The evidence to be used in the IPC consists of available data, and the final classification is obtained based on a comprehensive, integrated analysis of the whole body of available evidence. Hence, all evidence needs to be evaluated for its reliability, including evidence from quantitative methods, such as surveys, and from qualitative methods, such as focus group discussions. Evidence to be assessed includes all evidence on contributing factors (e.g. satellite images, price trends, food production, rainfall estimations and employment levels) and on outcomes, such as food consumption and livelihood change (Box 16).
The IPC Reliability Score Table (Table 10) presents the general criteria for assessing reliability scores as well as the more specific guidance for assessing the soundness of method and time relevance for all food security evidence as follows:
Note: The recommended instructions on soundness of methods and time relevance, including estimated sample sizes and clusters, have been calculated for IPC reliability purposes only. They do not intend to constitute a best practice for the design of any method, including surveys involving primary data collection in the areas of analysis. The IPC acknowledges that evidence that score less than R2 may not provide accurate estimates of the conditions, and thus the IPC requires various pieces of evidence to be analysed and converged to provide an overall classification when R1 evidence is being used. The IPC acknowledges that the soundness of methods, including surveys, is also driven by factors other than sample design, such as measurement error, selection bias, field practices and analytical skills. Although important, the IPC cannot identify globally comparable parameters for these, and analysts are urged to assess the soundness of all methods further to issues identified in this table.
Considerations: