- Home
- About us
- ILAC Activities
- Resources
- ILAC Publications
- ILAC Briefs
- Working Papers
- 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
- Reports
- Journal Articles
- Newsletter
- Presentations by ILAC Team
- 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
Matrix scoring
Fri, 08/01/2008 - 08:42 — Cristina Sette
The following text is drawn from Guijt and Woodhill (2002).
Matrix scoring
The purposes of this method are to make a relative comparison between different options of a specific issue or solutions to a problem, and to make a detailed analysis of how much and why people prefer one option above the other. Matrix scoring shows how well options meet predefined criteria. From an M&E perspective, this method can be used to understand people’s opinions on, for example, different service providers, on different types of project activities that are aiming to reduce a problem, on different technologies (such as seed varieties, water sources).
Besides the resulting matrix, one of the greatest values of this method comes from the discussions that are provoked as participants come to a decision about the final score of each option (as well as on settling on the criteria for scoring). In the discussion, the reasons for preferences and rejection of options emerge.
Matrix scoring can also be useful to identify key indicators that can then be monitored regularly using other methods. The indicators are selected from among the criteria (i.e., the advantages and disadvantages of each option) that have been identified.
Source: Guijt, I. and J. Woodhill (2002). Managing for Impact in Rural Development : A guide for project M & E. Rome, Italy: International Fund for Agricultural Development http://www.ifad.org/evaluation/guide/index.htm
- Login or register to post comments
- Email this page