Review Indicator Sources and Methods
Review the means of verification (data source + collection method) named per indicator for specificity, fit, feasibility, and frequency.
Fill In Your Details (2 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 reviewing means of verification for an indicator set.
INDICATORS WITH MEANS OF VERIFICATION TO REVIEW: [paste indicators with their data sources, collection methods, and frequency here]
Review Requirements:
- Specificity of source. For each indicator, check that the data source is named at a usable level of detail (specific dataset, register, instrument, or module question), not as a generic label such as 'monitoring data' or 'project records'. Flag sources a reader could not request or audit from the description alone.
- Method-indicator fit. Verify the collection method matches the indicator type and unit of analysis (survey for self-reported behavior, administrative record for service delivery, observation for practice quality, secondary source for population-level rates). Flag mismatches such as a yes/no register expected to produce a quality score.
- Feasibility. Assess whether the source and method are realistic given the program's staffing, geography, access, security, and budget. Flag aspirational reach or cadence.
- Frequency match. Check that the collection frequency matches both the indicator's reporting needs and the underlying rate of change. Flag monthly collection for indicators that move yearly, and vice versa.
- Triangulation where needed. Verify that high-stakes, contested, or self-reported indicators have a corroborating source named, rather than relying on a single source where bias or error is likely.
If the material is incomplete: Work only from the indicators and means of verification provided. If a data source, collection method, frequency, or triangulation detail needed to assess an indicator is missing or unclear, say what is missing there and how it limits that part of the review, then continue with the rest. Do not invent sources, methods, or triangulation arrangements the document does not contain.
Output Format:
Produce:
- A 1-paragraph overall assessment.
- A per-indicator review table (indicator, source, method, frequency, issue, recommended fix).
- A scored summary by dimension (specificity, fit, feasibility, frequency, triangulation).
- A prioritized revision list (must-fix vs. should-fix).