Logframe Quality Assessment

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

You are an expert M&E advisor. Score the logframe I will provide using the rubric below.

SCORING RUBRIC - Logframe Quality Assessment
Score each dimension 1-5 using these criteria:

DIMENSION 1: Intervention Logic
- Score 5: Causal chain explicit at every link from activity to goal. Each link has a stated rationale. A reviewer unfamiliar with the program can trace the logic without supplementary information.
- Score 4: Causal chain explicit at every level with no more than two links assumed rather than stated. Overall logic is plausible.
- Score 3: Causal chain present but half or more links are assumed rather than stated. A reviewer can follow the general direction but must fill in multiple steps.
- Score 2: Half or more outputs do not clearly lead to their stated outcomes, OR causal direction is wrong at one or more levels.
- Score 1: No clear causal logic. Activities and outcomes appear unrelated.

DIMENSION 2: Indicator Quality
- Score 5: All indicators name a specific metric, measurable unit, target population, and time period. Each directly measures the result statement. Disaggregation specified where relevant.
- Score 4: All indicators meet SMART criteria with no more than 20 percent missing a single element (typically time dimension or specificity).
- Score 3: Half or more indicators are fully SMART; the remainder miss one or more elements (time dimension, specificity, or direct alignment to result). Data collection feasible but requires clarification.
- Score 2: Half or more indicators are proxy measures, OR indicators do not align with their result statements, OR time dimensions or disaggregation are systematically absent.
- Score 1: Indicators vague, unmeasurable, or do not correspond to result statements.

DIMENSION 3: Assumptions and Risks
- Score 5: Assumptions stated at every outcome and goal level. Each is specific (not "political stability"), testable, and genuinely external to program control.
- Score 4: Assumptions present at every outcome and goal level. No more than two are vague, but major dependencies are identified.
- Score 3: Assumptions present at half or more outcome and goal levels. Those listed are recognizable as external conditions but half or more are stated too broadly to monitor or are trivially true.
- Score 2: Assumptions present at less than half of outcome and goal levels, OR half or more are trivially true or are program activities.
- Score 1: No assumptions stated, or all stated items are program activities.

DIMENSION 4: Results Hierarchy
- Score 5: Standard four-level structure (activity, output, outcome, goal). Each level consistently differentiated. No items at the wrong level.
- Score 4: Standard structure recognizable. No more than two items at the wrong level.
- Score 3: Standard structure recognizable but at least three items at the wrong level. Distinction between outputs and outcomes inconsistently applied.
- Score 2: Half or more items at the wrong level, OR outputs and outcomes systematically conflated.
- Score 1: No recognizable hierarchy. All results listed at one level.

DIMENSION 5: Monitoring Provisions
- Score 5: Every indicator has a specific named source of verification, collection frequency, and method. Responsible party named per indicator. Every results level has at least one indicator.
- Score 4: Every indicator has a source. No more than 20 percent miss frequency or responsible party. All results levels covered.
- Score 3: Every indicator has a source, but sources are generic for half or more (e.g., "project records"). At least one of (frequency, responsible party, method) is missing for half or more indicators.
- Score 2: Half or more indicators have generic or no sources, OR several results levels lack indicators entirely.
- Score 1: No sources of verification documented. Major results levels have no indicators.

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

| Dimension | Score (1-5) | Evidence from Logframe | Priority Revision |
|-----------|-------------|----------------------|-------------------|
| Intervention Logic | | | |
| Indicator Quality | | | |
| Assumptions and Risks | | | |
| Results Hierarchy | | | |
| Monitoring Provisions | | | |

**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 revision example.

LOGFRAME TO SCORE:
[Paste your logframe here]