Managing For Results:

Assessing the Quality of Program Performance Data

GGD-00-140R: Published: May 25, 2000. Publicly Released: May 25, 2000.

Additional Materials:

Contact:

L. Nye Stevens
(202) 512-3000
contact@gao.gov

 

Office of Public Affairs
(202) 512-4800
youngc1@gao.gov

Pursuant to a congressional request, GAO provided information on how federal agencies should assess the quality of program performance data.

GAO noted that: (1) accuracy is the only one of several important areas to consider when examining the quality of agency performance data; (2) although certainly not exhaustive, the following key dimensions of data quality illustrate some of the different types of quality concerns that agencies consider when producing program performance data: (a) accuracy--the extent to which data are free from significant error; (b) validity--the extent to which the data adequately represent actual performance; (c) completeness--the extent to which enough of the required data elements are collected from a sufficient portion of the target population or sample; (d) consistency--the extent to which data are collected using the same procedures and definitions across collectors and times; (e) timeliness--whether data about recent performance are available when needed to improve program management and report to Congress; and (f) ease of use--how readily intended users can access data, aided by clear data definitions, user friendly software, and easily-used access procedures; (3) when assessing how good data need to be, it is important to recognize that no data are perfect; (4) data need to be good enough to document performance, support decisionmaking, and respond to the needs of internal and external stakeholders; (5) decisions on "how good is good enough" may depend on the uses of the data and the consequences of program or policy decisions based on those data; (6) this may involve trade-offs among the key dimensions of quality; (7) the key is for agencies to be aware of the data quality limitations of the performance data, understand the trade-offs involved, and reveal and discuss in performance reports the limitations and trade-offs; (8) determinations on how good data need to be also depend on other factors, such as the type of measure being used and the amount of change expected in the data; (9) different types of performance data may require different levels of accuracy; (10) developing standards for key dimensions of data quality is a matter for individual agency analysis and determination, taking into account: (a) the views of the users of the data (internal and external stakeholders); and (b) relevant professional standards and technical advice; (11) current users of performance data may have valuable experience with the strengths and weaknesses of existing data, therefore, they can provide insights into the data credibility with external audiences; and (12) professional standards provide another tool for agencies working to determine the appropriate level of data quality for their performance measures.

Sep 27, 2016

Sep 26, 2016

Sep 23, 2016

Sep 21, 2016

Sep 7, 2016

Aug 30, 2016

Aug 11, 2016

Jul 22, 2016

Jul 21, 2016

Looking for more? Browse all our products here