Questionnaire permissions should be checked before you reproduce, adapt, translate or distribute an existing instrument in a nursing dissertation. Finding a questionnaire online or citing its authors does not establish that every planned use is permitted. This guide explains how to identify the exact instrument, check the relevant conditions and document a decision without confusing copyright permission with ethics or service approval.
This guide examines the permitted uses of an exact instrument version. Its practical output is a permission inventory separating administration, adaptation, translation, reproduction and public appendix use. Begin with the can you adapt an existing questionnaire for a nursing dissertation if you first need to establish the broader project approach. Use the detailed decisions below once that foundation is clear.
Start questionnaire permissions with the exact version
Record the instrument’s full name, version, language and source. A short form, translated form and updated edition may have different terms from the original. The article describing an instrument may also have different reuse conditions from the questionnaire itself.
Save the location of the official information and the date you checked it. Avoid relying on an unattributed copy attached to another student’s dissertation. If several versions appear online, identify which one you intend to use before asking about permission. A vague request to use “the questionnaire” may not give the rights holder enough information to answer.
Separate access from permitted use
Being able to download an instrument establishes access. It does not necessarily establish a right to reproduce it in a survey platform, alter its wording or publish the full item set in a public appendix. Those are separate activities with potentially different conditions.
The UK Intellectual Property Office explains that permission may be needed to use another person’s intellectual property, depending on the rights and circumstances (IPO, n.d.). For a specific instrument, read the actual terms and obtain appropriate institutional advice where uncertain. This article provides a checking process, not a legal determination about an unseen licence.
List every intended use before checking the licence
Describe what will happen to the instrument throughout the project. Will participants receive paper copies? Consider whether you will enter items into an online platform. Do you plan to create a translated version? Also check whether the dissertation will enter an openly accessible repository.
Include the proposed audience, setting, language and whether any adaptation or scoring change is planned. Do not assume that approval for administration also covers publication of the complete instrument. A clear use list helps you compare the project with the licence and frame a focused request if the conditions are unclear.
Locate an authoritative permissions route
Check the developer’s website, publisher’s instrument page, official manual or named licensing organisation. The corresponding author of the original study may be able to direct you, but they may not personally control every right. Avoid treating an informal third-party statement as conclusive.
Where an official site identifies a permissions process, follow that process rather than sending multiple speculative requests to unrelated authors. Record who responded and the role in which they responded. If ownership remains uncertain, state that the permission position is unresolved and discuss alternatives before collecting data.
Check the scope of any free-use statement
Some instruments allow specified educational or non-commercial uses without a fee. Read the conditions attached to that statement. They may concern registration, attribution, unchanged wording, participant numbers, scoring or how copies are distributed. Free access and unrestricted use are different claims.
Do not assume that a student project always falls within every definition of educational use. Equally, do not assume that every instrument requires a paid licence. The relevant question is what the actual terms permit for your intended activities. Keep the answer specific to the version and use you have checked.
Worked example: administration versus a public appendix
This example is fictional. A nursing student finds an official questionnaire page allowing a defined form of student administration. The student plans to use the items in an approved online survey and later include the full instrument in a dissertation uploaded to a public repository.
The administration statement does not clearly address public redistribution. The student lists the two activities separately and asks the official permissions contact whether repository publication is covered. While waiting, the student does not describe permission as granted or paste the full instrument into a public draft.
A response may permit administration but require the appendix to contain a citation and access link instead of the complete item set. Alternatively, different terms may apply. The methodological lesson is to match the evidence of permission to each intended use, not to infer the broadest possible rights from one favourable sentence.
Build a permission record
| Record field | What to keep | Why it matters |
|---|---|---|
| Instrument identity | Name, version, language and official source | Prevents applying terms to the wrong form |
| Proposed uses | Administration, adaptation, translation and publication | Makes the request specific |
| Terms checked | Licence text or official response and date | Provides a traceable basis |
| Conditions | Attribution, unchanged wording, access or scoring requirements | Shows how the project will comply |
| Outstanding issue | Unclear activity and next action | Prevents presenting silence as consent |
Do not treat silence as agreement
An unanswered message does not demonstrate that the requested use is authorised. Record the date and the unresolved question, then discuss a practical alternative with your supervisor. That alternative might involve an instrument with clearer terms or a revised design within the approved scope.
A tight dissertation deadline does not change what a rights holder has permitted. Avoid proceeding on the assumption that “they would probably agree”. If permission is a dependency, build time for it into the plan and identify a fallback before the final collection deadline becomes urgent.
Distinguish adaptation from routine administration
Changing wording, removing items, altering response options or combining sections can affect both permissions and measurement interpretation. An authorisation to administer an unchanged questionnaire should not automatically be read as permission to create a modified version.
The parent guide on adapting an existing questionnaire addresses the broader design decision. Here, document the proposed changes specifically when checking rights. Keep the permission question separate from whether the modification remains methodologically defensible. A permitted adaptation may still need careful testing and a more cautious account of score interpretation.
Check translation separately
A translated questionnaire is not merely another photocopy of the original. Check whether the terms address translation, approved language versions or a required process. An existing translation may have its own source and conditions, which should be verified rather than copied from an unofficial file.
Our guide to questionnaire translation explains the methodological distinction between language work and evidence for interpretation. Permission does not establish that a translation performs as intended. Equally, evidence about a translation’s measurement properties does not establish that your planned reproduction is permitted.
Remember manuals and scoring materials
The questionnaire, administration manual, scoring instructions and software may be separate resources. A permission statement about one does not necessarily cover all the others. Identify the materials needed to use and interpret the instrument correctly.
If scoring requires access to a particular manual or authorised system, account for that before committing to the measure. Do not invent missing scoring rules or use a formula from an unrelated version. Record where the authorised instructions came from and explain any limitation if the intended scoring method cannot be obtained.
Keep ethics approval and copyright permission separate
Ethics or governance approval addresses the proposed project within an institution or service. It does not automatically grant rights over someone else’s instrument. Conversely, a rights holder’s permission does not authorise recruitment, access to records or handling of participant information.
Maintain separate entries for these decisions in the project plan. That makes it easier to see which dependencies remain outstanding. Do not write “all approvals obtained” when you mean only that a supervisor agreed with the topic. Name the relevant form of approval accurately and avoid implying endorsement by an instrument developer.
Consider the survey platform and distribution
Entering questionnaire items into an online platform may create a new reproduction and a different way of distributing them. Check whether the terms restrict online use, public access or storage of the item set. A survey link should not expose restricted materials more widely than the project requires.
Separately, follow institutional requirements for participant data and platform selection. These are related practical decisions, but they are not the same permission question. Avoid putting identifiable participant information into a request to the rights holder; usually the proposed use can be described without sharing personal records.
Write a focused permission request
A concise request identifies the exact instrument, your educational project, the planned audience and the activities requiring clarification. Ask specific questions about reproduction, adaptation, translation and publication where relevant. Do not claim that the project is exempt from conditions unless that position has been verified.
You can prepare the wording with your supervisor before sending it through the appropriate route. Keep any response with the project documentation. This guide does not send a message or obtain permission for you; the important methodological step is to ensure that the eventual response actually covers the uses described in your dissertation.
Report the permission position accurately
In the methods, state the instrument version and the basis on which it was used. That may be an applicable licence, an official free-use condition or a specific permission response. Describe relevant restrictions without publishing private correspondence unnecessarily.
If an appendix cannot reproduce the full instrument, provide the permitted reference or access route and explain the omission. Do not fill the gap with an unauthorised copy. A transparent account of access and restrictions is more useful than a vague assurance that the questionnaire is “widely available”.
Keep attribution even when use is permitted
Permission and attribution serve different purposes. An instrument may be usable under stated conditions while still requiring acknowledgement of its source. Academic citation also helps readers identify the version and evaluate the evidence supporting its use.
Follow the required attribution wording where applicable and your institution’s referencing style. Avoid presenting a modified item set as the original validated instrument. Identify your changes and their implications separately. The pilot and change-record guide can help maintain that methodological trail.
Plan an alternative when conditions do not fit
If the terms are incompatible with the project, pause the instrument choice rather than hiding the conflict. Discuss whether a different measure, a permitted existing version or another method would answer the question. A replacement should be assessed for relevance and interpretation, not selected solely because it is easier to download.
Record why the original option was not used. That decision can demonstrate thoughtful planning without turning the dissertation into a legal argument. Keep the focus on the research question and the feasible, authorised method that was ultimately chosen.
Check permission again when the project changes
A permission decision is tied to the proposed use. If the project later adds a new language, changes from paper to online administration or plans public publication of an appendix, compare the new activity with the existing terms. An earlier favourable response may not address the amended plan.
Keep a simple amendment entry showing what changed, which condition was rechecked and whether further clarification was needed. This does not mean requesting permission repeatedly for an unchanged activity. It means noticing when the activity is materially different from the one originally described. The final methods should refer to the version and uses actually implemented.
Keep a restricted record without overpublishing correspondence
Store permission evidence through the institution’s appropriate project arrangements. A public dissertation may need a concise statement of the basis for use rather than copies of every message. Correspondence can contain personal contact details or terms that are unnecessary for readers to see.
Record enough information for the responsible academic or institutional reviewer to understand the decision trail. Do not claim endorsement of the dissertation merely because a rights holder permitted use of an instrument. Permission to reproduce a questionnaire is narrower than approval of the project’s design, findings or commercial service provider.
Before submission, check that the public appendix, repository version and any supplementary files follow the same conditions described in the methods. A correctly handled survey can still be redistributed incorrectly at the reporting stage if the final files are not reviewed.
Questionnaire permissions checklist
- Identify the exact instrument, language and version.
- List administration, adaptation, translation and publication separately.
- Check the official licence or permissions route.
- Record the date and source of the applicable terms.
- Confirm any attribution, scoring or distribution conditions.
- Keep ethics and governance decisions separate from instrument rights.
- Do not treat an unanswered request as agreement.
- Have a defensible alternative if the intended use remains unresolved.
Use a final instrument inventory
List the files that will remain with the project at submission: administered questionnaire, instructions, scoring material, appendix and supplementary files. Check the permission basis for each relevant reproduction or distribution. This practical inventory makes it easier to notice a restricted copy placed in an otherwise public document.
Keep the review proportionate to the actual terms. The aim is not to create extra paperwork for unchanged permitted use. It is to ensure that the final project matches the activities described when rights were checked. Record unresolved questions honestly and obtain appropriate institutional guidance before representing an unclear use as authorised.
Frequently asked questions
Is citing the questionnaire enough?
Citation identifies the source but does not automatically establish permission for every use. Check the terms for the exact instrument and planned activities. Attribution may remain required even where the use is permitted without a separate request.
Can I include the full questionnaire in my appendix?
Check whether reproduction and any public repository deposit are covered. Administration permission may have a narrower scope. If full reproduction is not permitted, use an authorised reference or access route and explain the limitation to your institution.
Does university ethics approval cover the licence?
Not automatically. Ethics approval and rights to reproduce an instrument address different issues. Keep a separate record of each. A rights holder’s permission likewise does not replace the institution’s requirements for recruitment, data handling or governance.
What if the author does not reply?
Record that the request remains unanswered and consult your supervisor about the official route or an alternative instrument. Do not interpret silence as consent. Build permission dependencies into the timeline before collection becomes urgent.
Can I remove items from a freely available questionnaire?
Check the actual conditions and the methodological consequences. Free availability does not necessarily allow adaptation. Even where changes are permitted, removing items may alter coverage, scoring and the evidence supporting interpretation. Describe the modified version accurately.
Review the instrument choice before collection
Our nursing dissertation support can help you organise an instrument-selection rationale and identify questions to discuss with your supervisor. Contact us about a focused methods issue, without sending restricted questionnaire copies or confidential participant data. Educational feedback can clarify the decision trail; permission and institutional approvals must come from the responsible parties.
Reference
Intellectual Property Office (n.d.) Using somebody else’s intellectual property. Available at: GOV.UK (Accessed: 16 October 2026).
