  In a university, research assessments are organized at different policy
levels (faculties, research council) in different contexts (funding, council
membership, personnel evaluations). Each evaluation requires its own focus and
methodology. To conduct a coherent research policy however, data on which
different assessments are based should be well coordinated. A common set of
core indicators for any type of research assessment can provide a supportive
and objectivating tool for evaluations at different institutional levels and at
the same time promote coherent decision-making. The same indicators can also
form the basis for a 'light touch' monitoring instrument, signalling when and
where a more thorough evaluation could be considered. This poster paper shows
how peer review results were used to validate a set of quantitative indicators
for research quality for a first series of disciplines. The indicators
correspond to categories in the university's standard CV-format. Per
discipline, specific indicators are identified corresponding to their own
publication and funding characteristics. Also more globally valid indicators
are identified after normalization for discipline-characteristic performance
levels. The method can be applied to any system where peer ratings and
quantitative performance measures, both reliable and sufficiently detailed, can
be combined for the same entities.
