✅ Logic Testing & Quality Assurance

Systematic methods for testing change pathway logic and overall coherence to ensure theories are sound, credible, and actionable while maintaining community grounding and evidence-based foundations.

🎯 Theory of Change Logic Framework

Quality Theory of Change demonstrates clear, logical progression from interventions to impact, with each component building coherently on previous levels while maintaining evidence-based credibility throughout.

Logic Architecture Components

Vertical Logic (Causal Flow):

Activities → Outputs: Direct products of intervention implementation
Outputs → Short-term Outcomes: Immediate changes resulting from outputs
Short-term → Medium-term Outcomes: Behavioral/practice changes building on capacity
Medium-term → Long-term Outcomes: System changes building on behavior changes
Long-term Outcomes → Impact: Ultimate transformation when systems change

Horizontal Logic (Supporting Elements):

Assumptions: Testable hypotheses underlying each causal link
External Factors: Conditions outside project control affecting logic
Indicators: Observable measures for tracking progress at each level
Timeline: Realistic timeframes for each change level

Logic Quality Criteria

Causal Plausibility: Each level logically leads to the next with clear mechanisms Evidence Base: Logic grounded in Problem Tree analysis and stakeholder insights
Realistic Scope: Ambitions match organizational capacity and resources Cultural Appropriateness: Change expectations align with community context Assumption Explicitness: Critical hypotheses stated clearly and testably

📋 Systematic Logic Testing Process

Test 1: Causal Chain Analysis

Step-by-Step Logic Verification:

CAUSAL CHAIN TESTING TEMPLATE:

ACTIVITY TO OUTPUT TEST:
Activity: [Specific intervention activity]
Expected Output: [Direct product of activity]
Logic Test Questions:
□ Will this activity directly produce this output?
□ What conditions must exist for this output to occur?
□ How will we know this output has been achieved?
□ What could prevent this activity from producing expected output?

Evidence Support: [Problem Tree/stakeholder insights supporting this connection]
Risk Factors: [What could disrupt this causal link]
Assumption: [Key hypothesis underlying this connection]

OUTPUT TO SHORT-TERM OUTCOME TEST:
Output: [Direct product from activity]
Expected Short-term Outcome: [Immediate change expected]
Logic Test Questions:
□ Will this output lead to this short-term outcome?
□ What change mechanism connects output to outcome?
□ How realistic is this timeframe for this type of change?
□ What stakeholder response is required for this connection?

Evidence Support: [Community validation of this change sequence]
Change Mechanism: [How output creates outcome - knowledge, skill, attitude, network]
Timeline Reality: [Whether timeframe realistic for change type]

SHORT-TERM TO MEDIUM-TERM OUTCOME TEST:
Short-term Outcome: [Capacity/awareness change]
Expected Medium-term Outcome: [Behavior/practice change]
Logic Test Questions:
□ Will capacity/awareness changes lead to behavior changes?
□ What motivations/incentives support behavior change?
□ What barriers could prevent behavior adoption?
□ How does cultural context affect behavior change likelihood?

Behavior Change Logic: [Why people will change practices based on capacity changes]
Cultural Factors: [How community values support/hinder behavior change]
Motivation Analysis: [What drives stakeholders to adopt new behaviors]

MEDIUM-TERM TO LONG-TERM OUTCOME TEST:
Medium-term Outcome: [Individual/community behavior changes]
Expected Long-term Outcome: [System/structural changes]
Logic Test Questions:
□ Will individual/community changes create system changes?
□ What scale of change needed to affect systems?
□ Who has power to make system changes?
□ How do behavior changes influence decision-makers?

System Change Mechanism: [How behavior changes create system changes]
Power Analysis: [Who can make system changes and how they're influenced]
Scale Requirements: [How much change needed to affect systems]

LONG-TERM OUTCOME TO IMPACT TEST:
Long-term Outcome: [System/structural changes achieved]
Expected Impact: [Ultimate transformation vision]
Logic Test Questions:
□ Will system changes create lasting transformation?
□ How do different system changes work together for impact?
□ What sustains impact beyond project period?
□ How does impact address root causes from Problem Tree?

Sustainability Logic: [Why changes will persist after project ends]
Integration Analysis: [How different changes work together for impact]
Root Cause Connection: [How impact addresses fundamental causes]

Test 2: Evidence Strength Assessment

Evidence-Logic Alignment Testing:

EVIDENCE ADEQUACY ASSESSMENT:

For each causal link, assess evidence strength:

CAUSAL LINK: [Specific connection being tested]
Evidence Type: [Problem Tree evidence, stakeholder input, research, experience]
Evidence Strength: [Strong(E)/Moderate(E*)/Validated Assumption(A→E)/Working Hypothesis(A)]

STRONG EVIDENCE (E) LINKS:
Link: [Connection with strong evidence support]
Evidence Base: [Multiple sources confirming this logic]
Confidence Level: High - Proceed with confidence
Risk Assessment: Low - Strong foundation for this pathway

MODERATE EVIDENCE (E*) LINKS:
Link: [Connection with moderate evidence support]
Evidence Base: [Some sources supporting this logic]
Confidence Level: Medium - Proceed with enhanced monitoring
Risk Assessment: Medium - Requires early validation during implementation

WORKING HYPOTHESIS (A) LINKS:
Link: [Connection based on assumption]
Assumption Basis: [Why you believe this logic will work]
Confidence Level: Low - Requires testing before/during implementation
Risk Assessment: High - Could affect overall theory success

EVIDENCE GAPS:
Missing Evidence: [Causal links lacking sufficient evidence support]
Gap Impact: [How evidence gaps affect theory credibility]
Evidence Strengthening: [How to improve evidence base for weak links]

Test 3: Assumption Coherence Testing

Internal Consistency Assessment:

ASSUMPTION COHERENCE ANALYSIS:

ASSUMPTION MAPPING:
List all assumptions underlying Theory of Change logic:

Assumption 1: [Stakeholder behavior assumption]
Related Assumptions: [Other assumptions that must also be true]
Consistency Check: [Do related assumptions support or contradict each other?]

Assumption 2: [System response assumption]  
Related Assumptions: [Other assumptions about systems]
Consistency Check: [Are system assumptions mutually compatible?]

Assumption 3: [Context/environment assumption]
Related Assumptions: [Other environmental assumptions]
Consistency Check: [Do context assumptions work together logically?]

CONTRADICTION IDENTIFICATION:
Contradictory Assumptions:
Assumption A: [Statement]
Assumption B: [Conflicting statement]
Contradiction Analysis: [How these assumptions conflict]
Resolution Strategy: [How to resolve contradiction]

ASSUMPTION HIERARCHY:
Critical Assumptions: [Must be true for theory success]
Supporting Assumptions: [Important but not theory-breaking]
Context Assumptions: [Environmental conditions]

Priority Testing: [Which assumptions most critical to validate]

Test 4: External Factor Analysis

External Influence Assessment:

EXTERNAL FACTOR IMPACT TESTING:

EXTERNAL FACTOR IDENTIFICATION:
Political Factors: [Government, policy, political stability issues]
Economic Factors: [Economic conditions, funding, market dynamics]
Social Factors: [Cultural changes, demographic shifts, social movements]
Environmental Factors: [Climate, geography, infrastructure changes]
Other Actor Factors: [Other organizations, competing priorities]

EXTERNAL FACTOR IMPACT ANALYSIS:
External Factor: [Specific external condition]
Theory Impact: [How this factor affects theory logic]
Likelihood Assessment: [High/Medium/Low probability this factor will occur]
Impact Severity: [High/Medium/Low effect on theory success]

Risk Level: [High/Medium/Low overall risk from this factor]
Monitoring Strategy: [How to track this external factor]
Mitigation Approach: [How to reduce negative impact or leverage positive impact]
Adaptation Strategy: [How to modify theory if external factor changes]

EXTERNAL FACTOR INTEGRATION:
Theory Modifications: [How to build external factor considerations into theory]
Contingency Planning: [Alternative pathways if external factors change]
Environmental Monitoring: [System for tracking relevant external changes]
Adaptive Management: [Process for theory adjustment based on external changes]

🔍 Specific Logic Testing Tools

Tool 1: “So What?” Logic Testing

Progressive Logic Challenge:

"SO WHAT?" TESTING PROCESS:

Start with each activity and ask "So what?" at each level:

ACTIVITY: [Specific intervention]
Output: [Direct product] 
SO WHAT? How does this output matter for change?

Short-term Outcome: [Immediate change]
SO WHAT? How does this change lead to further change?

Medium-term Outcome: [Behavioral change]  
SO WHAT? How does this behavior change create broader change?

Long-term Outcome: [System change]
SO WHAT? How does this system change create lasting impact?

Impact: [Ultimate transformation]
SO WHAT? How does this transformation address core problem?

LOGIC STRENGTH ASSESSMENT:
Strong Logic: Clear, compelling answer at each "So what?" level
Weak Logic: Difficulty explaining why each level matters for next level
Missing Logic: Cannot answer "So what?" convincingly at any level

Logic Improvement: [How to strengthen weak logical connections]

Tool 2: Alternative Pathway Testing

Pathway Robustness Assessment:

ALTERNATIVE PATHWAY ANALYSIS:

For critical theory pathways, test alternatives:

MAIN PATHWAY: [Current theory pathway]
Alternative Pathway 1: [Different way same outcome could be achieved]
Alternative Pathway 2: [Another way same outcome could be achieved]

PATHWAY COMPARISON:
Main Pathway Strengths: [Why current pathway preferred]
Main Pathway Weaknesses: [Vulnerabilities in current pathway]
Alternative Pathway Advantages: [Benefits of alternative approaches]

PATHWAY INTEGRATION:
Multiple Pathway Strategy: [How to use multiple pathways simultaneously]
Backup Pathway Planning: [When to switch to alternative pathways]
Pathway Selection Criteria: [How to choose optimal pathway given conditions]

ROBUSTNESS ASSESSMENT:
Single Point of Failure: [Does theory depend on one critical pathway?]
Pathway Diversification: [Are there multiple routes to key outcomes?]
Adaptive Capacity: [Can theory accommodate pathway changes?]

Tool 3: Stakeholder Logic Validation

Community Logic Testing:

STAKEHOLDER LOGIC VERIFICATION:

Present theory logic to different stakeholder groups:

TARGET POPULATION LOGIC TEST:
Theory Component: [Pathway or outcome to test]
Stakeholder Feedback: [How target population responds to logic]
Logic Confirmation: [Elements stakeholders confirm as logical]
Logic Challenges: [Elements stakeholders question or contradict]

COMMUNITY LEADER LOGIC TEST:
Theory Component: [System change pathway to test]
Leader Feedback: [How leaders assess pathway realism]
Authority Perspectives: [How power holders view change logic]
Implementation Feasibility: [Leader assessment of pathway practicality]

IMPLEMENTER LOGIC TEST:
Theory Component: [Activity to outcome pathways]
Staff Feedback: [How implementers assess pathway logic]
Capacity Reality Check: [Whether pathways match organizational capacity]
Resource Requirements: [Whether logic realistic given available resources]

EXTERNAL EXPERT LOGIC TEST:
Theory Component: [Overall theory coherence]
Expert Feedback: [How sector experts assess theory logic]
Evidence Base Assessment: [Expert view on theory evidence strength]
Best Practice Alignment: [How theory compares to proven approaches]

LOGIC SYNTHESIS:
Stakeholder Consensus: [Where stakeholders agree on logic]
Stakeholder Concerns: [Where stakeholders question logic]
Expert Validation: [Where experts confirm/challenge logic]
Refinement Priorities: [Which logic elements need strengthening]

📊 Quality Assurance Framework

Comprehensive Quality Assessment

Theory Quality Dimensions:

LOGIC QUALITY ASSESSMENT:

CAUSAL LOGIC STRENGTH:
□ Each causal link clearly explained with change mechanism
□ Progression from activities to impact follows logical sequence
□ No missing steps that would prevent causal progression
□ Change mechanisms appropriate for type of change expected
Score: [1-5 scale] Comments: [Specific strengths/weaknesses]

EVIDENCE BASE ADEQUACY:
□ Theory grounded in Problem Tree analysis and stakeholder insights
□ Strong evidence supports confident pathways
□ Moderate evidence acknowledged with validation plans
□ Working hypotheses explicit and testable
Score: [1-5 scale] Comments: [Evidence strengths/gaps]

ASSUMPTION EXPLICITNESS:
□ Critical assumptions clearly stated and testable
□ Assumption testing strategies developed
□ Risk assessment completed for high-risk assumptions
□ Assumption coherence verified (no contradictions)
Score: [1-5 scale] Comments: [Assumption clarity/testing readiness]

COMMUNITY GROUNDING:
□ Theory language reflects stakeholder terminology and priorities
□ Change expectations culturally appropriate and realistic
□ Community assets and knowledge integrated throughout theory
□ Stakeholder validation completed with theory refinement
Score: [1-5 scale] Comments: [Community integration quality]

IMPLEMENTATION READINESS:
□ Theory provides clear guidance for intervention design
□ Resource requirements realistic given organizational capacity
□ Timeline expectations appropriate for change types
□ Measurement framework feasible and meaningful
Score: [1-5 scale] Comments: [Implementation practicality]

OVERALL THEORY QUALITY SCORE: [Average] / 5
OVERALL ASSESSMENT: [Excellent/Good/Needs Improvement/Inadequate]

Quality Improvement Process

Theory Enhancement Strategy:

QUALITY IMPROVEMENT PLANNING:

HIGH PRIORITY IMPROVEMENTS (Score <3):
Quality Dimension: [Area scoring below 3]
Specific Weaknesses: [Detailed gaps or problems identified]
Improvement Strategy: [How to address weaknesses]
Resource Requirements: [Time, expertise, stakeholder engagement needed]
Timeline: [When improvement will be completed]

MEDIUM PRIORITY IMPROVEMENTS (Score 3-4):
Quality Dimension: [Area with room for improvement]
Enhancement Opportunities: [How to strengthen this dimension]
Improvement Approach: [Strategy for enhancement]
Resource Requirements: [What's needed for improvement]

STRENGTHS TO MAINTAIN (Score >4):
Quality Dimension: [Strong areas to preserve]
Specific Strengths: [What's working well]
Maintenance Strategy: [How to ensure continued strength]

IMPROVEMENT IMPLEMENTATION:
Phase 1 (Immediate): [Critical improvements needed before proceeding]
Phase 2 (Short-term): [Improvements during early implementation]
Phase 3 (Ongoing): [Continuous improvement during implementation]

Quality Monitoring: [How to track theory quality throughout implementation]

Testing-Based Theory Evolution

Logic Refinement Cycle:

ITERATIVE IMPROVEMENT PROCESS:

TEST → ANALYZE → REFINE → RE-TEST

TESTING PHASE:
Logic Tests Completed: [Which testing tools used]
Testing Results: [Key findings from logic testing]
Stakeholder Input: [Community feedback on logic]
Quality Assessment: [Overall theory quality scores]

ANALYSIS PHASE:
Logic Strengths: [What testing confirmed as strong]
Logic Weaknesses: [What testing identified as weak]
Evidence Gaps: [Where evidence base needs strengthening]
Stakeholder Concerns: [Community challenges to logic]

REFINEMENT PHASE:
Logic Modifications: [How theory changed based on testing]
Evidence Strengthening: [New evidence integrated]
Assumption Updates: [Revised assumptions based on testing]
Community Integration: [How stakeholder feedback incorporated]

RE-TESTING PHASE:
Modified Logic Testing: [Re-test refined theory elements]
Stakeholder Re-validation: [Community confirmation of improvements]
Quality Re-assessment: [Updated theory quality scores]
Implementation Readiness: [Final readiness assessment]

ITERATION COMPLETION:
Refinement Cycles Completed: [Number of testing-refinement cycles]
Final Theory Quality: [Ultimate quality assessment]
Implementation Confidence: [Readiness for implementation]
Ongoing Learning Plan: [How theory will continue evolving]

Documentation of Logic Testing

Testing Documentation Template:

LOGIC TESTING DOCUMENTATION:

TESTING OVERVIEW:
Testing Date(s): [When logic testing completed]
Testing Team: [Who conducted logic testing]
Testing Methods Used: [Which testing tools applied]
Stakeholder Involvement: [Community participation in testing]

TESTING RESULTS SUMMARY:
Strong Logic Elements: [Theory components with strong logical foundation]
- Evidence: [What supports confidence in these elements]
- Stakeholder Validation: [Community confirmation of strong elements]

Weak Logic Elements: [Theory components needing strengthening]
- Weaknesses Identified: [Specific logic problems found]
- Improvement Strategies: [How weaknesses will be addressed]

THEORY MODIFICATIONS:
Original Theory Elements: [Components before testing]
Refined Theory Elements: [Components after testing refinement]
Rationale for Changes: [Why modifications improve theory]

IMPLEMENTATION IMPLICATIONS:
High-Confidence Implementation: [Theory elements ready for implementation]
Enhanced Monitoring Needs: [Elements requiring careful tracking]
Assumption Testing Priorities: [Critical assumptions to validate during implementation]

ONGOING QUALITY ASSURANCE:
Continued Testing Plan: [How logic will be tested during implementation]
Theory Evolution Framework: [Process for ongoing theory refinement]
Community Feedback Integration: [How stakeholder input will continue improving theory]

✅ Final Quality Certification

Theory Readiness Assessment

Implementation Readiness Checklist:

THEORY QUALITY CERTIFICATION:

LOGIC COHERENCE:
□ All causal links tested and strengthened
□ No logical gaps or contradictions identified  
□ Change mechanisms clearly explained and validated
□ Alternative pathways considered and integrated

EVIDENCE FOUNDATION:
□ Theory grounded in Problem Tree and stakeholder insights
□ Evidence strength assessed for all theory components
□ High-risk assumptions identified and testing strategies developed
□ Community validation completed with theory refinement

IMPLEMENTATION VIABILITY:
□ Theory provides actionable guidance for intervention design
□ Resource requirements realistic given organizational capacity
□ Timeline expectations appropriate and stakeholder-validated
□ Measurement framework developed and feasible

COMMUNITY OWNERSHIP:
□ Theory language reflects community terminology and priorities
□ Stakeholder priorities integrated throughout theory
□ Community roles in theory implementation and monitoring established
□ Ongoing community feedback mechanisms planned

ADAPTIVE CAPACITY:
□ Theory designed for learning and evolution during implementation
□ Assumption testing framework established
□ External factor monitoring and adaptation strategies developed
□ Quality improvement process built into implementation planning

FINAL CERTIFICATION:
□ Theory meets all quality criteria for implementation
□ Implementation team confident in theory foundation
□ Community ownership established for theory success
□ Learning and adaptation framework ready for implementation

Theory Status: CERTIFIED FOR IMPLEMENTATION
Certification Date: [Date]
Quality Assurance Team: [Names]
Next Review Date: [When theory will be reassessed]

Systematic logic testing transforms Theory of Change from hopeful hypothesis into credible strategy, building confidence among implementers, trust among funders, and ownership among communities through rigorous validation of change pathways and transparent acknowledgment of assumptions and risks.