QCA design and calibration worksheet

Credibility depends on calibration quality. Always record grounds for variable anchors.

When to use this worksheet and what completion involves Fictional completed example

EvalCompass Worksheet

QCA design and calibration worksheet

Method: Qualitative Comparative Analysis

Credibility depends on calibration quality. Always record grounds for variable anchors.

Basic information

Enter analysis basics

Completed example for this section (fictional)

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

Research theme/evaluation target: Conditions for evaluation-plan use
Variant: csQCA / fsQCA / mvQCA: csQCA（crisp-set）
Analyst: Analyst A (fictional)
Creation date: July 1, 2026 (fictional)

Reason for this entry: Do not indiscriminately import fuzzy-set values.

Research theme/evaluation target

Variant: csQCA / fsQCA / mvQCA

Analyst

Creation date

Writing tips and explanation for this section

About this section

Enter analysis basics

Do not indiscriminately import fuzzy-set values.

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

Define cases, outcomes and conditions

Enter case universe and variables

Completed example for this section (fictional)

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

What constitutes 1 case: One organization over 3 months after training
Case count N: 4 fictional illustrative cases
Outcome Y definition: Meeting use within 3 months =1
Conditions X1–Xn and rationale: A: discussion meeting; B: staff continuity. Hypotheses about opportunities and handover

Reason for this entry: 4 is not a recommended QCA sample size.

What constitutes 1 case

Case count N

Outcome Y definition

Conditions X1–Xn and rationale

Writing tips and explanation for this section

About this section

Enter case universe and variables

4 is not a recommended QCA sample size.

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

Calibration design

Enter membership criteria/evidence; distinguish fsQCA anchors from csQCA/other methods

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

Variable	Full-membership anchor/criterion and rationale	Crossover anchor/criterion and rationale for fsQCA or similar	Non-membership anchor/criterion and rationale
A: discussion meeting	A meeting discusses the plan within 3 months	No 0.5 in csQCA	No discussion meeting during target period
B: staff continuity	Same person at training and use decision	No 0.5 in csQCA	Staff changed

Reason for this entry: For csQCA, the fsQCA-style crossover field is not applicable. State variant differences.

Scroll horizontally to view the table

Variable	Full-membership anchor/criterion and rationale	Crossover anchor/criterion and rationale for fsQCA or similar	Non-membership anchor/criterion and rationale

Writing tips and explanation for this section

About this section

Enter membership criteria/evidence; distinguish fsQCA anchors from csQCA/other methods

For csQCA, the fsQCA-style crossover field is not applicable. State variant differences.

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

Necessity/sufficiency findings

Enter analytical 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

Condition or solution combination	Consistency	Coverage	Interpretation
A*B → Y: sufficiency	1.00＝2/2	1.00＝2/2	Consistent in these 4 cases; attend to unobserved combinations and scope

Reason for this entry: Do not mix necessity and sufficiency in one expression.

Scroll horizontally to view the table

Condition or solution combination	Consistency	Coverage	Interpretation

Writing tips and explanation for this section

About this section

Enter analytical findings

Do not mix necessity and sufficiency in one expression.

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

Design checklist

Completed example for this section (fictional)

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

☑ Checked: Defined universe with theoretical grounds
☐ Not checked: Recorded condition choices from research/theory
☑ Checked: Documented anchor rationale
☑ Checked: Named actual cases for each truth-table combination
☐ Not checked: Distinguished necessity/sufficiency, reported consistency/coverage and assessed criteria/sensitivity
☐ Not checked: Examined complex/intermediate/parsimonious solutions and remainder assumptions and justified selection
☑ Checked: Plan or explicit statement for supplementing with process tracing or similar

Reason for this entry: Values are fictional-table arithmetic. Consistency/coverage shown, but literature grounds, alternative settings and solution comparisons remain incomplete.

Defined universe with theoretical grounds
Recorded condition choices from research/theory
Documented anchor rationale
Named actual cases for each truth-table combination
Distinguished necessity/sufficiency, reported consistency/coverage and assessed criteria/sensitivity
Examined complex/intermediate/parsimonious solutions and remainder assumptions and justified selection
Plan or explicit statement for supplementing with process tracing or similar

Writing tips and explanation for this section

About this section

Values are fictional-table arithmetic. Consistency/coverage shown, but literature grounds, alternative settings and solution comparisons remain incomplete.

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

QCA design and calibration worksheet is a worksheet for applying Qualitative Comparative Analysis in meetings or individual work. For the overall duration of the method, use “Illustrative planning durations, not common standards: design/preparation 1–2 months, analysis/interpretation 2–4 weeks” 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

Compare about 10–50 countries, organizations or sites to identify combinations associated with success/failure
Systematically compare successes/failures for lessons about important conditions
Multiple combinations may achieve the same result: equifinality

Participants and preparation

1–2 trained evaluators/researchers using R QCA/SetMethods or fs/QCA; domain expertise is essential for calibration

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

Suggested order

1. Basic informationEnter analysis basics
2. Define cases, outcomes and conditionsEnter case universe and variables
3. Calibration designEnter membership criteria/evidence; distinguish fsQCA anchors from csQCA/other methods
4. Necessity/sufficiency findingsEnter analytical findings
5. Design checklist

Signs the worksheet is ready for review

Truth table: condition combinations × cases × outcomes
Sufficient solutions and consistency/coverage
Case-solution correspondence

Cautions for review

Unjustified subjective calibration, such as intuitive 0.5, undermines credibility. Always record/report anchors from substantive thresholds, prior research or expertise.
Distinguish solution types and report remainders/counterfactual choices; no solution is automatically best.
High consistency with low coverage explains little of outcomes; report both.

Read a completed fictional example (your entries will not change)

Fictional example; not actual results

A fictional crisp-set example of 4 cases: A=discussion meeting, B=staff continuity, Y=plan use.

Basic information

Research theme/evaluation target: Conditions for evaluation-plan use
Variant: csQCA / fsQCA / mvQCA: csQCA（crisp-set）
Analyst: Analyst A (fictional)
Creation date: July 1, 2026 (fictional)

Reason for this entry: Do not indiscriminately import fuzzy-set values.

Define cases, outcomes and conditions

What constitutes 1 case: One organization over 3 months after training
Case count N: 4 fictional illustrative cases
Outcome Y definition: Meeting use within 3 months =1
Conditions X1–Xn and rationale: A: discussion meeting; B: staff continuity. Hypotheses about opportunities and handover

Reason for this entry: 4 is not a recommended QCA sample size.

Calibration design

Scroll horizontally to view the table

Variable	Full-membership anchor/criterion and rationale	Crossover anchor/criterion and rationale for fsQCA or similar	Non-membership anchor/criterion and rationale
A: discussion meeting	A meeting discusses the plan within 3 months	No 0.5 in csQCA	No discussion meeting during target period
B: staff continuity	Same person at training and use decision	No 0.5 in csQCA	Staff changed

Reason for this entry: For csQCA, the fsQCA-style crossover field is not applicable. State variant differences.

Necessity/sufficiency findings

Scroll horizontally to view the table

Condition or solution combination	Consistency	Coverage	Interpretation
A*B → Y: sufficiency	1.00＝2/2	1.00＝2/2	Consistent in these 4 cases; attend to unobserved combinations and scope

Reason for this entry: Do not mix necessity and sufficiency in one expression.

Design checklist

☑ Checked: Defined universe with theoretical grounds
☐ Not checked: Recorded condition choices from research/theory
☑ Checked: Documented anchor rationale
☑ Checked: Named actual cases for each truth-table combination
☐ Not checked: Distinguished necessity/sufficiency, reported consistency/coverage and assessed criteria/sensitivity
☐ Not checked: Examined complex/intermediate/parsimonious solutions and remainder assumptions and justified selection
☑ Checked: Plan or explicit statement for supplementing with process tracing or similar

Reason for this entry: Values are fictional-table arithmetic. Consistency/coverage shown, but literature grounds, alternative settings and solution comparisons remain incomplete.

Common errors in judgment

Mechanically split conditions at their mean into 0/1

How to revise: Calibrate from conceptual boundaries and case evidence

Reason: Scale numbers differ from meaning of membership.

Ignore other combinations/counterexamples because consistency is high

How to revise: Check contradictions and unobserved combinations

Reason: Results depend on selection and simplification assumptions.

Editorial and checking information

Content updated: 2026-09-13Source checked: 2026-09-13 (includes AI cross-checking)No documented human reviewIncludes fictional examplesEditorial policy and scope of checking Cite this page Report a correction

References and checked sections

Qualitative comparative analysis
BetterEvaluation
Section consulted
Qualitative Comparative Analysis / Causal Pathway features
How it relates to the text
Distinguish combinations, necessity/sufficiency and calibration grounds; separately examine absent outcomes.
Source checked: 2026-09-13 (includes AI cross-checking)

How to cite this page

EvalCompass Editorial Team. “QCA design and calibration worksheet”. EvalCompass, updated 2026-09-13. https://evalcompass.jun-nakatani.com/en/worksheets/qca/

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

2026-09-13 — Checked sources for definitions and conditions and added fictional examples, judgment rationales and completed entries for every field. Revised unsupported historical or uptake claims. Reviewed procedures and cautions, adjusting fixed counts, thresholds and institutional generalizations. Preserved field positions, types and counts while revising fixed conditions and thresholds.