Disaggregation Quality

AI Prompt Templates

Copy a prompt into Claude, ChatGPT, or Gemini. Paste your document at the bottom and run.

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

6,069 characters
You are an expert M&E data analyst with experience in inclusive and intersectional measurement. Score the disaggregation quality of the document I will provide using the rubric below. The document may be a MEL plan, indicator framework, survey, evaluation report, donor progress report, monitoring brief, or any document where data should be disaggregated.

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

DIMENSION 1: Disaggregation Plan Completeness
- Score 5: All four elements present. Standard disaggregations specified (sex and age at minimum where applicable to the population). Context-relevant disaggregations specified (disability, geography, vulnerability category, beneficiary type as relevant to the program). Disaggregation rationale documented (why these categories were chosen, why others were not). The plan covers all key indicators or data points rather than being selectively applied to a few.
- Score 4: At least three of four elements present. Standard and context-relevant disaggregations specified; rationale or coverage partial.
- Score 3: Sex and age disaggregation specified but context-relevant categories missing or thin. Rationale not documented. Selective application.
- Score 2: Disaggregation mentioned in passing. Categories not fully specified.
- Score 1: No disaggregation plan or sex-only by default.

DIMENSION 2: Method-Disaggregation Alignment
- Score 5: All four elements present. Sample size supports planned disaggregation (sub-group power adequate for the comparisons that matter). Data collection method captures the disaggregation variables (e.g., the survey actually collects sex, age, disability status). Sampling method does not undermine sub-group representation (e.g., not a convenience sample that excludes a key group). Categories are operationalized consistently across instruments (disability defined the same way in baseline and endline, in survey and KII guide).
- Score 4: At least three of four elements present. Sample and instruments capture disaggregation; consistency or sub-group power partial.
- Score 3: Disaggregation variables collected but sample undersized for sub-group analysis. Definitions inconsistent across instruments.
- Score 2: Plan calls for disaggregation but instruments do not collect the variables. Sub-groups too small.
- Score 1: No alignment between disaggregation plan and data collection method.

DIMENSION 3: Analysis Disaggregation
- Score 5: All four elements present. The analysis plan specifies disaggregated analyses, not just aggregated totals. Sub-group differences are tested for significance where appropriate (or qualitative pattern comparison documented for non-statistical work). Intersectional disaggregation is conducted where relevant (e.g., women with disabilities, not only women OR only persons with disabilities). Small sub-groups are handled transparently (combined with rationale, footnoted with caveats, or analyzed with explicit caution).
- Score 4: At least three of four elements present. Disaggregated analysis specified; intersectional or small-group handling partial.
- Score 3: Disaggregated tables produced but no significance testing or pattern interpretation. No intersectional analysis. Small sub-groups dropped without explanation.
- Score 2: Aggregate analysis only with sub-group totals appended. No comparison logic.
- Score 1: Analysis is fully aggregated. Disaggregation collected but not analyzed.

DIMENSION 4: Reporting Disaggregation
- Score 5: All four elements present. Disaggregated data is reported in the main text and tables, not buried in an annex. Visualizations show sub-group differences clearly (e.g., grouped bars, faceted charts, comparison tables). Patterns across disaggregations are described in narrative, not only shown in a table. Where data cannot be disaggregated for a planned dimension, the limitation is explicitly stated.
- Score 4: At least three of four elements present. Disaggregation visible in main text; visualization or narrative interpretation partial.
- Score 3: Disaggregated data appears in annex tables only. Visualizations show aggregate. Narrative ignores sub-group patterns.
- Score 2: Disaggregated data referenced in passing. No tables or charts surface sub-groups.
- Score 1: Reporting is fully aggregated. No disaggregation visible to the reader.

DIMENSION 5: Use of Disaggregated Data
- Score 5: All four elements present. Findings reference disaggregated patterns, not only aggregate trends ("uptake rose to 62 percent overall, but only to 38 percent among women with disabilities"). Recommendations respond to disaggregated findings, with different actions for different groups where warranted. Decisions documented in the report or management response reference disaggregated evidence. Equity gaps surfaced by the disaggregation are addressed in next steps, not noted and ignored.
- Score 4: At least three of four elements present. Findings reference disaggregation; recommendations or decision use partial.
- Score 3: Findings mention sub-group differences but recommendations are generic. No equity gap follow-through.
- Score 2: Disaggregated data presented but not interpreted in findings or recommendations.
- Score 1: Disaggregation has no influence on findings, recommendations, or decisions.

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

| Dimension | Score (1-5) | Evidence from Document | Priority Revision |
|-----------|-------------|------------------------|-------------------|
| Disaggregation Plan Completeness | | | |
| Method-Disaggregation Alignment | | | |
| Analysis Disaggregation | | | |
| Reporting Disaggregation | | | |
| Use of Disaggregated Data | | | |

**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.

DOCUMENT TO SCORE:
[Paste your document or relevant sections here]

Criterios de Calificación

DimensiónExcelente (5)Bueno (4)Adecuado (3)Necesita Mejora (2)Inadecuado (1)
Completitud del Plan de DesagregaciónLos cuatro elementos. Desagregaciones estándar especificadas. Categorías contextuales con justificación. Plan cubre todos los indicadores clave.Al menos tres elementos. Estándar y contextuales especificadas; justificación o cobertura parciales.Sexo y edad especificados pero categorías contextuales delgadas. Justificación no documentada. Aplicación selectiva.Desagregación mencionada de paso. Categorías no completamente especificadas.Sin plan de desagregación o solo por sexo por defecto.
Alineación entre Método y DesagregaciónLos cuatro elementos. Muestra dimensionada para poder de subgrupo. Instrumentos capturan variables. Muestreo preserva representación. Definiciones consistentes entre instrumentos.Al menos tres elementos. Muestra e instrumentos capturan desagregación; consistencia o poder de subgrupo parciales.Variables recolectadas pero muestra subdimensionada. Definiciones inconsistentes entre instrumentos.Plan exige desagregación pero instrumentos no recogen variables. Subgrupos demasiado pequeños.Sin alineación entre plan y método.
Desagregación en el AnálisisLos cuatro elementos. Análisis desagregados especificados. Diferencias entre subgrupos probadas. Análisis interseccional cuando es relevante. Subgrupos pequeños manejados transparentemente.Al menos tres elementos. Análisis desagregado especificado; manejo interseccional o de subgrupos pequeños parcial.Tablas desagregadas pero sin pruebas o interpretación. Sin análisis interseccional. Subgrupos pequeños descartados sin explicación.Análisis agregado con totales de subgrupos anexados. Sin lógica de comparación.Análisis totalmente agregado. Desagregación recolectada pero no analizada.
Desagregación en el ReporteLos cuatro elementos. Datos desagregados en texto principal y tablas. Visualizaciones muestran diferencias entre subgrupos. Patrones descritos en narrativa. Limitaciones declaradas cuando no es factible.Al menos tres elementos. Desagregación visible en texto principal; visualización o narrativa parciales.Desagregación solo en tablas anexas. Visualizaciones muestran agregado. Narrativa ignora subgrupos.Desagregación referenciada de paso. Sin tablas o gráficos que muestren subgrupos.Reporte totalmente agregado. Sin desagregación visible.
Uso de Datos DesagregadosLos cuatro elementos. Hallazgos referencian patrones desagregados. Recomendaciones responden a hallazgos por subgrupo. Decisiones referencian evidencia desagregada. Brechas de equidad abordadas en próximos pasos.Al menos tres elementos. Hallazgos referencian desagregación; recomendaciones o uso en decisiones parciales.Hallazgos mencionan diferencias pero recomendaciones genéricas. Sin seguimiento de brechas de equidad.Datos desagregados presentados pero no interpretados en hallazgos o recomendaciones.Desagregación no influye en hallazgos, recomendaciones o decisiones.

Interpretación de la Puntuación

Total (de 25)BandaSiguiente Paso
22-25SólidoLa desagregación es robusta a lo largo del pipeline completo y relevante para la equidad. Use tal cual.
17-21AdecuadoLa corrección más probable: extender la desagregación al análisis y al reporte, no solo a la recolección. Aborde las dimensiones señaladas antes del trabajo de campo o publicación.
11-16Necesita RevisiónSe requiere revisión sustancial. El plan existe pero no fluye hasta el uso. Use la instrucción de Revisión para reparar la cadena análisis-uso.
5-10Revisión SustancialLa desagregación es aspiracional o solo por sexo. Reconstruya desde un plan interseccional que vincule categorías a decisiones y preguntas de equidad.