RESEARCH SUPPORT
NVivo Project Setup and Queries
Cases, Attributes and Cross-Case Matrices
NVivo projects organized around cases and their attributes, so that coded material can be compared across participants with matrix queries and every cell can be traced back to the passages behind it, in a form that a supervisor or reviewer can follow.
No Commitment Required
Strictly Confidential
In-House PhD-Level Statisticians
Fixed Project Fee
Same-Day Response
What Is NVivo Project Setup?
NVivo project setup decides whether coded material can later be compared across participants or sites. Each participant becomes a case, described through a classification with attributes such as role, setting or interview date, and the coded passages can then be cross-tabulated against those attributes. NVivo case classifications make that comparison possible, and NVivo matrix coding queries display it as a table of codes by cases or attributes, in which each cell opens onto the underlying passages. OnlineSPSS, a specialist statistical consultancy for academic, clinical and professional research, builds and checks this structure with in-house PhD-level statisticians, and the reading of each participant’s account is the researcher’s own.
WHEN TO ENGAGE
An NVivo Project Built Without Cases
A project with many interviews but no comparison between them usually lacks cases and attributes, and adding them is much easier before the coding is far along.
Sources Not Linked to People Transcripts were imported as sources but participants were never created as cases, so passages cannot be compared between people or traced back to a person's whole account.
Attributes in a Spreadsheet Participant details sit in a spreadsheet that the project cannot see, and importing it as a classification sheet would let queries draw on those details directly.
A Group Comparison Is Due The study asks how experiences differ between groups such as sites or roles, and a matrix of codes by those groups must be built and read with care.
A Summary Needed for Each Case A framework matrix requires a summary for every case and theme, composed from the coded passages and then checked against the full transcripts.
CASES AND COMPARISON
Structuring an NVivo Project for Comparison
Who counts as a case, how attribute values are recorded and which queries are run are decided in that order, because each depends on the one before.
Defining Cases
A case is created for each participant, household or site according to the unit of analysis, and every source about that unit is linked to it.
Case Classifications
A classification such as Person or Organization holds the attributes, and their values, such as role or setting, are entered consistently for every case.
Attribute Values
Attributes receive a defined set of values, with the number of cases per value noted, because a value held by a single case cannot support a comparison.
Thematic Coding
Codes (nodes in earlier versions) are organized as a hierarchy of defined themes, in line with Thematic Analysis, so each theme can be queried by case.
Matrix Coding Queries
A matrix of codes by attributes shows where each theme is coded among groups, and its cells are used to return to passages, not to count support.
Framework Matrices
Summaries by case and theme are built from the coded passages, following Framework Analysis, and checked against the sources.
COMPARISON TRAPS
Cross-Case Comparisons That Mislead
A matrix table looks precise, which makes the errors behind it costly, and most of them trace back to how cases and attributes were set up.
Cell Counts Read as Prevalence A cell with many coding references is read as many participants holding a view, when one talkative participant can account for most of it, so the participants behind each cell are checked.
Attributes Entered Inconsistently Values such as PCP, primary care physician and family doctor create three groups where there is one, and every comparison splits participants wrongly until the values are standardized.
Small Groups Over-Compared A purposive sample with a few participants per group supports description of differences, not a claim that groups differ in the population, and the wording stays within that limit.
Codes Merged Without a Record Merging codes changes what a matrix cell contains, and without notes on the merge, later queries cannot be explained or reproduced by a coauthor.
The Same Passage Coded Twice A passage coded at overlapping codes inflates the references counted under a theme and misleads the comparison between cases, so overlaps are resolved first.
Negative Cases Left Out Participants coded at none of the codes in a matrix row vanish from the comparison, although an absent theme can matter, so empty cells are checked against the transcripts before they are read as silence.
DELIVERABLES
Case Sheets, Code Definitions and Saved Queries
The records document how the structure was built, so that each query result can be explained, repeated and traced to its passages.
Case and Classification Sheet A sheet listing each case, its classification and its attribute values, ready to import and kept consistent with the cases in the project.
Code Hierarchy With Definitions The code structure with a definition for each theme, so that coding and queries mean the same thing to every member of the team.
Saved Query Set The matrix coding and other queries saved in the project, each with a note of its purpose, its settings and the question it answers.
Exported Matrices Matrices exported as tables with the number of cases behind each cell, so a reader sees how many participants support a pattern.
Coding Comparison Record Where the approach uses agreement between coders, the result of a coding comparison query on a sample of sources, with notes on how differences were reconciled.
Case Summary Framework A framework matrix with a summary for each case and theme, linked to its sources and ready for review through Qualitative & Mixed Methods Analysis.
ILLUSTRATIVE EXAMPLE
From Interviews to a Comparison Across Schools
An illustration of how interview transcripts coded without cases become a comparison between two kinds of school.
ILLUSTRATIVE EXAMPLE · SCHOOL LEADERSHIP RESEARCH · UNITED STATES
A researcher at a school of education had interviewed principals in two kinds of school and wanted to compare how they described responding to a funding change, but the transcripts had been coded without cases.
Each principal was created as a case, and a classification recorded school type, region and years in the role, with the values standardized. The complication was in the matrix: one theme showed many coding references in one school type, yet most of them came from two participants. The matrix was therefore reported with the number of participants behind each cell, the passages were read for similarities and differences, and the wording described the interviewees and not schools in general. A framework matrix with a summary for each case supported the reporting of the comparison, and the limits of a purposive sample of principals were documented, so that no claim reached beyond the interviewees.
Outcome: The researcher received the case sheet, the code definitions, the saved queries, exported matrices with participant counts, the framework matrix and a note on how to word the comparison within the limits of the sample.
This example does not describe a real client or project. We never share details of actual client work, in line with the confidentiality we promise every researcher. This illustrative example is included to show the type, scope, and standard of work involved in this kind of analysis.
SOFTWARE
NVivo Beside MAXQDA, ATLAS.ti and IBM SPSS
Comparison across cases works in other qualitative programs too, under different names, and questionnaire scores for the same people usually sit in a statistics package.
HOW WE ASSESS YOUR PROJECT
We Review Your Actual Research
Your assessment is based on a review of your actual research materials and analytical requirements, not a generic project category.
You Submit Your Project Details
Share whatever is available at the current stage, such as the research aim, protocol or proposal, dataset, variable list, manuscript or statistical requirements.
We Review Your Research and Define the Scope
Your statistically trained Research Coordinator reviews the materials to understand the study design, research questions, data structure, analytical requirements and expected deliverables. If clarification is needed, additional documents or information can be requested before the assessment is finalized.
Your Analysis Is Completed and Delivered
Once the scope and fixed project fee are agreed, the in-house statistician completes the work and the Research Coordinator remains the communication point through delivery, with the analysis, deliverables and timeline as agreed.
RESEARCH RESPONSIBILITY
What the Pattern Means Is Your Reading
The judgment about what a pattern across cases means for the people interviewed belongs to the researcher, whatever the matrix displays.
Agreed Statistical Support OnlineSPSS provides the agreed methodological, analytical and statistical reporting support, defined in a scope that is confirmed before any work begins.
No Intellectual Contribution OnlineSPSS does not claim any intellectual contribution to your thesis, article or report. Authorship remains the researcher's.
Your Research Decisions The research question, the choice of comparison groups, the meaning drawn from each account, the discussion and the conclusions remain yours, with overall responsibility.
Confidential Handling Research data and project details are handled confidentially, project information is not published, and an NDA is available where required.
FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS
Questions About Cases, Attributes and Queries in NVivo
Comparing participants in NVivo depends on what counts as a case, how attribute bands are drawn and where automated queries end and summaries composed by the researcher begin.
Which parts of an NVivo project does the setup cover?
NVivo project setup at OnlineSPSS means structuring the project for comparison: cases for each participant or site, a classification with consistent attributes, a defined code hierarchy and the queries that cross-tabulate codes against attributes. Queries are saved with their settings, so each comparison can be run again after further coding.
Should attributes be recorded as categories or as exact values such as age?
For comparison in a matrix, a small set of categories works best, so a numeric detail such as age is usually banded into groups that each hold several cases. The exact value can be kept as a separate attribute for description. Bands are chosen from the research question and not from the matrix results, and a band containing a single case cannot support a comparison.
Is a framework matrix the same as a matrix coding query?
No. A matrix coding query cross-tabulates existing coding automatically. A framework matrix is a grid with a row for each case and a column for each theme, in which the researcher composes a summary of what that participant said. The first locates patterns, and the second supports a structured comparison of cases.
Should every participant be a separate case, even in a small study?
Generally yes, when the participant is the unit of analysis, because cases are what allow comparison and attributes. The case can instead be a household, a ward or a site, if that is the unit the question concerns. The choice is made once, recorded and applied to every source.
How do you protect my research data and confidentiality?
Your data and project details are handled confidentially, and project information is not published. Researcher names and institutions are not used publicly without permission. An NDA is available where required and can be arranged before sensitive materials are shared. Read more about confidentiality and data security.
What happens when I request an assessment, and how long does it take?
You share your research question, design and relevant materials, such as a sample of transcripts, the research questions, the participant attribute sheet and any draft codes, and a statistically trained Research Coordinator reviews the request and responds the same day. The analysis, deliverables, timeline and one fixed project fee are then confirmed before any work begins, so the timeline follows from the agreed scope.
Still have a question? Find more answers in our full FAQ.
NEXT STEP
Make Your Interview Data
Comparable Across Participants
A comparison across participants rests on decisions about cases and attributes that are made once and then shape every query in the project.
No Commitment Required
Strictly Confidential
Fixed Project Fee
In-House PhD-Level Statisticians
Same-Day Response
Serving Researchers Since 2014