 |
 |
This draft suggestion addresses Principle 3 from a consultation driven by Monitoring and Evaluation experts from UK CSOs Jan – Mar 2017 – (per Results: discussion space and TAG 2016/17 path ) - see attached document Results_makeTheQualityOfEvidenceBehindIATIResultsDataTransparent.docx (27.9 KB)
note: this suggestion is pending discussion at the IATI TAG conference 1330-1430 Wednesday 8th March
Isn’t adding a confidence element overmodelling the standard? The confidence of an indicator can (and should i.m.o.) be specified in the methodological notes: how do you measure and what are the limits. The methodological notes can be referred to through the proposed document links. Than there is no need for yet another element.
Including link to google doc version of proposal document per @Herman’s suggestion with indication of the minimum suggestions raised at the technical standards day of the IATI TAG 2017. Please use this google doc instead of the word document: Results: Make the quality of evidence behind IATI results data transparent