This question came up again while I was modelling around 20 questionnaires for a German use case. I wasn’t aware of this thread before, so I had posted a related question here: Long question names from validated instruments.
From what I’ve read so far, it seems like there isn’t a clear consensus yet.
My current (and possibly incomplete) understanding is that the modelling approach should focus less on how an instrument is used in real-world settings, and more on how to storing the resulting data in a structured, semantic way. Some of these instruments can be quite complex, questions and items can be several sentences long, include images, or make formatting suggestions.
Also, some questionnaires or interviews come with a guidance manual that defines the exact questions, context, rules for orders based on previous answers, and even a separate data capture sheet.
It feels like this level of detail can’t really be represented in the element name, or even in an Archetype or Template?
I’m also not sure if it’s a good idea to try and convert a paper-based tool directly, one-to-one, into an archetype and then just use that archetype for data capture. Is there a way to define rules about hiding and showing elements based on previous answers?
I’d really appreciate any advice on how to approach this, especially as we’d like to propose our new archetypes for CKM review in the future. I just want to make sure we’re following best practices and not missing something fundamental around element naming.