Survey Instrument Review

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

You are an expert M&E data specialist. Score the survey instrument I will provide using the rubric below.

SCORING RUBRIC - Survey Instrument Review
Score each dimension 1-5 using these criteria:

DIMENSION 1: Question Design
- Score 5: All questions use one-topic-per-question format. No leading or loaded words. Language matches target population literacy level. Response options are mutually exclusive and exhaustive. Sensitive questions placed at the end.
- Score 4: Most questions clearly worded. 1-2 contain mild ambiguity or slightly technical terms unlikely to cause significant response error.
- Score 3: Some questions are adequately worded, but several have partial issues: occasional ambiguity, minor leading phrasing, or response options missing a "don't know" option in one or two places. Problems are present but isolated rather than systematic.
- Score 2: Several questions contain leading language, double-barreled constructions, or ambiguity. Response options overlap or are missing a "don't know" option where needed.
- Score 1: Questions are systematically leading, double-barreled, or use terminology the target population would not understand.

DIMENSION 2: Instrument Structure
- Score 5: Complete introduction covers: who is collecting, purpose, how data will be used, estimated time, voluntary participation. Questions move from general to specific. Skip logic is present, clear, and consistently applied. Appropriate length for context.
- Score 4: Introduction present but missing one element. Question order logical. Skip logic exists but has minor inconsistencies.
- Score 3: Introduction present but missing two elements. Question order is mostly logical with some grouping issues. Skip logic exists for major branches but is absent or unclear for minor ones.
- Score 2: Introduction missing a major element. Question order appears arbitrary. Skip logic absent or inconsistently applied. Survey includes questions not needed for indicator measurement.
- Score 1: No introduction. No logical structure. No skip logic. Excessive length with no traceability to indicator needs.

DIMENSION 3: Ethical Standards
- Score 5: Informed consent covers: purpose, voluntary participation, right to refuse or withdraw, confidentiality protections, who to contact, and data storage. Safeguarding documented for vulnerable populations.
- Score 4: Consent present and covers most elements. One element missing. Basic safeguarding addressed.
- Score 3: Consent present and covers the core elements (purpose, voluntary participation, confidentiality) but is missing two secondary elements such as data storage details or contact information. No safeguarding considerations documented.
- Score 2: Consent present but superficial - a checkbox or verbal statement that does not cover confidentiality or data use.
- Score 1: No consent procedure. Respondents not informed of purpose, rights, or data use.

DIMENSION 4: Indicator Alignment
- Score 5: Every question maps to a specific indicator or data need. No orphan questions. Every required indicator has at least one question.
- Score 4: Most questions trace to indicators. 1-2 useful for context but not explicitly linked. All core indicators have coverage.
- Score 3: Most questions trace to indicators, but 3-4 orphan questions are present with no clear indicator link. Most required indicators are covered, but one or two have weak or indirect coverage only.
- Score 2: Significant proportion of questions cannot be traced to indicator requirements. Several required indicators have no corresponding question.
- Score 1: No traceable link between questions and programme indicators.

DIMENSION 5: Pretesting and Adaptation
- Score 5: Piloted with 5-10 people from the actual target population. Findings documented. Revisions evident. Enumerators received standardized training with at least one mock interview.
- Score 4: Pretesting documented. Sample may not be exact target population. Some revisions made. Enumerator guidelines present.
- Score 3: Pretesting conducted and mentioned, but documentation is partial: findings summarized without specific revision notes, or enumerator guidelines are generic rather than instrument-specific.
- Score 2: Pretesting mentioned but not documented. No enumerator guidance specific to this instrument.
- Score 1: No evidence of pretesting. No enumerator training. Instrument went directly from design to field.

ADDITIONAL TASK: List every specific question that fails Dimension 1 (Question Design). For each, state the problem type (leading / double-barreled / ambiguous / wrong literacy level / response options) and provide a corrected version.

OUTPUT FORMAT:

| Dimension | Score (1-5) | Key Finding | Priority Action |
|-----------|-------------|-------------|----------------|
| Question Design | | | |
| Instrument Structure | | | |
| Ethical Standards | | | |
| Indicator Alignment | | | |
| Pretesting | | | |

**Total: X/25**
**Band:** Strong (22-25) / Adequate (17-21) / Needs Revision (11-16) / Substantial Revision (5-10)
**Single Most Important Revision:** [One sentence]

Then list flagged questions with corrections.

SURVEY INSTRUMENT TO SCORE:
[Paste your questionnaire here]