Qualitative comparative analysis is increasingly popular as a methodological option in the evaluator’s toolkit. However, evaluators who are willing to apply it face inconsistent suggestions regarding the choice of the ‘solution term’. These inconsistent suggestions reflect a current broad debate among proponents of two approaches to qualitative comparative analysis. The first approach focuses on substantial interpretability and the second on redundancy-free results. We offer three questions to guide the choice of a solution term in the context of impact multi-method evaluation research. They are related to the intended use of the findings, goals of the analysis and regularity theory of causality. Finally, we showcase guidelines through three potential applications of qualitative comparative analysis. The guiding questions would almost always lead to choosing the substantial interpretability approach. However, the redundancy-free approach should not be disregarded. Whatever the choice, researchers should be aware of the assumptions each approach is based on and the risks involved.

定性比较分析作为评估工具包中的一种方法选择越来越受欢迎。然而，愿意应用它的评估者在选择“解决方案”时会面临不一致的建议。这些不一致的建议反映了当前两种定性比较分析方法的支持者之间的广泛辩论。第一种方法侧重于实质性的可解释性，第二种方法侧重于无冗余的结果。在影响多方法评估研究的背景下，我们提供了三个问题来指导解决方案的选择。它们与研究结果的预期用途、分析的目标和因果关系的规律性理论有关。最后，我们通过定性比较分析的三种潜在应用展示了指导方针。指导性问题几乎总是会导致选择实质性可解释性方法。但是，不应忽视无冗余方法。无论选择何种选择，研究人员都应了解每种方法所基于的假设以及所涉及的风险。