A proposed NCAAA-based approach to the self-evaluation of higher education programs for academic accreditation: A comparative study using TOPSIS

IF 1.4 Q3 OPERATIONS RESEARCH & MANAGEMENT SCIENCE Decision Science Letters Pub Date : 2023-01-01 DOI:10.5267/j.dsl.2023.1.003
Ammar Y. Alqahtani, Anas A. Makki, R. Abdulaal
{"title":"A proposed NCAAA-based approach to the self-evaluation of higher education programs for academic accreditation: A comparative study using TOPSIS","authors":"Ammar Y. Alqahtani, Anas A. Makki, R. Abdulaal","doi":"10.5267/j.dsl.2023.1.003","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Quality standards must be fulfilled to satisfy a base level of quality. Despite using this idea as a foundation, evaluations of academic programs still rely on the evaluators' experiences and may differ from one evaluator to the next. As a result, more precise evaluation approaches must be created to ensure quality is accurately reflected. The main goal of this research paper is to propose and evaluate an approach to assessing higher educational programs using the Self-Evaluation Scale (SES) developed by the Saudi National Commission for Academic Accreditation and Evaluation (NCAAA). The proposed approach is a breakdown of the original performance criteria and standards into sub-criteria and elements to ensure the required data quality. The second goal is to compare the NCAAA's original performance criteria and the proposed evaluation sub-criteria. A comparison framework that uses the Technique for Order Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution (TOPSIS) is developed. Data from eight programs offered in a Middle Eastern University was used for the application and comparison between the two evaluation approaches. Results show that both approaches provide different quality performance rankings. The proposed approach demonstrated more conservative and accurate overall quality performance ratings, indicating that application decisions for accreditation are affected.","PeriodicalId":38141,"journal":{"name":"Decision Science Letters","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Decision Science Letters","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5267/j.dsl.2023.1.003","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"OPERATIONS RESEARCH & MANAGEMENT SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Quality standards must be fulfilled to satisfy a base level of quality. Despite using this idea as a foundation, evaluations of academic programs still rely on the evaluators' experiences and may differ from one evaluator to the next. As a result, more precise evaluation approaches must be created to ensure quality is accurately reflected. The main goal of this research paper is to propose and evaluate an approach to assessing higher educational programs using the Self-Evaluation Scale (SES) developed by the Saudi National Commission for Academic Accreditation and Evaluation (NCAAA). The proposed approach is a breakdown of the original performance criteria and standards into sub-criteria and elements to ensure the required data quality. The second goal is to compare the NCAAA's original performance criteria and the proposed evaluation sub-criteria. A comparison framework that uses the Technique for Order Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution (TOPSIS) is developed. Data from eight programs offered in a Middle Eastern University was used for the application and comparison between the two evaluation approaches. Results show that both approaches provide different quality performance rankings. The proposed approach demonstrated more conservative and accurate overall quality performance ratings, indicating that application decisions for accreditation are affected.
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
基于ncaa的高等教育学术认证项目自我评估方法:TOPSIS的比较研究
必须满足质量标准,以满足质量的基本水平。尽管使用这个想法作为基础,学术项目的评估仍然依赖于评估者的经验,并且可能因评估者而异。因此,必须创建更精确的评估方法,以确保准确反映质量。本研究论文的主要目标是提出并评估一种使用沙特国家学术认证与评估委员会(NCAAA)开发的自我评估量表(SES)来评估高等教育项目的方法。拟议的方法是将原来的业绩准则和标准分解为子准则和要素,以确保所需的数据质量。第二个目标是比较ncaa的原始绩效标准和提议的评估子标准。提出了一种利用理想解相似性排序偏好技术(TOPSIS)的比较框架。来自中东大学八个项目的数据被用于两种评估方法的应用和比较。结果表明,两种方法提供了不同的质量性能排名。建议的方法显示出更保守和准确的总体质量绩效评级,表明认证的申请决定受到影响。
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
Decision Science Letters
Decision Science Letters Decision Sciences-Decision Sciences (all)
CiteScore
3.40
自引率
5.30%
发文量
49
审稿时长
20 weeks
期刊最新文献
Time series prediction of novel coronavirus COVID-19 data in west Java using Gaussian processes and least median squared linear regression Determinants of woodcraft family business success Analytical evaluation of big data applications in E-commerce: A mixed method approach A two-stage SEM-artificial neural network analysis of the organizational effects of Internet of things adoption in auditing firms A novel crossover operator for genetic algorithm: Stas crossover
×
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