Scholarlink

<p>This article examines the psychometric quality of scale-based evaluation indicators in university continuing education and their suitability for indicator-based educational reporting. The study is based on 7812 standardized participant surveys from over 200 formally structured certificate programmes at the University of Teacher Education, University of Applied Sciences and Arts Northwestern Switzerland, conducted between 2019 and 2025. Six scales are analysed, capturing key dimensions of perceived quality from the participants’ perspective based on an input–process–output model. Internal consistency, structural validity, empirical validity, and measurement invariance across programmes and data collection points are assessed. The results show good to very good reliability, a&#xa0;confirmed three-factor structure, and metric and scalar measurement invariance. The scales can therefore be used as standardized and comparable indicators for quality development and educational reporting. At the same time, they capture only perceived quality from the participants’ perspective and thus represent a&#xa0;specific view of university continuing education.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Belastbarkeit von Evaluationsindikatoren in der Hochschulweiterbildung

  • 期刊论文

  • 出版模式：

    开放获取

  • 发表日期：

    2026年6月22日

查看全文
  • Janine Marchal

摘要

This article examines the psychometric quality of scale-based evaluation indicators in university continuing education and their suitability for indicator-based educational reporting. The study is based on 7812 standardized participant surveys from over 200 formally structured certificate programmes at the University of Teacher Education, University of Applied Sciences and Arts Northwestern Switzerland, conducted between 2019 and 2025. Six scales are analysed, capturing key dimensions of perceived quality from the participants’ perspective based on an input–process–output model. Internal consistency, structural validity, empirical validity, and measurement invariance across programmes and data collection points are assessed. The results show good to very good reliability, a confirmed three-factor structure, and metric and scalar measurement invariance. The scales can therefore be used as standardized and comparable indicators for quality development and educational reporting. At the same time, they capture only perceived quality from the participants’ perspective and thus represent a specific view of university continuing education.