Please update your browser
We have detected that you are using an outdated browser that will prevent you from using
certain features. An update is required to improve your browsing experience.
-
Seven Criteria for strong indicators
This module help me know that indicators have to meet the following seven criteria to beconsidered as strong and useful:
- Objective;
- Direct;
- Adequate;
- useful for Management;
- Attributable;
Practical; and
Disaggregated
-
As much I feel that these seven criteria for judging indicators are very good. I don't think they are applicable in all projects. However, I just went through the indicators again in conjunction with the brief explanation of what is expected of the indicator and I am changing my mind. I think one can always find a way to relook at the indicator in the realms of the listed criteria.
-
I agree with the above comment. These seven criteria of USAID looks good and useful in general. But the complexity of identification of indicators could vary from fields to fields. For example, I work in the field of Human Rights . My country has a poor record of human rights. Government as well as the society still widely find the language of human rights as a sensitive topic which is a major challenge that we face in making progress with our projects. Through such projects/programs in this field I have been in some situations which the indicators identified would not be able to meet all or most of these criteria above. So my question here is the minimum criteria out of these seven, to qualify as 'strong indicator'? What could be they? Are there any other standard criteria globally bing used?
