Two piles of questionnaires that do not line up
Your wellbeing programme asks each participant to fill in a short questionnaire at the first session and again at the last. Some do it on paper, some on an online form. The paper ones have first names only, or initials. The online ones have an email address that may or may not be the one on your register.
At the end of the year, the project lead tries to match them. Half of the start questionnaires have no matching end one, because people left early or because the last session was chaotic. Of the rest, some matches are guesses. The funder report says average scores went up, but nobody is comfortable explaining how the pairs were formed.
Why before and after data falls apart
Outcome measurement is added to programmes as a separate step, rather than built into the support record.
- Questionnaires are not linked to a person's record at the time they are completed.
- The end questionnaire is given at the last session, which people who leave early never reach.
- Paper and online versions differ slightly, so answers cannot be combined cleanly.
- Nobody tracks who is due a follow-up survey.
- Scoring is done by hand in a spreadsheet, with formulas that drift.
The central issue is that the person, not the questionnaire, should be the unit of measurement.
What unmatched surveys cost
Funders want evidence of change, and averages of unmatched groups are weak evidence. A good programme can look ordinary when the data cannot show what happened to individuals.
Participants are asked to complete forms whose answers are never used, which is disrespectful of their time. Staff spend hours matching and scoring. And the charity misses what the data could tell it: who benefits most, who leaves early, and why.
How we build linked outcome surveys
- The questionnaire, including any standard measure you use under its own terms, is set up once in paper and online versions that map to the same fields.
- Each participant's questionnaires are linked to their support record by a personal link or a code printed on their paper form, not by name matching.
- The start questionnaire is prompted at enrolment, and the follow-up is scheduled by date or session count, not left to the last session.
- People who leave early are sent the follow-up by text or email, if they agreed to be contacted, so their outcome is not lost.
- Paper responses are scanned and read into the same fields, and a person confirms them.
- Scores are calculated consistently from the rules of the measure, not in hand-built formulas.
- Reports show change for people with both responses, with the numbers who completed only one shown alongside, so nothing is hidden.
| Report line | What it shows |
|---|---|
| Completed both surveys | Change in score for these people |
| Completed start only | Count, and when they left the programme |
| Follow-up sent after leaving | Response count for early leavers |
| By group or site | Change compared across programmes |
How you interpret results, and what you claim to funders, is your decision. The system makes sure the pairs are real and the reporting is transparent.
An evaluation cycle afterwards
When someone joins the programme, their start questionnaire is linked to them straight away. Their follow-up date is already scheduled. If they stop attending, the follow-up still goes to them. At the end of the year, the project lead opens a report built from proper pairs, with the incomplete ones clearly counted.
The funder report can state plainly how many people completed both surveys and what changed for them.
Is this how your surveys work?
- Before and after questionnaires are matched by hand or by guesswork.
- Most people who leave early never complete a follow-up.
- Paper and online versions of the survey do not quite match.
- Scores are calculated in spreadsheets with fragile formulas.
- You are uneasy explaining your outcome figures to a funder.