Skip to main content

Table 1 The isPO QPRs Evaluation Criteria Catalogue

From: Conducting a prospective evaluation of the development of a complex psycho-oncological care programme (isPO) in Germany

Evaluation structure Evaluation criteria Explanations and in-depth evaluation criteria
General Information Author  
Orientation on deadlines  
Orientation on the template  
Theme-specific evaluation Role in the project Description of the task area
Comparison with the project proposal
Role in the project becomes apparent (consortium partner knows own role and can differentiate it from other roles)
Application orientation / "view for practice" (definition and description of target groups; if known, it is described)
Classification of the subtasks within the area of tasks
Is the subtask visible as part of the task area (embedded vs. subtasks)
Scientific / specialist background Presentation and justification of the basic principles (if applicable: guidelines, standards, laws, theories, experience, etc.)
Context of the tasks comprehensible
Comparison with project proposal
Goals Project reference, embedding in the task area (if necessary, use table)
Milestone vs. additional goals
Definition of the goals: specific, measurable, achievable, realistic, terminated (‘SMART’ principle)
Ways to achieve aims / measures Explanation of content and transparent justification, comprehensible
achievement of goals (can this measure achieve this goal?)
Representations are intersubjectively comprehensible
Type of measure (sub-measure)
Results Transparent presentation of the results (partial results)
Were the (quarterly) goals achieved?
How many goals are there with no result? Are there goals without a result?
Existence of deviations
Description of deviations
Evaluation and handling of deviations for the achievement of individual goals and milestones
Measures and solutions for the deviations
Planned changes
Description of the changes
Evaluation and handling for the achievement of goals and milestones
Measures and approaches regarding the changes
Further procedure / future orientation Description of the planned milestones and goals (and planned measures, if any)
Comparison with project proposal
Comprehensible justification for additional goals
Focusing and prioritising of topics (qualitative) Which topics are in focus (occur how often in the sense of unconscious prioritization)
Cooperation with the consortium partners (dependencies etc.) Scheduling / project meetings
Implicit, conscious or unconscious communication content Institutional traces (author / non-writer) / institutional exhibition (Goffman, 1972), Personal and institutional intentions in the presentation—documentary method
If applicable, which topics are not mentioned (or not addressed actively)
Contradictions Text vs. traffic light (milestones vs. task description)
Orientation towards guideline S3 Psycho-oncology (overarching embedding)  
Document comparison ("conversation between documents"; intra and inter) Contradictions  
Cooperation (mutual naming of the consortium partners)  
Timeline: Course of a consortium partner (internal) Comparison of the subtasks
Do the tasks build on each other?
Are the tasks embedded?
Conclusion Concise assessment as a consequence of previous analyses