Evaluation standards and ethics checklist

Use this worksheet at both design and completion stages. Check evaluation quality and ethics against the five Joint Committee attributes.

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

EvalCompass Worksheet

Evaluation standards and ethics checklist

Method: Evaluation Standards and Ethics

Use this worksheet at both design and completion stages. Check evaluation quality and ethics against the five Joint Committee attributes.

Basic information

Enter basic evaluation details and review conditions

Completed example for this section (fictional)

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

Evaluation name: Program evaluation using a resident survey (fictional)
Evaluator: Evaluation officer A
Review date: September 13, 2026
Review stage (design/completion): At completion, before publication
Standards used (e.g., Joint Committee, third edition): Simplified review referencing JCSEE's third edition (2010)

Reason for this entry: This is a self-check, distinct from official certification.

Evaluation name

Evaluator

Review date

Review stage (design/completion)

Standards used (e.g., Joint Committee, third edition)

Writing tips and explanation for this section

About this section

Enter basic evaluation details and review conditions

This is a self-check, distinct from official certification.

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

Utility check

Check whether evaluation meets users' actual information needs (〇 = meets / △ = partly meets / ✕ = does not meet)

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

Assessment item	Judgment (〇△✕)	Evidence and comments	Improvement measures
Are users and uses clear? (U2/U3)	〇	Explicitly states that a community meeting will decide the venue	No change
Is necessary information available? (U5)	△	Nonrespondents' circumstances cannot be checked	Add generalization scope to the summary

Reason for this entry: Specify report locations and gaps rather than vague impressions.

Scroll horizontally to view the table

Assessment item	Judgment (〇△✕)	Evidence and comments	Improvement measures

Writing tips and explanation for this section

About this section

Check whether evaluation meets users' actual information needs (〇 = meets / △ = partly meets / ✕ = does not meet)

Specify report locations and gaps rather than vague impressions.

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

Feasibility, propriety, accuracy and accountability checks

Enter judgments and comments similarly for the main items under each attribute

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

Attribute	Assessment item	Judgment (〇△✕)	Comments and improvements
Feasibility	Do procedures fit frontline workload? (F2)	〇	Used existing distribution opportunities to avoid additional visits
Propriety	Are consent and disclosure scope aligned? (P3/P4)	△	Responsible lead rechecks publication conditions for free-text responses
Accuracy	Is the evidence for conclusions explained? (A1)	△	Revised to state that trends apply only to respondents
Accountability	Can evaluation materials be traced? (E1)	〇	Saved versions of the questionnaire and analysis procedures

Reason for this entry: Do not combine problems across different attributes into one overall score.

Scroll horizontally to view the table

Attribute	Assessment item	Judgment (〇△✕)	Comments and improvements

Writing tips and explanation for this section

About this section

Enter judgments and comments similarly for the main items under each attribute

Do not combine problems across different attributes into one overall score.

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

Ethical considerations check

Check participant rights protection and ethical implementation

Completed example for this section (fictional)

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

☐ Not checked: Participants' informed consent has been obtained (or there is a justification for not requiring it)
☑ Checked: Anonymity and confidentiality protection policies are specified and implemented
☑ Checked: Special consideration for vulnerable groups, such as children, refugees and people with disabilities, is planned
☑ Checked: Evaluators' conflicts of interest have been checked and disclosed
☑ Checked: Risks of participant harm from use of findings have been considered
☑ Checked: Security policies for data storage and disposal are established

Reason for this entry: The first item remains incomplete because consent explanations for publishing free-text responses are unconfirmed. Defer quotation publication until confirmed.

Participants' informed consent has been obtained (or there is a justification for not requiring it)
Anonymity and confidentiality protection policies are specified and implemented
Special consideration for vulnerable groups, such as children, refugees and people with disabilities, is planned
Evaluators' conflicts of interest have been checked and disclosed
Risks of participant harm from use of findings have been considered
Security policies for data storage and disposal are established

Writing tips and explanation for this section

About this section

Check participant rights protection and ethical implementation

The first item remains incomplete because consent explanations for publishing free-text responses are unconfirmed. Defer quotation publication until confirmed.

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

Overall observations and improvements

Describe the overall assessment across five attributes and main improvements

Completed example for this section (fictional)

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

Correct generalizations to nonrespondents, and have the responsible lead confirm free-text publication conditions by September 20. Recheck the draft with unconfirmed quotations removed.

Reason for this entry: Specify corrections needed before a publication decision.

Writing tips and explanation for this section

About this section

Describe the overall assessment across five attributes and main improvements

Specify corrections needed before a publication decision.

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

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

Evaluation standards and ethics checklist is a worksheet for applying Evaluation Standards and Ethics in meetings or individual work. For the overall duration of the method, use “Illustrative estimate (adjust for scale and team): standards application check: 1–2 days during planning / ethics review: 1–2 weeks” 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

When reviewing and improving evaluation design against quality and ethics standards during planning
When specifying quality criteria in procurement specifications and evaluator selection for commissioned evaluations
When assessing report and process quality using standards for meta-evaluation

Participants and preparation

All evaluation team members (ethical compliance), evaluation committee (standards review), and IRB (institutional review board, when considering research ethics review)

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

Suggested order

1. Basic informationEnter basic evaluation details and review conditions
2. Utility checkCheck whether evaluation meets users' actual information needs (〇 = meets / △ = partly meets / ✕ = does not meet)
3. Feasibility, propriety, accuracy and accountability checksEnter judgments and comments similarly for the main items under each attribute
4. Ethical considerations checkCheck participant rights protection and ethical implementation
5. Overall observations and improvementsDescribe the overall assessment across five attributes and main improvements

Signs the worksheet is ready for review

Completed evaluation ethics checklist
Evaluation standards self-assessment
Informed consent form

Cautions for review

Treating ethics review and informed consent as burdensome formalities without substantive participant protection
Consulting standards only after completion and neglecting preventive use during design
Commissioning external evaluators without checking conflicts of interest with the evaluated organization

Guides to read before starting

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

Fictional example; not actual results

The following is a fictional example for illustration. A resident survey evaluation report is checked before publication.

Basic information

Evaluation name: Program evaluation using a resident survey (fictional)
Evaluator: Evaluation officer A
Review date: September 13, 2026
Review stage (design/completion): At completion, before publication
Standards used (e.g., Joint Committee, third edition): Simplified review referencing JCSEE's third edition (2010)

Reason for this entry: This is a self-check, distinct from official certification.

Utility check

Scroll horizontally to view the table

Assessment item	Judgment (〇△✕)	Evidence and comments	Improvement measures
Are users and uses clear? (U2/U3)	〇	Explicitly states that a community meeting will decide the venue	No change
Is necessary information available? (U5)	△	Nonrespondents' circumstances cannot be checked	Add generalization scope to the summary

Reason for this entry: Specify report locations and gaps rather than vague impressions.

Feasibility, propriety, accuracy and accountability checks

Scroll horizontally to view the table

Attribute	Assessment item	Judgment (〇△✕)	Comments and improvements
Feasibility	Do procedures fit frontline workload? (F2)	〇	Used existing distribution opportunities to avoid additional visits
Propriety	Are consent and disclosure scope aligned? (P3/P4)	△	Responsible lead rechecks publication conditions for free-text responses
Accuracy	Is the evidence for conclusions explained? (A1)	△	Revised to state that trends apply only to respondents
Accountability	Can evaluation materials be traced? (E1)	〇	Saved versions of the questionnaire and analysis procedures

Reason for this entry: Do not combine problems across different attributes into one overall score.

Ethical considerations check

☐ Not checked: Participants' informed consent has been obtained (or there is a justification for not requiring it)
☑ Checked: Anonymity and confidentiality protection policies are specified and implemented
☑ Checked: Special consideration for vulnerable groups, such as children, refugees and people with disabilities, is planned
☑ Checked: Evaluators' conflicts of interest have been checked and disclosed
☑ Checked: Risks of participant harm from use of findings have been considered
☑ Checked: Security policies for data storage and disposal are established

Reason for this entry: The first item remains incomplete because consent explanations for publishing free-text responses are unconfirmed. Defer quotation publication until confirmed.

Overall observations and improvements

Correct generalizations to nonrespondents, and have the responsible lead confirm free-text publication conditions by September 20. Recheck the draft with unconfirmed quotations removed.

Reason for this entry: Specify corrections needed before a publication decision.

Common errors in judgment

Accept remaining ethical issues because the proportion of 〇 ratings is high

How to revise: Resolve serious unconfirmed matters individually

Reason: A large total cannot offset inadequate protection of people.

Present a simplified check as official standards compliance certification

How to revise: Specify the standards used and review scope

Reason: Self-assessment and third-party certification differ.

Editorial and checking information

Content updated: 2026-09-13Source 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

Program Evaluation Standards
Joint Committee on Standards for Educational Evaluation · 2010 (third edition)
Section consulted
Standards Statements; Evaluation Accountability Standards (E1–E3)
How it relates to the text
The third edition comprises 30 standards across five attributes, including documentation and internal and external meta-evaluation.
Source checked: 2026-09-13 (includes AI cross-checking)

How to cite this page

EvalCompass Editorial Team. “Evaluation standards and ethics checklist”. EvalCompass, updated 2026-09-13. https://evalcompass.jun-nakatani.com/en/worksheets/evaluation-standards/

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

2026-09-13 — Updated explanations to correspond with sources, and added method-specific fictional worksheet examples, judgment examples and revision history.