Hi Jacob,
It is still a matter of inclusion cut-off. Looking at your truth table, I can see the largest inclusion is 0.579, well below the default cut-off equal to 1.
Using this default, only perfectly consistent configurations will be coded (not re-coded) as 1, while your consistencies are very low.
In order to circumvent this issue, Ragin introduced this cut-off and the recommended minimum is somewhere between 0.75 and 0.8, certainly not below 0.75.
But your highest consistency score is 0.579, which means there is absolutely no chance for you to get positive configurations with such inconsistent data. I suspect this might be a problem of calibration: how did you produce the presence / absence scores for your causal conditions and outcome?
Your hand produced truth table does not seem to be correct, as you've calculated 16 configurations (including the outcome) while there are only 3 causal conditions hence there should be no more than 8 configurations in the truth table. The outcome does not count in the configuration list, it is used to calculate the consistencies of those configurations against it.
Your base problem is the highly inconsistent data, looks almost random. With 126 cases and 3 causal conditions, it looks suspiciously taken from some kind of large-N experiment. While QCA <can> be used for large data, at its heart it is still a qualitative method, which means you should aim to be familiar and have have intimate knowledge about each and every one of your cases.
Or, that is by definition impossible in the quantiative world, where cases are merely used to calculate an average, or a standard deviation.
I hope this helps,
Adrian
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to
qcawithr+u...@googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/qcawithr/7c48870c-e234-42c8-809d-5ccb83244e1f%40googlegroups.com.
> <fg2.csv>