IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/qualqt/v58y2024i2d10.1007_s11135-023-01697-6.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

eComplex: validity and reliability of rubric for assessing reasoning for complexity competency

Author

Listed:
  • Isolda Margarita Castillo-Martínez

    (Tecnologico de Monterrey)

  • María Soledad Ramírez-Montoya

    (Tecnologico de Monterrey, Institute for the Future of Education)

  • Leonardo David Glasserman-Morales

    (Tecnologico de Monterrey
    Tecnologico de Monterrey, Institute for the Future of Education)

  • Jorge Antonio Millán-Arellano

    (Universidad Regiomontana)

Abstract

In the absence of available instruments that measure reasoning-for-complexity competency in higher education, we designed a rubric to measure university students' levels of mastery of that competency. This article presents the process to estimate the validity and reliability that led to the final version of the "eComplex" rubric, which consists of 27 items. This validation process considered experts' consultation, the internal consistency estimation using Cronbach's alpha coefficient, and correlation matrix analysis, there was also qualitative analysis by reviewing the experts' comments in detail and making the appropriate adjustments. The results were: (a) a high concordance index of the judges for the evaluated criteria of the items, (b) an instrument with high internal consistency and reliability, and (c) improvement in the wording of the items thanks to the observations and contributions of the experts, this was reinforced by conducting a second phase of expert validation using the Delphi Method to provide further support for the Clarity criterion. The instrument is expected to validate measuring the development and appropriation of reasoning-for-complexity competency in university students.

Suggested Citation

  • Isolda Margarita Castillo-Martínez & María Soledad Ramírez-Montoya & Leonardo David Glasserman-Morales & Jorge Antonio Millán-Arellano, 2024. "eComplex: validity and reliability of rubric for assessing reasoning for complexity competency," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 58(2), pages 1545-1563, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:qualqt:v:58:y:2024:i:2:d:10.1007_s11135-023-01697-6
    DOI: 10.1007/s11135-023-01697-6
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11135-023-01697-6
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s11135-023-01697-6?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:qualqt:v:58:y:2024:i:2:d:10.1007_s11135-023-01697-6. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.