by Bertha Briceño, Water and Sanitation Program, World Bank; Laura Cuesta, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Orazio Attanasio, University College London
December 2011, 3ie Working Paper 14, available as pdf

“Abstract: As more resources are being allocated to impact evaluation of development programs,the need to map out the utilization and influence of evaluations has been increasingly highlighted. This paper aims at filling this gap by describing and discussing experiences from four large impact evaluations in Colombia on a case study-basis. On the basis of (1) learning from our prior experience in both managing and conducting impact evaluations, (2) desk review of available documentation from the Monitoring & Evaluation system, and (3) structured interviews with government actors, evaluators and program managers, we benchmark each evaluation against eleven standards of quality. From this benchmarking exercise, we derive five key lessons for conducting high quality and influential impact evaluations: (1) investing in the preparation of good terms of reference and identification of evaluation questions; (2) choosing the best methodological approach to address the evaluation questions; (3) adopting mechanisms to ensure evaluation quality; (4) laying out the incentives for involved parties in order to foster evaluation buy-in; and (5) carrying out a plan for quality dissemination.”

The beginnings of a list. Please suggest others by using the Comment facility below

Normative statements:

• DFID Evaluation Quality Assurance templates for Entry level and Exit level. Entry level refers to TORs or evaluation plans, Exit level refers to draft evaluation reports. Circa 2011.
• USAID Evaluation Policy, January 2011. See Section 4 on Evalation practices, which lists 6 quality criteria
• American Evaluation Association’s PROGRAM EVALUATION STANDARDS. Available online in  Summary Form. The full text is Yarbrough, D. B., Shulha, L. M., Hopson, R. K., and Caruthers, F. A. (2011). The program evaluation standards: A guide for evaluators and evaluation users (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
• Quality Standards for Development Evaluation, DAC Guidelines and Reference Series, OECD, 2010
• Quality control in the evaluation reports, EuropeAID Co-operation Office, 2006. (Note: a quality rating is given by the EC to every final evaluation report.)
• Norms for Evaluation in the UN System, UN Evaluation Group, 2005
• Standards for Evaluation in the UN System, UN Evaluation Group, 2005
• UNICEF’s Evaluation Standards, based on those also used by AEA above, developed by the American Joint Committee on Standards for Educational Evaluation (AJCSEE), undated
• UK Evaluation Society Good Practice Guidelines, undated

Standards for specific methods (and fields):

• The CONSORT Statement is intended to improve the reporting of a randomized controlled trial (RCT), enabling readers to understand a trial’s design, conduct, analysis and interpretation, and to assess the validity of its results. It emphasizes that this can only be achieved through complete transparency from authors. 2010
• The TREND statement  “Transparent reporting is crucial for assessing the validity and efficacy of these intervention studies, and, it facilitates synthesis of the findings for evidence-based recommendations. Therefore, the mission of the Transparent Reporting of Evaluations with Nonrandomized Designs (TREND) group is to improve the reporting standards of nonrandomized evaluations of behavioral and public health interventions” 2009
• Systematic Reviews: CRD’s guidance on undertaking reviews in health care. Centre for Reviews and Dissemination, University of York, 2009
• Methodology checklist: Qualitative studies,  National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence, UK, January 2009
• Quality in Qualitative Evaluation: A framework for assessing research evidence A Quality Framework, by  Liz Spencer, Jane Ritchie, Jane Lewis and Lucy Dillon National Centre for Social Research, UK Cabinet Office, 2003

Meta-evaluations:

• Are Sida Evaluations Good Enough?An Assessment of 34 Evaluation Reports” by Kim Forss, Evert Vedung, Stein Erik Kruse,Agnes Mwaiselage, Anna Nilsdotter, Sida Studies in Evaluation 2008:1  See especially Section 6: Conclusion, 6.1 Revisiting the Quality Questions, 6.2 Why are there Quality Problems with Evaluations?, 6.3 How can the Quality of Evaluations be Improved?, 6.4 Direction of Future Studies. RD Comment:  This study has annexes with empirical data on the quality attributes of  34 evaluation reports published in the Sida Evaluations series between 2003 and 2005. It BEGS a follow up study to see if/how these various quality ratings correlate in any way with the subsequent use of the evaluation reports. Could Sida pursuaded to do something like this?

Ethics focused

• Australasian Evaluation Society

• Guidelines for the Ethical Conduct of Evaluations , 2010
• Code of Ethics, 2000
• Policy on the application of the Code of Ethics, 2000

Journal articles

• Assessing Quality in Applied and Educational Research: A Framework for Discussion, by John Furlong, Alis Oancea, 2008
•  Evaluation Standards in an International Context, Love & Russon,  New Directions for Evaluation, 2005

Checklists:

• Evaluation checklists prepared by the Western Michegan University ,covering Evaluation Management, Evaluation Models, Evaluation Values and Criteria, Metaevaluation, Evaluation Capacity Building / Institutionalization, and Checklist Creation

Other lists:

• See also the European Evaluation Association’s lists of:
  • Evaluation Standards of National and Regional Evaluation Societies and
  • Evaluation Standards of International and Supranational Organisations

Date: November 10-13, 2010
Venue: San Antonio, Texas

The American Evaluation Association invites evaluators from around the world to attend its annual conference to be held Wednesday, November 10, through Saturday, November 13, 2010 in San Antonio, Texas. We’ll be convening at the lovely Grand Hyatt San Antonio, right in the heart of the vibrant city and adjacent to the Riverwalk’s nightlife, restaurants, and strolling grounds. Discounted hotel reservations will be available in March.

AEA’s annual meeting is expected to bring together approximately 2500 evaluation practitioners, academics, and students, and represents a unique opportunity to gather with professional colleagues in a collaborative, thought-provoking, and fun atmosphere.

The conference is broken down into 44 Topical Strands that examine the field from the vantage point of a particular methodology, context, or issue of interest to the field as well as the Presidential Strand highlighting this year’s Presidential Theme of Evaluation Quality. Presentations may explore the conference theme or any aspect of the full breadth and depth of evaluation theory and practice.

Proposals are due by midnight in the Eastern time zone, on Friday, March 19, 2010.
For more information: http://www.eval.org/eval2010/10cfp.htm

Training course – ‘Evaluating the Quality of humanitarian projects’, postponed to 19-23 May 2008, Plaisians, France
This 5-day course will take place in the training centre at Groupe URD’s headquarters. The course looks at evaluation (definition, phases, types…) with regard to the Quality of humanitarian action.
It is organised around a full case study based on real experiences in the field.
The course is aimed at Programme managers, Project managers, M&E managers, evaluators and all other positions in the humanitarian sector involved in project management.
Language : French.
Registration form
Contact