FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2034340331> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W2034340331 endingPage "569" @default.
• W2034340331 startingPage "562" @default.
• W2034340331 abstract "Student evaluations of faculty teaching have four recognized functions. They provide diagnostic feedback for faculty, an evaluative tool for personnel decisions, information for students, and a subject for academic research. Regardless of how the evaluations are used, the user must be concerned about the reliability of the evaluation instrument and the validity of the student responses. Faculty members have a natural selfinterest in the reliability and validity of student evaluations when used as an evaluative tool for personnel decisions. Much of the existing literature on reliability and validity conceptualizes student evaluations as a test, whose reliability is to be estimated and whose validation is to be determined. Student evaluations, however, resemble public opinion surveys more than they do objective tests. Consequently, an alternative approach is to conceptualize student evaluations as survey research rather than as tests. Such a conceptual framework provides new insights into student evaluations and an entirely different dimension to the question of reliability and validity. Personnel systems in American colleges and universities, as in other organizations, must solve the problem of allocating organizational resources to reward and reinforce productive behavior. They must grapple with the universal problem of defining, measuring, and rewarding merit. However, academic personnel systems differ in that they do not share a universally accepted of who is to evaluate merit and how it is to be done. Instead, evaluation in higher education generally uses mixtures of three models for allocating rewards, two of which are commonly found in other organizations. The most common model for evaluating merit is the supervisorsubordinate model, in which the performance of a member is appraised by a supervisor/superior. Although there are a number of different approaches and instruments (i.e., trait-oriented or behaviororiented, comparison or forced choice), the defining characteristic is compatibility with the formal organizational hierarchy. Most textbook treatments of performance appraisals restrict themselves almost exclusively to this model, and a large body of normative literature exists in human resource management and empirical research in organization theory focusing on this model.' All universities use this model to the extent that university administrators are involved in personnel decisions allocating organizational rewards. The second common model for evaluating merit rejects the hierarchical framework in favor of some variation of peer evaluation. More commonly known as the professional model,2 it is based on the premise that the performance of members of certain professions can only be adequately evaluated by other like professionals.3 Peer evaluation, self-governance, and tenure are central to the principles of the American Association of University Professors, and are found to some extent in the accreditation requirements of numerous accrediting bodies." @default.
• W2034340331 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W2034340331 creator A5015405005 @default.
• W2034340331 date "1993-09-01" @default.
• W2034340331 modified "2023-10-14" @default.
• W2034340331 title "Reliability and Validity of Student Evaluations: Testing Models Versus Survey Research Models" @default.
• W2034340331 cites W1969389837 @default.
• W2034340331 cites W1971739771 @default.
• W2034340331 cites W1975763620 @default.
• W2034340331 cites W1983421993 @default.
• W2034340331 cites W1996551293 @default.
• W2034340331 cites W1997714012 @default.
• W2034340331 cites W2004935237 @default.
• W2034340331 cites W2021442112 @default.
• W2034340331 cites W2021783514 @default.
• W2034340331 cites W2022448004 @default.
• W2034340331 cites W2039459446 @default.
• W2034340331 cites W2041461297 @default.
• W2034340331 cites W2061820197 @default.
• W2034340331 cites W2073291335 @default.
• W2034340331 cites W2075348410 @default.
• W2034340331 cites W2083652311 @default.
• W2034340331 cites W2105645648 @default.
• W2034340331 cites W2127136536 @default.
• W2034340331 cites W2131868994 @default.
• W2034340331 cites W2132554970 @default.
• W2034340331 cites W235331845 @default.
• W2034340331 doi "https://doi.org/10.2307/420006" @default.
• W2034340331 hasPublicationYear "1993" @default.
• W2034340331 type Work @default.
• W2034340331 sameAs 2034340331 @default.
• W2034340331 citedByCount "11" @default.
• W2034340331 countsByYear W20343403312013 @default.
• W2034340331 countsByYear W20343403312014 @default.
• W2034340331 countsByYear W20343403312017 @default.
• W2034340331 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W2034340331 hasAuthorship W2034340331A5015405005 @default.
• W2034340331 hasConcept C121332964 @default.
• W2034340331 hasConcept C149782125 @default.
• W2034340331 hasConcept C15744967 @default.
• W2034340331 hasConcept C162324750 @default.
• W2034340331 hasConcept C163258240 @default.
• W2034340331 hasConcept C171606756 @default.
• W2034340331 hasConcept C173481278 @default.
• W2034340331 hasConcept C17744445 @default.
• W2034340331 hasConcept C2522767166 @default.
• W2034340331 hasConcept C3019813237 @default.
• W2034340331 hasConcept C41008148 @default.
• W2034340331 hasConcept C43214815 @default.
• W2034340331 hasConcept C62520636 @default.
• W2034340331 hasConcept C70364389 @default.
• W2034340331 hasConcept C70410870 @default.
• W2034340331 hasConcept C75630572 @default.
• W2034340331 hasConceptScore W2034340331C121332964 @default.
• W2034340331 hasConceptScore W2034340331C149782125 @default.
• W2034340331 hasConceptScore W2034340331C15744967 @default.
• W2034340331 hasConceptScore W2034340331C162324750 @default.
• W2034340331 hasConceptScore W2034340331C163258240 @default.
• W2034340331 hasConceptScore W2034340331C171606756 @default.
• W2034340331 hasConceptScore W2034340331C173481278 @default.
• W2034340331 hasConceptScore W2034340331C17744445 @default.
• W2034340331 hasConceptScore W2034340331C2522767166 @default.
• W2034340331 hasConceptScore W2034340331C3019813237 @default.
• W2034340331 hasConceptScore W2034340331C41008148 @default.
• W2034340331 hasConceptScore W2034340331C43214815 @default.
• W2034340331 hasConceptScore W2034340331C62520636 @default.
• W2034340331 hasConceptScore W2034340331C70364389 @default.
• W2034340331 hasConceptScore W2034340331C70410870 @default.
• W2034340331 hasConceptScore W2034340331C75630572 @default.
• W2034340331 hasIssue "3" @default.
• W2034340331 hasLocation W20343403311 @default.
• W2034340331 hasOpenAccess W2034340331 @default.
• W2034340331 hasPrimaryLocation W20343403311 @default.
• W2034340331 hasRelatedWork W2489093812 @default.
• W2034340331 hasRelatedWork W2748952813 @default.
• W2034340331 hasRelatedWork W2779365023 @default.
• W2034340331 hasRelatedWork W2899084033 @default.
• W2034340331 hasRelatedWork W2920559149 @default.
• W2034340331 hasRelatedWork W3139162683 @default.
• W2034340331 hasRelatedWork W3206291400 @default.
• W2034340331 hasRelatedWork W4289884149 @default.
• W2034340331 hasRelatedWork W4205575065 @default.
• W2034340331 hasRelatedWork W4288073115 @default.
• W2034340331 hasVolume "26" @default.
• W2034340331 isParatext "false" @default.
• W2034340331 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W2034340331 magId "2034340331" @default.
• W2034340331 workType "article" @default.