Expert Judgment Template Learning Outcomes

Instrument to gather the experts' opinions as described by Escobar Pérez and Cuervo-Martínez (2008). All experts were instructed to evaluate each scale indicator individually based on its definition. The dimensions assessed were adequacy (whether the indicators suffice to obtain the measurement of the LO according to its definition), clarity (whether the indicator is easily understood, and its syntax is appropriate), coherence (whether the indicator has a logical relationship with the LO being measured), and relevance (whether the indicator is essential or important and therefore should be included). To assess each indicator, the experts used a 4-point numerical scale (1 = Does not meet the criterion, 2 = Achieves minimal compliance with the indicator, 3 = Moderately meets the criterion, 4 = Meets the indicator at a high level). Escobar-Pérez, J., & Cuervo-Martínez, Á. (2008). Validez de contenido y juicio de expertos: Una aproximación a su utilización. Avances En Medición, 6(2), 42–53. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.32870/ap.v9n2.993

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Zenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research)
Published
2025-05-09
DOI
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.15370403
Primary Topic
Reliability and Agreement in Measurement
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Expert Judgment Template Learning Outcomes

Zenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research)
Reliability and Agreement in Measurement
article

Expert Judgment Template Learning Outcomes

article en

Abstract

Instrument to gather the experts' opinions as described by Escobar Pérez and Cuervo-Martínez (2008). All experts were instructed to evaluate each scale indicator individually based on its definition. The dimensions assessed were adequacy (whether the indicators suffice to obtain the measurement of the LO according to its definition), clarity (whether the indicator is easily understood, and its syntax is appropriate), coherence (whether the indicator has a logical relationship with the LO being measured), and relevance (whether the indicator is essential or important and therefore should be included). To assess each indicator, the experts used a 4-point numerical scale (1 = Does not meet the criterion, 2 = Achieves minimal compliance with the indicator, 3 = Moderately meets the criterion, 4 = Meets the indicator at a high level). Escobar-Pérez, J., & Cuervo-Martínez, Á. (2008). Validez de contenido y juicio de expertos: Una aproximación a su utilización. Avances En Medición, 6(2), 42–53. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.32870/ap.v9n2.993

Zenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research)
Instituto Tecnológico de Costa Rica (CR), Universidad de Salamanca (ES), Universidad de Costa Rica (CR)
Peace, Justice and strong institutions
Openalex Percentile: Top 59%
Reliability and Agreement in Measurement
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.