Design a Focus Group Guide
Create a focus group discussion guide with icebreakers, key questions, probes, and facilitation notes.
Draft: Design a Focus Group Guide
Fill In Your Details (7 Blanks)
Your Prompt (With Your Details)
This is the complete prompt, ready to copy and paste.
Evidence and applicability: use only supplied or verifiable evidence for historical facts, values, quotations, completed activities and approvals. Preserve conflicting sources with their provenance; do not choose a preferred value without adjudication. Mark missing evidence as unknown or not evidenced, not as proof an activity never occurred. Keep proposed plans and illustrative examples separate from findings. Never invent a baseline, quote, pilot, validation or sign-off to complete a template. Match methods to the purpose and population; a suitable single-method design is valid. Distinguish descriptive change from causal attribution. Check obligations in the applicable funding agreement rather than assuming a universal donor rule.
You are a senior MEAL specialist tasked with developing a comprehensive focus group discussion (FGD) guide. Your goal is to gather rich qualitative data to inform your program.
Task: Create a detailed FGD guide for your target participants focusing on your topic area.
Requirements:
- Icebreakers: Include 2-3 rapport-building, culturally appropriate icebreakers suitable for the target participants.
- Key Questions: Develop 8-10 open-ended, non-leading core questions that cover program experiences, challenges, needs, and perceptions related to the topic area. Ensure questions align with your program objectives.
- Probes: For each key question, provide 2-3 specific, culturally appropriate probes designed to elicit deeper insights and explore nuances. Include 2-3 additional culturally appropriate probes to further refine the discussion.
- Visual Aids: If applicable for your target participants, suggest 1-2 simple visual aids that can be used to facilitate understanding and discussion.
- Facilitation Notes: Include practical facilitation notes for the moderator, covering:
- Introduction and setting the context.
- Managing group dynamics.
- Language and communication style considerations.
- Ethical considerations and informed consent procedures.
- Concluding the session.
- Disaggregation Variables: Clearly state the intended disaggregation variables for analysis.
Output Format:
Organize the FGD guide into the following clearly labeled sections:
- Title: Focus Group Discussion Guide: Your Program - Topic Area
- Introduction and Consent: (Brief notes for the facilitator)
- Icebreakers:
- Key Questions and Probes: (Each question followed by its probes)
- Visual Aids (if applicable):
- Facilitation Notes:
- Disaggregation Variables:
Check: Score It with the Survey Instrument Review Rubric
The Review Prompt
Paste the draft at the bottom of this prompt and run it. It scores each criterion from 1 to 5 and says why.
Use source evidence; retain unknowns/conflicts. N/A or missing evidence means no total. Critical ethics/validity failures block use at any score. Scores never authorize fielding or compliance.
You are an expert M&E data specialist. Score the survey instrument I will provide using the rubric below.
SCORING RUBRIC - Survey Instrument Review Rate applicable dimensions 1-5. For item-rate anchors, report defective/applicable reviewed items. Zero defects among applicable reviewed items earns 5; no applicable items is N/A. Blocking defects override the rate:
DIMENSION 1: Question Design
- Score 5: All questions use one-topic-per-question format. No leading or loaded words. Language matches target population literacy level. Response options mutually exclusive and exhaustive. Sensitive questions placed at the end.
- Score 4: More than 0% and at most 10% of reviewed applicable items have defects in this dimension; no blocking defect.
- Score 3: More than 10% and at most 20% of reviewed applicable items have defects in this dimension; no blocking defect.
- Score 2: More than 20% and at most 50% of reviewed applicable items have defects in this dimension; no blocking defect.
- Score 1: More than 50% of reviewed applicable items have defects, or a critical item has a blocking defect. Report the blocking issue separately; no aggregate approval follows.
DIMENSION 2: Instrument Structure
- Score 5: Introduction covers all five elements (who is collecting, purpose, data use, time estimate, voluntary participation). Questions ordered general to specific within sections. Skip logic present, clear, and consistently applied. Length appropriate for context.
- Score 4: Introduction covers four of five elements. Question order logical. Skip logic present with no more than two minor inconsistencies.
- Score 3: Introduction covers three of five elements. Question order mostly logical with grouping issues. Skip logic exists for major branches but is missing or unclear for minor ones.
- Score 2: Introduction covers two or fewer elements, OR skip logic is absent or systematically inconsistent, OR survey includes questions not needed for indicator measurement.
- Score 1: No introduction. No logical structure. No skip logic. Questions not traceable to indicator needs.
DIMENSION 3: Ethical Standards
- Score 5: Informed consent covers all six elements (purpose, voluntary participation, right to refuse or withdraw, confidentiality protections, contact information, data storage). Safeguarding documented for vulnerable populations.
- Score 4: Consent covers five of six elements. Basic safeguarding addressed.
- Score 3: Consent covers core elements (purpose, voluntary participation, confidentiality) but is missing two secondary elements (typically data storage details or contact information). No safeguarding considerations documented.
- Score 2: Consent present but covers fewer than three elements (typically a checkbox or verbal statement that does not cover confidentiality or data use).
- Score 1: No consent procedure.
DIMENSION 4: Indicator Alignment
- Score 5: Every question maps to a specific indicator or stated data need. No orphan questions. Every required indicator has at least one question.
- Score 4: At least 80 percent of questions trace to indicators. The remainder are useful for context but not explicitly linked. All core indicators have coverage.
- Score 3: Half or more questions trace to indicators, with up to four orphan questions. Most required indicators are covered, but one or two have weak or indirect coverage only.
- Score 2: Less than half of questions trace to indicator requirements, OR several required indicators have no corresponding question.
- Score 1: No traceable link between questions and program indicators.
DIMENSION 5: Pretesting and Adaptation
- Score 5: Pretested with members of the target population using a documented scope and selection rationale appropriate to relevant participant characteristics and measurement risks. Findings, revision or no-change decisions, and any further testing needed are documented. Enumerator preparation includes practice appropriate to the administration method. Participant count alone does not establish validity or readiness.
- Score 4: Pretesting and participant selection rationale are documented, with findings and revision or no-change decisions. Coverage of relevant participant characteristics or follow-up testing is partly documented. Enumerator guidelines are present.
- Score 3: Pretesting conducted and mentioned, but documentation is partial: findings summarized without specific revision notes, OR enumerator guidelines exist but are generic rather than instrument-specific.
- Score 2: Pretesting mentioned but not documented. No instrument-specific enumerator guidance.
- Score 1: No evidence of pretesting. No enumerator training. Instrument went directly from design to field.
ADDITIONAL TASK: List every specific question that fails Dimension 1 (Question Design). For each, state the problem type (leading / double-barreled / ambiguous / wrong literacy level / response options) and provide a corrected version.
OUTPUT FORMAT:
| Dimension | Score (1-5) | Key Finding | Priority Action |
|---|---|---|---|
| Question Design | |||
| Instrument Structure | |||
| Ethical Standards | |||
| Indicator Alignment | |||
| Pretesting |
Total: X/25 Band: Strong (22-25) / Adequate (17-21) / Needs Revision (11-16) / Substantial Revision (5-10) Single Most Important Revision: [One sentence]
Then list flagged questions with corrections.
SURVEY INSTRUMENT TO SCORE: [Paste your questionnaire here]
Fix: Revise What Scored Low
The Revise Prompt
Paste the draft and its scores at the bottom of this prompt. It revises the parts that scored below 4.
Use source evidence; retain unknowns/conflicts. N/A or missing evidence means no total. Critical ethics/validity failures block use at any score. Scores never authorize fielding or compliance.
You are an expert M&E data specialist. Review the draft questionnaire I will provide and fix every problem that falls below the Good (4) threshold on the Survey Instrument Review rubric.
WHAT TO LOOK FOR AND FIX:
Question Design problems:
- Double-barreled questions - split into two separate questions
- Leading questions - rewrite as neutral
- Loaded or assumptive language - remove the assumption and rewrite
- Technical jargon the target population likely does not use - replace with plain language
- Response options that overlap or have gaps - rewrite to be mutually exclusive and exhaustive
Structure problems:
- Missing or incomplete introduction - add or complete with all required elements (who, purpose, use, time, voluntary)
- Sensitive questions placed early - move to the final section
- Missing or unclear skip logic - add explicit skip instructions
Ethical problems:
- Absent or incomplete consent - add a full informed consent statement
Indicator alignment problems:
- Questions not traceable to any indicator - either cut them or note what indicator they serve
- Required indicators not covered - add questions to fill the gap
Pretesting and adaptation problems: Request actual testing, revision-decision, and enumerator-preparation records when missing. Propose further testing with a justified scope where needed. Keep proposed work separate from completed work; do not invent pilot participants, findings, changes, or training.
OUTPUT FORMAT:
- List every problem found by dimension, with original text and corrected version.
- Then provide the complete revised questionnaire incorporating all corrections.
DRAFT QUESTIONNAIRE TO REVISE: [Paste your draft questionnaire here]