Questionnaire development. The evaluation including the questionnaire questions and overall format of the instrument, including any revisions or modifications, must be developed by a joint committee consisting of 2 faculty and 2 administrators including the VP of Instruction or designee. Each term that student ratings of instruction are conducted for an instructor, all of the courses that the instructor teaches will be evaluated. Faculty members are appointed to the committee by the Faculty Senate. Faculty Senate appointees will seek consultation with Faculty Senate on the development of the rating of instruction instrument. Faculty Senate Chair and Vice President of Instruction will review and approve final rating of instruction prior to implementation. Revisions to the student ratings of instruction instrument may be requested by either administration or Faculty Senate on an annual basis. Changes should only be made on an annual basis prior to fall term so students respond to the same questions set for the academic year.
Questionnaire development. The evaluation including the 21 questionnaire questions and overall format of the instrument, 22 including any revisions or modifications, must be developed by x 23 joint committee consisting of 2 faculty and 2 administrators 24 including the Vice President of Instruction or designee. Each term 25 that student ratings of instruction are conducted for an instructor, all 26 of the courses that the instructor teaches will be evaluated. Faculty 27 members are appointed to the committee by the Faculty Senate. 28 Faculty Senate appointees will seek consultation with Faculty 29 Senate on the development of the rating of instruction instrument. 30 Faculty Senate Chair and Vice President of Instruction will review 31 and approve final rating of instruction prior to implementation. 32 Revisions to the student ratings of instruction instrument may be 33 requested by either administration or Faculty Senate on an annual 34 basis. Changes should only be made on an annual basis prior to fall 35 term so students respond to the same questions set for the academic 36 year.
Questionnaire development. The evaluation including the 30 questionnaire questions and overall format of the instrument, 31 including any revisions or modifications, must be developed by a 32 joint committee consisting of 2 faculty and 2 administrators 33 including the Vice President of Instruction and Student Services 34 or designee. Each term that student ratings of instruction are 35 conducted for an instructor, all of the courses that the instructor 36 teaches will be evaluated. Faculty members are appointed to the 37 committee by the Faculty Senate. Faculty Senate appointees will 38 seek consultation with Faculty Senate on the development of the 39 rating of instruction instrument. Faculty Senate Chair and Vice 40 President of Instruction and Student Services will review and 41 approve final rating of instruction prior to implementation. 42 Revisions to the student ratings of instruction instrument may be 43 requested by either administration or Faculty Senate on an annual 44 basis. Changes should only be made on an annual basis prior to 45 fall term so students respond to the same questions set for the 46 academic year.
Questionnaire development. The survey questionnaire is developed specifically for the objectives of the project. The content of the questionnaire is based on items pertinent to issues around acceptance, support, affect, and trust and based on previous survey studies identified in the literature review (cf. D2.3) as well as questions developed specifically by the research team to meet the objectives of the study. For each application, items will be incorporated in the questionnaire to measure a number of key variables (see Table 1). More details about the composition of the questionnaire will be given in D3.2.
Questionnaire development. Based on a preliminary literature review, the three seminal papers related to quality criteria and quality approaches for clinical information modeling were examined in depth to extract the key top- ics that should be covered by the questionnaire[15-17]. These topics were verified through a second literature review to identify any additional points. Special effort was made in order to express the interview questions using a language easily under- stood by experts, who were expected to come from varied professional backgrounds (i.e. avoiding standards jargon). The questions were open, to invite diverse interviewee responses. The questions were reviewed by two independent experts, resulting in some rephrasing and re-ordering. These two experts were then formally interviewed in order to test the openness of the questions and to evalu- ate if the questionnaire flow required modifications.
