What does the measure represent?
Definitions, supporting evidence and exclusions are settled around the research question. Agreement alone does not establish construct validity.
Services
Research measurement
and analysis.
We help funded research teams and specialist research firms develop measures from text, interviews, images and recorded behaviour. Each engagement connects a defined research question with a coding framework, validation evidence and an agreed analytical output.
Discuss your studyConsumer behaviour · Service experience · Technology adoption
Researcher-led design. AI-assisted execution. Documented validation.
Three service areas
Choose the contribution
your study needs.
We take responsibility for a defined measurement and analysis work package, working alongside your research team.
01Text & Interview
Visual & Social
Behavioural Measurement
Text & Interview
Measurement
Develop measures from written responses and spoken accounts. Define the concepts, assess the coding framework and connect the measures with other study data where structured comparison or mixed-methods analysis is required.
Survey responses · Reviews · Interviews · Focus groups
Explore the scope 02Visual & Social
Content Measurement
Build study-specific measures of what images, captions, speech and video content communicate. Examine how the presentation of products, brands or experiences relates to engagement, ratings or other available outcomes.
Social posts · Review images · Advertising · Retail displays
Explore the scope 03Behavioural Measurement
from Video
Develop timestamped measures from recorded tasks and interactions. Define events, assess coding consistency and analyse actions, sequences and outcomes, with observed behaviour distinguished from interpretations of motive.
Task recordings · Service encounters · Field observations
Explore the scopeText and interview measurement is our primary starting point. Visual, audio and behavioural-video work begins with representative material and a feasibility review.
Explore the scope
The question sets
the measurement task.
Open a service to watch its explainer, or select a card above to go straight to the relevant video.
01Text & Interview MeasurementWatch the service explainer · 58 seconds
02Visual & Social Content MeasurementWatch the service explainer · 57 seconds
03Behavioural Measurement from VideoWatch the service explainer · 60 seconds
Across all three areas / Validation & Inference
Validation built
into the study.
We specify what each measure represents, assess coding against an appropriate human reference and document where uncertainty remains.
When coded measures enter further analysis, the scope can include sensitivity checks and methods that account for coding error where the design supports them.
Explore our methodWhat do the checks show?
Human-to-human consistency and model-to-human performance are assessed separately. Disagreements, errors and sample limits remain visible.
What can the measure support?
Validation can lead to revision or restricted use. Any method for downstream coding error requires a suitable design, reference data and an implementation assessed for the study.
What your team receives
A research output
you can inspect and use.
Each engagement has a defined handover. Deliverables, client contributions and review rounds are specified before work begins.
Agreed measure definitions
A measurement framework, units of analysis and coding rules, with examples and exclusions.
Source-linked data
An agreed dataset and data dictionary, with source identifiers or timestamped evidence as appropriate.
Validation results
Reference checks, disagreements, error analysis and the conclusions they support about use of the measures.
Reproducible analysis materials
Agreed analyses, code or processing records, plus methods documentation and a clear statement of limits.
Illustrative worked example / Text measurement
The distinction
changes the measure.
Question → measurement decision → research output. Purpose-written responses and manually authored coding; no client findings or model-performance results.
THE RESEARCH QUESTION
Which payment concerns are described—and how do they relate to resistance to online purchasing?
A broad draft rule treats any mention of a dealer’s flexible payment terms as an online payment disadvantage. These responses show why that definition needs narrowing.
- Incumbent payment flexibility
- The respondent describes a valued existing arrangement.
- Reported alternative disadvantage
- The respondent explicitly reports less favourable alternative terms.
- Uncertain alternative terms
- The respondent expresses uncertainty about what the alternative offers.
How a study would validate this
For a full study, trained human coders would apply the definitions independently, identify supporting words and resolve disagreements with a recorded rationale. A separate reference sample would assess whether the settled coding approach preserves these distinctions.
The study would report human consistency and model-to-human performance separately. Rare or ambiguous cases could require revised rules or restrictions on use. This is a proposed validation design; it has not been carried out on this website example.
What the resulting measures could support
Separate reported disadvantage from unknown terms and from equivalent terms. With study-specific validation, the variables could support comparisons with adoption responses.
The responses describe participants’ accounts. They do not verify sellers’ actual policies or establish that payment concerns caused resistance. Silence about terms needs its own coding rule; it cannot automatically become “no barrier.”
R-001 / PURPOSE-WRITTEN RESPONSEUncertainty
“My dealer lets me pay after harvest, which helps my cash flow. I’m not sure an online seller would offer that.”
Broad draft rule Online payment disadvantage
Source-supported decision Existing flexibility valued; alternative terms uncertain.
“I’m not sure” does not establish that the alternative lacks flexible terms.
R-002 / PURPOSE-WRITTEN RESPONSEReported difference
“Unlike my dealer, the online seller requires payment when I order, which doesn’t work for my cash flow.”
Source-supported decision Alternative payment disadvantage explicitly reported.
The code records the respondent’s report, rather than an independently verified seller policy.
R-003 / PURPOSE-WRITTEN RESPONSEReported equivalence
“My dealer and the online seller both let me pay after harvest.”
Source-supported decision Equivalent payment terms reported; no payment difference stated.
Valuing an existing arrangement does not by itself demonstrate an alternative disadvantage.
ILLUSTRATIVE HANDOVER STRUCTURE
Response identifier · Construct codes · Supporting excerpt · Decision rationale
A real engagement adds study-specific validation results and the analysis decisions those results support.How the work progresses
Four stages.
Agreed review points.
Feasibility, validation responsibilities and the analytical output are agreed with your team.
Define
Agree the question, constructs, units of analysis and work package.
Pilot
Test representative material and resolve measurement ambiguities.
Validate
Assess the settled method against an appropriate human reference.
Analyse & deliver
Complete the agreed analysis and explain the handover and its limits.
Project-based engagements, scoped to the study
A clear agreement
before work begins.
Start with the research question, material, intended analysis and deadline. We review the requirements and propose a defined scope, fee and delivery schedule.
Send a project description in your first enquiry. Research files follow an agreed sharing route.
Discuss your studyHow are fees and timing set?
A written proposal follows a review of the study, source material, preparation, validation and analysis requirements. It specifies deliverables, client contributions, review rounds, fee and schedule. Scope changes are agreed before additional work begins.
What does my team need to provide?
The research question, intended analysis, material type and approximate volume, relevant permissions or ethics requirements, deadline and purchasing route. Source access, preparation and human-reference responsibilities are agreed in the scope.
Can you review our existing coding?
Yes. Reviewing an existing codebook, labels or validation approach can form a defined work package within the relevant service area. The scope specifies the sample, review questions and whether recoding or further analysis is included.
Can our team provide the human coders?
Yes, where appropriate. Responsibilities, training, independence and reference-sample design are agreed before work starts. Human-to-human coding consistency and model-to-human performance are assessed separately.
How are data access and ownership handled?
Access, permitted processing, retention and ownership are set out in the project agreement. Institutional requirements are considered before files are shared. Client data and deliverables are not reused for other projects.
What requires a separate scope?
Data collection, participant recruitment, full manuscript writing, additional analyses or languages, and changes to the research question or source material require a separate agreement. Visual, audio and behavioural-video feasibility is assessed before inclusion.
Can you work alongside a research firm?
Yes. Avestara can take responsibility for a defined measurement and analysis work package as a specialist partner. Responsibilities, client contact and handover are agreed before the project begins.
Start with your research question
Tell us what your study
needs to establish.
Share the question, the material, the intended analysis and the deadline.
We’ll assess the requirements and propose a defined scope.