Evaluating a Measure of Student Field Performance in Direct Service: Testing Reliability and Validity of Explicit Criteria

This study examines the reliability and validity of a measure to evaluate student field performance. Results demonstrated a consistent factor structure with excellent internal consistency, however, there was inadequate consistency between ratings of individual students in their first and second fiel...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Journal of social work education 2002-10, Vol.38 (3), p.385-401
Main Authors: Bogo, Marion, Regehr, Cheryl, Hughes, Judy, Power, Roxanne, Globerman, Judith
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Academic Achievement
Behavior
Competency based education
Computer programming
Education
Evaluation
Factor analysis
Field Experience Programs
Field Instruction
Field work (Educational method)
Grade point average
Grades (Scholastic)
Graduate Students
Higher Education
Learning
Literature reviews
Measurement Techniques
Measures
Measures (Instruments)
Methods
Outcomes of Education
Postgraduate students
Rating of
Ratings & rankings
Reliability
Schools
Social Work
Social Work Education
Statistical variance
Student Evaluation
Student evaluation of teacher performance
Students
Teachers
Test Validity
Validity
Citations: Items that this one cites
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:This study examines the reliability and validity of a measure to evaluate student field performance. Results demonstrated a consistent factor structure with excellent internal consistency, however, there was inadequate consistency between ratings of individual students in their first and second field education experiences. The measure had some predictive validity in that it could differentiate between students identified as having difficulty in Year 1 of the program, but not in Year 2. Scores were significantly associated with academic grades. Implications for future instrument development and the process of evaluation are considered.
ISSN:1043-7797
2163-5811
DOI:10.1080/10437797.2002.10779106