitoba.ca wrote:
Thank you! When can I expect to be able to compare values in second file with what was already entered in the first file directly at entry? Is there an older version that allows this?
Best, Natalie
On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 10:00 AM, epidata-list-request@lists.umanitoba.cawrote:
Send EpiData-list mailing list submissions to epidata-list@lists.umanitoba.ca
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit http://lists.umanitoba.ca/mailman/listinfo/epidata-list or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to epidata-list-request@lists.umanitoba.ca
You can reach the person managing the list at epidata-list-owner@lists.umanitoba.ca
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of EpiData-list digest..."
EpiData-list mailing list ___________________________________
Today's Topics:
- Issue with double entry verification (epidata-list@lists.umanitoba.ca)
- Re: Issue with double entry verification (epidata-list@lists.umanitoba.ca)
- Aspects of function in updated public release of Manager and EntryClient (epidata-list@lists.umanitoba.ca)
Message: 1 Date: Tue, 28 May 2013 20:47:44 -0700 From: epidata-list@lists.umanitoba.ca Subject: [EpiData-list] Issue with double entry verification To: epidata-list@lists.umanitoba.ca Message-ID: < CAON-6PbqL-Rb_x3Nd2tBhf-hrP1v7T6c8Ju8RBKXrWR8wEmMdw@mail.gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Hello,
I am having an issue with double entry verification. I am using v1.4 on a 64 bit Windows 7 PC. I am able to create a double file, but I am missing any options like the manual indicates:
*"*Options can be changed now: choose if textfields are to be ignore during double entry (only data in numeric fields will be compared with original data).
Choose if records are to be compare by recordnumber or by a keyfield. If the option "Match records by field" is unchecked, then records are compared by recordnumber. If the option is checked, the user will be asked to point out which data field should act as the keyfield. The keyfield must contain unique data, i.e. a ID-number.
Click OK and read the message stating that double entry varification is now prepared."
It simply only creates the double data file. I am also not able to get into any sort of double entry mode in the epidata entry program.
Is this a bug or am I not using it correctly? Thanks very much.
-- Natalie Sadler Doctoral Student Human Development Graduate Group University of California, Davis nsadler@ucdavis.edu natalie.sadler@gmail.com
Message: 2 Date: Wed, 29 May 2013 09:12:41 +0200 From: epidata-list@lists.umanitoba.ca Subject: Re: [EpiData-list] Issue with double entry verification To: epidata-list@lists.umanitoba.ca Message-ID: 51A5AA69.1050200@epidata.dk Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Hi.
The double entry verification is a two-step process, which works by first creating a duplicate of the the original project, but without data. This is done with the "Prepare Double Entry"feature.
Then you re-enter data into the second file, often namedlike <filename>.double.epx.
The last step is using the documentation feature "Validate Duplicate Files" to compare the two files. It is within this feature that you find your requested options, such as: comparing using key fields, ignore text fields, etc.
I hope this helps.
Regards, Torsten Bonde Christiansen. EpiData Association.
On 2013-05-29 05:47, epidata-list@lists.umanitoba.ca wrote:
Hello,
I am having an issue with double entry verification. I am using v1.4 on a 64 bit Windows 7 PC. I am able to create a double file, but I am missing any options like the manual indicates:
*"*Options can be changed now: choose if textfields are to be ignore
during
double entry (only data in numeric fields will be compared with original data).
Choose if records are to be compare by recordnumber or by a keyfield. If the option "Match records by field" is unchecked, then records are
compared
by recordnumber. If the option is checked, the user will be asked to
point
out which data field should act as the keyfield. The keyfield must
contain
unique data, i.e. a ID-number.
Click OK and read the message stating that double entry varification is
now
prepared."
It simply only creates the double data file. I am also not able to get
into
any sort of double entry mode in the epidata entry program.
Is this a bug or am I not using it correctly? Thanks very much.
Message: 3 Date: Wed, 29 May 2013 09:55:54 +0200 From: epidata-list@lists.umanitoba.ca Subject: [EpiData-list] Aspects of function in updated public release of Manager and EntryClient To: epidata-list@lists.umanitoba.ca Message-ID: 51A5B48A.6070202@epidata.dk Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Regarding the new versions 1.4 of Manager and EntryClient.
Many changes have been implemented since first public release last year:
Common:
- Encrypted data in project files
- Expanded headings to support 5 sizes/types.
- Added printing of dataform
- Key Fields (Unique keys) - including display of status of key at
record level
Entry:
- Implemented a "Copy Record to Clipboard" function, with variable
format string.
Manager:
- New improved drag/drop implementation (multiselect, copy/paste,
alignment)
- Double Entry Preparation/Validation
- Improved Study Information form.
- New improved export form, with more export formats. (SPSS, SAS, CSV,
DTA, DDI)
- Expanded process toolbar
Obviously this is a remarked update and despite efforts to find and fix problems in the testing uploads some issues have arisen in latest days:
1 Double entry a In EpiData Entry (old software):
- two different double entry modes are implemented:
- Compare values in second file with what was already entered in first
file directly at entry 2. Compare two individually entered files
In EpiData Manager (New software):
- Only type two is implemented at this point. Therefore you must (as
explained by T.Christiansen just before this mail) first enter data in one file, then independently in the second. Following that compare the two.
b Validation has been extended with a new option such that a new field can be added at record level (each observation) with the result of the validation. When this field is added it makes sense to write a new file, e.g. bromar.1.doubleentry-verification.epx. You can then read that file into analysis and see which records are not validated. The values for the created variable are: 0 = Validated 1 = Record does not exist in duplicate file 2 = Failed due to different text 3 = Failed due to different values 4 = Duplicate key exists
But currently in v1.4.0.0 the file is always created following validation, and there can be a problem with the creation. This will be changed, such that only when the user indicates addition of the field the new file will be written and obviously also with the correct value.
2 Aspects in relation to export: a. Export to SPSS or SAS: the user is not informed of writing the csv file b. Export to DDI: the created xml is not correct in certain situations.
Exported DDI meta data must validate correctly against the DDI-Alliance standard v3.1. - with an external tool such as documented on http://www.ddialliance.org/node/855 - The validator is found on http://snd.gu.se/ddi/validator
3 A few other aspects, such as default naming of valuelabel sets, term for dataforms in reports and missing mentioning of cycle number
The problems mentioned (1b, 2 and 3) will be fixed and a new public update will be available later this week.
Regarding cycle number this is a new feature which the end user is not changing. Every time the project file is saved and there has been a change in either study information, structure or value label sets (metadata) or entered/edited observations/records the file will be saved with a new "cycle number". On export this is part of the name of the file. e.g. /home/jens/data/bromar_new.5.dta
We will gradually implement usage of the cycle number in documentation and verification of data in relation to in particular the implementation of Good Clinical Practice guideline demands of verification. The notion of a cycle comes from the DDI-alliance data-life cycle concept. You can read more about that on: http://www.ddialliance.org/ddi-at-work
regards Jens Lauritsen Epidata Association
EpiData-list@lists.umanitoba.ca http://lists.umanitoba.ca/mailman/listinfo/epidata-list
End of EpiData-list Digest, Vol 115, Issue 9
-- Natalie Sadler Doctoral Student Human Development Graduate Group University of California, Davis nsadler@ucdavis.edu natalie.sadler@gmail.com _______________________________________________ EpiData-list mailing list EpiData-list@lists.umanitoba.ca http://lists.umanitoba.ca/mailman/listinfo/epidata-list