Expert review and pretesting of behavioral supervision in higher education

Abstract

PurposeThe rationale for the postgraduate supervision measures for higher education by the call for universities to adopt a systematic practice in postgraduate supervision through new supervisors' exposure to creative ways of monitoring. This paper aims at understanding, improving and validating the content of behavioral supervision measures using the expert review and pretesting analysis.Design/methodology/approachThe authors developed, modified and operationalized the items based on the developmental supervision theoretical concept by Glickman (1980) to measure the behavioral supervision of postgraduate in higher education. The authors obtain comments and verification from experts for content validity and criterion validity. Later, the authors do pretesting of face validity.FindingsThe result of the expert review and pretesting, analysis, provides measures (items) for the following seven stages (components) of postgraduate behavioral supervision: listening/clarifying; encouraging; presenting/demonstrating; negotiating/problem-solving; directing; standardizing and reinforcing.Practical implicationsThe findings contribute to the rational development of supervision measures and functional transformation in the postgraduate supervision process in higher education at national and international contexts.Social implicationsThese supervision measures, if practiced by the supervisors and postgraduates' students, will accelerate and achieve the aspiration initiative of the Ministry of Higher Education. In general, based on the needs identified, the positive impact of this study can improve national and international postgraduate program educational outcomes.Originality/valueThere is limited number of empirical research which resulted in postgraduate behavioral supervision measures in the context of higher education.

Exploring and Developing Item Measuring Leadership Practices Inventory (Lpi): An Exploratory Factor Analysis Procedure

“…The Cronbach value in Table 5 indicate the items in every component measuring the Leadership Practice construct have good internal reliability (Cronbach > 0.7), and more importantly the internal reliability for the whole construct is 0.897. This value has exceeded the minimum threshold value of 0.70 for Cronbach's Alpha (Alias et al, 2019;Ehido et al, 2020;Muda et al, 2018Muda et al, , 2020. This research adds a remarkable contribution to the measurement of the Leadership Practice construct in Leadership Practice Inventory (LPI), mainly in the Malaysian Matriculation College context.…”

“…According to Bahkia et al (2019Bahkia et al ( ,2020, Hoque et al (2017Hoque et al ( , 2018; Shkeer & Awang (2019), pretest, pilot study and Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) procedure is required for research that adapted and modified the measuring instrument in order to suit the study at hand. The process is crucial since the original instrument was developed in the population of different culture and different industry from the present study (Muda et al, 2018(Muda et al, , 2020. In this study, the measuring instrument of Leadership Practice construct was adapted from the Leadership Practice Inventory (LPI).…”

A Confirmatory Factor Analysis of the Fraud Pentagon Instruments for Measurement of Fraud in the Context of Asset Misappropriation in Malaysia

“…The study conducted an exploratory factor analysis (EFA) procedure to explore the usefulness of the modified items measuring their respective constructs and a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) procedure to validate the measurement model of latent constructs for construct validity, convergent validity, discriminant validity and composite reliability (Alias, Awang, & Muda, 2019;Bahkia, Awang, Afthanorhan, Ghazali, & Foziah, 2019;Bahkia et al, 2022;Muda et al, 2020). The EFA was conducted using data from the pilot study, while the CFA was conducted with data from the field study (Baistaman, Awang, Afthanorhan, & Rahim, 2020;Ehido, Awang, Abdul Halim, & Ibeabuchi, 2020;Fitriana, Hutagalung, Awang, & Zaid, 2022).…”

The Dimension of Performance Appraisal Justice and Intention to Quit Work: The Mediating Role of Organisational Support, A Study Based on Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) and Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA)

“…According to Czaja (1998), between three to eight experts are required to evaluate the instruments -this study employed three experts with over five years of working experience in the related field. The academic experts were appointed to review the questionnaire's instrument, such as content validity, face validity, and criterion validity (Muda et al, 2020). Apart from that, a police assistant superintendent from the Service Department, Sarawak, and ten policemen from the Police Headquarters in Bau District, Sarawak, were interviewed cognitively to identify terms that were not familiar to them (Czaja, 1998;Grimm, 2010;Hall et al, 2018).…”

“…Apart from that, a police assistant superintendent from the Service Department, Sarawak, and ten policemen from the Police Headquarters in Bau District, Sarawak, were interviewed cognitively to identify terms that were not familiar to them (Czaja, 1998;Grimm, 2010;Hall et al, 2018). The group was asked to answer, comment, criticise, and make suggestions on the questionnaire instrument (Muda et al, 2020).…”