The target of the checklists is the problem.

“When a measure becomes a target, it ceases to be a good measure.”

The measure has to be concrete enough to not be manipulatable.

For example, aircraft mechanical failures or hospital infections are very clear and obvious metrics. And besides outright lying and manipulation, the metrics speak for themselves and can't be corrupted.

You can't, however, measure "education" or "intelligence". You can approximate it and the more you make depend on the results the worse the already bad metrics become.

> ... hospital infections are very clear and obvious metrics.

Are you kidding? There are all sorts of ways for hospitals and doctors to manipulate this stuff, e.g., attract healthier patients (less compromised immune systems) or ones who are wealthier, younger, and more likely to follow instructions; give more prophylactic antibiotics; classify more patients as palliative http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/canadian-hospitals-... ; slant cause-of-death classification when there is ambiguity.

I remember an article here about how hard it is to gather metrics on MSRA-related deaths precisely because they are often not mentioned in the cause-of-death reports. I think this was it:

http://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/usa-uncou...

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12443994#12445403

I'm an infectious disease epidemiologist who specializes in hospital acquired infections.

They are far from very clear and obvious.