I noticed some differences between EpiData 3.0 and 3.1 and a possible bug in version 3.1:

1) If I use the check command TYE STATUSBAR "CaseNum = " the value of the field (here: casenum) is only shown in the statusbar if the focus is on the field. If I move to other fields, the value is not visible anymore. This occurs in version 3.1 but not in 3.0. This seems to be an error of version 3.1.

2) Version 3.0 and 3.1 differ in the way they display values defined by RANGE, MISSINGVALUE, and/or COMMAND LEGAL (field).

For example, I have a multiple response question and the first question is a filter (if checked, the following multiple response questions do not apply). Or there is no filter variable but I want that the coder first has to decide whether any of the multiple response questions are checked (this is what I use in the following example). If not, I want that all values are set to missing (9 - no answer) and the focus should be set to the next block of questions. On the other hand, if there is at least one answer checked, the focus should move to the first of the multiple response questions and the user has to enter one of the folling values: 0 (no checked), 1 (checked), or 7 (ambiguous answer). When all data are entered, I want that the value labels are defined as follows (because I want that the SPSS syntax attaches value labels to missing values, as well; 8 is necesseary because the whole block of questions may not be applicable):

* --------------------------------------- LABEL notice 0 "somebody found out" 1 "nobody found out" 7 "ambiguous answer" 8 "not applicable" 9 "no answer" END * ---------------------------------------

However, to help the coder I want that while entering the data he/she does not see these labels but the following:

----------------------------------------- 0 - (not checked) 1 - no 7 - (ambiguous answer) -----------------------------------------

With EpiData version 3.0 this is possible if I use the following check commands:

* ======================================= beerdt MISSINGVALUE 9 8 7 * <- (1) BEFORE ENTRY HELP "MULTIPLE RESPONSE QUESTION\n\nQuestion 46.6: Anything checked? (y/n)" KEYS="YN" IF (RESULTVALUE=2) THEN beerdt=9 beerdtpa=9 beerdtpo=9 beerdtte=9 beerdtse=9 GOTO beerpun ENDIF COMMENT LEGAL SHOW * <- (2) 0 "(not checked)" 1 no 7 "(ambiguous answer)" END END COMMENT LEGAL USE notice * <- (3) MUSTENTER TYPE COMMENT RED JUMPS 1 beerpun 9 beerpun END AFTER ENTRY IF (beerdt=0) THEN clear beerdtpa clear beerdtpo clear beerdtte clear beerdtse ENDIF IF (beerdt=1) THEN beerdtpa=0 beerdtpo=0 beerdtte=0 beerdtse=0 ENDIF IF (beerdt = 7) THEN WRITENOTE "ambiguous answer" ENDIF IF (beerdt=9) THEN beerdtpa=9 beerdtpo=9 beerdtte=9 beerdtse=9 ENDIF END END * =======================================

However, with EpiData 3.1, I cannot use "MISSINGVALUE 9 8 7" (see: * <- (1)) _and_ "COMMAND LEGAL SHOW" (see: * <- (2)) or "COMMAND LEGAL notice" (see: * <- (3)) simultaneously. If I use (1) and (2), the user sees:

---------------------- 0 - (not checked) 1 - no 7 - (ambiguous answer) 9 - missing 8 - missing 7 - missing ----------------------

and is able to enter 9 (which should not be used) or 8 (which would be wrong). If I only use (2), the value (9) or (8) cannot be set by the "BEFORE ENTRY .. END" command or by an IF .. THEN condition in another field. To use (3) would also be no solution to this problem. Thus, only version 3.0 seems to allow a solution to this problem.

My main question is:

Are there any reasons why I should prefer version 3.1 to version 3.0? Or which check commands do I need to solve the problem in version 3.1?

With respect to the missing values it would be extemely helpful if EpiData could create SPSS syntax that defines missing values according to the definitions in the EpiData check file. However, if (like in version 3.1) I cannot use MISSINGVALUE and "COMMAND LEGAL labelname" (because I want to label the missing values and to show the coder the meaning of the values entered) simultaneously , there are no missing value definitions that EpiData could use to create the SPSS syntax file.

I think that there are two solutions to this problem:

(1) If MISSINGVALUE and "COMMAND LEGAL labelname" are used simultaneously, in displaying the legal values the values defined in the LABEL block get priority (and values MISSINGVALUE are not duplicated in the display). This would solve the problem described above, as well.

(2) Alternatively, if the MISSINGVALUE is commented out EpiData uses only the values defined by RANGE or COMMAND LEGAL, but uses the values defined by the MISSINGVALUE command that is preceded by "*" for creating the missing value definition in the SPSS syntax. For example:

* ---------------------------------------- LABELBLOCK LABEL variable 1 no 2 yes 8 "not applicable" 9 "no answer" END END

variable COMMENT LEGAL variable * MISSINGVALUE 9 8 END * ----------------------------------------

would create the following SPSS syntax:

* ---------------------------------------- VALUE LABELS variable (1) 'no' (2) 'yes' (8) 'not applicable' (9) 'no answer'. MISSING VALUES variable (9,8). * ----------------------------------------

Regards, Dirk

************************************************* Dr. Dirk Enzmann Institute of Criminal Sciences Dept. of Criminology Edmund-Siemers-Allee 1 D-20146 Hamburg Germany

phone: +49-040-42838.7498 (office) +49-040-42838.4591 (Billon) fax: +49-040-42838.2344 email: dirk.enzmann@jura.uni-hamburg.de www: http://www2.jura.uni-hamburg.de/instkrim/kriminologie/Mitarbeiter/Enzmann/En... *************************************************