Sampling Frame Quality

Collez un document pour obtenir une évaluation de qualité notée, avec preuves et priorités de révision.

You are an expert M&E sampling specialist. Score the sampling frame description in the document I will provide using the rubric below.

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

DIMENSION 1: Frame Source Documentation
- Score 5: All four elements present. Source named specifically (e.g., "national household registry maintained by the Ministry of Social Affairs, 2024 version," "program beneficiary database extracted on 12 March 2026," "village listing exercise conducted in February 2026"), source custodian or maintainer named, version or extraction date specified, and access pathway documented (how the frame was obtained and who has copies).
- Score 4: At least three of four elements present. Source and custodian named; version date or access pathway partial.
- Score 3: At least two of four elements present. Source named but custodian or date generic.
- Score 2: Source named only generically (e.g., "program records," "government data") without custodian or version.
- Score 1: No frame source documented, OR source is unverifiable.

DIMENSION 2: Frame Coverage
- Score 5: All four elements present. Frame's relationship to the target population stated (does the frame match, undercoverage, overcoverage), known systematic exclusions identified (e.g., unregistered households, mobile populations, those without phones in a phone-based frame), coverage assessed quantitatively where possible (e.g., "frame covers approximately 92% of target population based on 2023 census comparison"), and implications for inference noted.
- Score 4: At least three of four elements present. Frame-population relationship and exclusions stated; coverage assessment or implications partial.
- Score 3: At least two of four elements present. Relationship to target population stated but exclusions or coverage assessment generic.
- Score 2: Frame coverage referenced without examination of exclusions.
- Score 1: No coverage assessment, OR frame obviously excludes large segments of target population without acknowledgment.

DIMENSION 3: Frame Currency
- Score 5: All four elements present. Frame construction date stated, time elapsed between construction and sampling stated (e.g., "frame is 18 months old at point of sampling"), population dynamics considered (migration, births, deaths, program entry/exit since frame construction), and a judgment on whether the frame remains valid is made with rationale.
- Score 4: At least three of four elements present. Date and elapsed time stated; population dynamics or validity judgment partial.
- Score 3: At least two of four elements present. Date stated but population dynamics not addressed.
- Score 2: Frame currency referenced without dates or dynamics.
- Score 1: No currency information, OR frame is clearly outdated for population dynamics without acknowledgment.

DIMENSION 4: Duplication and Cleaning
- Score 5: All four elements present. Duplicate identification procedure documented (matching variables used, manual review process), ineligible entries removed with criteria stated (e.g., "households that have exited the program since the frame was constructed"), missing data on key sampling variables addressed (imputed, flagged, or excluded with rationale), and post-cleaning frame size reported alongside original frame size.
- Score 4: At least three of four elements present. Duplicate and ineligible handling documented; missing data or size reporting partial.
- Score 3: At least two of four elements present. Some cleaning steps documented but procedures generic.
- Score 2: Cleaning referenced as a checkbox without procedures.
- Score 1: No cleaning documented, OR cleaning would leave the frame unsuitable.

DIMENSION 5: Frame Limitations Disclosure
- Score 5: All four elements present. Known frame limitations stated explicitly (not buried), each limitation's likely direction of bias assessed (over- or under-representation), mitigation steps where feasible named (e.g., post-stratification weights, supplementary sampling from a second frame), and limitations explicitly tied to inference statements in subsequent analysis.
- Score 4: At least three of four elements present. Limitations and bias direction assessed; mitigation or inference linkage partial.
- Score 3: At least two of four elements present. Limitations stated but bias direction or mitigation absent.
- Score 2: Limitations referenced generically ("the frame has limitations") without specificity.
- Score 1: No limitations disclosed.

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

| Dimension | Score (1-5) | Evidence from Frame Description | Priority Revision |
|-----------|-------------|--------------------------------|-------------------|
| Frame Source Documentation | | | |
| Frame Coverage | | | |
| Frame Currency | | | |
| Duplication and Cleaning | | | |
| Frame Limitations Disclosure | | | |

**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.

SAMPLING FRAME DESCRIPTION TO SCORE:
[Paste your sampling frame description here]