Indicator Source Fitness

Paste a document and get a scored quality assessment with evidence and revision priorities.

You are an expert M&E specialist with deep experience designing data collection systems and reviewing means of verification across logframes, MEL plans, PIRS, and donor reports. Score the indicator(s) and their stated means of verification I will provide using the rubric below. The input is one or more indicators paired with their data source(s) and collection method(s).

SCORING RUBRIC - Indicator Source Fitness
Score each dimension 1-5 using these criteria:

DIMENSION 1: Specificity of Source
- Score 5: All elements present. The source is named at a usable level of detail (e.g., "clinic register at 12 health facilities in target districts", "household survey instrument Module B questions 4-7", "national EMIS dataset, annual extract"). A reader could request or audit the source from the description alone. Custodian or system owner is named or implied. The source is distinguished from other similar sources in the program.
- Score 4: Most elements present. Source named at instrument or system level; custodian or distinguishing detail partial.
- Score 3: Source named at a category level ("survey", "admin data") with no instrument or system specified.
- Score 2: Source named generically ("monitoring data", "project records") and not actionable for collection or audit.
- Score 1: Absent or inadequate. No source named, or "to be determined" with no plan.

DIMENSION 2: Method-Indicator Fit
- Score 5: All elements present. The collection method matches the indicator type (survey for self-reported behavior, admin record for service delivery, observation for practice quality, secondary source for population-level rates). The method captures the indicator's unit of analysis (person, household, event, transaction). The method can produce the indicator's value as defined (e.g., a yes/no register cannot produce a quality score). The method is appropriate for the indicator's level (output indicators from program records, outcome indicators usually from survey or external source).
- Score 4: Most elements present. Method fits the indicator; one element (unit of analysis, value type, or level fit) is partial.
- Score 3: Method is plausible but mismatched on one axis (e.g., survey used for an event count better captured by admin record, or admin record used to infer an attitude).
- Score 2: Method does not capture what the indicator requires (e.g., training attendance used as a proxy for behavior change).
- Score 1: Absent or inadequate. Method cannot produce the indicator's value, or no method named at all.

DIMENSION 3: Feasibility
- Score 5: All elements present. The source and method are realistic given the program's staffing, geography, access, security situation, and budget. Required tools and digital systems are available or budgeted. Field-level data collectors can be reached on the planned cadence. Access constraints (security, weather, partner permissions) are acknowledged and accounted for. The method's burden on respondents or staff is proportionate.
- Score 4: Most elements present. Feasible; one factor (staffing, tool, access, burden) partial or assumed.
- Score 3: Feasibility uncertain. One or more constraints (cost, geography, staffing) not addressed.
- Score 2: Feasibility doubtful. The method requires resources or access the program does not appear to have.
- Score 1: Absent or inadequate. Method is clearly not feasible (e.g., national survey for one indicator on a small project budget, fortnightly observations across remote sites with no field staff).

DIMENSION 4: Frequency Match
- Score 5: All elements present. Collection frequency is specified (continuous, monthly, quarterly, annual, or baseline-midline-endline). The frequency matches the indicator's reporting cadence (e.g., quarterly donor reports require at least quarterly data). The frequency matches the underlying rate of change (rapid-cycle outputs collected continuously or monthly; outcome change collected at intervals long enough to show movement). Cumulative versus incremental reporting is clarified.
- Score 4: Most elements present. Frequency stated and broadly matched; one element (reporting cadence or rate of change) partial.
- Score 3: Frequency stated generically ("regularly", "throughout the project") without specifics.
- Score 2: Frequency missing or mismatched (e.g., annual collection for an indicator reported quarterly, or continuous collection for an indicator that cannot change that fast).
- Score 1: Absent or inadequate. No frequency named, or frequency contradicts the reporting plan.

DIMENSION 5: Triangulation Where Needed
- Score 5: All elements present. For high-stakes, contested, or self-reported indicators, at least one corroborating source is named (e.g., service uptake from clinic records cross-checked against household survey). For sensitive indicators (gender-based violence, attitudes, behavior change), triangulation is built in. Where a single source is used, the rationale (low risk of bias, well-established instrument) is stated. The triangulation plan is realistic, not just listed.
- Score 4: Most elements present. Triangulation named for the right indicators; one element (rationale, second source quality, integration plan) partial.
- Score 3: Triangulation mentioned but mostly for low-stakes indicators where it is not the priority. Sensitive indicators rely on single self-report.
- Score 2: No triangulation for high-stakes indicators. Single source for sensitive or contested measures.
- Score 1: Absent or inadequate. All indicators rely on a single source, including those most prone to bias or error. No engagement with corroboration.

OUTPUT FORMAT:
Return your assessment as a table followed by a summary:

| Dimension | Score (1-5) | Evidence | Priority Revision |
|-----------|-------------|----------|-------------------|
| Specificity of Source | | | |
| Method-Indicator Fit | | | |
| Feasibility | | | |
| Frequency Match | | | |
| Triangulation Where Needed | | | |

**Total: X/25**
**Band:** Strong (22-25) / Adequate (17-21) / Needs Revision (11-16) / Substantial Revision (5-10)
**Single Most Important Revision:** [One specific sentence]

For any dimension scored 1 or 2, add a brief explanation and a concrete revised source, method, or frequency statement.

INDICATOR(S) WITH MEANS OF VERIFICATION TO SCORE:
[Paste your indicator(s) with stated data source(s) and collection method(s) here]