Indicator Quality

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

You are an expert M&E specialist with deep experience designing and reviewing indicators across logframes, MEL plans, PIRS, and results frameworks. Score the indicator or set of indicators I will provide using the rubric below. The document may be a logframe, MEL plan, PIRS (Performance Indicator Reference Sheet), indicator framework, results framework, or any document containing indicators.

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

DIMENSION 1: SMART Criteria Compliance
- Score 5: All five SMART elements present. Specific (clear what is being measured, no ambiguity about subject or quality). Measurable (quantifiable or systematically observable, not aspirational). Achievable (realistic given context, capacity, and timeframe). Relevant (matches the result level it claims to measure, e.g., outcome indicators measure outcomes). Time-bound (deadline or measurement schedule specified).
- Score 4: At least four SMART elements present. One element partial or weakly evidenced.
- Score 3: At least three SMART elements present. Notable gaps in specificity, measurability, or time-bounding.
- Score 2: Two or fewer SMART elements present. Indicator is largely aspirational or vague.
- Score 1: No SMART criteria met. Indicator is a slogan or a result statement, not an indicator.

DIMENSION 2: Definition Clarity and Operationalization
- Score 5: All four elements present. Unambiguous indicator definition (no room for different interpretations across people or sites). Numerator and denominator defined for ratios and percentages, or explicit count rules for absolute numbers. Unit of analysis named (person, household, community, event, transaction). Calculation method documented (how the value is computed step by step).
- Score 4: At least three of four elements present. Definition clear and unit named; numerator/denominator or calculation method partial.
- Score 3: Indicator defined at a high level. Unit implied. Numerator/denominator or calculation logic missing.
- Score 2: Definition is the indicator name restated. No calculation logic.
- Score 1: No definition beyond a label.

DIMENSION 3: Disaggregation Strategy
- Score 5: All four elements present. Standard disaggregations included (sex and age at minimum, where relevant). Context-relevant disaggregations included (disability, geography, vulnerability category, beneficiary type). Disaggregation level matches the data collection method (not aspirational beyond what data supports). Reporting plan for disaggregated data specified (where it appears, how it is presented).
- Score 4: At least three of four elements present. Standard and one context disaggregation included; reporting plan or feasibility partial.
- Score 3: Sex disaggregation only. No context disaggregation. Feasibility against data collection unexamined.
- Score 2: Disaggregation listed without specifying categories or reporting plan.
- Score 1: No disaggregation specified.

DIMENSION 4: Data Source and Collection Method
- Score 5: All four elements present. Specific data source named (not generic "monitoring data", e.g., "service delivery records from clinic registers"). Collection method appropriate to indicator type (admin records, survey, observation, secondary source). Frequency of measurement specified (monthly, quarterly, annually, baseline-midline-endline). Responsibility for data collection assigned (specific role, not "the MEL team").
- Score 4: At least three of four elements present. Source named and method appropriate; frequency or responsibility partial.
- Score 3: Source generic ("project data"). Method named but not justified for the indicator. Frequency vague.
- Score 2: Source unspecified. Method unspecified or mismatched.
- Score 1: No data source, method, frequency, or responsibility documented.

DIMENSION 5: Indicator Family Coherence
- Score 5: All four elements present. Indicator at right result-chain level (input, output, outcome, impact appropriately tagged). No overlap with other indicators in the set (each measures something distinct). Indicator set covers the result chain (not just input-heavy or output-heavy). Number of indicators is right-sized (not vanity metrics, not overloaded with redundancy).
- Score 4: At least three of four elements present. Levels mostly correct and set covers the chain; minor overlap or one off-level indicator.
- Score 3: Result-chain level inconsistently applied. Some overlap. Coverage skewed toward one level.
- Score 2: Levels mislabeled or mixed. Significant redundancy. Coverage gaps at outcome or impact level.
- Score 1: No level tagging. Indicators are duplicative or disconnected from the result chain.

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

| Dimension | Score (1-5) | Evidence from Document | Priority Revision |
|-----------|-------------|------------------------|-------------------|
| SMART Criteria Compliance | | | |
| Definition Clarity and Operationalization | | | |
| Disaggregation Strategy | | | |
| Data Source and Collection Method | | | |
| Indicator Family Coherence | | | |

**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 indicator(s) or document with indicators here]