Theory of Change Assessment

Paste a document and get a scored quality assessment with evidence and revision priorities.

You are an expert M&E advisor. Score the Theory of Change I will provide using the rubric below.

SCORING RUBRIC - Theory of Change Assessment
Score each dimension 1-5 using these criteria:

DIMENSION 1: Causal Logic
- Score 5: Pathway from activities to long-term change explicit at every step. Each causal link stated. A reviewer unfamiliar with the context can trace the full logic without additional explanation.
- Score 4: Pathway explicit at every step with no more than two links implied rather than stated.
- Score 3: Pathway recognizable but half or more causal links are implied rather than stated. A reader can follow general direction but must fill in multiple steps.
- Score 2: Half or more causal steps are missing or jumpy. Several outcomes do not follow from the preceding change.
- Score 1: No clear causal pathway. Reads as a list of activities and aspirations.

DIMENSION 2: Evidence Base
- Score 5: Every major causal claim references specific evidence (research, program data, or contextual analysis). Evidence directly supports the claimed mechanism.
- Score 4: At least 80 percent of major causal claims reference specific evidence. The remainder rely on assertion, but no major mechanism is unsupported.
- Score 3: Half or more major causal claims reference evidence; the remainder rely on assertion. Evidence cited may lack specificity or direct relevance for some claims.
- Score 2: Less than half of causal claims reference evidence, OR cited evidence is generic ("research shows") without specific source.
- Score 1: No evidence cited. ToC is entirely assertion-based.

DIMENSION 3: Assumptions
- Score 5: Preconditions and external dependencies listed at every major transition point. Each is specific, testable, and genuinely external.
- Score 4: Assumptions listed at at least 80 percent of major transition points. The remainder may be vague but major dependencies are visible.
- Score 3: Assumptions listed at half or more transition points. Those listed are recognizable as external conditions but half or more lack the specificity needed for monitoring.
- Score 2: Assumptions listed at less than half of transition points, OR half or more are trivially true or program activities.
- Score 1: No assumptions stated. Change is presented as inevitable.

DIMENSION 4: Outcomes Hierarchy
- Score 5: Short-term, intermediate, and long-term outcomes clearly differentiated and correctly sequenced. Every level represents a qualitatively different type of change.
- Score 4: Hierarchy present and correctly sequenced. No more than two outcomes appear at the wrong level or are ambiguously labeled.
- Score 3: Hierarchy visible but at least three outcomes are at the wrong level or sit ambiguously between adjacent levels.
- Score 2: Half or more outcomes are at the wrong level, OR levels are inconsistently labeled.
- Score 1: No discernible hierarchy. All outcomes at one level.

DIMENSION 5: Boundary & Sustainability
- Score 5: ToC scoped to what the program can plausibly influence within its timeframe and resources. Sustainability section names who owns the change post-project, what conditions must hold, and what handover steps the program will take.
- Score 4: Scope reasonable. Sustainability section present but lacks one of (named post-project owner, required conditions, handover steps).
- Score 3: Scope implied but not stated. Sustainability referenced in general terms (e.g., "the change will be sustained through capacity building") without specifying owner, conditions, or handover.
- Score 2: ToC over-ambitious (claims credit for changes the program cannot drive alone), OR no sustainability section.
- Score 1: No boundary defined and no sustainability mention.

OUTPUT FORMAT:
Return your assessment as a table followed by a summary:

| Dimension | Score (1-5) | Evidence from ToC | Priority Revision |
|-----------|-------------|-------------------|-------------------|
| Causal Logic | | | |
| Evidence Base | | | |
| Assumptions | | | |
| Outcomes Hierarchy | | | |
| Boundary & Sustainability | | | |

**Total: X/25**
**Band:** Strong (22-25) / Adequate (17-21) / Needs Revision (11-16) / Substantial Revision (5-10)
**Single Most Important Revision:** [One specific sentence]

For any dimension scored 1 or 2, add a brief explanation and a concrete revision example.

THEORY OF CHANGE TO SCORE:
[Paste your Theory of Change narrative or diagram description here]