Abstract
Two studies were conducted to examine the psychometric properties of the 37-item Subjective Outcome Evaluation Scale (SOES) developed to evaluate the subject, instructor, and benefits of a course on leadership and intrapersonal development at The Hong Kong Polytechnic University. Consistent with the conceptual framework, factor analyses in both studies (n=268 and n=195, respectively) showed that three factors (course, instructor, and benefits) were abstracted from the scale. In study 2, the SOES was found to be internally consistent and the different subscales were significantly correlated among themselves. Both perceived qualities of the program and instructor were significant predictors of the perceived effectiveness of the program. Consistent with study 1, results in study 2 showed that the students generally had positive perceptions of the program and implementers, with more than 90% of the participants indicating that they were satisfied with the program.
This work and the course on “Tomorrow’s Leaders” are financially supported by The Hong Kong Polytechnic University. Members of the Curriculum Development Team include Daniel T.L. Shek, Y.H. Chui, S.W. Lit, Yida Y.H. Chung, Sowa S.W. Ngai, Yammy L.Y. Chak, P.F. Tsui, Cecilia M.S. Ma, Lu Yu, and Moon Y.M. Law.
References
1. Shek DT, Ma CM, Tang CY. Predictors of subjective outcome evaluation findings in a positive youth development program in Hong Kong. Int J Disabil Hum Dev 2011;10:249–55.10.1515/ijdhd.2011.040Search in Google Scholar
2. Shek DT, Sun RC, Merrick J. Training programs and implementation process of positive youth development programs. Int J Adolesc Med Health 2011;23:303–4.10.1515/IJAMH.2011.025Search in Google Scholar PubMed
3. Shek DT, Ma HK, Sun RC. A brief overview of adolescent developmental problems in Hong Kong. ScientificWorldJ 2011;11:2243–56.10.1100/2011/896835Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central
4. Shek DT, Ma HK, Sun RC. Development of a new curriculum in a positive youth development program: the Project P.A.T.H.S. in Hong Kong. ScientificWorldJ 2011;11:2207–18.10.1100/2011/289589Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central
5. Shek DT. Quality of life research: responses to emerging issues in a changing world. Soc Indic Res 2011;100:371–4.10.1007/s11205-010-9628-1Search in Google Scholar
6. Shek DT. Subjective outcome and objective outcome evaluation findings: insights from a Chinese context. Res Social Work Prac 2010;20:293–301.10.1177/1049731509331951Search in Google Scholar
7. Royse D. Research methods in social work. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole-Thomson Learning, 2004.Search in Google Scholar
8. Kember D, Leung DY. Establishing the validity and reliability of course evaluation questionnaires. Assess Eval High Educ 2008;33(4):341–53.10.1080/02602930701563070Search in Google Scholar
9. Marsh HW, Roche LA. Making students’ evaluations of teaching effectiveness effective: the critical issues of validity, bias and utility. Am Psychol 1997;52:1187–97.10.1037/0003-066X.52.11.1187Search in Google Scholar
10. Marsh HW, Hau KT, Chung CM, Siu TL. Students’ evaluations of university teaching: Chinese version of the students’ evaluations of educational quality (SEEQ) instrument. J Educ Psychol 1997;89:568–72.10.1037/0022-0663.89.3.568Search in Google Scholar
11. Marsh HW, Hau KT, Chung CM, Siu TL. Confirmatory factor analysis of students’ evaluations: Chinese SEEQ version. Structural Equation Modeling 1998;5:143–64.10.1080/10705519809540097Search in Google Scholar
12. Shek DT, Sun RC. Promoting leadership and intrapersonal competence in university students: what can we learn from Hong Kong? Int J Disabil Hum Dev 2012;11:221–8.10.1515/ijdhd-2012-0037Search in Google Scholar
13. Shek DT, Ma CM. Subjective outcome evaluation findings: factors related to the perceived effectiveness of the tier 2 program of the Project P.A.T.H.S. ScientificWorldJ 2010;10:250–60.10.1100/tsw.2010.19Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central
14. Durlak JA, DuPre EP. Implementation matters: a review of research on the influence of implementation on program outcomes and the factors affecting implementation. Am J Commun Psychol 2008;41:327–50.10.1007/s10464-008-9165-0Search in Google Scholar PubMed
15. Twenge JM, Konrath S, Foster JD, Campbell WK, Bushman BJ. Egos inflating over time: a cross-temporal meta-analysis of the Narcissistic Personality Inventory. J Pers 2008; 76:875–901.10.1111/j.1467-6494.2008.00507.xSearch in Google Scholar PubMed
16. Twenge JM, Foster JD. Birth cohort increases in narcissistic personality traits among American college students, 1982–2009. Soc Psychol Personal Sci 2010; 1:99–106.10.1177/1948550609355719Search in Google Scholar
17. Bourke B, Mechler HS. A new me generation? The increasing self-interest among Millennial college students. J Coll Char 2010;11:1–6.10.2202/1940-1639.1034Search in Google Scholar
18. Loeb PR. Generation at the crossroads: apathy and action on the American campus. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press, 1994.Search in Google Scholar
19. Shek DT. Nurturing holistic development of university students in Hong Kong: where are we and where should we go? ScientificWorldJ 2010;10:563–75.10.1100/tsw.2010.62Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central
20. Shek DT, Wong KK. Do adolescent developmental issues disappear overnight? Reflections about holistic development in university students. ScientificWorldJ 2011;11:353–61.10.1100/tsw.2011.5Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central
©2013 by Walter de Gruyter Berlin Boston
