Decision evaluation module
Instrument and evidence
This page is the complete, public specification of the evaluation instrument used by the decision evaluation module. Everything a respondent is asked, and everything recorded about a decision, is defined here with an identifier, its exact wording, its options and units, and where it came from.
Status
Prototype evaluation instrument. Measurement properties have not yet been established for this application and context.
Current version: evaluation-prototype-0.1. The submitted research report is the conceptual foundation for these items. It is not a validation of them. No expert review, cognitive interviewing, reliability testing or validity testing has been carried out for this instrument.
Stages
Setup
Recorded before or at the point of the decision: intended outcomes, pre-agreed success criteria, the evidence plan, and the date chosen for the implementation review.
Decision review
Completed after the decision has been made, while the process is still recalled accurately.
Implementation review
Completed once the consequences of the decision can reasonably be assessed. The owner chooses this date and records why it is appropriate for this decision.
Definitions of the five dimensions
Decision quality (process)
Participants' perception of how the decision was arrived at: whether evidence was considered, whether relevant expertise was involved, and whether alternatives and contextual risks were examined.
These items record perception of the decision process. They are not an observation of the outcome of the decision, and the two must not be read as the same thing.
Decision efficiency (measured time and effort)
Directly recorded values: the elapsed period between the start and end of the decision, and the person-hours spent on preparation, discussion and follow-up, held separately.
Elapsed duration and summed person-hours are different quantities and are never added together or traded off. Units are stated on every figure.
Implementation effectiveness (owner-recorded)
A review of each success criterion agreed at setup, marked achieved, partly achieved, not achieved or not yet assessable, with supporting evidence, plus decision-related rework hours where known.
Recorded by the decision owner as observation, kept separate from participant perception. 'Unknown' rework is stored distinctly from zero rework.
Commitment and alignment
Researcher-developed prototype items on understanding of the decision, understanding of one's own responsibilities, and willingness to implement.
Disagreement on any item is recorded as information about the decision process. It is not treated as evidence of poor team performance.
Sustainable team capability (exploratory)
Researcher-developed exploratory items on ability to raise concerns, learning applied to future decisions, and confidence in working together on future decisions.
These items are named exactly for what they ask. They are not a trust measure, not a psychological-safety scale, and must not be reported as either.
Every item and metric
All questionnaire items below are researcher-developed illustrative prototypes. No published or copyrighted scale is reproduced, adapted or implied.
Relevant evidence or information was considered before this decision was made.
- Response options
- 1 — Strongly disagree; 2 — Disagree; 3 — Neither agree nor disagree; 4 — Agree; 5 — Strongly agree; Not applicable; Cannot assess
- Unit
- Not applicable
- Evidence type
- self-reported perception
- Reference period
- The decision under review
- Intended respondent and scope
- Individual respondent's own perception
- Source or designation
- Researcher-developed illustrative prototype item. Not drawn from a published scale.
- Adaptation record
- Not adapted from an existing instrument.
The people with relevant expertise for this decision were involved in it.
- Response options
- 1 — Strongly disagree; 2 — Disagree; 3 — Neither agree nor disagree; 4 — Agree; 5 — Strongly agree; Not applicable; Cannot assess
- Unit
- Not applicable
- Evidence type
- self-reported perception
- Reference period
- The decision under review
- Intended respondent and scope
- Individual respondent's own perception
- Source or designation
- Researcher-developed illustrative prototype item. Not drawn from a published scale.
- Adaptation record
- Not adapted from an existing instrument.
Alternative options and the risks in our context were examined before deciding.
- Response options
- 1 — Strongly disagree; 2 — Disagree; 3 — Neither agree nor disagree; 4 — Agree; 5 — Strongly agree; Not applicable; Cannot assess
- Unit
- Not applicable
- Evidence type
- self-reported perception
- Reference period
- The decision under review
- Intended respondent and scope
- Individual respondent's own perception
- Source or designation
- Researcher-developed illustrative prototype item. Not drawn from a published scale.
- Adaptation record
- Not adapted from an existing instrument.
What evidence, expertise or alternatives do you have in mind when answering the questions above?
- Response options
- Free text
- Unit
- Not applicable
- Evidence type
- free-text narrative
- Reference period
- The decision under review
- Intended respondent and scope
- Individual respondent's own account
- Source or designation
- Researcher-developed illustrative prototype item. Not drawn from a published scale.
- Adaptation record
- Not adapted from an existing instrument.
I understand what was decided.
- Response options
- 1 — Strongly disagree; 2 — Disagree; 3 — Neither agree nor disagree; 4 — Agree; 5 — Strongly agree; Not applicable; Cannot assess
- Unit
- Not applicable
- Evidence type
- self-reported perception
- Reference period
- The decision under review
- Intended respondent and scope
- Individual respondent
- Source or designation
- Researcher-developed illustrative prototype item. Not drawn from a published scale.
- Adaptation record
- Not adapted from an existing instrument.
I understand what I am responsible for as a result of this decision.
- Response options
- 1 — Strongly disagree; 2 — Disagree; 3 — Neither agree nor disagree; 4 — Agree; 5 — Strongly agree; Not applicable; Cannot assess
- Unit
- Not applicable
- Evidence type
- self-reported perception
- Reference period
- The decision under review
- Intended respondent and scope
- Individual respondent
- Source or designation
- Researcher-developed illustrative prototype item. Not drawn from a published scale.
- Adaptation record
- Not adapted from an existing instrument.
I am willing to carry out my part of this decision.
- Response options
- 1 — Strongly disagree; 2 — Disagree; 3 — Neither agree nor disagree; 4 — Agree; 5 — Strongly agree; Not applicable; Cannot assess
- Unit
- Not applicable
- Evidence type
- self-reported perception
- Reference period
- The decision under review
- Intended respondent and scope
- Individual respondent
- Source or designation
- Researcher-developed illustrative prototype item. Not drawn from a published scale.
- Adaptation record
- Not adapted from an existing instrument.
If you disagree with any part of the decision, what would you want recorded about it? Disagreement is recorded as information, not as a fault.
- Response options
- Free text
- Unit
- Not applicable
- Evidence type
- free-text narrative
- Reference period
- The decision under review
- Intended respondent and scope
- Individual respondent's own account
- Source or designation
- Researcher-developed illustrative prototype item. Not drawn from a published scale.
- Adaptation record
- Not adapted from an existing instrument.
I was able to raise concerns about this decision when I had them.
- Response options
- 1 — Strongly disagree; 2 — Disagree; 3 — Neither agree nor disagree; 4 — Agree; 5 — Strongly agree; Not applicable; Cannot assess
- Unit
- Not applicable
- Evidence type
- self-reported perception
- Reference period
- From the decision to this review
- Intended respondent and scope
- Individual respondent. Not a psychological-safety scale.
- Source or designation
- Researcher-developed illustrative prototype item. Not drawn from a published scale.
- Adaptation record
- Not adapted from an existing instrument.
Something we learned from this decision has been applied to a later decision.
- Response options
- 1 — Strongly disagree; 2 — Disagree; 3 — Neither agree nor disagree; 4 — Agree; 5 — Strongly agree; Not applicable; Cannot assess
- Unit
- Not applicable
- Evidence type
- self-reported perception
- Reference period
- From the decision to this review
- Intended respondent and scope
- Individual respondent
- Source or designation
- Researcher-developed illustrative prototype item. Not drawn from a published scale.
- Adaptation record
- Not adapted from an existing instrument.
I am confident about working with this group on future decisions of this kind.
- Response options
- 1 — Strongly disagree; 2 — Disagree; 3 — Neither agree nor disagree; 4 — Agree; 5 — Strongly agree; Not applicable; Cannot assess
- Unit
- Not applicable
- Evidence type
- self-reported perception
- Reference period
- Looking ahead from this review
- Intended respondent and scope
- Individual respondent. Not a trust measure.
- Source or designation
- Researcher-developed illustrative prototype item. Not drawn from a published scale.
- Adaptation record
- Not adapted from an existing instrument.
What would you want done differently on the next decision of this kind?
- Response options
- Free text
- Unit
- Not applicable
- Evidence type
- free-text narrative
- Reference period
- From the decision to this review
- Intended respondent and scope
- Individual respondent's own account
- Source or designation
- Researcher-developed illustrative prototype item. Not drawn from a published scale.
- Adaptation record
- Not adapted from an existing instrument.
Elapsed decision duration, from the recorded decision start to the recorded decision end.
- Response options
- Free text
- Unit
- hours (elapsed, calendar)
- Evidence type
- directly measured time or effort
- Reference period
- Decision start to decision end
- Intended respondent and scope
- The decision as a whole
- Source or designation
- Derived arithmetic: (decision_ended_at − decision_started_at), reported in hours to one decimal place.
- Adaptation record
- Not adapted from an existing instrument.
Person-hours spent on preparation for the decision.
- Response options
- Free text
- Unit
- person-hours
- Evidence type
- directly measured time or effort
- Reference period
- Before the decision
- Intended respondent and scope
- All contributors combined
- Source or designation
- Owner-entered measured value.
- Adaptation record
- Not adapted from an existing instrument.
Person-hours spent discussing or deliberating the decision.
- Response options
- Free text
- Unit
- person-hours
- Evidence type
- directly measured time or effort
- Reference period
- During the decision
- Intended respondent and scope
- All contributors combined
- Source or designation
- Owner-entered measured value.
- Adaptation record
- Not adapted from an existing instrument.
Person-hours spent on follow-up needed to settle the decision.
- Response options
- Free text
- Unit
- person-hours
- Evidence type
- directly measured time or effort
- Reference period
- After the decision
- Intended respondent and scope
- All contributors combined
- Source or designation
- Owner-entered measured value.
- Adaptation record
- Not adapted from an existing instrument.
Documented total labour on the decision.
- Response options
- Free text
- Unit
- person-hours
- Evidence type
- directly measured time or effort
- Reference period
- Whole decision
- Intended respondent and scope
- All contributors combined
- Source or designation
- Published formula: ef_total_hours = ef_prep_hours + ef_discussion_hours + ef_followup_hours. Blank components are excluded and reported as missing; they are not treated as zero.
- Adaptation record
- Not adapted from an existing instrument.
For each success criterion agreed at setup: achieved, partly achieved, not achieved, or not yet assessable, with supporting evidence.
- Response options
- Achieved; Partly achieved; Not achieved; Not yet assessable
- Unit
- Not applicable
- Evidence type
- owner-recorded observation
- Reference period
- Setup to the implementation review date
- Intended respondent and scope
- The decision as a whole
- Source or designation
- Owner-recorded review against criteria fixed at setup.
- Adaptation record
- Not adapted from an existing instrument.
Rework hours attributable to this decision, where known.
- Response options
- Free text
- Unit
- person-hours
- Evidence type
- directly measured time or effort
- Reference period
- Decision to the implementation review date
- Intended respondent and scope
- All contributors combined
- Source or designation
- Owner-entered measured value. 'Not known' is stored as a distinct state and is never recorded as 0.
- Adaptation record
- Not adapted from an existing instrument.
Scoring and missing-data rules
- No composite score, index, weighting or overall productivity figure is calculated. Results are reported item by item.
- Agreement items are reported as descriptive distributions (count per option) with the response denominator stated.
- No reverse coding is applied. No item in this version is specified as reverse-scored.
- 'Not applicable' and 'cannot assess' answers, and unanswered items, are excluded from distributions and shown separately as missing. They are never imputed to a midpoint or to zero.
- Arithmetic is performed only on directly measured time and effort, using the published total formula. It is never performed across agreement items.
- Individual ratings are never aggregated into a team-level score or inference.
- Before-and-after comparison is shown only for the same item, the same matched participant, the same instrument version and an appropriate pair of stages. It is labelled descriptive, and no causal or improvement claim is made. Where these conditions are not met, no comparison is shown.
Validation evidence
No validation evidence exists for this instrument. There are no pilot findings, no reliability estimates, no dimensionality analysis and no participant study to report. This section will stay empty until such work is actually carried out.
Planned work
- Expert and content review of every item by reviewers with relevant domain knowledge.
- Cognitive interviews with respondents to test how each item is actually understood.
- Reliability testing, dimensionality assessment and validity testing once sufficient responses exist.
- Assessment of contextual and cultural suitability, including whether the wording travels across the settings in which the artefact might be used.
- Justification for any aggregation of individual responses to a team level, which this version does not perform and does not assume to be defensible.
Newly added methodological guidance
The following reference was added to guide the future development of this prototype instrument. It is newly added methodology. It is not part of the originally submitted research evidence, and it does not constitute validation of any item on this page.
Boateng, G. O., Neilands, T. B., Frongillo, E. A., Melgar-Quiñonez, H. R., & Young, S. L. (2018). Best practices for developing and validating scales for health, social, and behavioral research: A primer. Frontiers in Public Health, 6, Article 149. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2018.00149
Version history
evaluation-prototype-0.1
Released 2026-09-13 · Current. Prototype; measurement properties not established.
- First specification of the five evaluation dimensions.
- Twelve researcher-developed participant items and seven owner-recorded metrics defined with IDs, wording, options, units and missing-data rules.
- No composite score, weighting, threshold or overall productivity figure is defined in this version.
Each stored response records the instrument version it was answered under. A later version never reinterprets an earlier response.
Open the decision evaluation register (sign-in required).