- Home
- About us
- ILAC Activities
- Resources
- ILAC Publications
- ILAC Briefs
- ILAC Sourcebook
- Part 2 - Tools and approaches
- Chapter 6: Introduction Part 2
- Chapter 7: Innovation histories
- Chapter 9: Culture study as a tool for change
- Chapter 12: Collaborative agreements
- Chapter 13: Facilitation as a foundation skill for ILAC
- Chapter 14: Learning alliances
- Chapter 15: Institutional histories
- Chapter 16: Engaging Scientists through Institutional Histories
- Chapter 18: Horizontal evaluation
- Chapter 19: Appreciative inquiry
- Part 3 - Cases and experiences
- Part 4 - Challenges and strategies
- About the authors
- Glossary
- References
- Part 2 - Tools and approaches
- Presentations by ILAC Team
- Working Papers
- Journal Articles
- Newsletter
- Reports
- ILAC Library
- Tools and methods for M&E
- Appreciative inquiry
- Biophysical measurements
- Case study
- Content analysis
- Contribution analysis
- Cost-Benefit Analysis
- Creative expression
- Diaries, journals and logs
- Dreams realised or visioning
- Expert review
- GIS mapping
- Graphing results
- Group assessment
- Historical trends and timelines
- Horizontal evaluation
- Impact evaluation
- Benefit-cost methods
- Case studies
- Cost-effectiveness analysis
- Counterfactual Impact Evaluation (CIE)
- Difference-in-difference
- Econometric methods
- Ex-post comparison of project beneficiaries with a control group
- Instrumental variables
- Integrated partial indicators
- Mathematical programming
- Modified peer review
- Partial indicators of impact
- Patent analysis
- Pipeline comparison
- Production function approach
- Propensity score matching
- Quasi-experimental design, involving the use of matched control and project groups
- Randomization
- Rapid assessment or review, conducted ex post
- Regression discontinuity design
- Simulation method
- User surveys
- Impact flow diagram
- Innovation histories
- Institutional history
- Institutional linkage diagram
- Interviews
- Learning alliances
- Learning-oriented evaluation
- M&E Frameworks
- M&E wheel (or "spider web")
- Mapping (sketch)
- Matrix scoring
- Most significant change
- Net-Map
- Non-random sampling
- Observation
- Outcome mapping
- Participatory Impact Pathways Analysis
- Participatory methods
- Performance indicators
- Photographs and video
- Problem and objectives trees
- Random sampling
- Ranking and pocket charts
- Rapid appraisal methods
- Relative scales or ladders
- Rich pictures (or mind maps)
- SWOT
- Seasonal calendars
- Semantic differentials
- Social mapping or well-being ranking
- Sociograms
- Stakeholder analysis
- Survey
- Systems (or inputs-outputs) diagram
- Theory-Based Evaluation
- Transects
- Evaluation studies and reports
- Evaluating capacity development
- Partnership
- Seminars
- Video Room
- Links to other sites
- E-learning courses
- ILAC Publications
- Contact
- Blog
Formal surveys
Mon, 11/24/2008 - 15:39 — Cristina Sette
The following text is drawn from World Bank (2004).
What are they?
Formal surveys can be used to collect standardized information from a carefully
selected sample of people or households. Surveys often collect comparable information
for a relatively large number of people in particular target groups.
What can we use them for?
- Providing baseline data against which the performance of the strategy, program, or
project can be compared.
- Comparing different groups at a given point in time.
- Comparing changes over time in the same group.
- Comparing actual conditions with the targets established in a program or project design.
- Describing conditions in a particular community or group.
- Providing a key input to a formal evaluation of the impact of a program or project.
- Assessing levels of poverty as basis for preparation of poverty reduction strategies.
Advantages
- Findings from the sample of people interviewed can be applied to the wider target
group or the population as a whole.
- Quantitative estimates can be made for the size and distribution of impacts.
Disavantages:
- With the exception of CWIQ, results are often not available for a long period of
time.
- The processing and analysis of data can be a major bottleneck for the larger surveys
even where computers are available.
- LSMS and household surveys are expensive and time-consuming.
- Many kinds of information are difficult to obtain through formal interviews.
Cost:
Ranges from roughly $30–60 per household for the CWIQ to $170 per household for
the LSMS. Costs will be significantly higher if there is no master sampling frame for
the country.
Skills required:
Sound technical and analytical skills for sample and questionnaire design, data analysis,
and processing.
Time required:
Depends on sample size. The CWIQ can be completed in 2 months. The LSMS
generally requires 18 months to 2 years.
Source: World Bank (2004). Monitoring and Evaluation: Some Tools, Methods & Approaches. Washington DC, The World Bank. http://lnweb90.worldbank.org/oed/oeddoclib.nsf/b57456d58aba40e585256ad400736404/a5efbb5d776b67d285256b1e0079c9a3/$FILE/MandE_tools_methods_approaches.pdf
For more information:
- Sapsford, R. (1999). Survey Research. Sage, Newbury Park, CA.
- Core Welfare Indicators Questionnaire: http://www4.worldbank.org/afr/stats/cwiq.cfm
- LSMS: http://www.worldbank.org/lsms/
- Client Satisfaction Surveys: http://www4.worldbank.org/afr/stats/wbi.cfm#sds
- Citizen Report Cards: http://lnweb18.worldbank.org/ESSD/sdvext.nsf/60ByDocName/
- CitizenReportCardSurveysANoteontheConceptandMethodology/$FILE/CRC+SD+note.pdf