Abstract Quality is much sought after in, and a basic foundation for, good impact assessment (IA). However, the term is rarely defined, has an uncertain relationship with IA effectiveness, and it means different things to different stakeholders, which can lead to debates over the legitimacy associated with an IA process. Thus, IA quality needs conceptualising to position research and practice within broader understandings. This paper contributes to this conceptualisation by identifying nine dimensions of quality through a process of literature review drawing on three fields of study in which quality and quality management have already been debated and conceptualised: education; health care; and business. This approach sidesteps the plural views on quality existing within the field of IA itself which might otherwise bias the identification of quality dimensions. We therefore propose that the dimensions of IA quality are: Efficiency; Optimacy; Conformance; Legitimacy; Equity; Capacity Maintenance; Transformative Capacity; and Quality Management. A literature review of IA research and practice confirms the relevance of the identified quality dimensions to IA. We identify, to an extent, the relationship between quality and effectiveness. Quality aligns with procedural and transactive effectiveness, partly aligns with normative effectiveness and is distinct from, but helps to deliver, substantive effectiveness.

中文翻译：

---

对影响评估质量概念化的贡献

摘要 质量在良好的影响评估 (IA) 中备受追捧，并且是其基础。然而，该术语很少被定义，与 IA 有效性的关系不确定，它对不同的利益相关者意味着不同的东西，这可能导致对与 IA 过程相关的合法性的争论。因此，IA 质量需要概念化，以在更广泛的理解范围内定位研究和实践。本文通过对质量和质量管理已经被讨论和概念化的三个研究领域的文献综述过程，确定了质量的九个维度，从而为这一概念化做出了贡献：教育；卫生保健; 和业务。这种方法回避了 IA 本身领域内存在的关于质量的多种观点，否则可能会偏向于质量维度的识别。因此，我们建议 IA 质量的维度是： 效率；优化；一致性；合法性；公平; 容量维护；变革能力；和质量管理。IA 研究和实践的文献综述证实了所确定的质量维度与 IA 的相关性。我们在一定程度上确定了质量和有效性之间的关系。质量与程序和交易有效性一致，部分与规范有效性一致，不同于但有助于提供实质性有效性。容量维护；变革能力；和质量管理。IA 研究和实践的文献综述证实了所确定的质量维度与 IA 的相关性。我们在一定程度上确定了质量和有效性之间的关系。质量与程序和交易有效性一致，部分与规范有效性一致，不同于但有助于提供实质性有效性。容量维护；变革能力；和质量管理。IA 研究和实践的文献综述证实了所确定的质量维度与 IA 的相关性。我们在一定程度上确定了质量和有效性之间的关系。质量与程序和交易有效性一致，部分与规范有效性一致，不同于但有助于提供实质性有效性。