Can your provide the data scenario which is causing what you believe to be a false positive error ? This rule doesn’t actually inspect AVAL or AVALC. it would only inspect PARAM and AVALCATy
The ADaM 1.0 IG states the following.
A categorical representation of AVAL and/or AVALC. Not necessarily a one-to-one mapping to AVAL and/or AVALC. For example, if PARAM is “Headache Severity” and AVAL has values 0, 1, 2, or 3, AVALCAT1 can categorize AVAL into “None or Mild” (for AVAL 1 or 2) and “Moderate or Severe” (for AVAL 3 or 4)
AD0221 OC rule: All *CATy values must be the same for each unique value of the variable it categorizes within a PARAMCD. e.g. AVALCATy to AVAL, BASECATy to BASE.
ADaM check rule no 222: BASECATy must have the same value for all records within a parameter for a given value of BASE.
The first record is not populated for BASEC and BASECAT1, but the rule checks BASE and for this parameter BASE is not used.
I think i see what you mean now. For future reference, try to include data examples as a grid by copying from microsoft word into this editor with “FULL HTML” selected
AVISIT
PARAMCD
AVAL
AVALC
BASE
BASEC
BASECAT1
AD00221
Screening
SPRARRY
Atrial
error ?
Screening
SPRARRY
Atrial
Atrial
Atrial
Visit 2
SPRARRY
Atrial
Atrial
Atrial
So the problem ist that SPRARRY, BASE, BASECAT1 has 2 unique combos:
SPRARRY, ,
SPRARRY, Atrial,
And therefore how can be used to category both. One way to fix this is to only run the rule when certain variables are populated. However in this case, why isn’t AVALC and BASE populated for record 1 ? There does seem to be an inconsistency which the rule brings to light
I edited your table Miguel. I believe this is what you were trying to show. So Is the issue that you are getting errors on BASECAT1 must be the same for a given BASE? which is not the case since
. → null
. → Atrial
Hi Miguel. It’s been a while since i’ve looked at this. Can you provide a data example where your data fails but you believe it shouldn’t ? You can also email it to me at mike@opencdisc.org if easier as a spreadsheet annotated with the fields that trigger the error…or as an xpt or csv that i can validate myself. here is the data i used for testing
Hi, Check fails inconsistently as shown below. My guess is that if i populate AVALCAT for all records it might go away but would like to work without making that adjustment. here is a sample:
AD0221 rule is created by CDISC ADaM team. Pinnacle 21 just provides its exact implementation. So, this is a question to CDISC team.
I share your concern. After release of ADaM-IG 1.1, CDISC team modified most “inconsistent value” rules by adding an exception for records with a missing value. Per my understanding, their goal is to avoid any potential false-positive validation messages. They care less about false-negative non-reported data issues.
This rule ‘Inconsistent value for --CAT–’ is based on a few ADaM rules (221,222,224,226). All *CATy values must be the same for each unique value of the variable it categorizes within a PARAMCD. e.g. AVALCATy to AVAL. I think this rule doesn’t cover a very feasible scenario: AVAL not available but AVALC populated, so it could be possible to create AVALCATy from AVALC. This scenario obviously gets an error that it should be avoided. Do you think you can do something with this issue? Thanks. Miguel