I’d also like to take this opportunity to propose a link between MRA’s Review program and the ARF ORQC efforts. It seems that if the ARF tools are aimed at enhancing existing relationships and MRA’s program is aimed at transparency prior to engagement, that they are a good fit.

To provide background, the MRA Review Program includes a web site where all panel providers and full-service owners of panels can fill out a self-report about their panel. They input information about all of the factors that are thought to affect data quality (panel tenure, attrition, sourcing details, incentives, validation offerings, etc.), and the information is then collapsed into a standardized report that visitors to the website can review. All of this is free for both panel providers/owners as well as visitors. This provides the front end transparency required during the vendor evaluation process.

The ARF ORQC then allows the clients to validate satisfaction once engaged and based on projects versus overall scope.

If further validation of the abilities and performance of a panel provider is needed MRA also offers a third-party independent review of the panel reports in order to confirm that the information is accurate.

Since both programs are designed to be “living” projects, standards of transparency change over time. Many of the transparency recommendations from the ARF project are already in place and will continue be reflected. However, additional items may be added in order to bring the two programs in line with one another.

Ultimately, with slight changes, buyers of research would be able to visit the MRA Review Program in order to see all of the panel level details about their vendors that the ARF recommends. Moreover, they would also see and have the ability to select vendors based upon whether they offer the study-level technical report recommended by the ARF.