This is used for the level or grade of something

• use where assumption can be that higher level is better
• needs a single dimension (e.g. competence)
• needs a defined set of levels, or to use a predefined level scheme
• a higher level is taken to include all lower levels

Structurally this is almost the same as the options list OPTSQ, but with the added feature that there is an inherent ordering of the items in terms of value, priority or preferability.

There may be an externally-defined scheme for the answer items, used in other contexts, and this may or may not have a set numeric correlate.¹⁾ If the numbers go along with more is better, then we can use the given numbers as they are. If they are reversed (as in the old-fashioned academic degree classification) then they will need to be redefined, as for RegenCHOICE we will define a greater number as better. If there isn't a given numeric correlate then we need to supply one.

As with OPTSQ, the items need a short form for display and a long form for explanation and clarity.

Common attributes as in Question information structure, plus QDetails as follows:

IF QSchB (Boolean, mandatory) is true, that is, an external level scheme is defined

THEN:

• QScheme predefined level scheme, URI
  (this needs to adopt a particular standard format, to be detailed)

ELSE:

• for each (of Qni, given) level item:
  • QItemShort: @lang: short item text, for display
  • QItemLong: @lang: long item text
  • QItemVal: numeric value for Item
    • greater = higher level, higher value, which includes lower levels

• Use OPTSQ if the options have no ordering.

I keep on quoting, as a good, effective, and well-used example, the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages

• Template for LEVLQ criteria
• For some spec details, see the HTML site