DAC 6-criteria evaluation matrix worksheet

Enter evaluation questions, indicators and sources for each criterion to create the outline of a collection plan. Mark priority criteria with ★.

When to use this worksheet and what completion involves Fictional completed example

EvalCompass Worksheet

DAC 6-criteria evaluation matrix worksheet

Method: OECD-DAC Evaluation Criteria

Enter evaluation questions, indicators and sources for each criterion to create the outline of a collection plan. Mark priority criteria with ★.

Basic information

Enter an overview of the program evaluated

Completed example for this section (fictional)

This fictional example is for explanation. Adapt it to your own program. Your entries will not change.

Program name: Community counseling service (fictional)
Evaluation type (midterm / final / ex-post): Midterm
Evaluation period: September–November 2026
Evaluation team and date prepared: Evaluation officer and resident collaborator / September 13

Reason for this entry: A midterm evaluation timed to support decisions.

Program name

Evaluation type (midterm / final / ex-post)

Evaluation period

Evaluation team and date prepared

Writing tips and explanation for this section

About this section

Enter an overview of the program evaluated

A midterm evaluation timed to support decisions.

View the method explanation

Writing tips

Follow each field’s heading to record the program name, focus, period, and other details. Leave undecided matters clearly marked as unresolved.

Read the full fictional example

Evaluation matrix

Enter evaluation questions, measurement indicators, sources and collection methods in each criterion’s row

Completed example for this section (fictional)

This fictional example is for explanation. Adapt it to your own program. Your entries will not change.

Scroll horizontally to view the table

Criterion (priority ★)	Evaluation question	Measurement indicators	Information source	Collection method
Relevance ★	Can people seek counseling when they need it?	Preferred hours and reasons for non-use	Users and non-users	Voluntary interview
Coherence ★	Are there duplications or gaps involving referral destinations?	Examples of interrupted or duplicated referrals	Coordination records between services	Record comparison

Reason for this entry: Prioritize reach and coordination.

Scroll horizontally to view the table

Criterion (priority ★)	Evaluation question	Measurement indicators	Information source	Collection method

Writing tips and explanation for this section

About this section

Enter evaluation questions, measurement indicators, sources and collection methods in each criterion’s row

Prioritize reach and coordination.

View the method explanation

Writing tips

Keep the information in each row aligned. Scroll wide tables horizontally to see every column.

Read the full fictional example

Summary of findings by criterion

After collection and analysis, enter conclusions for each criterion. If ratings are used, agree on the scale, rationale and thresholds (A=high / B=moderately high / C=low / D=very low is an example). Distinguish unevaluated criteria and insufficient evidence from ratings.

Completed example for this section (fictional)

This fictional example is for explanation. Adapt it to your own program. Your entries will not change.

Scroll horizontally to view the table

Criterion	Main findings (evidence)	Rating
Relevance	Employed people requested evening hours in fictional interviews	Needs improvement: consider piloting opening hours
Coherence	Referral destinations’ intake conditions had not been updated	Needs improvement: assign responsibility for updates
Impact	Long-term changes in living conditions have not been followed up	Not evaluated

Reason for this entry: Make clear what is known and where evidence is insufficient.

Scroll horizontally to view the table

Criterion	Main findings (evidence)	Rating

Writing tips and explanation for this section

About this section

Make clear what is known and where evidence is insufficient.

View the method explanation

Writing tips

Keep the information in each row aligned. Scroll wide tables horizontally to see every column.

Read the full fictional example

Lessons and recommendations

Integrate analysis across the 6 criteria and describe lessons and specific recommendations for future program design or policy

Completed example for this section (fictional)

This fictional example is for explanation. Adapt it to your own program. Your entries will not change.

Pilot evening intake on a small scale and assign responsibility for updating referral information. Address long-term benefits in the next follow-up plan.

Reason for this entry: Link recommendations directly to this program’s barriers.

Writing tips and explanation for this section

About this section

Integrate analysis across the 6 criteria and describe lessons and specific recommendations for future program design or policy

Link recommendations directly to this program’s barriers.

View the method explanation

Writing tips

Use the example as a reference and record what you have established about your own program. Distinguish assumptions and unchecked matters from confirmed facts.

Read the full fictional example

Completion checklist

Completed example for this section (fictional)

This fictional example is for explanation. Adapt it to your own program. Your entries will not change.

☑ Checked: Priority criteria are agreed with stakeholders
☑ Checked: Indicators and sources are identified for every question
☑ Checked: Duplicate collection from sources has been addressed
☑ Checked: Rating definitions are standardized within the team
☑ Checked: Lessons reflect this program specifically rather than generalities

Reason for this entry: This fictional example assumes prior agreement on priorities and the meaning of ratings.

Priority criteria are agreed with stakeholders
Indicators and sources are identified for every question
Duplicate collection from sources has been addressed
Rating definitions are standardized within the team
Lessons reflect this program specifically rather than generalities

Writing tips and explanation for this section

About this section

This fictional example assumes prior agreement on priorities and the meaning of ratings.

View the method explanation

Writing tips

Read each item and check those you have confirmed. Do not use the fictional example’s checkbox states as findings about your own program.

Read the full fictional example

Before writing, check when to use the worksheet and what completion involves

DAC 6-criteria evaluation matrix worksheet is a worksheet for applying OECD-DAC Evaluation Criteria in meetings or individual work. For the overall duration of the method, use “Illustrative estimate (adjust for scale and staffing): applying the criteria takes 1–2 days during evaluation design; the full evaluation depends on program scale” as a reference, adjusting for scale and resources. Fill in what you know provisionally and leave unresolved matters as questions to check next.

When this worksheet is useful

Conducting final or midterm evaluations of ODA and international cooperation projects
Comparing multiple projects or programs using common dimensions
Preparing evaluation reports for accountability to funders or donors

Participants and preparation

Evaluation team (1–3 evaluation specialists) and program officers. Midterm and final evaluations often include external evaluators.

Bring the materials used for decisions, existing data, and differing stakeholder views to help complete the worksheet.

Suggested order

1. Basic informationEnter an overview of the program evaluated
2. Evaluation matrixEnter evaluation questions, measurement indicators, sources and collection methods in each criterion’s row
3. Summary of findings by criterionAfter collection and analysis, enter conclusions for each criterion. If ratings are used, agree on the scale, rationale and thresholds (A=high / B=moderately high / C=low / D=very low is an example). Distinguish unevaluated criteria and insufficient evidence from ratings.
4. Lessons and recommendationsIntegrate analysis across the 6 criteria and describe lessons and specific recommendations for future program design or policy
5. Completion checklist

Signs the worksheet is ready for review

Evaluation matrix
Findings and ratings by criterion
Lessons and recommendations

Cautions for review

Allocating equal research time to all 6 criteria results in shallow answers to key questions; select priorities in advance
Judging effectiveness only by target achievement and ignoring the appropriateness of objectives (relevance) or external factors
Reports become lists by criterion without explaining overall reasons or possible responses

Guides to read before starting

Read a completed fictional example (your entries will not change)

Fictional example; not actual results

The following fictional example prioritizes fit with residents’ needs and coordination with other agencies ahead of next year’s service redesign.

Basic information

Program name: Community counseling service (fictional)
Evaluation type (midterm / final / ex-post): Midterm
Evaluation period: September–November 2026
Evaluation team and date prepared: Evaluation officer and resident collaborator / September 13

Reason for this entry: A midterm evaluation timed to support decisions.

Evaluation matrix

Scroll horizontally to view the table

Criterion (priority ★)	Evaluation question	Measurement indicators	Information source	Collection method
Relevance ★	Can people seek counseling when they need it?	Preferred hours and reasons for non-use	Users and non-users	Voluntary interview
Coherence ★	Are there duplications or gaps involving referral destinations?	Examples of interrupted or duplicated referrals	Coordination records between services	Record comparison

Reason for this entry: Prioritize reach and coordination.

Summary of findings by criterion

Scroll horizontally to view the table

Criterion	Main findings (evidence)	Rating
Relevance	Employed people requested evening hours in fictional interviews	Needs improvement: consider piloting opening hours
Coherence	Referral destinations’ intake conditions had not been updated	Needs improvement: assign responsibility for updates
Impact	Long-term changes in living conditions have not been followed up	Not evaluated

Reason for this entry: Make clear what is known and where evidence is insufficient.

Lessons and recommendations

Pilot evening intake on a small scale and assign responsibility for updating referral information. Address long-term benefits in the next follow-up plan.

Reason for this entry: Link recommendations directly to this program’s barriers.

Completion checklist

☑ Checked: Priority criteria are agreed with stakeholders
☑ Checked: Indicators and sources are identified for every question
☑ Checked: Duplicate collection from sources has been addressed
☑ Checked: Rating definitions are standardized within the team
☑ Checked: Lessons reflect this program specifically rather than generalities

Reason for this entry: This fictional example assumes prior agreement on priorities and the meaning of ratings.

Common errors in judgment

Assuming that averaging all criterion scores produces an objective conclusion

How to revise: Explain priorities and judgment criteria and label unevaluated areas as such

Reason: Averaging different value judgments does not resolve missing evidence.

Judging impact through participant satisfaction

How to revise: Define significant changes and the information needed to examine them

Reason: Reactions and broader changes are different perspectives.

Editorial and checking information

Content updated: 2026-10-07Source checked: 2026-09-13 (includes AI cross-checking)No documented human reviewIncludes fictional examplesEditorial policy and scope of checking Cite this page Report a correction

References and checked sections

Evaluation Criteria
OECD
Section consulted
Principles for using evaluation criteria; Six lenses to analyse an intervention and its results
How it relates to the text
Choose the scope and emphasis of criteria according to evaluation purpose and context.
Source checked: 2026-09-13 (includes AI cross-checking)

How to cite this page

EvalCompass Editorial Team. “DAC 6-criteria evaluation matrix worksheet”. EvalCompass, updated 2026-10-07. https://evalcompass.jun-nakatani.com/en/worksheets/dac-criteria/

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

2026-10-07 — Corrected statements and procedures identified during content checks (U05). Preserved the order, number and labels of input fields and the section structure.
2026-09-13 — Updated explanations to correspond to the sources and added method-specific fictional completed examples, judgment examples and a change log.