Development and validation of the EDUcational Course Assessment TOOLkit (EDUCATOOL) – a 12-item questionnaire for evaluation of training and learning programmes

IF 1.9 Q2 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH Frontiers in Education Pub Date : 2023-12-15 DOI:10.3389/feduc.2023.1314584
Tena Matolić, D. Jurakić, Zrinka Greblo Jurakić, Tošo Maršić, Ž. Pedišić
{"title":"Development and validation of the EDUcational Course Assessment TOOLkit (EDUCATOOL) – a 12-item questionnaire for evaluation of training and learning programmes","authors":"Tena Matolić, D. Jurakić, Zrinka Greblo Jurakić, Tošo Maršić, Ž. Pedišić","doi":"10.3389/feduc.2023.1314584","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The instruments for evaluation of educational courses are often highly complex and specifically designed for a given type of training. Therefore, the aims of this study were to develop a simple and generic EDUcational Course Assessment TOOLkit (EDUCATOOL) and determine its measurement properties.The development of EDUCATOOL encompassed: (1) a literature review; (2) drafting the questionnaire through open discussions between three researchers; (3) Delphi survey with five content experts; and (4) consultations with 20 end-users. A subsequent validity and reliability study involved 152 university students who participated in a short educational course. Immediately after the course and a week later, the participants completed the EDUCATOOL post-course questionnaire. Six weeks after the course and a week later, they completed the EDUCATOOL follow-up questionnaire. To establish the convergent validity of EDUCATOOL, the participants also completed the “Questionnaire for Professional Training Evaluation.”The EDUCATOOL questionnaires include 12 items grouped into the following evaluation components: (1) reaction; (2) learning; (3) behavioural intent (post-course)/behaviour (follow-up); and (4) expected outcomes (post-course)/results (follow-up). In confirmatory factor analyses, comparative fit index (CFI = 0.99 and 1.00), root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA = 0.05 and 0.03), and standardised root mean square residual (SRMR = 0.07 and 0.03) indicated adequate goodness of fit for the proposed factor structure of the EDUCATOOL questionnaires. The intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) for convergent validity of the post-course and follow-up questionnaires were 0.71 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.61, 0.78) and 0.86 (95% CI: 0.78, 0.91), respectively. The internal consistency reliability of the evaluation components expressed using Cronbach’s alpha ranged from 0.83 (95% CI: 0.78, 0.87) to 0.88 (95% CI: 0.84, 0.92) for the post-course questionnaire and from 0.95 (95% CI: 0.93, 0.96) to 0.97 (95% CI: 0.95, 0.98) for the follow-up questionnaire. The test–retest reliability ICCs for the overall evaluation scores of the post-course and follow-up questionnaires were 0.87 (95% CI: 0.78, 0.92) and 0.91 (95% CI: 0.85, 0.94), respectively.The EDUCATOOL questionnaires have adequate factorial validity, convergent validity, internal consistency, and test–retest reliability and they can be used to evaluate training and learning programmes.","PeriodicalId":52290,"journal":{"name":"Frontiers in Education","volume":"5 11","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2023-12-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Frontiers in Education","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2023.1314584","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The instruments for evaluation of educational courses are often highly complex and specifically designed for a given type of training. Therefore, the aims of this study were to develop a simple and generic EDUcational Course Assessment TOOLkit (EDUCATOOL) and determine its measurement properties.The development of EDUCATOOL encompassed: (1) a literature review; (2) drafting the questionnaire through open discussions between three researchers; (3) Delphi survey with five content experts; and (4) consultations with 20 end-users. A subsequent validity and reliability study involved 152 university students who participated in a short educational course. Immediately after the course and a week later, the participants completed the EDUCATOOL post-course questionnaire. Six weeks after the course and a week later, they completed the EDUCATOOL follow-up questionnaire. To establish the convergent validity of EDUCATOOL, the participants also completed the “Questionnaire for Professional Training Evaluation.”The EDUCATOOL questionnaires include 12 items grouped into the following evaluation components: (1) reaction; (2) learning; (3) behavioural intent (post-course)/behaviour (follow-up); and (4) expected outcomes (post-course)/results (follow-up). In confirmatory factor analyses, comparative fit index (CFI = 0.99 and 1.00), root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA = 0.05 and 0.03), and standardised root mean square residual (SRMR = 0.07 and 0.03) indicated adequate goodness of fit for the proposed factor structure of the EDUCATOOL questionnaires. The intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) for convergent validity of the post-course and follow-up questionnaires were 0.71 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.61, 0.78) and 0.86 (95% CI: 0.78, 0.91), respectively. The internal consistency reliability of the evaluation components expressed using Cronbach’s alpha ranged from 0.83 (95% CI: 0.78, 0.87) to 0.88 (95% CI: 0.84, 0.92) for the post-course questionnaire and from 0.95 (95% CI: 0.93, 0.96) to 0.97 (95% CI: 0.95, 0.98) for the follow-up questionnaire. The test–retest reliability ICCs for the overall evaluation scores of the post-course and follow-up questionnaires were 0.87 (95% CI: 0.78, 0.92) and 0.91 (95% CI: 0.85, 0.94), respectively.The EDUCATOOL questionnaires have adequate factorial validity, convergent validity, internal consistency, and test–retest reliability and they can be used to evaluate training and learning programmes.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
开发和验证教育课程评估工具包(EDUCATOOL)--用于评估培训和学习计划的 12 个项目的调查表
教育课程评估工具往往非常复杂,而且是专门为特定类型的培训设计的。因此,本研究的目的是开发一个简单通用的教育课程评估工具包(EDUCATOOL),并确定其测量特性。EDUCATOOL 的开发包括:(1) 文献综述;(2) 通过三位研究人员的公开讨论起草问卷;(3) 与五位内容专家进行德尔菲调查;(4) 与 20 位最终用户进行协商。随后进行的有效性和可靠性研究涉及 152 名参加短期教育课程的大学生。课程结束后和一周后,学员们立即填写了 EDUCATOOL 课后问卷。课程结束六周后和一周后,他们又填写了 EDUCATOOL 跟踪问卷。为了确定 EDUCATOOL 的收敛效度,学员们还填写了 "专业培训评估问卷":(1) 反应;(2) 学习;(3) 行为意向(课后)/行为(后续);(4) 预期成果(课后)/结果(后续)。在确认性因素分析中,比较拟合指数(CFI = 0.99 和 1.00)、均方根近似误差(RMSEA = 0.05 和 0.03)和标准化均方根残差(SRMR = 0.07 和 0.03)表明 EDUCATOOL 问卷的拟议因素结构具有足够的拟合度。课后问卷和随访问卷的类内相关系数(ICC)分别为 0.71(95% 置信区间[CI]:0.61, 0.78)和 0.86(95% 置信区间:0.78, 0.91)。使用 Cronbach's alpha 表示的评价成分内部一致性信度范围为:课后问卷 0.83(95% CI:0.78,0.87)至 0.88(95% CI:0.84,0.92);后续问卷 0.95(95% CI:0.93,0.96)至 0.97(95% CI:0.95,0.98)。EDUCATOOL 问卷具有充分的因子效度、聚合效度、内部一致性和重复测试可靠性,可用于评估培训和学习项目。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Frontiers in Education
Frontiers in Education Social Sciences-Education
CiteScore
2.90
自引率
8.70%
发文量
887
审稿时长
14 weeks
期刊最新文献
Assessment of math abilities before school entry: a tool development Predictability of Duolingo English mock test for Chinese college-level EFLs: using assessment use argument What makes an excellent reader? Short-term memory contrasts between two groups of children The influence of institutional characteristics on implementing school-based universal addiction prevention: a Hungarian mixed-methods nationwide study on the state of implementation, barriers, and facilitators Foregrounding co-artistry in an aesthetic and plurilingual/pluriliteracies approach to additional language teaching and learning
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1