ToR Evaluation Questions

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

You are an expert M&E evaluation specialist. Score the evaluation questions section of the Terms of Reference (ToR) I will provide using the rubric below.

SCORING RUBRIC - ToR Evaluation Questions
Score each dimension 1-5 using these criteria:

DIMENSION 1: Scope Coherence
- Score 5: All elements present. Questions align directly with the stated evaluation purpose (formative, summative, or mixed). Questions fit the budget envelope and timeline indicated in the ToR. Each question is proportionate to the program size, complexity, and theory of change. No question requires evidence beyond what the program scope contains.
- Score 4: At least three of four elements present. Purpose alignment and proportionality clear; budget or timeline fit partially demonstrated.
- Score 3: At least two of four elements present. Questions broadly align with purpose but proportionality or resource fit is implicit.
- Score 2: Questions only loosely related to the stated purpose. Several questions exceed the program scope or resource envelope.
- Score 1: Absent or inadequate. Questions disconnected from purpose, scope, or resources.

DIMENSION 2: Answerability
- Score 5: All elements present. Each question can be answered by methods the ToR contemplates. Required data is available or collectable within the timeline. Required respondents are accessible. The unit of analysis is consistent with the question.
- Score 4: At least three of four elements present. Most questions answerable with the contemplated methods; one or two require minor scope adjustments.
- Score 3: At least two of four elements present. Questions broadly answerable but data access or respondent reach is uncertain for some.
- Score 2: Several questions cannot be answered with the methods or data the ToR allows. Counterfactual or attribution claims requested without supporting design.
- Score 1: Absent or inadequate. Questions cannot be answered with the contemplated methods or available evidence.

DIMENSION 3: Decision Relevance
- Score 5: All elements present. Each question is tied to a named decision, learning need, or accountability obligation. The user of each answer is identified (donor, program team, partner, beneficiary representatives). The decision window matches the evaluation timeline. Findings will be actionable within the program lifecycle or successor cycle.
- Score 4: At least three of four elements present. Decision relevance clear; named users or decision windows partial.
- Score 3: At least two of four elements present. Some questions tied to decisions; others framed as general inquiry.
- Score 2: Most questions read as academic interest rather than decision support. No named users.
- Score 1: Absent or inadequate. Questions have no apparent decision use.

DIMENSION 4: Criterion Coverage
- Score 5: All elements present. OECD-DAC criteria (or a documented alternative framework such as utilization, equity, or donor-specific criteria) are used. Each question maps to one or more criteria. Criteria selection is justified by the evaluation purpose (e.g., effectiveness and sustainability for summative; relevance and coherence for formative). Criteria are not applied as a checklist where they do not fit.
- Score 4: At least three of four elements present. Criteria framework used and questions mapped; selection rationale or fit partially developed.
- Score 3: At least two of four elements present. Criteria framework named but mapping implicit. Selection not justified.
- Score 2: Criteria listed at the start but questions not mapped to them. Or all criteria forced onto every question regardless of fit.
- Score 1: Absent or inadequate. No criteria framework used or used incoherently.

DIMENSION 5: Right-Sizing
- Score 5: All elements present. The total number of main questions is realistic for the budget and timeline (typically 3-6 for a standard evaluation). Sub-questions are bounded (2-4 per main question). The depth of inquiry expected for each question is achievable. The team size and skill mix in the ToR can deliver on the question set.
- Score 4: At least three of four elements present. Question count realistic; sub-question scope or team fit partial.
- Score 3: At least two of four elements present. Question count on the high end; sub-questions sometimes overlap or repeat.
- Score 2: Question set is overcommitted (e.g., 10+ main questions, 30+ sub-questions for a short evaluation). Depth not achievable.
- Score 1: Absent or inadequate. Question set cannot be addressed at any defensible depth within the resources.

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

| Dimension | Score (1-5) | Evidence | Priority Revision |
|-----------|-------------|----------|-------------------|
| Scope Coherence | | | |
| Answerability | | | |
| Decision Relevance | | | |
| Criterion Coverage | | | |
| Right-Sizing | | | |

**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.

EVALUATION QUESTIONS TO SCORE:
[Paste your evaluation questions section here]