| Method Criteria | Surveys | Rapid Appraisal | Participant Observation | Case Studies | Participatory Learning and Action |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Coverage (scale of applicability) | High | Medium | Low | Low | Medium |
| Representative-ness | High | Medium | Low | Low | Medium |
| Ease of data standardisation, aggregation and synthesis | High | Medium | Medium to Low | Low | Medium to Low |
| Ability to isolate and measure non-intervention causes of change | High | Low | Low | Low | Low |
| Ability to cope with the problem of attribution | High | Medium | Medium | Medium | Medium |
| Ability to capture qualitative information about poverty reduction | Low | High | High | High | High |
| Ability to capture causal processes of poverty and vulnerability | Low | High | High | Medium | High |
| Ability to capture diversity of perceptions about poverty | Low | High | High | Medium | High |
| Ability to elicit views of women, minorities and other disadvantaged groups about poverty | Low | Medium?? | High | High - if targeted | Medium?? |
| Ability to capture unexpected negative impacts on ‘the poor’ | Low | High | Very High | High | High |
| Ability to identify and articulate felt needs | Low | High | High | Medium to Low | High |
| Degree of participation of ‘the poor’ encouraged by the method | Low | High | Medium | Medium | Very High |
| Potential to contribute to building capacity of stakeholders with respect to poverty analysis | Low | High | Low | Medium to Low | Very High |
| Probability of enhancing downwards accountability to poor groups and communities | Low | High | Medium | Medium | High |
| Ability to capture the multidimensionality of poverty | Low | Medium | High | Medium | Very High |
| Ability to capture poverty impact at different levels e.g. individual, household, community | Low | Medium | High | Low | High |
| Human resource requirements | Specialist supervision, large numbers of less qualified field workers | High skilled practitioners who are able to analyse and write up results | Mid-skilled practitioners. Long time commitment. Need good supervision | Mid-skilled practitioners. Need good supervision | High skilled practitioners |
| Cost range | Very high to Medium | High to Medium | Medium to Low | Medium to Low | High to Medium |
| Timescale | Very high to Medium | Medium to Low | High | High to Medium | Medium to Low |
Methods Toolbox > Strengths and weaknesses of key impact assessment methods
Methods Toolbox
Strengths and weaknesses of key impact assessment methods
Latest Publications
Climate variability and climate change: implications for chronic poverty
This paper follows the principles of the ‘bottom-up’ approach to adaptation. It...
Crafting a Graduation Pathway for the Ultra Poor: Lessons and Evidence from a BRAC programme
The ultra poor are caught in a below-subsistence trap from which it is difficult for them to break...