1 / 24

CEQ

CEQ. Data file preparation Item and scale scores Missing data Reporting the CEQ Change in 2010 CEQ Q&A. What is the CEQ?. Course experience perceptions of graduates who completed coursework degrees Research degree graduates respond to the PREQ Feedback on up to two majors

will
Télécharger la présentation

CEQ

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. CEQ • Data file preparation • Item and scale scores • Missing data • Reporting the CEQ • Change in 2010 • CEQ Q&A

  2. What is the CEQ? • Course experience perceptions of graduates who completed coursework degrees • Research degree graduates respond to the PREQ • Feedback on up to two majors • More responses than respondents • Eleven scales underpinned by 49 Likert-type items • Three core scales consisting of 13 items

  3. Good Teaching Scale (GSS) [6] • Generic Skills Scale (GSS) [6] • Overall Satisfaction Item (OSI) [1] • Clear Goals and Standards Scale (CGS) [4] • Appropriate Workload Scale (AWS) [4] • Appropriate Assessment Scale (AAS) [3] • Intellectual Motivation Scale (IMS) [4] • Student Support Scale (SSS) [5] • Graduate Qualities Scale (GQS) [6] • Learning Resources Scale (LRS) [5] • Learning Community Scale (LCS) [5]

  4. Data File Preparation • Remove PREQ cases • Remove cases with no CEQMAJ • Imputation possible from MAJ1 and MAJ2 • Remove cases with no LEVEL • Remove cases that do not fulfil these conditions: • valid response to OSI, or • at least four GTS item responses, or • at least four GSS item responses • All collection methods retained for 2010 CEQ

  5. Creation of Response File GDS CEQ1 CEQ2 • 113,523 respondents • 131,603 responses

  6. Item Scores • Common five-point response scale • 1 = strongly disagree • 2 = disagree • 3 = neither agree nor disagree • 4 = agree • 5 = strongly agree • Some items reverse coded • CEQ Reporting metrics: • 1 = -100; 2 = -50; 3 = 0; 4 = 50; 5 = 100 (CEQ) • 1 = 0; 2 = 0; 3 = 0; 4 = 100; 5 = 100 (PA) • 1 = 0; 2 = 0; 3 = 100; 4 = 100; 5 = 100 (BA)

  7. Scale Scores • Mean of item scores • Minimum item scores: • 1 for OSI • 2 for AAS • 3 for AWS, CGS, IMS • 4 for GQS, GSS, GTS, LCS, LRS, SSS • Item scores removed if scale score not computed • CEQ scores are normally distributed

  8. Missing Data • Planned: • Optional scale not included • From < 0.1% to 1.8% of responses • Unplanned: • Item non-response

  9. SPSS Syntax • START • Resource library • Data files • CEQ • 2010

  10. Reporting the CEQ • START • Resource library • Reports • 2010

  11. Tables on START • START • Resource library • Data files • CEQ • 2010 • Save target as… • Save link as…

  12. Change in Response • Concern that graduates were misreading the direction of the response scale • Positive comments accompanying negative scores  It was awesome!!!

  13. Endpoint-only labels 1992-2009 • All points labelled 2010- following resolution by SRG at July 2009 meeting

  14. Yearly changes in CEQ scores typically incremental • Sample composition consistent between 2009-10 • Response scale change flagged as potential cause • Discussion paper prepared • Core items • Hardcopy/online responses

  15. Perspectives from Literature • Denoting agreement/disagreement makes valence of positive/negative response more explicit (Weijters, 2010) • Respondents generally have a desire to be agreeable (McClendon, 1991) • Fully-labelled response scale results in an upward shift in the response distribution (Guterbock and Hubbard, 2000) • Greater accessibility of labelled response categories is likely to cause a shift away from the midpoint (Simonson, 1989)

  16. ‘Agree’ vs. Fourth Point

  17. ‘Neither…’ vs. Midpoint

  18. ‘Neither agree nor disagree’ or ‘Undecided’? • Ambiguity of unlabelled midpoint

  19. More Consistent Responses

  20. Conclusions • Shift in response distribution likely due to labelling • Upward shift from midpoint (‘N’) to fourth point (‘A’) • Consistent with literature • 2010 beginning new CEQ time series • Positive development for the CEQ: • More consistent responses • More in line with PREQ response scale • CEQ review—response scale likely reassessed

More Related