Questions |
Answer |
Preparation and design
|
|
| Is the use of the case study tool in the evaluation backed up by adequate argumentation? |
|
| Is the choice of the case study application well-argued? |
|
| In the context of multiple sites case study, is the number of case studies justified? |
|
| Has the design methodology been properly elaborated? |
|
| In the context of multiple sites case studies, does the methodology assure consistent reports? |
|
| Has a pilot case study been scheduled? |
|
| Is the use of triangulation clarified in the methodology and included in the mission reports? |
|
| Have the sources of information (documentation, interview, monitoring data, direct observation) been included in the mission reports? |
|
| Do the methodology and reports distinguish facts from opinions? |
|
| Is the plan for the development of a chain of evidence well-argued in the mission report? |
|
Implementation
|
|
| Does the iterative process, initiated at the collection stage, carry on to the analysis stage, and support the chain of evidence? |
|
| Were alternative explanations studied and rejected after a full review of the evidence? |
|
| Are the facts supporting the argumentation strong enough to guarantee systematic replication elsewhere? |
|
| Does the analysis include research into causality? |
|
| Are the techniques used for the analysis of multiple sites data set out and argued? |
|
| Is the case study report sufficiently understandable and explicit? |
|
| In the case of multiple case study has the team leader checked the relevance /consistency of the studies ? |
|
| Are the limitations of the impact of the study findings sufficiently well explained? |
|
European Union