Scoring Criteria
Purpose, scope, operational definitions, populations and periods are coherent; applicable requirements, intended use and justified applicable thresholds are explicit. Any threshold not required for this purpose is explained; an unavailable required threshold remains an evidence gap.
The decision and scope are usable with coherent definitions; one minor boundary or threshold explanation needs clarification.
The intended use is clear but a material scope or definition detail needs resolution before reliable application.
A material scope, definition or acceptance-rule boundary is inconsistently specified, although the intended construct, population and period remain identifiable and no explicit false extension to another population or context is made.
The assessment adopts a demonstrably wrong construct, population or period as its governing specification, or explicitly extends its conclusion to a mismatched population or use context.
The trace from source to report is reproducible for the stated scope; selection, recount or cross-check procedures and limits are justified. A plan specifies future checks without claiming completion.
Trace and selection are defensible; one minor procedural detail remains without changing conclusions.
A usable trace and verification approach exist but a material selection or transformation limitation is acknowledged and constrains findings.
An observed verification or selection defect undermines the claim, such as generalizing a purposive check to a population error rate.
Known source/report discrepancies are ignored or an internally consistent report is asserted to prove accuracy without source verification.
Applicable quality lenses and use-specific rules are addressed with located evidence, denominators, limitations and proportionate interpretation. A plan defines checks and evidence requirements rather than results.
The relevant checks and use limits are sound; one minor explanation is incomplete.
Findings are usable within stated limits, but a material quality lens or uncertainty needs further examination and is not overclaimed.
An observed error in a denominator, timing rule, construct, or interpretation materially distorts a finding.
A consequential quality conflict or invalid measure is dismissed, or a fabricated result or universal cutoff drives the use decision.
Access boundaries and proportionate safeguards, change controls and handoffs are explicit and supported for the stage; disclosure risks and unknowns are addressed with safe escalation.
Material safeguards and access boundaries are sound; one minor control description needs clarification.
Safeguards are described with an acknowledged noncritical limitation and a bounded use restriction.
An observed control weakness creates material integrity or disclosure risk that the assessment has not adequately addressed.
The proposed or actual use involves unauthorized sensitive access or unsafe disclosure, or alleges misconduct solely from missing documentation.
Actions address located causes or bounded investigations; responsibilities and timing are supplied or labeled proposals; follow-up tests closure and recurrence, with unresolved use restrictions visible.
Actions and follow-up are usable; one minor ownership, timing or verification detail remains.
The action framework exists but a material follow-up or escalation detail needs confirmation; closure is not overclaimed.
An observed action mismatch leaves a material defect unaddressed, or closure rests on an unverified completion label.
Textual revision is claimed to repair an operational defect, or harmful mandatory repeat collection is prescribed without evidence and authority.
Purpose and Inputs
Use this resource to assess whether a DQA is adequately designed or evidenced for its stated decision. It does not certify a dataset or replace authorized record verification. Supply the purpose, stage, definitions, reporting frame and period; source/report versions; selection and completed verification records when available; applicable rules; controls; and action history. A plan can demonstrate an adequate proposed procedure, never that the procedure happened. An extract alone cannot prove source accuracy, control operation, consent or authorization. Avoid identifiable or protection-sensitive inputs.
Governing Evidence Rules
Establish purpose, intended decision, assessment stage, applicable requirements and available source evidence before rating. This rubric reviews the adequacy of a DQA plan or assessment, not the truth of all underlying data. A dataset review is not a system audit. Dimension 1 assesses the governing purpose, scope, definitions and acceptance rules; a counting or implementation error under a correctly stated specification belongs in Dimensions 2 and 3 unless the governing specification itself is wrong. Judge planned procedures as proposals and completed work only from completed evidence. Distinguish observed defects, Not Evidenced, Conflicting Evidence and justified N/A. Cite exact files, sections, rows or record IDs. Missing records do not prove an activity failed or require repeat collection. An explicitly complete artifact omitting a required planned procedure can have a documentation defect. Do not invent facts, counts, thresholds, sources, completed checks, permissions, consent, owners or approvals. Label unconfirmed owners and dates as proposals. Never infer misconduct from a discrepancy.
Choose the highest 1-5 anchor fully supported by applicable evidence. A consequential defect takes precedence over favorable elements. If a required subcriterion is unavailable or conflicted, show partial findings and the evidence state without a complete dimension score. Explain excluded subcriteria. A wholly inapplicable dimension is N/A, with reason. Report blockers for validity, safety, ethics or confidentiality first regardless of any score. For the unadapted complete rubric, give total and band only when all five dimensions and every active assessed criterion are applicable, sufficiently evidenced and conflict-free. Any active assessed criterion marked N/A, Not Evidenced or unresolved Conflicting Evidence suppresses the total and band, even if the remaining dimension findings are usable. Conditional branches outside the selected assessment are outside scope, not failed or active N/A requirements. Use the following bands only when those conditions hold: Strong 22-25, Adequate 17-21, Needs Revision 11-16, Substantial Revision 5-10. Otherwise omit total, band, percentage and rescaled equivalent. The total is a secondary documentation summary, never clearance, certification or operational approval. Designs, stages and adapted profiles are not automatically comparable.
Scoring Anchors
SCORING RUBRIC - Operational Data Quality Assessment
DIMENSION 1: Purpose, Scope, and Definitions
- Score 5: Purpose, scope, operational definitions, populations and periods are coherent; applicable requirements, intended use and justified applicable thresholds are explicit. Any threshold not required for this purpose is explained; an unavailable required threshold remains an evidence gap.
- Score 4: The decision and scope are usable with coherent definitions; one minor boundary or threshold explanation needs clarification.
- Score 3: The intended use is clear but a material scope or definition detail needs resolution before reliable application.
- Score 2: A material scope, definition or acceptance-rule boundary is inconsistently specified, although the intended construct, population and period remain identifiable and no explicit false extension to another population or context is made.
- Score 1: The assessment adopts a demonstrably wrong construct, population or period as its governing specification, or explicitly extends its conclusion to a mismatched population or use context.
DIMENSION 2: Traceability and Verification
- Score 5: The trace from source to report is reproducible for the stated scope; selection, recount or cross-check procedures and limits are justified. A plan specifies future checks without claiming completion.
- Score 4: Trace and selection are defensible; one minor procedural detail remains without changing conclusions.
- Score 3: A usable trace and verification approach exist but a material selection or transformation limitation is acknowledged and constrains findings.
- Score 2: An observed verification or selection defect undermines the claim, such as generalizing a purposive check to a population error rate.
- Score 1: Known source/report discrepancies are ignored or an internally consistent report is asserted to prove accuracy without source verification.
DIMENSION 3: Quality Findings and Use Limits
- Score 5: Applicable quality lenses and use-specific rules are addressed with located evidence, denominators, limitations and proportionate interpretation. A plan defines checks and evidence requirements rather than results.
- Score 4: The relevant checks and use limits are sound; one minor explanation is incomplete.
- Score 3: Findings are usable within stated limits, but a material quality lens or uncertainty needs further examination and is not overclaimed.
- Score 2: An observed error in a denominator, timing rule, construct, or interpretation materially distorts a finding.
- Score 1: A consequential quality conflict or invalid measure is dismissed, or a fabricated result or universal cutoff drives the use decision.
DIMENSION 4: Integrity and Safe Access
- Score 5: Access boundaries and proportionate safeguards, change controls and handoffs are explicit and supported for the stage; disclosure risks and unknowns are addressed with safe escalation.
- Score 4: Material safeguards and access boundaries are sound; one minor control description needs clarification.
- Score 3: Safeguards are described with an acknowledged noncritical limitation and a bounded use restriction.
- Score 2: An observed control weakness creates material integrity or disclosure risk that the assessment has not adequately addressed.
- Score 1: The proposed or actual use involves unauthorized sensitive access or unsafe disclosure, or alleges misconduct solely from missing documentation.
DIMENSION 5: Corrective Action and Follow-Up
- Score 5: Actions address located causes or bounded investigations; responsibilities and timing are supplied or labeled proposals; follow-up tests closure and recurrence, with unresolved use restrictions visible.
- Score 4: Actions and follow-up are usable; one minor ownership, timing or verification detail remains.
- Score 3: The action framework exists but a material follow-up or escalation detail needs confirmation; closure is not overclaimed.
- Score 2: An observed action mismatch leaves a material defect unaddressed, or closure rests on an unverified completion label.
- Score 1: Textual revision is claimed to repair an operational defect, or harmful mandatory repeat collection is prescribed without evidence and authority.
Interpretation and Next Actions
Follow dimension order in the evidence table. Request the specific source, record, transformation, control evidence or decision that would resolve a gap. Preserve contradictory records and restrict affected conclusions pending reconciliation. A known discrepancy is an observed finding, even when its root cause remains unknown. Choose proportionate correction and verification of closure. A stated completion label does not prove closure.
These five dimensions and 1-5 anchors are original editorial operationalization, not an official framework or validated measurement scale. Current site bands are documentation conventions. Framework-specific terminology, thresholds, sampling and cadence apply only when appropriate to the supplied purpose and governing requirements. No universal completeness cutoff, audit size, interval or mandatory repeat collection is imposed.
Criterion-to-Source Map
The five dimensions, anchors, score levels and bands are original editorial synthesis. Source owners do not endorse this rating scale. Official-statistics and health-facility requirements are transferred only when relevant to the supplied monitoring purpose, not imposed as universal compliance duties.
| Dimension | Located Methodological Support | Boundary |
|---|---|---|
| Purpose, Scope, and Definitions | UN NQAF 2019, chapter 3 principles 14 and 19, printed pp. 25, 28; UN Administrative and Other Sources Module 2025, Part 2 critical requirements 1, 3, 8, printed pp. 11-12, 16 | User needs, definitions and metadata support decision fit. The five-part structure is editorial. |
| Traceability and Verification | UN NQAF 2019, requirements 12.4-12.5 and 15.1-15.2, printed pp. 25-26; UN Module 2025, CR7-9 and Annex 1, printed pp. 15-17, 19-21; WHO DQR Module 3, December 2020 update, printed pp. 5-7, 15-17, 20-30 | Processing and source/report checks support reproducibility. Source reconciliation is distinct from independent confirmation of source events. |
| Quality Findings and Use Limits | UN NQAF 2019, principles 15-19, printed pp. 26-28; UN Module 2025, CR6-8, CR10 and Annex 1, printed pp. 15-21 | Quality lenses and denominators depend on purpose. No universal cutoff, sample size or calendar interval follows. |
| Integrity and Safe Access | UN NQAF 2019, requirements 7.2-7.6, printed pp. 22-23; UN Module 2025, CR1, printed pp. 11-12 | Confidentiality, access and disclosure safeguards inform the assessment. Missing records are an evidence gap, not proof of misconduct. |
| Corrective Action and Follow-Up | UN NQAF 2019, principle 8 and requirements 15.2-15.3, printed pp. 23, 26; UN Module 2025, introduction paragraph 5 and CR5, CR9-10, printed pp. 3, 13-14, 17-18; WHO DQR Module 3, December 2020 update, chapter 4, printed pp. 34-45 | Improvement supports proportionate follow-up. Closure evidence, preservation of originals and proposed responsibility labels are editorial operationalization. |
Methodological References and Edition Limits
- United Nations. 2019. United Nations National Quality Assurance Frameworks Manual for Official Statistics. New York: United Nations. Chapter 3, principles 7, 8, 12, 14-19, printed pp. 22-28. This manual replaces the 2012 template; it is not superseded by the complementary 2025 module on the evidence inspected.
- United Nations Statistics Division. March 2025. Module for Quality Assurance when using Administrative and Other Data Sources to produce Official Statistics. Part 2, critical requirements 1, 3-10, printed pp. 11-18; Annex 1, pp. 19-21. The owner page identifies the March 2025 endorsement. Its institutional scope is official statistics, not an automatic requirement for every program.
- World Health Organization. December 2020 version update. Data Quality Review: A Toolkit for Facility Data Quality Assessment, Module 3: Data Verification and System Assessment. Geneva: WHO. Printed pp. 5-7, 15-17, 20-32, 34-45. This health-facility text is used for bounded verification and feedback distinctions. It is not represented as the latest WHO edition.
- WHO lists a later Data Quality Assurance Module 3, January 30, 2023. Its linked full text was inaccessible during the November 3, 2026 check. No criterion depends solely on that unavailable text; current program-specific WHO requirements require inspection before operational application. USAID ADS 201 currentness was also not established, so it is not accepted as a governing authority here.
No source instruments, official forms, tables or questionnaires are reproduced. Concepts from UN sources are expressed in original prose in this resource; no open adaptation license is assumed. The WHO 2020 publication states CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 IGO and commercial-adaptation permission conditions; no WHO instrument adaptation or endorsement is claimed. The source check and these edition limits were recorded November 3, 2026. Practitioner validation has not been performed.