Innovation Advisory · Framework 07
5 questions · VALIDThe Indicator Test
Five questions to apply to every indicator before it goes into the logframe. A reviewer's checklist for the moment when somebody has proposed a metric and you have to decide whether it earns its place.
Does the indicator measure the construct named in the ToC, not a convenient proxy?
Write down the construct in plain language ('do mothers feel supported during the perinatal period') and the indicator next to it ('count of calls received'). If a stranger reading the two would not believe the indicator captures the construct, you have a proxy problem. The proxy may still be useful, but call it what it is.
Does a result on this indicator tell the implementer what to do next?
If the number moves, what changes in the programme on Monday? If the answer is "we report it" rather than "we do X", the indicator is for the dashboard, not for the work. Either find an indicator that drives a decision or admit this one is for accountability only and stop pretending it guides delivery.
Does the indicator correspond to a specific node in the causal pathway?
Point at the box on the diagram. If the indicator floats above the whole programme — "lives improved", "outcomes achieved" — it is measuring vibes. Anchor it to one step in the chain so when it moves you know which arrow it is testing.
How hard is the indicator to manipulate without producing the underlying change?
Goodhart's law in operating clothes. If a frontline worker under pressure can move the number without doing the work — repeat calls to the same beneficiary, easy enrolment of already-served households, training counts that double-count attendance — the indicator will be gamed long before the programme is evaluated. Stress-test the metric against the incentives.
Can the indicator be broken down by the equity dimensions that matter for this programme?
Average improvement is the place inequities go to hide. Decide up front which cuts the indicator must support — caste, class, gender, geography, age, disability — and check that the data system can actually produce them. If it cannot, the indicator will tell you the programme worked while the people you most wanted to reach were quietly left behind.
What the five questions are doing
The five letters split the work of indicator review into five separable jobs. Valid asks whether the metric actually measures the construct. Actionable asks whether a movement in the metric drives a decision. Linked ties the metric to a specific node in the causal pathway, not the programme as a whole. Independent of gaming stress-tests the metric against the incentives it creates — Goodhart's law in operating clothes. Disaggregable checks that the data system can produce the equity cuts that matter, before the average hides them.
Use it on every indicator in a logframe, results framework, or M&E plan — your own, or one you have been asked to review. Pair it with the Causal Pathway Review when stress-testing a full Theory of Change.