Triangulation Strength

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

You are an expert M&E methodologist with deep experience in mixed-methods analysis. Score the triangulation approach in the analysis plan, methodology, or evaluation report section I will provide using the rubric below.

SCORING RUBRIC - Triangulation Strength
Score each dimension 1-5 using these criteria:

DIMENSION 1: Method Triangulation
- Score 5: All elements present. Multiple data collection methods (e.g., survey, KIIs, FGDs, document review, observation, secondary data) are used. Each key question is addressed by at least two methods. Methods are chosen to capture different aspects of the question (prevalence vs. mechanism, breadth vs. depth). Method coverage is mapped per question.
- Score 4: At least three of four elements present. Multiple methods used and mapped to questions; some questions still covered by a single method.
- Score 3: At least two of four elements present. Multiple methods present but coverage per question is uneven or generic.
- Score 2: Two methods used redundantly (e.g., two qualitative methods covering the same ground). Mapping absent.
- Score 1: Absent or inadequate. Single method or methods chosen without coverage logic.

DIMENSION 2: Source Triangulation
- Score 5: All elements present. Multiple respondent groups contribute to each key question (e.g., beneficiaries, staff, partners, community leaders). Multiple document sources cross-check claims where relevant. Sources are deliberately selected to capture different perspectives or interests. Source-by-question mapping exists.
- Score 4: At least three of four elements present. Multiple sources used; mapping or perspective diversity partial.
- Score 3: At least two of four elements present. Multiple sources used but perspective diversity weak.
- Score 2: Single respondent group dominates. Document sources duplicate one another.
- Score 1: Absent or inadequate. Findings will rest on one source per question.

DIMENSION 3: Investigator Triangulation
- Score 5: All elements present. Multiple analysts are involved where stakes warrant (high-cost decisions, sensitive findings, contested attribution). Coding or analysis is double-blinded or independently replicated for a defined subset. Inter-rater reliability is calculated where appropriate. Disagreements are documented and resolved through a named procedure.
- Score 4: At least three of four elements present. Multiple analysts involved with documented procedures; reliability calculations or subset coverage partial.
- Score 3: At least two of four elements present. Multiple analysts named but division of labor is sequential rather than overlapping.
- Score 2: Single analyst. Or peer review reduced to a final read-through.
- Score 1: Absent or inadequate. Investigator triangulation not addressed where stakes plainly warrant.

DIMENSION 4: Conflict Resolution Process
- Score 5: All elements present. A named procedure exists for handling contradictory findings across methods, sources, or analysts. The procedure specifies criteria for weighting evidence (recency, source proximity, methodological strength). Contradictions are surfaced rather than averaged or hidden. A decision log records how each contradiction was resolved.
- Score 4: At least three of four elements present. Procedure named and criteria partial; decision log mentioned but not specified.
- Score 3: At least two of four elements present. Procedure mentioned but vague. Criteria implicit.
- Score 2: Contradictions handled by averaging or by choosing the most convenient finding. No procedure.
- Score 1: Absent or inadequate. No process named; contradictions will be invisible in reporting.

DIMENSION 5: Transparency in Reporting
- Score 5: All elements present. The final report will show triangulation visibly through evidence matrices, source citations per finding, or finding-by-method tables. Divergent evidence will be acknowledged where it exists. Triangulation claims in the methodology are traceable to specific findings. Readers can see which sources support which conclusions.
- Score 4: At least three of four elements present. Visible triangulation planned; divergence handling or traceability partial.
- Score 3: At least two of four elements present. Triangulation visible for major findings but not consistently.
- Score 2: Triangulation claimed in methodology but findings section reads as a single narrative without source attribution.
- Score 1: Absent or inadequate. Triangulation claimed only; no plan for visibility in the final report.

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

| Dimension | Score (1-5) | Evidence | Priority Revision |
|-----------|-------------|----------|-------------------|
| Method Triangulation | | | |
| Source Triangulation | | | |
| Investigator Triangulation | | | |
| Conflict Resolution Process | | | |
| Transparency in Reporting | | | |

**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.

TRIANGULATION SECTION TO SCORE:
[Paste your triangulation section here]