Overview
Survlytics supports researcher-defined codebooks, whole-response or passage coding, multiple codes per response, categories/themes, quotations, memos, revisions and an auditable assignment history.
Theoretical foundation
Codes are analytic labels applied to relevant evidence. Themes are interpretive patterns developed from reviewed codes and source material; they are not synonyms for frequent words or automated clusters.
Algorithm and computation
Assignments store the code revision, coder, optional passage offsets/text and note. Revocation is preserved as an event rather than destructive deletion. Code frequency reports both assignment counts and distinct-response counts. Theme frequency counts distinct responses assigned at least one code in the theme. Co-occurrence counts distinct responses containing each unordered code pair; multi-label percentages need not sum to 100%.
Required data
A researcher-confirmed open-ended question, private indexed responses and an explicit codebook.
Assumptions
Interpretive adequacy depends on the research question, context, reflexivity and documented researcher decisions.
Available settings
Whole response or passage offsets; multiple coding; code definitions, inclusion/exclusion notes, memos, colour and revision notes; theme status and code membership.
Worked example
Synthetic comments about service clarity receive one or more researcher-defined codes. A theme count is the number of distinct comments with any member code, not the number of assignments.
Limitations and non-claims
Term frequencies, similarity and contradiction suggestions are descriptive aids and do not constitute thematic analysis. AI suggestions are not automatically applied or published.
Validation notes
Assignment ownership, passage validation, revisions, revocation, distinct-response counts and co-occurrence calculations are tested.
How Surv.lytics computes Qualitative coding
{}References and verification status
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
Unverified draftOpen DOI
Was this article helpful?
Your response helps the methodology team improve this documentation.