EvalCompassEvalCompass
Data collectionRecord analysisAdministrative documentsImplementation dataReview frameworkExisting sources

Document Review

Document Review
Also known as: Record review、Document analysis、Document review

Systematically reads plans, minutes and implementation records to extract information needed for evaluation questions. Check purpose, versions and what is not recorded too. [1]

Document review design and recording worksheet — openReferences and checked sections
Difficulty
Introductory
Cost
Low
Duration
Illustrative planning durations, not common standards: collection 1–2 weeks, analysis 1–3 weeks depending on volume and complexity
Content updated: 2026-09-13Source checked: 2026-09-13 (includes AI cross-checking)No documented human reviewIncludes fictional examples

How it works at a glance

Define the period and selection criteria, create a register and common extraction items. This helps examine planned versus actual delivery, decision histories and existing indicators. [1]

Document availability does not establish accuracy. Consider authors' positions and gaps and compare other sources or interviews. [1]

  1. Identify documents and plan collection
  2. Design a review framework
  3. Collect documents and secure access
  4. Assess quality
  5. Review and extract systematically
  6. Integrate and analyze
Sequence of implementation steps. See “Implementation steps” for details of each stage.

When to use it and when it is unsuitable

When to use it

  • Reconstruct implementation and decision-making over time
  • Establish quantitative delivery data such as participants, sessions and expenditure
  • Organize background before interviews or questionnaires
  • Review past evaluations or audits and check improvements

When it is unsuitable

  • If unrecorded perceptions, attitudes or feelings are central, use interviews or FGDs
  • Poor document management and unreliable records: honestly report limitations
  • For real-time implementation, observation is appropriate

Participants, roles, and deliverables

Participants and roles

Selection/review staff and subject specialists as needed. Divide roles according to volume and confidentiality and compare difficult sources.

Main deliverables

  • Document register
  • Review sheets: extraction by document
  • Integrated document review summary

Implementation steps

  1. Identify documents and plan collection
    Map information obtainable from documents by question. List types, locations, access procedures and paper/electronic formats and prioritize collection.
  2. Design a review framework
    Define information types, evaluation perspectives and formats. Set extraction items by question and quality criteria, such as primary/secondary and formal/informal sources.
  3. Collect documents and secure access
    Ask information managers and confirm permissions. Follow confidentiality procedures on location, copying and disclosure. Record document dates, types and origins.
  4. Assess quality
    Check author, purpose, creation time and original/copy status. Assess bias in light of purposes such as external image-building or accurate internal management.
  5. Review and extract systematically
    Read against the framework and extract and summarize relevant information. Create a sheet per document with source title and page. Record conflicting sources together and investigate differences.
  6. Integrate and analyze
    Integrate extracted information by question. Triangulate single-document information with interviews or observation. Attend to unrecorded gaps as evidence too.

Strengths and limitations

Strengths

  • Reconstruct delivery, history and decisions without extra fieldwork
  • Low cost and relatively brief
  • Retrospectively traces past events and change
  • Existing documents provide objective evidence

Limitations

  • Only recorded information is available; tacit knowledge and informal processes remain hidden
  • Incomplete, biased or altered records require critical reading
  • Large volumes take time and risk information overload
  • Privacy or confidentiality may restrict access

Common pitfalls

  • Do not collect only successes and miss complaints or internal reflections. Include diverse types in the plan.
  • Do not cite document statements automatically as facts. Critically read authors' purposes and positions.
  • Avoid being overwhelmed by reading without a framework. Set the framework before collection and analysis.

Conditions of use and evidence

  • Record obtained documents, selection and extraction methods, gaps and changes since creation. [1]
Fictional example; not actual results

Trace why planned training changed

A fictional illustration comparing plans, delivery reports and meeting notes.

DocumentStatementTreatment in evaluation
Plan v14 face-to-face sessionsOriginal plan
Delivery report2 face-to-face and 1 onlineDelivery records; participant attendance separately recorded
Meeting notesChanged because securing a venue was difficultRecorded reason; check for other reasons

Common errors in judgment

Common mistake

Read only the final report

How to revise

Compare plans, change records and delivery records

ReasonFinal reports alone hide change processes.

Common mistake

Assert non-delivery because no record exists

How to revise

Distinguish records not found from implementation unconfirmed

ReasonMissing records do not prove absence of activities.

Organize your thinking by writing

Document review design and recording worksheet

A practical template is available to fill in and print on A4 paper.

Open worksheet

Related methods

Secondary Data AnalysisCase StudyInterviewContent AnalysisProcess Tracing

References and checked sections

  1. Existing documents
    BetterEvaluation
    Section consulted
    Types of existing documents / Advice for using this method
    How it relates to the text
    Record obtained documents, selection and extraction methods, gaps and changes since creation.
    Source checked: (includes AI cross-checking)

Editorial and checking information

Content updated: Source checked: (includes AI cross-checking)No documented human reviewIncludes fictional examplesEditorial policy and scope of checkingCite this pageReport a correction

How to cite this page

EvalCompass Editorial Team. “Document Review”. EvalCompass, updated 2026-09-13. https://evalcompass.jun-nakatani.com/en/methods/document-review/
Add the date you accessed the page. Text created by this site is available under CC BY 4.0. Quotations, external materials, and bundled fonts have their own terms of use. When reusing content, credit the source, link to the license, and indicate any changes.

Suggest a correction or improvement to this page

Change history
  • — Checked definition and condition sources and added fictional examples, judgment rationales and completed fields. Revised unsupported history or uptake claims. Reviewed existing procedures and cautions and adjusted fixed counts, thresholds and institutional generalizations.