Content Validity Index: An Application of Validating CIPP Instrument for Programme Evaluation
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Validation is crucial in ensuring that the results obtained are reliable in addressing the problem of a study. The objective of this paper is to discuss on the use of Content Validity Index (CVI) to validate the instrument constructed based on the Context, Input, Process, and Product (CIPP) model that is used to evaluate an educational programme. Five content experts were consulted, and by using the Expert Panel Rating Sheet (EPRS), their responses were further calculated through item-level CVI (ICVI) and scale level CVI (S-CVI) method. The result yielded an acceptable level of validity where five percent of the items from the survey were either omitted or modified while 90 percent were maintained. Self-administered questionnaires were next distributed online to students, lecturers, graduates and employers for pilot testing and achieved a high level of the alpha coefficient, which translated to high reliability. The final result indicated that the instrument was valid and reliable to be used for programme evaluation in educational studies.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.014 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it