Evaluation quality standards – Monitoring and Evaluation NEWS

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

Journal articles

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:

Category: Evaluation quality standards