2019
DOI: 10.1108/heed-05-2018-0012
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Threats of common method variance in student assessment of instruction instruments

Abstract: Purpose The purpose of this paper is to demonstrate that common method variance, specifically single-source bias, threatens the validity of a university-created student assessment of instructor instrument, suggesting that decisions made from these assessments are inherently flawed or skewed. Single-source bias leads to generalizations about assessments that might influence the ability of raters to separate multiple behaviors of an instructor. Design/methodology/approach Exploratory factor analysis, nested co… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
2

Citation Types

0
17
0

Year Published

2020
2020
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
6
2

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 12 publications
(17 citation statements)
references
References 43 publications
0
17
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Table 2 presents descriptive statistics for the student and clinical educator's self-evaluation versions of the OCTQ for comparison. The mean number of student ratings per educator was 6.75 ± 4.06 with a median of 6 (range [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14]. Clinical educators demonstrated lower means and the same or lower median values for most items when compared to the students.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 91%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Table 2 presents descriptive statistics for the student and clinical educator's self-evaluation versions of the OCTQ for comparison. The mean number of student ratings per educator was 6.75 ± 4.06 with a median of 6 (range [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14]. Clinical educators demonstrated lower means and the same or lower median values for most items when compared to the students.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 91%
“…Student evaluations of teaching are used extensively in higher education however authors have highlighted significant challenges with their interpretation (i.e. poor construct definition, gender bias, low reponse rates) and use of the results [7][8][9][10][11], particularly when the student perspective is used in isolation. This collective literature suggests data from student evaluations be limited to formative decisionmaking that is informed by data collected longitudinally and triangulated with other measures of teaching quality [8,12,13].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Table 2 presents descriptive statistics for the student and clinical educator's self-evaluation versions of the OCTQ for comparison. The mean number of student ratings per educator was 6.75 ± 4.06 with a median of 6 (range [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14]. Clinical educators demonstrated lower means and the same or lower median values for most items when compared to the students.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Student evaluations of teaching are used extensively in higher education however authors have highlighted signi cant challenges with their interpretation (i.e. poor construct de nition, gender bias, low reponse rates) and use of the results [7][8][9][10][11], particularly when the student perspective is used in isolation. This collective literature suggests data from student evaluations be limited to formative decision-making that is informed by data collected longitudinally and triangulated with other measures of teaching quality [8,12,13].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Student evaluations of teaching are used extensively in higher education however authors have highlighted signi cant challenges with their interpretation (i.e. poor construct de nition, gender bias, low reponse rates) and use of the results [7][8][9][10][11], particularly when the student perspective is used in isolation. This collective literature suggests data from student evaluations be limited to formative decision-making that is informed by data collected longitudinally and triangulated with other measures of teaching quality [8,12,13].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%