Studytrax

Data Entry: When Good Fields Make Bad Forms

We are much better at the data half of data entry than the entry half.

A four-part series on designing better forms by considering where the information comes from, what it takes to turn it into data, and who is doing the work.

A form propped on a desk, built from separate field rows that are each ticked green but bolted, taped, stapled and bandaged together into one cracked and unhappy stack.

We've all been there. A new clinical research project is getting underway, and eventually the conversation turns to data capture.

Someone asks:

“What should we collect, and how is it defined?”

Everyone is ready to chime in. Which variables matter? How should they be defined? What response options do we need? What's required? What values are allowable?

Then someone asks:

“How will we collect it, and what should the forms look like?”

A few nervous stares.

We tend to be much better at the first conversation than the second. We're pretty good at thinking about the data half of data entry. We're not nearly as practiced at thinking about the entry half.

And that matters because getting the fields right doesn't necessarily mean we've designed a good data-entry form.

What does someone have to do to get the right data into the right place?

Where does the information come from? What must happen to turn it into data? Who is doing that work, and what do they bring to it?

Those questions point us toward three things:

SOURCE — Where does the information come from?

TASK — What has to happen to turn it into data?

PERSON — Who is doing the work?

That's where this series starts.

Part 1: Source, task, and person
Part 2: Spatial relationships
Part 3: What changes when the person changes
Part 4: How much work should the person have to do?

Because the question isn't only:

What data should we collect?

That's how good fields can still make bad forms.

It's also:

What work are we asking someone to do to collect it?

4 of 4 parts published

A form propped on a desk, built from separate field rows that are each ticked green but bolted, taped, stapled and bandaged together into one cracked and unhappy stack.
SUMMARYYou are here

Data Entry: When Good Fields Make Bad Forms

We are much better at the data half of data entry than the entry half. A four-part series on designing better forms by considering where the information comes from, what it takes to turn it into data, and who is doing the work.

A stack of Patient Registry forms standing on a desk wearing a blue sweatband that reads DESIGN THE WORK, beside a mug reading Better Data Brighter Insights, a notepad listing plan, design, implement and improve, and books labelled Clinical Trials, Study Operations and Patient Engagement.
PART 1

Shaping Up Data-Entry Forms: Designs That Put In the Work

The source, the task, and the person — a framework for the entry half of data entry.

Two fists side by side, each wearing a pair of googly-eye finger puppets — pink on the left, blue on the right — so the fingers appear to be staring back.
PART 2

Eyes vs. Fingers: The Battle Royale of Data Entry Accuracy

Two forms, the same ten ratings, and a very different amount of work.

A person at a desk in profile, an illustrated brain over their head running a numbered sequence from 1 to 5, with dashed lines crossing over to an on-screen form whose fields appear in a different order: 1, 4, 2, 5, 3.
PART 3

Mental Maps and Data Entry: How Users Shape the Form

Why the same spatial source can need a different form depending on who is entering it.

The same form character on a desk, teeth gritted, pressing a heavy barbell overhead, its own fields ticked green down one side.
PART 4

Data Entry: Making the Form Do the Work

Display the work, support the work, or let the form do part of it.

Designing something like this yourself?

Tell us what you are building and we will show you how it maps onto Studytrax.

Get started