All templates
Product & UX

A/B Experimentation Trust & Data Quality Assessment

An internal diagnostic survey for teams that run or consume A/B tests, measuring trust in experiment results, identifying sources of flakiness, and prioritizing process and tooling improvements.

Sample questions

A preview of what’s in the template. Every question is editable before you launch.

27 questions · ~12 min
Q01
Message

Welcome to the Experimentation Trust & Quality Survey. We're gathering candid feedback on how A/B test results are used and trusted across the organization. Your responses are confidential and will be reported only in aggregate — there are no right or wrong answers. Participation is voluntary, and you may exit at any time. The survey takes approximately 12 minutes. Results will be used internally to improve our experimentation practices and communication.

Q02
Multiple Choice

Which functional areas best describe your role? (Select up to three.)

  • Product Management
  • Engineering
  • Data Science / Analytics
  • Design / UX
  • Marketing / Growth
  • Operations / Support
  • Leadership / Strategy
  • Other
Q03
Message

The following questions are for those who have not actively used A/B test results recently. If you regularly work with test results, you may skip ahead.

Q04
Message

The following questions are for those who have actively worked with A/B test results in the past 3–6 months.

Q05
Opinion Scale

How clearly do shipped experiment reports communicate uncertainty (e.g., confidence intervals, statistical significance)?

Scale: 17
Min:Not at all clearMax:Extremely clear
Q06
AI Interview

Based on your responses in this survey, please share any additional thoughts or concerns about the trustworthiness or reliability of our A/B testing program.

Q07
Message

Finally, a few questions about your background for analysis purposes.

Q08
Message

Thank you for your time. Your feedback will directly inform improvements to our experimentation practices, tooling, and communication. Results will be shared in aggregate with the broader team.

Q09
Multiple Choice

In the last 6 months, how often have you reviewed or acted on A/B test results?

  • Weekly or more
  • 1 to 3 times per month
  • A few times total
  • Not in the last 6 months
  • Never
Q10
Opinion Scale

Based on your general impression, how reliable are our A/B test results overall?

Scale: 17
Min:Not at all reliableMax:Extremely reliable
Q11
Dropdown

Approximately how many distinct A/B tests did you work on or review results from in the last 3 months?

  • 1–2
  • 3–5
  • 6–10
  • 11–20
  • More than 20
Q12
Multiple Choice

Before launch, how often are minimum detectable effect (MDE) and statistical power planned explicitly for experiments?

  • Always
  • Often
  • Sometimes
  • Rarely
  • Never
  • Unsure
Q13
Dropdown

How long have you been at the company?

  • Less than 6 months
  • 6 to 12 months
  • 1 to 2 years
  • 3 to 5 years
  • More than 5 years
Q14
Multiple Choice

What limits your use of A/B test results today? (Select all that apply.)

  • Hard to access results
  • Unsure how to interpret results
  • Don't trust the data quality
  • Not relevant to my work
  • No tests run in my area
  • Lack of time
  • Other
Q15
Multiple Choice

Where are the A/B tests you work with primarily run? (Select all that apply.)

  • Web
  • iOS app
  • Android app
  • Backend systems
  • Marketing channels (email / ads)
  • Other
Q16
Dropdown

When deciding to ship based on a test result, what minimum effect size on the primary metric is typically meaningful for your team?

  • It depends on context
  • Any positive change
  • At least 0.5 percentage points
  • At least 1 percentage point
  • At least 2 percentage points
  • At least 5 percentage points
Q17
Dropdown

How many years of total professional experience do you have?

  • 0 to 2
  • 3 to 5
  • 6 to 10
  • 11 to 15
  • More than 15
Q18
Opinion Scale

How useful would a short guide explaining key experimentation concepts (e.g., statistical power, minimum detectable effect, confidence intervals) be for your work?

Scale: 17
Min:Not at all usefulMax:Extremely useful
Q19
Opinion Scale

How much do you trust the validity of our A/B test conclusions over the past 3 months?

Scale: 17
Min:Do not trust at allMax:Trust completely
Q20
Ranking

Rank the following improvements by how much they would increase your trust in A/B test results. (Drag to reorder; most impactful first.)

  1. Better instrumentation and QA
  2. Guardrails against peeking at results early
  3. Faster and more stable data pipelines
  4. Pre-registration of hypotheses and metrics
  5. Automated power / MDE checks before launch
  6. Clearer result summaries and decision guidance
Drag to rank
Q21
Dropdown

What is your seniority level?

  • Individual contributor
  • People manager
  • Director+
  • Prefer not to say
Q22
Multiple Choice

How often do A/B test results meaningfully change your team's decisions?

  • Almost always
  • Often
  • Sometimes
  • Rarely
  • Almost never
Q23
Multiple Choice

Where are you primarily located?

  • Americas
  • Europe
  • Middle East & Africa
  • Asia-Pacific
  • Multiple regions
  • Prefer not to say
Q24
Multiple Choice

In the past 3 months, have you observed flaky or inconsistent A/B test outcomes on key metrics?

  • No
  • Yes, occasionally
  • Yes, frequently
  • Unsure
Q25
Multiple Choice

Which product area(s) do you mostly support? (Select up to three.)

  • Consumer-facing experience
  • B2B / Enterprise
  • Infrastructure / Platform
  • Monetization / Payments
  • Marketing / Growth
  • Internal tools
  • Other
  • Prefer not to say
Q26
Long Text

If you observed flaky or inconsistent outcomes, please share one or two examples and what you think caused them.

Q27
Multiple Choice

How often do each of the following contribute to flaky or unreliable A/B test results in your area?

  • Insufficient sample size or test duration
  • Instrumentation or logging bugs
  • Peeking at results before reaching significance
  • Interactions between concurrent experiments
  • Unstable or delayed data pipelines
  • Poorly defined or overly sensitive metrics
  • External events or seasonality
  • Other

What’s included

  • AI follow-ups

    Adaptive probes on open-ended answers that pull out detail a static form would miss.

  • Attention checks

    Built-in safeguards against rushed answers and low-quality respondents.

  • AI-drafted copy

    Wording, ordering, and branching written by the AI — tuned to your research goal.

  • Auto report

    Themes, quotes, and a plain-English summary write themselves once responses come in.

How it compares

We reviewed the closest templates from other survey tools. Here’s what they do well — and where this template goes further.

Why this template

  • Segments respondents by actual A/B testing experience (non-users vs. active users) and routes them to different question paths, rather than asking everyone the same static questions.
  • Includes an AI follow-up interview that adapts based on the respondent's own prior answers, surfacing specifics behind flaky-result reports or trust scores that a fixed form would miss.
  • Combines opinion-scale trust/reliability ratings, ranked improvement priorities, and open-text examples of flaky outcomes to give both quantitative scoring and qualitative diagnostic detail.
  • Captures process-maturity signals (MDE/power checks pre-launch, minimum effect size thresholds for shipping) alongside role, tenure, and seniority breakdowns for structured cross-tab analysis.

SurveySparrow

Internal Audit Risk Assessment Questionnaire

This is a fielding-ready internal diagnostic questionnaire template, structurally similar in purpose to our survey (assessing trust/risk in an internal process), though its subject matter is audit risk rather than A/B experimentation quality specifically. Useful as a category comparison for internal assessment tooling rather than a direct topical competitor.

What it does well

  • Ready-to-use template structure aimed at internal organizational assessment
  • Part of a broader survey platform with standard distribution and reporting tools
  • Likely supports common question types (scales, multiple choice) suited to risk/trust scoring

Where it falls short

  • Static question set with no adaptive follow-up probing based on individual responses
  • Not tailored to A/B testing/experimentation concepts (no MDE, statistical power, or flaky-test-specific items)
  • No indication of automated per-response quality scoring or transparent AI prompt methodology

Ready to launch?

Open this template in the editor. Every part is yours to change before the first respondent sees it.

Related templates

More studies from the same category.

See all
Product & UX

New Product Concept Evaluation Survey

Measures consumer reactions to a new product concept across innovation perception, quality assessment, purchase intent, and feature priorities. Designed for pre-launch product testing with target consumers.

View template
Product & UX

E-Commerce Website Shopping Experience Survey

Measures how easily shoppers find products, move through checkout, and trust your site with their payment details — with an AI follow-up that reconstructs the exact moment shoppers got stuck or almost abandoned their cart, rather than just a satisfaction score.

View template
Product & UX

Graphic Design Request Intake & Creative Brief Survey

Captures a complete brief for an internal or client graphic design request — project type, goal, audience, brand constraints, and priority trade-offs — so designers stop guessing what 'good' looks like. An AI follow-up interview digs into the real goal behind the ask and surfaces conflicting stakeholder expectations before work begins.

View template
Product & UX

Product & Service Design Feedback Survey

Captures how people actually use your product or service, which features matter most, and where the experience breaks down — with an AI follow-up that digs into the specific moment a respondent got stuck or frustrated. Built for product, UX, and service design teams shaping a roadmap.

View template
Product & UX

Website Information Quality & Findability Survey

Measures whether visitors can find, understand, and trust the content on your website — covering findability, accuracy, completeness, and currency — for product, content, and UX teams auditing site content. An AI follow-up interview reconstructs what actually happened when a respondent hit a dead end, instead of relying on vague satisfaction ratings.

View template
Product & UX

Product Development Team Effectiveness Check

A team health survey for product, design, and engineering members that measures process clarity, cross-functional collaboration, time allocation, and the biggest blockers to shipping — with an AI follow-up that digs into a real recent example behind the top-ranked blocker instead of settling for a vague complaint.

View template