Do Self-Assessments for Informed Study Decisions Actually Inform Study Decisions? A Model for Evaluating the Consequential Validity Aspect

IF 1.6 Q2 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH
L. Delnoij, J. Janssen, K. Dirkx, H. Vogten, H. Martens, S. Elston, H. Hermans, R. L. Martens
{"title":"Do Self-Assessments for Informed Study Decisions Actually Inform Study Decisions? A Model for Evaluating the Consequential Validity Aspect","authors":"L. Delnoij, J. Janssen, K. Dirkx, H. Vogten, H. Martens, S. Elston, H. Hermans, R. L. Martens","doi":"10.1177/15210251221117126","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Pre-enrolment self-assessments are a promising way to address student commitment and retention in an early stage. Such assessments aim to inform study decisions by evoking reflection and providing advice for further preparation. Though these assessments require a solid validation process, so far the consequential validity aspect tends to be ignored. To address this gap, the current study investigates self-assessment impact on study choice certainty and enrolment as well as self-assessment fairness. Prospective students (N = 662) orienting towards studying in higher online education took a self-assessment consisting of six subtests. The impact appeared in line with the assessment's purpose for 68.9% of the prospective students: their study choice certainty was adapted or remained unchanged in accordance with their obtained scores. Study choice certainty after the self-assessment related positively to enrolment probability. Additionally, the impact appeared fair (similar across subgroups), though men's study choice certainty appeared relatively robust against unfavourable scores.","PeriodicalId":47066,"journal":{"name":"Journal of College Student Retention-Research Theory & Practice","volume":"44 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2022-09-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of College Student Retention-Research Theory & Practice","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/15210251221117126","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

Pre-enrolment self-assessments are a promising way to address student commitment and retention in an early stage. Such assessments aim to inform study decisions by evoking reflection and providing advice for further preparation. Though these assessments require a solid validation process, so far the consequential validity aspect tends to be ignored. To address this gap, the current study investigates self-assessment impact on study choice certainty and enrolment as well as self-assessment fairness. Prospective students (N = 662) orienting towards studying in higher online education took a self-assessment consisting of six subtests. The impact appeared in line with the assessment's purpose for 68.9% of the prospective students: their study choice certainty was adapted or remained unchanged in accordance with their obtained scores. Study choice certainty after the self-assessment related positively to enrolment probability. Additionally, the impact appeared fair (similar across subgroups), though men's study choice certainty appeared relatively robust against unfavourable scores.
自我评估对学习决策有帮助吗?结果效度评价模型
入学前自我评估是一种很有前途的方法,可以在早期阶段解决学生的承诺和保留问题。这种评估旨在通过引起反思和为进一步的准备工作提供建议,为研究决定提供信息。虽然这些评估需要一个可靠的验证过程,但到目前为止,相应的有效性方面往往被忽视。为了解决这一差距,本研究调查了自我评估对学习选择确定性和入学以及自我评估公平性的影响。有意向接受高等网络教育的学生(N = 662)参加了一项由六个子测试组成的自我评估。68.9%的准学生的影响与评估的目的一致:他们的学习选择确定性根据他们获得的分数进行调整或保持不变。自我评估后的学习选择确定性与入组概率呈正相关。此外,这种影响似乎是公平的(各亚组相似),尽管男性的学习选择确定性相对于不利的分数显得相对强劲。
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 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.80
自引率
13.30%
发文量
42
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信