Mind the gap: A review of simulation designs for Qualitative Comparative Analysis
Mind the gap: A review of simulation designs for Qualitative Comparative Analysis
复制标题
注意差距：定性比较分析的模拟设计回顾
DOI：
10.1177/2053168015623562
复制
发表时间：
2015
影响因子：
2.7
通讯作者：
I. Rohlfing
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
I. Rohlfing
在定性比较分析（QCA）的基于模拟的分析中，Krogslund et al.（2015）得出结论，其性能在几种设置中均不理想。我回顾了他们的模拟设置，并讨论了他们在分析中犯的三个错误。首先，模拟包含阈值是压倒性的误解，他们的作用在真值表分析的基础上。第二，忽略了真值表分析可能表现出模型模糊性并产生多个模型的事实。如果从真值表中导出多个模型并将它们组合成一个，则会高估模型的复杂性并低估其数量，从而无法检索模拟的目标模型。第三，包括不相关的条件的后果的模拟混合的敏感性过拟合与敏感性变化的包容性阈值。重新考虑KCP的模拟纠正错误证实了他们的一些发现，但也表明，其中一些错误导致低估了QCA的鲁棒性。在更广泛的层面上，审查强调，模拟是有用的QCA的评估，但模拟设计需要匹配QCA的力学和原则，以产生有效的结论，其性能。
In a simulation-based analysis of Qualitative Comparative Analysis (QCA), Krogslund et al. (2015) conclude that its performance is suboptimal in several settings. I review their simulation setups and discuss three errors that were made in their analysis. First, the simulations involving inclusion thresholds are overpowered based on a misunderstanding of their role in truth table analyses. Second, the fact that a truth table analysis could exhibit model ambiguity and yield more than one model is ignored. If multiple models are derived from a truth table and they are combined into one, one overestimates the complexity of the models and underestimates their number, making it impossible to retrieve the target model of the simulation. Third, the simulations on the consequences of including irrelevant conditions intermingle sensitivity to overfitting with sensitivity to varying the inclusion thresholds. A reconsideration of KCP’s simulations correcting for the errors confirms some of their findings, but also reveals that some of those errors lead to an underestimation of QCA’s robustness. On a broader level, the review underscores that simulations are useful for the evaluation of QCA, but that simulation designs need to match QCA’s mechanics and principles to produce valid conclusions about its performance.