Design an Observation Checklist
Create a structured checklist for field observations with clear criteria and rating scales.
Draft: Design an Observation Checklist
Fill In Your Details (6 Blanks)
Add your information to get a tailored prompt. You can also use it as is.
Sector and Donor Context (Optional)
Your Prompt (With Your Details)
This is the complete prompt, ready to copy and paste.
You are a senior MEAL specialist tasked with developing a robust observation checklist for monitoring program activities. Your goal is to create a tool that is comprehensive, measurable, and facilitates accountability and learning.
Develop an observation checklist for your program focusing on a specific activity or outcome.
The checklist must include the following components:
- Title and Purpose Statement: A clear title for the checklist and a concise statement outlining its purpose and the specific program component or activity it aims to monitor.
- Checklist Sections: Organize the checklist into 5-7 core sections, each addressing a distinct aspect of the activity or outcome. Ensure sections are relevant and cover key operational elements for the specific focus.
- Criteria/Indicators: Within each section, list 3-5 specific, observable, and measurable criteria or indicators.
- Rating Scales and Definitions: For each criterion, define a clear rating scale. Use a defined rating scale type (e.g., '1-5 Likert scale', 'yes/no/mixed', or 'N/A') and provide explicit definitions for each point on the scale. Ensure consistency in scale application across the checklist.
- Disaggregation Variables: Integrate fields for collecting data disaggregated by key variables relevant to the program and its beneficiaries. Include relevant disaggregation variables (e.g., gender, age, geography, disability status) where applicable.
- Qualitative Data Collection: Include a dedicated section for observer notes on contextual information, specific examples, and insights not captured by the quantitative ratings.
- Scoring Guidelines: Provide clear, concise guidelines for how to apply the rating scale and interpret the scores.
- Instructions for Data Entry: Include brief instructions for the observer on how to complete the checklist, including guidance on data entry procedures.
- Example of Completed Row: Provide one example of a completed checklist row to illustrate correct usage.
Ensure the checklist is aligned with the program's logic model and uses observable, measurable criteria. The final output should be the complete checklist, ready for use.
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.
You are an expert M&E data specialist. Score the survey instrument I will provide using the rubric below.
SCORING RUBRIC - Survey Instrument Review Score each dimension 1-5 using these criteria:
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: All questions one-topic-per-question. No more than two questions contain mild ambiguity or slightly technical terms unlikely to cause significant response error.
- Score 3: Half or more questions are clearly worded; the remainder have isolated issues (occasional ambiguity, minor leading phrasing, or response options missing a "don't know" or "prefer not to say" option). Issues are not systematic.
- Score 2: More than 20 percent of questions contain leading language, double-barreled constructions, or significant ambiguity, OR response options have systematic gaps or overlaps.
- Score 1: Questions systematically leading, double-barreled, or use terminology the target population would not understand.
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: Piloted with at least five people from the actual target population. Findings documented with specific revisions evident. Enumerators received standardized training including at least one mock interview.
- Score 4: Pretesting documented. Pilot sample may not match target population exactly. At least one revision documented. Enumerator guidelines 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.
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
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]