Impact measurement & evaluation
Evidence Hierarchy
A ranked ordering of research methods by the strength of evidence they produce, used to judge how much confidence to place in evaluation findings.
Expert review openNo editor-accepted expert review yetDefinition
An evidence hierarchy is a rank-ordering of kinds of research methods according to their potential to suffer from systematic bias, with the methods least prone to bias placed at the top. Originating in evidence-based medicine — the term was used in a 1979 Canadian Task Force report to grade interventions by quality of evidence — hierarchies conventionally place systematic reviews and meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials highest, followed by individual trials, cohort and case-control studies, case series and, at the base, expert opinion. Dozens of variants exist, including the Oxford CEBM levels and the GRADE approach to rating certainty of evidence.
References
definition as rank-ordering by susceptibility to systematic bias, 1979 origin, GRADE certainty ratings, criticisms
Overview
What it means
The hierarchy is a heuristic, not a law: a well-run observational study may outweigh a poor trial, and some sustainability questions (ecosystem dynamics, community outcomes) cannot be randomised at all.
Critics argue rigid hierarchies undervalue qualitative and practice-based evidence, which is why impact-measurement practice has adapted the idea into broader "standards of evidence" that match method strength to the claim being made.
How it is used
Used by evaluators, funders and standards bodies to grade the confidence behind impact claims, to set minimum evidence requirements for funding decisions, and to structure evidence reviews.
Why it matters
Sustainability claims are only as credible as the evidence behind them; a shared hierarchy lets editors, investors and policymakers compare claims on a common footing and spot assertions that outrun their support.
**Note:** Sustainability-sector adaptations (standards of evidence used in UK impact measurement) should be verified against current guidance at publication; the core concept above is the established, citable form.
Review
Public comments appear only after editor acceptance. Draft comments stay in the review queue.
Reviewers choose the definition or an overview paragraph, leave a comment or replacement, and attach evidence or a source link.
Editors compare reviewer cards side by side. AI may help find agreement, conflicts, unsupported claims and possible source issues.
Only an editor-accepted synthesis changes the public page. Reviewer identities are shown only with consent and verification.
Submitted reviews stay private until accepted.
Loading verified endorsements… Endorsements are not votes and never determine publication.
Endorse this definition
Endorse the exact version shown here. This is not a vote, and publication remains an editorial decision.
Review board
Comment on a specific line. Each reviewer stays separate until an editor accepts a merged draft.
Each person comments on the definition or overview in their own draft card, with role, evidence and suggested wording kept together.
AI can compare comments against the current text, flag conflicting claims, surface missing evidence and identify where reviewers agree.
An editor merges compatible suggestions into a draft change, checks sources, records disagreements and decides what can be published.