The search for necessary and sufficient causes of some outcome of interest, referred to as configurational comparative research, has long been one of the main preoccupations of evaluation scholars and practitioners. However, only the last three decades have witnessed the evolution of a set of formal methods that are sufficiently elaborate for this purpose. In this article, I provide a hands-on tutorial for qualitative comparative analysis (QCA)—currently the most popular configurational comparative method. In drawing on a recent evaluation of patient follow-through effectiveness in Lynch syndrome tumor-screening programs, I explain the search target of QCA, introduce its core concepts, guide readers through the procedural protocol of this method, and alert them to mistakes frequently made in QCA’s use. An annotated replication file for the QCApro extension package for R accompanies this tutorial.
BaxterS.KilloranA.KellyM. P.GoyderE. (2010). Synthesizing diverse evidence: The use of primary qualitative data analysis methods and logic models in public health reviews. Public Health, 124, 99–106.
8.
BefaniB. (2013). Between complexity and generalization: Addressing evaluation challenges with QCA. Evaluation, 19, 269–283.
9.
BefaniB.LedermannS.SagerF. (2007). Realistic evaluation and QCA: Conceptual parallels and an empirical application. Evaluation, 13, 171–192.
10.
BlackmanT.WistowJ.ByrneD. (2013). Using qualitative comparative analysis to understand complex policy problems. Evaluation, 19, 126–140.
11.
CooperB.GlaesserJ. (2016). Qualitative comparative analysis, necessary conditions, and limited diversity: Some problematic consequences of Schneider and Wagemann’s Enhanced Standard Analysis. Field Methods, 28, 300–315.
12.
CragunD.DeBateR. D.VadaparampilS. T.BaldwinJ.HampelH.PalT. (2014). Comparing universal Lynch syndrome tumor-screening programs to evaluate associations between implementation strategies and patient follow-through. Genetics in Medicine, 16, 773–782.
13.
CragunD.PalT.VadaparampilS. T.BaldwinJ.HampelH.DeBateR. D. (2016). Qualitative comparative analysis: A hybrid method for identifying factors associated with program effectiveness. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 10, 251–272.
14.
CraigN. (2013). Seeing the wood and the trees: Using outcomes frameworks to inform planning, monitoring and evaluation in public health. Journal of Public Health, 35, 467–474.
15.
DuşaA.ThiemA. (2014). QCA: A package for Qualitative Comparative Analysis (R package version 1.1-4). Retrieved September 19, 2016, fromhttp://www.alrik-thiem.net/software/
16.
DuşaA.ThiemA. (2015). Enhancing the minimization of Boolean and multivalue output functions with eQMC. Journal of Mathematical Sociology, 39, 92–108.
17.
FreedmanR. (1993). Necessary condition analysis: A new tool for program evaluation. Research Evaluation, 3, 127–131.
18.
GerritsL.VerweijS. (2016). Qualitative comparative analysis as a method for evaluating complex cases: An overview of literature and a stepwise guide with empirical application. Zeitschrift für Evaluation, 15, 7–22.
19.
GrossM.GarvinM. (2011). Structuring PPP toll-road contracts to achieve public pricing objectives. Engineering Project Organization Journal, 1, 143–156.
HerrmannA. M.CronqvistL. (2009). When dichotomisation becomes a problem for the analysis of middle-sized datasets. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 12, 33–50.
22.
HolvoetN.DewachterS. (2013). Multiple paths to effective national evaluation societies: Evidence from 37 low- and middle-income countries. American Journal of Evaluation, 34, 519–544.
23.
LedermannS. (2012). Exploring the necessary conditions for evaluation use in program change. American Journal of Evaluation, 33, 159–178.
24.
MackieJ. L. (1965). Causes and conditions. American Philosophical Quarterly, 2, 245–264.
25.
MackieJ. L. (1974). The cement of the universe: A study of causation. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
26.
MahoneyJ.KimballE.KoivuK. L. (2009). The logic of historical explanation in the social sciences. Comparative Political Studies, 42, 114–146.
27.
MayneJ. (2001). Addressing attribution through contribution analysis: Using performance measures sensibly. Canadian Journal of Program Evaluation, 16, 1–24.
28.
MayneJ. (2012). Contribution analysis: Coming of age?Evaluation, 18, 270–280.
29.
OzegowskiS. (2013). Effective policy mechanisms for an equitable geographical distribution of general practitioners: A Qualitative Comparative Analysis of the accessibility of primary care in Europe. Journal of Health Services Research & Policy, 18, 151–159.
30.
PattynV.BransM. (2015). Organisational analytical capacity: Policy evaluation in Belgium. Policy and Society, 34, 183–196.
31.
PennellJ.RikardR. V.Sanders-RiceT. (2014). Family violence: Fathers assessing and managing their risk to children and women. Children and Youth Services Review, 47, Part 1, 36–45.
32.
RaginC. C. (1987). The comparative method: Moving beyond qualitative and quantitative strategies. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
33.
RaginC. C. (2000). Fuzzy-set social science. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
34.
RaginC. C. (2008). Redesigning social inquiry: Fuzzy sets and beyond. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
35.
RihouxB. (2006). Qualitative Comparative Analysis (QCA) and related systematic comparative methods: Recent advances and remaining challenges for social science research. International Sociology, 21, 679–706.
36.
SagerF.AndereggenC. (2012). Dealing with complex causality in realist synthesis: The promise of Qualitative Comparative Analysis. American Journal of Evaluation, 33, 60–78.
37.
SchneiderC. Q.WagemannC. (2012). Set-theoretic methods for the social sciences: A guide to Qualitative Comparative Analysis (QCA). Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
38.
ThiemA. (2013). Clearly crisp, and not fuzzy: A reassessment of the (putative) pitfalls of multi-value QCA. Field Methods, 25, 197–207.
39.
ThiemA. (2014a). Membership function sensitivity of descriptive statistics in fuzzy-set relations. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 17, 625–642.
40.
ThiemA. (2014b). Mill’s methods, induction and case sensitivity in qualitative comparative analysis: A comment on Hug (2013). Qualitative & Multi-Method Research, 12, 19–24.
41.
ThiemA. (2014c). Navigating the complexities of Qualitative Comparative Analysis: Case numbers, necessity relations, and model ambiguities. Evaluation Review, 38, 487–513.
ThiemA. (2015a). Parameters of fit and intermediate solutions in multi-value Qualitative Comparative Analysis. Quality & Quantity, 49, 657–674.
44.
ThiemA. (2015b). Using Qualitative Comparative Analysis for identifying causal chains in configurational data: A methodological commentary on Baumgartner and Epple (2014). Sociological Methods & Research, 44, 723–736.
45.
ThiemA. (2016a). Analyzing multilevel data with QCA: Yet another straightforward procedure. Quality & Quantity, 50, 121–128.
46.
ThiemA. (2016b). QCApro: Professional functionality for performing and evaluating Qualitative Comparative Analysis (R package version 1.1-1). Retrieved September 19, 2016, fromhttp://www.alrik-thiem.net/software/
47.
ThiemA. (2016c). Standards of good practice and the methodology of necessary conditions in Qualitative Comparative Analysis. Political Analysis, 24, 478–484.
48.
ThiemA.BaumgartnerM. (2016a). Back to square one: A reply to Munck, Paine, and Schneider. Comparative Political Studies, 49, 801–806.
49.
ThiemA.BaumgartnerM. (2016b). Glossary for Configurational Comparative Methods, version 1.1. In ThiemA. (Ed.), QCApro: Professional functionality for performing and evaluating qualitative comparative analysis (Package Version 1.1-1). Retrieved fromhttp://www.alrik-thiem.net/software/
50.
ThiemA.BaumgartnerM. (2016c). Modeling causal irrelevance in evaluations of configurational comparative methods. Sociological Methodology, 46, 345–357.
51.
ThiemA.BaumgartnerM.BolD. (2016). Still lost in translation! A correction of three misunderstandings between configurational comparativists and regressional analysts. Comparative Political Studies, 49, 742–774.
52.
ThiemA.DuşaA. (2013a). Boolean minimization in social science research: A review of current software for Qualitative Comparative Analysis (QCA). Social Science Computer Review, 31, 505–521.
53.
ThiemA.DuşaA. (2013b). QCA: A package for Qualitative Comparative Analysis. The R Journal, 5, 87–97.
54.
ThiemA.DuşaA. (2013c). Qualitative Comparative Analysis with R: A user’s guide. New York, NY: Springer.
55.
ThiemA.SpöhelR.DuşaA. (2016). Enhancing sensitivity diagnostics for Qualitative Comparative Analysis: A combinatorial approach. Political Analysis, 24, 104–120.
56.
ThygesonN. M.SolbergL. I.AscheS. E.FontaineP.Gregory PawlsonL.ScholleS. H. (2012). Using fuzzy set Qualitative Comparative Analysis (fs/QCA) to explore the relationship between medical “homeness” and quality. Health Services Research, 47, 22–45.
57.
VerweijS.GerritsL. M. (2013). Understanding and researching complexity with Qualitative Comparative Analysis: Evaluating transportation infrastructure projects. Evaluation, 19, 40–55.
58.
VinkM. P.VlietO. v. (2009). Not quite crisp, not yet fuzzy? Assessing the potentials and pitfalls of multi-value QCA. Field Methods, 21, 265–289.
59.
von BertalanffyL. (1950). The theory of open systems in physics and biology. Science, 111, 23–29.
60.
ZadehL. A. (1965). Fuzzy sets. Information and Control, 8, 338–353.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
