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:
Very useful, but could I also suggest to include the Evaluation Norms and Standards prepared by the UN Evaluation Group and that guide the work of the various UN agencies? The can be downloaded at http://www.unevaluation.org/normsandstandards/index.jsp?doc_cat_source_id=4
Juha
USAID’s Evaluation Policy 2011 could be added to this list, as an example of donor-specific evaluation standards/practices.
It is available at the following link:
http://www.usaid.gov/evaluation/USAIDEvaluationPolicy.pdf
Hello Rick, a fine resource thank you.
1. Do Codes of Ethics fit here? I suspect so. The Australian Evaluation Society’s are here: http://www.aes.asn.au/about/ .
2. Altman, DG, Schulz, KF, Moher, D, Egger, M, Davidoff, F, Elbourne, D, Gotzsche, PC & Lang, T 2001, ‘The revised CONSORT statement for reporting randomized trials: explanation and elaboration’, Annals of Internal Medicine, vol. 134, no. 8, pp. 663-94.
Overwhelming evidence now indicates that the quality of reporting of randomized, controlled trials (RCTs) is less than optimal. Recent methodologic analyses indicate that inadequate reporting and design are associated with biased estimates of treatment effects. Such systematic error is seriously damaging to RCTs, which boast the elimination of systematic error as their primary hallmark. Systematic error in RCTs reflects poor science, and poor science threatens proper ethical standards. A group of scientists and editors developed the CONSORT (Con solidated S tandards o f R eporting T rials) statement to improve the quality of reporting of RCTs. The statement consists of a checklist and flow diagram that authors can use for reporting an RCT. Many leading medical journals and major international editorial groups have adopted the CONSORT statement. The CONSORT statement facilitates critical appraisal and interpretation of RCTs by providing guidance to authors about how to improve the reporting of their trials. This explanatory and elaboration document is intended to enhance the use, understanding, and dissemination of the CONSORT statement. The meaning and rationale for each checklist item are presented. For most items, at least one published example of good reporting and, where possible, references to relevant empirical studies are provided. Several examples of flow diagrams are included. The CONSORT statement, this explanatory and elaboration document, and the associated Web site ( http://www.consort-statement.org ) should be helpful resources to improve reporting of randomized trials. Throughout the text, terms marked with an asterisk are defined at end of text.
3. Des Jarlais, DC, Lyles, C & Crepaz, N 2004, ‘Improving the reporting quality of nonrandomized evaluations of behavioral and public health interventions: the TREND statement’, American Journal of Public Health, vol. 94, no. 3, pp. 361-6.
Developing an evidence base for making public health decisions will require using data from evaluation studies with randomized and nonrandomized designs. Assessing individual studies and using studies in quantitative research syntheses require transparent reporting of the study, with sufficient detail and clarity to readily see differences and similarities among studies in the same area. The Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) statement provides guidelines for transparent reporting of randomized clinical trials. We present the initial version of the Transparent Reporting of Evaluations with Nonrandomized Designs (TREND) statement. These guidelines emphasize the reporting of theories used and descriptions of intervention and comparison conditions, research design, and methods of adjusting for possible biases in evaluation studies that use nonrandomized designs.
Regards – David
This list is a very useful compendium of sources for evaluators and their stakeholders.
However, users should be very careful to match the standards and criteria they emply with the life cycle stage of the program they are evaluating. The evaluative data needs are very different for programs in their early stages of development, or when the evaluation is to support the improvement of program delivery at a local level. I am drafting a publication on this topic, but it is not yet ready for distribution.
Both a checklist and a large database, the Impact Reporting and Investment Standards for monitoring the impact of corporate social responsibility in rich and poor countries alike has grown a lot in importance for impact investors:
http://iris.thegiin.org/
The American Evaluation Association also has their own guidelines:
http://www.eval.org/Publications/GuidingPrinciples.asp
I am happy to learn it but I don’t know any such list, sorry.