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: The pathway from activities to long-term change is explicit and directionally correct at every step. Each causal link is stated (not assumed). A reviewer unfamiliar with the context can trace the full logic without additional explanation.
- Score 4: The pathway is mostly coherent with 1-2 gaps where a link is implied but not explained. Overall direction is plausible.
- Score 3: The overall direction is recognizable but multiple causal links are implied rather than stated. A reader can follow the general logic but would need to fill in several steps independently.
- Score 2: Several causal steps are missing or jumpy. Outcomes do not clearly follow from the preceding change.
- Score 1: No clear causal pathway. The ToC reads as a list of activities and aspirations without connecting logic.

DIMENSION 2: Evidence Base
- Score 5: Each major causal claim references specific evidence - published research, programme data, or documented contextual analysis. The evidence directly supports the claimed mechanism of change.
- Score 4: Most claims are grounded in evidence. 1-2 causal links rely on assertion rather than documented support.
- Score 3: Some evidence is present but coverage is uneven. Several key causal claims are supported while others rely on assertion. Evidence referenced is real but may lack specificity or direct relevance to the claimed mechanism.
- Score 2: Evidence is generic ("research shows...") or limited to a single source. Several claims lack support.
- Score 1: No evidence cited. The ToC is entirely assertion-based.

DIMENSION 3: Assumptions
- Score 5: Preconditions and external dependencies are explicitly listed at each major transition point. Each assumption is specific (not "political stability"), testable (can be monitored), and genuinely external to programme control.
- Score 4: Key assumptions are identified at most transition points. 1-2 are vague but the major dependencies are visible.
- Score 3: Assumptions are present at some transition points but coverage is incomplete. Those listed are recognizable as genuine external conditions but may lack the specificity needed for monitoring.
- Score 2: Assumptions are present but incomplete - missing at key transition points or stated so broadly they cannot be monitored.
- Score 1: No assumptions stated. The ToC presents change as inevitable regardless of external conditions.

DIMENSION 4: Outcomes Hierarchy
- Score 5: Short-term, intermediate, and long-term outcomes are clearly differentiated and correctly sequenced. Each level represents a qualitatively different type of change (knowledge/attitude to behavior to system to population-level).
- Score 4: Hierarchy is present and mostly correct. 1-2 outcomes appear at the wrong level or are ambiguously labeled.
- Score 3: A hierarchy is visible and the general sequence is correct, but the distinction between levels is blurred in places. Some outcomes could plausibly sit at adjacent levels without the rationale being explained.
- Score 2: Outcomes at different levels are conflated or inconsistently labeled. The sequence is unclear.
- Score 1: No discernible hierarchy. All results are listed at the same level regardless of proximity to programme activities.

DIMENSION 5: Boundary & Sustainability
- Score 5: The ToC is clearly scoped to what the programme can plausibly influence within its timeframe and resources. It explicitly addresses how change persists or is owned by others after project end.
- Score 4: Scope is broadly reasonable. Sustainability is mentioned but not elaborated.
- Score 3: The programme's sphere of influence is implied but not explicitly defined. Sustainability is referenced in general terms without specifying who owns the change or what conditions must hold after project close.
- Score 2: The ToC is either over-ambitious (claims credit for changes the programme cannot drive alone) or silent on what happens after project close.
- Score 1: No boundary defined. The ToC implies full attribution for large-scale change with no acknowledgment of limitations or handover.

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]