This toolkit includes means of verification (MoV) corresponding to the six goal impact indicators of the Inter-Agency Standing Committee’s (IASC) Common Monitoring and Evaluation Framework for MHPSS in Emergency Settings. These MoV were identified via a systematic process that included literature reviews and a call to member organizations of the IASC Reference Group on MHPSS in Emergency Settings (IASC MHPSS RG) to share commonly used quantitative and qualitative MoVs and approaches. Published studies were also identified from six literature reviews, which were included in the larger selection process if they had used at least one measurement tool (MoV) to assess one of the six goal impact indicators of the Common Framework.
Quantitative approaches were identified through the review process, a thematic working group within the IASC MHPSS Reference Group determined “inclusion/exclusion” criteria against which every identified measure was assessed. For an MoV to be included it had to meet four criteria, which were assessed sequentially. The criteria were (in order):
- Accessibility (that is, a global public good with free access);
- Relevance (that is, relevant to at least one of the six indicators; used in at least one other language other than the language it was created in; used in a low-resource setting);
- Feasibility, (that is, brief administration time, available guidance for scoring and interpretation of data); and
- Appropriate measurement properties (that is, demonstrated to be adequately reliable and valid in at least two settings).
Measures meeting the criteria were sorted according to age ranges and impact indicators. A multi-stakeholder meeting reviewed these measures and selected final measures for each impact indicator and age range.
For each quantitative MoV in this toolkit, the IASC MHPSS RG sought permission from the relevant developers for their materials to be included. Developers additionally confirmed information provided in the guidance sheets in this toolkit.
Qualitative approaches were identified in the literature reviews and attempts were made to organize them according to a commonly used framework. However, this resulted mainly in using only common qualitative approaches, such as focus group discussions (FGDs) or key informant interviews (KIIs), and the literature did not specify the range of strategies that could be used within such approaches (for example, body mapping, ranking). Therefore, a different strategy was employed. The working group defined the core concept of each goal impact indicator, with the intention that this could be used to inform the selection of qualitative methods. Next, the working group requested commonly used qualitative approaches from members of the IASC MHPSS RG. These approaches were accordingly assessed for their appropriateness to the age-related impact indicators, with support from expert consultations.