1 / 9

Evaluation Cooperation Group October 25, 2013 Washington D.C.

Use of Qualitative Comparative Analysis (QCA) in Impact Evaluations. Evaluation Cooperation Group October 25, 2013 Washington D.C. AARON ZAZUETA Chief Evaluation Officer. QCA is a method for determining causality.

atara
Download Presentation

Evaluation Cooperation Group October 25, 2013 Washington D.C.

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Use of Qualitative Comparative Analysis (QCA) in Impact Evaluations Evaluation Cooperation Group October 25, 2013 Washington D.C. AARON ZAZUETA Chief Evaluation Officer

  2. QCA is a method for determining causality QCA analyzes the causal contributions of different conditions to a particular outcome, using deterministic rather than probabilistic logic. QCA permits inferences even from a small number of cases by allowing a maximum number of comparisons between different combinations of conditions. Variables have 2 values: 0 or 1. GEF used QCA to determine the relative importance of combinations of factors leading to successful broader adoption of GEF interventions.

  3. Selection of Factors • 473 terminal evaluations analyzed for the presence of 33 contributing and hindering factors • 9 factors identified in the most number of cases tested for relative importance in determining successful broader adoption using QCA • Factors and outcomes coded as 1’s (present) and 0’s (not present)

  4. QCA Example #3011 NO Success #3235 Success NO Broader Adoption Initiated Broader Adoption Initiated NO Other Stakeholder Support NO Poor Project Design NO Country Support Other Stakeholder Support Country Support Poor Project Design

  5. QCA Results 75% Likelihood of Success 88% Likelihood of Success Broader Adoption Initiated Country Support 51% of Successful Cases 23% of Successful Cases Other Stakeholder Support NO Poor Project Design SUCCESS 26% of Successful Cases Good Stakeholder Engagement 78% Likelihood of Success Previous and current related initiatives

  6. QCA Results 89% likelihood of NO Success NO SUCCESS NO Broader Adoption Initiated 12% of NO Success cases NO Other Stakeholder Support NO Country Support Poor Project Design • More variety in combinations of factors leading to NO Success 6

  7. Utility of QCA QCA allowed us to systematically identify the factors contributing to and hindering progress towardsimpact atproject exit. QCA allowed a counterfactual analysis by examining effects on progress towardsimpact of the presence or absence of specific factors 7

  8. Limitations Need to strictly define criteria for “presence” and “absence” of each factor, otherwise use fuzzy sets Need to make expert judgments on selecting most relevant factors to test based on empirical evidence/ real-world experience because testing too many factors will not give conclusive results 8

  9. Thank you Azazueta@theGEF.org www.gefeo.org

More Related