Trust layer
Catch questionnaire problems before they become data problems.
Research Guard reviews a questionnaire the way a senior researcher would — understanding the brief, the audience, and the decision the study is meant to serve — then works through the instrument across 42 specific checks and carries every finding through to an approved, revised questionnaire before anything goes to field.
More trust layer pages
More than a checklist
Most questionnaire review tools produce a list of issues. The better ones are AI-powered and cover wording, scale design, order effects, leading language, and screening alignment — real problems that matter. Research Guard does all of that. What makes it different is what happens next.
The review is underpinned by over 20,000 lines of review logic that define exactly how each check is applied. That covers 42 specific checks across 10 areas of questionnaire design, each with a defined weight: some are hard stops that need to be fixed before launch, others are strong recommendations, others are judgment calls where the right answer depends on the study. The output is a prioritised view of what matters most and why — not a flat list of things that look different from a generic norm. Findings can then move into structured follow-up, change packaging, revision, and final QA.
Starts with the strategic picture
Before Research Guard looks at a single question, it starts with the purpose of the study. It asks what the research needs to find out, what decision it is meant to inform, who the audience is, and what is fixed versus what can still change.
That context changes what the review catches. A question can look fine in isolation and still be a problem — measuring something slightly different from what the brief was asking for, asking respondents to evaluate something they have not yet been given enough context to form a view on, or failing to operationalise the intended audience in the screener. Research Guard checks whether the questionnaire as a whole will actually answer the business question it was designed for, not just whether each individual question is well-formed.
From there, the review is a conversation rather than a report delivered at the end. Research Guard works through the questionnaire collaboratively — surfacing issues, explaining the trade-offs, and asking the researcher to make the calls that only the researcher can make. The output is a properly reviewed and formatted questionnaire document, ready to share with stakeholders, scripting teams, or clients.
What you get when something needs attention
When a check raises a concern, Research Guard does not just flag it. The finding explains what the problem is, why it matters for this particular study, and what effect it is likely to have on the data if it goes into the field as-is. Where a better version is straightforward, the review shows what it could look like. Where the trade-offs are more complicated — for example, a change that would improve accuracy but break a tracker — those trade-offs are named explicitly so the researcher can decide.
A flag without context creates more work, not less. The goal is to give the researcher enough to make the right call quickly.
Ten areas, 42 checks
The checks span every area where questionnaires typically go wrong:
- Strategic alignment — does the questionnaire actually answer the business question it was designed for?
- Question wording — can every respondent understand and answer each question the same way?
- Bias and leading language — is anything nudging respondents toward a particular answer?
- Response options — do the choices allow respondents to give an honest answer?
- Scale design — are scales balanced, clearly anchored, and appropriate for what they are measuring?
- Question order — does the sequence avoid earlier questions influencing answers to later ones?
- Routing and logic — is it clear who answers each question and where they go next?
- Respondent burden — is the length and effort appropriate for the information being gathered?
- Sensitivity and ethics — are participants given the context and opt-outs they need?
- Launch readiness — is there enough in place to trust the study is ready to go to field?
The system flags. The researcher decides.
Research Guard does not rewrite the study on the researcher’s behalf. Issues that are hard stops — ethics, consent, questions that cannot be measured as written — are always surfaced and cannot be quietly set aside. Everything else is a recommendation the researcher reviews and approves. When a tracker question is in use and changing it would break comparability, the system says so rather than overriding the researcher’s existing convention.
The right call on any given issue depends on the study. Research Guard’s job is to make sure the researcher sees it and makes that call — not to make it for them.
Next step
See what 42 checks catch in your next questionnaire.
Book a demo and we will run Research Guard on a real survey so you can see what it surfaces before fieldwork starts.