EvalCompassEvalCompass

Process tracing evidence-test worksheet

Formulate hypotheses and systematically test evidence. Enter hypotheses/signals before analysis.

When to use this worksheet and what completion involvesFictional completed example
Automatically saved on this device Entries are saved only in this browser. Save a PDF for sharing or submission.Paper: A4 · portrait. Check the orientation in print preview.
EvalCompass Worksheet

Process tracing evidence-test worksheet

Method: Process Tracing
Formulate hypotheses and systematically test evidence. Enter hypotheses/signals before analysis.

Basic information

Enter evaluation basics

Completed example for this section (fictional)

This fictional example is for explanation. Adapt it to your own program. Your entries will not change.

Case: program / policy / organization
Indicator-adoption meeting
Evaluation questions
Which decisions used training materials?
Analyst
Analyst A (fictional)
Creation date
July 1, 2026 (fictional)

Reason for this entry: Focus on a specific adoption event.

Writing tips and explanation for this section

About this section

Enter evaluation basics

Focus on a specific adoption event.

View the method explanation

Writing tips

Follow each field’s heading to record the program name, focus, period, and other details. Leave undecided matters clearly marked as unresolved.

Read the full fictional example

Formulate causal hypotheses

Fix main/competing hypotheses before collection

Completed example for this section (fictional)

This fictional example is for explanation. Adapt it to your own program. Your entries will not change.

Scroll horizontally to view the table

Hypothesis numberX produced Y through mechanism MMain / competing
H1Training materials supplied comparisons and encouraged new indicatorsMain
H2Indicators adopted to meet funder requirementsCompeting; coexistence possible

Reason for this entry: Hypotheses need not be exclusive.

Scroll horizontally to view the table

Hypothesis numberX produced Y through mechanism MMain / competing
Writing tips and explanation for this section

About this section

Fix main/competing hypotheses before collection

Hypotheses need not be exclusive.

View the method explanation

Writing tips

Keep the information in each row aligned. Scroll wide tables horizontally to see every column.

Read the full fictional example

Expected evidence signals, predefined

List expected evidence under each hypothesis and decide test types beforehand

Completed example for this section (fictional)

This fictional example is for explanation. Adapt it to your own program. Your entries will not change.

Scroll horizontally to view the table

Hypothesis numberExpected signalHoop / smoking gun / doubly-decisive / straw testJudgment if foundJudgment if not found
H1Materials received before adoption meetinghoopConsistent with necessary order, not proofCould refute with complete receipt records; missing logs leave undecidable

Reason for this entry: State conditions for absence to refute.

Scroll horizontally to view the table

Hypothesis numberExpected signalHoop / smoking gun / doubly-decisive / straw testJudgment if foundJudgment if not found
Writing tips and explanation for this section

About this section

List expected evidence under each hypothesis and decide test types beforehand

State conditions for absence to refute.

View the method explanation

Writing tips

Keep the information in each row aligned. Scroll wide tables horizontally to see every column.

Read the full fictional example

Collect and judge evidence

Record evidence and test findings

Completed example for this section (fictional)

This fictional example is for explanation. Adapt it to your own program. Your entries will not change.

Scroll horizontally to view the table

Evidence numberContent and sourceCorresponding hypothesisSupport / refute / undecidable
E1Fictional staff reply confirming receipt 2 days before the meetingH1Consistent with necessary pre-meeting receipt; reading/use unconfirmed

Reason for this entry: Sent logs do not confirm receipt, so a fictional acknowledgment is used. Check reading and decision use through other evidence.

Scroll horizontally to view the table

Evidence numberContent and sourceCorresponding hypothesisSupport / refute / undecidable
Writing tips and explanation for this section

About this section

Record evidence and test findings

Sent logs do not confirm receipt, so a fictional acknowledgment is used. Check reading and decision use through other evidence.

View the method explanation

Writing tips

Keep the information in each row aligned. Scroll wide tables horizontally to see every column.

Read the full fictional example

Mechanism conclusions

Integrate test findings into mechanism descriptions

Completed example for this section (fictional)

This fictional example is for explanation. Adapt it to your own program. Your entries will not change.

Acknowledgment predates meeting, consistent with H1's temporal order. Reading/use remain unconfirmed. Adoption reasons and funder requirements need additional records; H2 is not rejected. This is a provisional judgment for one fictional meeting and cannot establish the same mechanism elsewhere.

Reason for this entry: Include remaining issues per hypothesis.

Writing tips and explanation for this section

About this section

Integrate test findings into mechanism descriptions

Include remaining issues per hypothesis.

View the method explanation

Writing tips

Use the example as a reference and record what you have established about your own program. Distinguish assumptions and unchecked matters from confirmed facts.

Read the full fictional example

Analysis checklist

Completed example for this section (fictional)

This fictional example is for explanation. Adapt it to your own program. Your entries will not change.

  • ☐ Not checked: Predefined hypotheses and signals before collection
  • ☑ Checked: At least 1 competing hypothesis alongside main
  • ☑ Checked: Identified each evidence test type
  • ☐ Not checked: Fairly recorded contrary evidence
  • ☑ Checked: Explained competitor acceptance/rejection
  • ☑ Checked: Stated generalization limits

Reason for this entry: Only H1 timing checked so far. H2 signals/testing plan blank, leaving item 1 unconfirmed; contrary-evidence collection incomplete, leaving item 4 unconfirmed. Reasons for deferring H2 and generalization limits are stated.

Writing tips and explanation for this section

About this section

Only H1 timing checked so far. H2 signals/testing plan blank, leaving item 1 unconfirmed; contrary-evidence collection incomplete, leaving item 4 unconfirmed. Reasons for deferring H2 and generalization limits are stated.

View the method explanation

Writing tips

Read each item and check those you have confirmed. Do not use the fictional example’s checkbox states as findings about your own program.

Read the full fictional example

Before writing, check when to use the worksheet and what completion involves

Process tracing evidence-test worksheet is a worksheet for applying Process Tracing in meetings or individual work. For the overall duration of the method, use “Illustrative planning durations, not common standards: 2–6 months for one case including collection/analysis” as a reference, adjusting for scale and resources. Fill in what you know provisionally and leave unresolved matters as questions to check next.

When this worksheet is useful

  • Explain mechanisms of why programs work or fail
  • Trace causal pathways deeply in 1 to several cases
  • Explain mechanisms/context after quantitative effects are found

Participants and preparation

1–2 evaluators experienced in qualitative/case research, with document/interview field staff and access to key program/policy informants

Bring the materials used for decisions, existing data, and differing stakeholder views to help complete the worksheet.

Suggested order

  1. 1. Basic informationEnter evaluation basics
  2. 2. Formulate causal hypothesesFix main/competing hypotheses before collection
  3. 3. Expected evidence signals, predefinedList expected evidence under each hypothesis and decide test types beforehand
  4. 4. Collect and judge evidenceRecord evidence and test findings
  5. 5. Mechanism conclusionsIntegrate test findings into mechanism descriptions
  6. 6. Analysis checklist

Signs the worksheet is ready for review

  • Diagram: program → mechanism → outcome
  • Test matrix: hypotheses × evidence × tests × judgments
  • Grounds for retaining/rejecting competitors

Cautions for review

  • Chronological storytelling is not process tracing. Preformulated hypotheses and discriminating evidence tests are central.
  • Predetermined conclusions and no competing hypotheses create confirmation bias. Always compare alternatives against evidence.
  • Avoid seeking only decisive evidence or treating many weak items as confirmation. Passing hoops does not confirm; assess discrimination, credibility and dependence.
Guides to read before starting
What is impact evaluation?What is process evaluation?
Read a completed fictional example (your entries will not change)
Fictional example; not actual results

A fictional illustration examining adoption of new indicators.

Basic information

Case: program / policy / organization
Indicator-adoption meeting
Evaluation questions
Which decisions used training materials?
Analyst
Analyst A (fictional)
Creation date
July 1, 2026 (fictional)

Reason for this entry: Focus on a specific adoption event.

Formulate causal hypotheses

Scroll horizontally to view the table

Hypothesis numberX produced Y through mechanism MMain / competing
H1Training materials supplied comparisons and encouraged new indicatorsMain
H2Indicators adopted to meet funder requirementsCompeting; coexistence possible

Reason for this entry: Hypotheses need not be exclusive.

Expected evidence signals, predefined

Scroll horizontally to view the table

Hypothesis numberExpected signalHoop / smoking gun / doubly-decisive / straw testJudgment if foundJudgment if not found
H1Materials received before adoption meetinghoopConsistent with necessary order, not proofCould refute with complete receipt records; missing logs leave undecidable

Reason for this entry: State conditions for absence to refute.

Collect and judge evidence

Scroll horizontally to view the table

Evidence numberContent and sourceCorresponding hypothesisSupport / refute / undecidable
E1Fictional staff reply confirming receipt 2 days before the meetingH1Consistent with necessary pre-meeting receipt; reading/use unconfirmed

Reason for this entry: Sent logs do not confirm receipt, so a fictional acknowledgment is used. Check reading and decision use through other evidence.

Mechanism conclusions

Acknowledgment predates meeting, consistent with H1's temporal order. Reading/use remain unconfirmed. Adoption reasons and funder requirements need additional records; H2 is not rejected. This is a provisional judgment for one fictional meeting and cannot establish the same mechanism elsewhere.

Reason for this entry: Include remaining issues per hypothesis.

Analysis checklist

  • ☐ Not checked: Predefined hypotheses and signals before collection
  • ☑ Checked: At least 1 competing hypothesis alongside main
  • ☑ Checked: Identified each evidence test type
  • ☐ Not checked: Fairly recorded contrary evidence
  • ☑ Checked: Explained competitor acceptance/rejection
  • ☑ Checked: Stated generalization limits

Reason for this entry: Only H1 timing checked so far. H2 signals/testing plan blank, leaving item 1 unconfirmed; contrary-evidence collection incomplete, leaving item 4 unconfirmed. Reasons for deferring H2 and generalization limits are stated.

Common errors in judgment

Assume prior timing proves causality

How to revise: Treat order as necessary and examine mechanisms/competitors

Reason: Other factors can have the same timing.

Reject hypotheses because evidence is absent

How to revise: Check observability and recording completeness

Reason: Some events leave no records.

Editorial and checking information

Content updated: Source checked: (includes AI cross-checking)No documented human reviewIncludes fictional examplesEditorial policy and scope of checkingCite this pageReport a correction

References and checked sections

  1. Process tracing
    BetterEvaluation
    Section consulted
    Process tracing involves four types of causal tests
    How it relates to the text
    Finding and not finding evidence may have different hypothesis implications.
    Source checked: (includes AI cross-checking)

How to cite this page

EvalCompass Editorial Team. “Process tracing evidence-test worksheet”. EvalCompass, updated 2026-09-13. https://evalcompass.jun-nakatani.com/en/worksheets/process-tracing/
Add the date you accessed the page. Text created by this site is available under CC BY 4.0. Quotations, external materials, and bundled fonts have their own terms of use. When reusing content, credit the source, link to the license, and indicate any changes.

Suggest a correction or improvement to this page

Change history
  • — Checked definition/condition sources and added fictional examples, judgment rationales and completed fields. Revised unsupported history/uptake claims, existing procedures, fixed counts/thresholds and institutional generalizations. Unified fictional evidence as receipt acknowledgments, distinguishing sending, receipt, reading and decision use. Rechecked examples against completion checks and conditional procedures.