Representative sampling

Slides:

Advertisements

Similar presentations

Public Procurement ESF ECA DAS 2011 Case studies

Advertisements

Regional Policy Revised version Marielle Riché Evaluation Unit DG Regional Policy International Monitoring Conference Budapest 11 th November 2011 Brussels.

SADC Course in Statistics Confidence intervals using CAST (Session 07)

SAMPLING. THIRD STANDARD OF FIELD WORK (AU ) “SUFFICIENT COMPETENT EVIDENTIAL MATTER IS TO BE OBTAINED THROUGH INSPECTION, OBSERVATION, INQUIRIES,

2011 Calendar Important Dates/Events/Homework. SunSatFriThursWedTuesMon January

Regional Policy Guidance on monitoring TÓTH Gábor DG EMPL – Impact Assessment, Evaluation Unit ESF Evaluation Partnership meeting, Rome, 26 November 2014.

REPENTURN July 5, 2015 REPENTURN REPENTURN REPENTURN.

Statistics Unit Check your understanding…. Can you answer these? What does the standard deviation of a sample represent? What is the difference between.

Chapter 6 Inferences Based on a Single Sample: Estimation with Confidence Intervals Slides for Optional Sections Section 7.5 Finite Population Correction.

Chapter 3: Measurement: Accuracy, Precision, and Error

Stat 100 March 20 Chapter 19, Problems 1-7 Reread Chapter 4.

Identify stakeholders:

Opening Routine.

Margin of Error: We’re Only Human…

6.3 Confidence Intervals for Population Proportions

CRIE activities in 2017 ESF Partnership Meeting 15 March 2017

Experience of the MAs with the structured survey on end recipients

Ex post evaluation of the ESF ( )

Ex-ante evaluation: major points and state of play

Draft guidance on evaluations

Accuracy and Precision

ESF Performance reports and Thematic reports

Academic Growth Model Indicator Update

Annual activity report and residual risk

ESF Support Centre Alphametrics Ltd. & Applica Sprl.

ESF Informal Technical Working Group

DAS 2011 Interruptions and Suspensions. > EMPL policy

SOCIAL DIALOGUE WITHIN EUPAN

ESF Informal Technical Working Group

Sample Size, Margin of Error, and Confidence Intervals

Progress of the negotiations on the CPR and ESF regulations

How the ESF supports implementation of the New Skills Agenda?

Survey on representative sampling

Monitoring & evaluation in

Data collection, Indicators and Evaluation ESF TWG Sevilla, 17 March 2010 Unit 03 Evaluation and Impact Assessment, DG EMPL.

Representative sampling questionnaire

LUCAS Task Force The way forward.

Identify stakeholders:

Peer reviews of national evaluations

Comment on EU precision requirements

Sampling results 5 (10%) 74% 10 (20%) 25 (50%) 45 (90%) Sample Size

Annual Implementation Reports 2018

Costas VOYIATZIS DG EMPL - Evaluation and Impact Assessment Unit

Future Monitoring and Evaluation: Focus on results Antonella Schulte-Braucks Ines Hartwig ESF Evaluation Partnership Brussels 17 November 2011.

Item 7.1 Implementation of the 2016 Adult Education Survey

Evaluation of the ESF contribution to the EES

Debrief of Learning Seminar on Youth Employment Initiative

Tour de table ESF Evaluation Partnership Brussels, 7 December 2017

Guidance document on ex ante evaluation

YEI reporting: state of play

Update on the post2020 ESF+ regulation

Evaluating Innovation On-going and Planned Activities

FEAD evaluation requirements for Member States and the Commission

ESF EVALUATION PARTNERSHIP

Innovative and Responsible Public Procurement

Evaluation and Impact Assessment Unit DG EMPL Ines Hartwig

WG E on Priority Substances

Copyright. Approaches to Population Health in 2015: A National Survey of Hospitals.

State of play of Youth Employment Initiative Evaluation

ESF Ex-post evaluation Finalisation and Dissemination

Youth Employment Initiative: State of play of evaluation and reporting

ESF Performance reports and Thematic reports

Florida Atlantic University

Chapter One Data Collection

EU Water Framework Directive

Proposed changes in ESF monitoring – Omnibus Regulation

Update on what happened since the last meeting Next steps

2015 January February March April May June July August September

Draft Guidance note on monitoring and indicators under FEAD

Presentation transcript:

Representative sampling TÓTH Gábor DG EMPL - Impact Assessment and Evaluation Unit ESF Evaluation Partnership meeting, Brussels, 12-13 March, 2015

Previous steps Draft guidance on representative sampling Learning seminar in June Section in main guidance in July Suggestion for modified guidance in November Follow up with PL

Structure of the session Existing guidance – ESF Data Support Centre Simulation – Polish representative New guidance - COM

Relative standard error: 2% Simulation by PL Relative standard error: 2% Standard error: 2% Standard error: 5% Total reference population size 395,711 Sample size 142,485 7,822 1,386 Cost of the survey (4.5€/interview) €641,183 €35,199 €6,237 Total cost €661,883 €55,899 €26,937

New guidance Calculation method: standard error instead of relative standard error Confidence level: 95% Precision thresholds 0-2%: High precision – very reliable 2-5%: Acceptable - reliable 5-10%: Low precision – not sufficiently reliable More than 10%: Very low precision – not reliable