Survey Instrument Review

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

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]