Academic job satisfaction questionnaire: construction and validation in Saudi Arabia

Colleges and universities are becoming increasingly accountable for teaching outcomes in order to meet rigorous accreditation standards. Job satisfaction [JS] seems more difficult to measure in the academic field in view of the complexity of roles, duties and responsibilities. To compile and determine the psychometric properties of a proposed Academic Job Satisfaction Questionnaire [AJSQ] suitable for university faculty, and amenable to future upgrading. A 46-item five-option Likert-type draft questionnaire on JS was distributed for anonymous self-reporting by all the academic staff of five colleges in University of Dammam [n=340]. The outcome measures were [1] factor analysis of the questionnaire items, [2] intra-factor alpha-coefficient of Internal Consistency Reliability, [3] inter-factor correlations, [4] comparison of psychometric properties in separately analyzed main faculty subgroups. The response rate was 72.9 percent. Factor analysis extracted eight factors which conjointly explained 60.3 percent of the variance in JS. These factors, in descending order of eigenvalue, were labeled "Authority", "Supervision", "Policies and Facilities", "My Work Itself", "Interpersonal Relationships", "Commitment", "Salary" and "Workload". Cronbach's-alpha ranged from 0.90 in "Supervision" to 0.63 in "Salary" and "Workload". All inter-factor correlations were positive and significant, ranging from 0.65 to 0.23. The psychometric properties of the instrument in separately analyzed subgroups divided by sex, nationality, college and clinical duties produced fairly comparable findings. The AJSQ demonstrated good overall psychometric properties in terms of construct validity and internal consistency reliability in both the overall sample and its separately analyzed subgroups. To replicate these findings in larger multicenter samples of academic staff

Developing questionnaires for students' evaluation of individual faculty's teaching skills: a Saudi Arabian pilot study

The National Commission for Academic Accreditation and Assessment is responsible for the academic accreditation of universities in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia [KSA]. Requirements for this include evaluation of teaching effectiveness, evidence-based conclusions, and external benchmarks. To develop a questionnaire for students' evaluation of the teaching skills of individual instructors and provide a tool for benchmarking. College of Nursing, University of Dammam [UoD], May-June 2009. The original questionnaire was Monash Questionnaire Series on Teaching [MonQueST] - Clinical Nursing. The UoD modification retained four areas and seven responses, but reduced items from 26 to 20. Outcome measures were factor analysis and Cronbach's alpha coefficient. Seven Nursing courses were studied, viz.: Fundamentals, Medical, Surgical, Psychiatric and Mental Health, Obstetrics and Gynecology, Pediatrics, and Family and Community Health. Total number of students was 74; missing data ranged from 5 to 27%. The explained variance ranged from 66.9% to 78.7%. The observed Cornbach's alpha coefficients ranged from 0.78 to 0.93, indicating an exceptionally high reliability. The students in the study were found to be fair and frank in their evaluation

audit of assessment tools in a medical school in eastern Saudi Arabia

Assessment has a powerful influence on curriculum delivery. Medical instructors must use tools which conform to educational principles, and audit them as part of curriculum review. To generate information to support recommendations for improving curriculum delivery. Pre-clinical and clinical departments in a College of Medicine, Saudi Arabia. A self-administered questionnaire was used in a cross-sectional survey to see if assessment tools being used met basic standards of validity, reliability and currency, and if feedback to students was adequate. Excluded were cost, feasibility and tool combinations. Thirty-one [out of 34] courses were evaluated. All 31 respondents used MCQs, especially one-best [28/31] and true/false [13/31]. Groups of teachers selected test questions mostly. Pre-clinical departments sourced equally from "new" [10/14] and "used" [10/14] MCQs; clinical departments relied on 'banked' MCQs [16/17]. Departments decided pass marks [28/31] and chose the College-set 60%; the timing was pre-examination in 13/17 clinical but post examination in 5/14 pre-clinical departments. Of six essay users, five used model answers but only one did double marking. OSCE was used by 7/17 clinical departments; five provided checklist. Only 3/31 used optical reader. Post-marking review was done by 13/14 pre-clinical but 10/17 clinical departments. Difficulty and discriminating indices were determined by only 4/31 departments. Feedback was provided by 12/14 pre-clinical and 7/17 clinical departments. Only 10/31 course coordinators had copies of examination regulations. MCQ with single-best answer, if properly constructed and adequately critiqued, is the preferred tool for assessing theory domain. However, there should be fresh questions, item analyses, comparisons with pervious results, optical reader systems and double marking. Departments should use OSCE or OSPE more often. Long essays, true/false, fill-inthe- blank-spaces and more-than-one-correct-answer can be safely abolished. Departments or teams should set test papers and collectively take decisions. Feedback rates should be improved. A Center of Medical Education, including an Examination Center is required. Fruitful future studies can be repeat audit, use of "negative questions" and the number of MCQs per test paper. Comparative audit involving other regional medical schools may be of general interest