Comments on: Weighted Checklists

By: rick davies

rick davies — Sat, 23 Oct 2010 16:19:14 +0000

Hi Joevye
It would be good if your site could support weighted versions of checklists.
Is that a possibility in the future?

By: Joevye

Joevye — Fri, 22 Oct 2010 09:13:28 +0000

Hello Rick!

Very useful tips and article about Weighted checklist. A great way to start and spread the importance of having such.

You may want to share them too with other management and event professionals over at Expert Checklist http://expertchecklists.com/. It’s a new web app for professionals working in difficult and complex environments where users can work together to create and discuss very effective checklists for their fields.

The cool thing is that you can modify the list for yourself and print it as PDF. On the web site, you can also work together with other pros to improve the list or discuss changes.

By: Vaishali

Vaishali — Sat, 07 Feb 2009 17:58:59 +0000

I would like tunderstand teh adptation of this method in non profit sector

By: Weighted checklists as an evaluation tool « intelligent measurement

Weighted checklists as an evaluation tool « intelligent measurement — Mon, 19 Jan 2009 19:59:40 +0000

[...] In this post, Rick Davies explains about the “weighted checklist” and how they can be used in evaluation. By being “weighted” it means that each item or attribute of a checklist is given an importance – more, same or less compared to other items – and it all tallies up in the overall assessment (see an example here). [...]

By: rick davies

rick davies — Sun, 11 Jan 2009 15:13:12 +0000

I have just noticed that the 2008 revision of the format used by DFID for its Annual Review reports on its funded projects includes not just an achievement rating for each output (1-5), but also a % weighting for each output (adding up to 100%), and that these are then combined to produce an aggregate performance score for the project at Output level, with a maximum possible score of 100%.

By: Ann Lily Marie O. Uvero

Ann Lily Marie O. Uvero — Mon, 29 Dec 2008 00:33:05 +0000

While weighted checklist quantifies performance it is important that there is a qualitative explanation to clarify further the scores.

By: Shereen Nasef

Shereen Nasef — Sun, 28 Dec 2008 20:29:20 +0000

I think this is a very interesting and promising approach. I also imagine that it would be very beneficial when used to assess (evaluate) performance of community based associations.

I am thinking/brainstorming on some issues below:

1- The measue of quality of a certain indicator: for example in the tool presented above might the latrines might be found and thus take (1)while their quality might be very low (broken), so I would really “stand for” the simple measure degree scale (0-3)which will deal with the quality issue. In case of using the simple measure degree scale, each score from (1-3) while have a different weighting which will make it more complicated!

2- If an evaluator/someone use the tool to assess the performance of a community based association, s/he will need examine a lot of evidence to prove /prove not each statement/indicator (i.e. existence of mission statement or existence of clear and fair staff policies..etc).

3- I also think that before calculating the total score of a tool, a one should know before hand what each range of scores would mean (20 – 40: this would mean …) – but again this could also be misleading if total high scores where due to focus to achieved the “highly weighted” indicators!!

Thanks