An Instrument to Determine the Types of Assessment Used by members of Faculty

Authors

  • Arturo De la Orden Hoz Universidad Complutense de Madrid
  • Julio Herminio Pimienta Prieto Universidad Anáhuac México Norte

Keywords:

Educación Superior, Evaluación del Rendimiento Académico, Confiabilidad del Cuestionario, Validez de Contenido, Validez de Constructo

Supporting Agencies:

Pearson Educación de México, S.A. de C.V.

Abstract

This paper presents the design and validation process of a questionnaire to determine the types of assessment used by members of faculty. The methodology used begins with the conceptual and operational definition of the domain and is followed through to the analysis of the pilot results to determine, on the one hand, the reliability of the questionnaire and each question and, on the other hand, the construct validity. The results of this study provide sufficient evidence to show 1) the validity of the questionnaire content, which shows an acceptable index of agreement according to experts (with Krippendorf’s alpha coefficient greater than 0.7); 2) the global reliability of the questionnaire, equivalent to alpha = 0.87 and the reliability of the questions, between alpha 0.81 and alpha 0.87; 3) the construct validity of the questionnaire; 4) that the factorial structure is not significantly different from the theory used as a basis to establish the questions. The data suggests that the questionnaire is a valid tool and psychometrically sound for its purpose.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Alkin, M. C. (Ed.) (2004). Evaluation roots. Theorists’views and influences. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Alkin, M. C., Daillak, R. y White, B. (1979). Using evaluations: Does evaluation make a difference? Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Bloom, B. S. (1969). Some theoretical issues relating to educational evaluation. En R. Tyler, Educational evaluation: newroles, new Means. The sixty-eighth yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education part II. University of Chicago Press.
Bloom, B. S., Hastings, J. T. y Madaus, G. F. (1971). Handbook on formative and summative evaluation of student learning. Nueva York: McGraw-Hill.
De la Orden, A., Asensio, I., Carballo, R., Fernández Díaz, J., Fuentes, A., García Ramos, J. M. et al. (1997). Desarrollo y validación de un modelo de calidad universitaria como base para su evaluación. RELIEVE, 3(1). Recuperado de http://www.uv.es/RELIEVE/v3n1/RELIEVEv3n1_2.htm
De la Orden, A., Garduño, L., Asensio, I. Mafokozi, J., González, C. y Muñóz, A. (2002). Funciones de la Universidad. Revista de Educación, 328, 267-281.
De la Orden, A. (2009, junio). Evaluación y calidad: análisis de un modelo. Estudios sobre Educación, 16, 17-36.
Pophan, W. J. (2014). Classroom assessment. What teachers need to know. Nueva Jersey: Pearson.
Scriven, M. (1967). The methodology of evaluation. AERA Monograph Series on Curriculum Evaluation, 1.
Scriven, M. (1991). Evaluation Thesaurus (4a. ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Shadish, W. R. Jr., Cook, T. D. y Leviton, L. C. L. (1991). Foundations of program evaluation. Thousand Oaks, CA.: Sage.
Smith, N. L. (1993). Improving evaluation theory through the empirical study of evaluation practice. Evaluation Practice, 14(3), 237-242.
Stiggings, R. (2014). Revolutionize assessment. Empower students, inpire learning. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwing.
Stufflebeam, D. L. y PDK National Study Committee on Evaluation. (1971). Educational Evaluation and Decision Making. Itasca, ILL: F. E. Peacock Publishers.
Stufflebeam, D. L. (1982). CIPP model for program evaluation. En G. F. Madaus, M. S. Scriven, y D. L. Stuflflebeam (Eds.), Evaluation models: viewpoints on educational and human services evaluation, Boston: Kluwer-Nifhoflf.
Wholey, J. S. et al. (1970) Federal evaluation policy: analyzing the effects of public programs. Washington, DC: Urban Institute.
Worthen, B. R. (1990). Program Evaluation. En H. J. Walberg y G. D. Haertel (Eds.), International Encyclopedia of Educational Evaluation. Nueva York: Pergamon.

Downloads

Article abstract page views: 3749

Published

2016-05-02