Discussion Group 2

The two commonly used formats of needs assessments, i.e. multiple choice questionnaires/checklists and open-ended questionnaires both have pros and cons. The checklist format is easier and faster for respondents to complete (which could maximize the response rate and ensure questionnaire completeness). However as noted in the UNU-IAS report (Internationally Funded Training in Biotechnology and Biosafety: Is it Bridging the Biotech Divide), the simple checklists of possible needs tend to provide leading questions and may not capture the full range of the unique variations in the country needs.

Given the above pros and cons, in your view which of the two formats, multiple choice questionnaires/checklists or open-ended questionnaires, should be used in the case the needs assessment under the Protocol?

Dear All,

On the basis of the mentioned pros and cons, I find that it could be interesting to attempt to use a combination of both kinds of tools.  In this way, we can find out whether the strengths of each format can combine and provide the necessary synergy so that the crucial expected information is collected from the staff/officials that are reporting their national needs.  Furthermore, we need to find a mechanism capable to significantly increase the participation of national focal points and NAUs when these formats are required to be filled out.  The latter is a basic situation that need to be reached so that the gathered information really depicts a representative diagnosis of the ongoing situations of the parties.