Autoevaluación del estudiante del curso de posgrado: una propuesta de modelo multidimensional

Vieira, Kelmara Mendes; Carvalho, Aline Kárem Santos; Klein, Leander Luiz; Pereira, Breno Augusto Diniz

Kelmara Mendes Vieira

Conceptualization

Data curation

Formal analysis

Investigation

Methodology

Project administration

Resources

Software

Supervision

Validation

Visualization

Roles/Writing – original draft

Writing – review & editing

Universidade Federal de Santa Maria, Programa de Pós-Graduação em Administração Pública e Programa de Pós-Graduação em Gestão de Organizações Públicas, Santa Maria, RS, Brasil.

https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8847-0941

Aline Kárem Santos Carvalho

Conceptualization

Data curation

Formal analysis

Investigation

Methodology

Project administration

Resources

Software

Supervision

Validation

Visualization

Roles/Writing – original draft

Writing – review & editing

Universidade Federal de Santa Maria, Programa de Pós-Graduação em Administração Pública, Santa Maria, RS, Brasil.

https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5639-9645

Leander Luiz Klein

Conceptualization

Data curation

Formal analysis

Investigation

Methodology

Project administration

Resources;

Software

Supervision

Validation

Visualization

Roles/Writing – original draft

Writing – review & editing

Universidade Federal de Santa Maria, Programa de Pós-Graduação em Administração Pública e Programa de Pós-Graduação em Gestão de Organizações Públicas, Santa Maria, RS, Brasil.

https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6075-6107

Breno Augusto Diniz Pereira

Conceptualization

Data curation

Formal analysis

Investigation

Methodology

Project administration

Resources

Software

Supervision

Validation

Visualization

Roles/Writing – original draft

Writing – review & editing

Universidade Federal de Santa Maria, Programa de Pós-Graduação em Administração Pública e Programa de Pós-Graduação em Gestão de Organizações Públicas, Santa Maria, RS, Brasil.

https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7387-5033

Information about the authors

Kelmara Mendes Vieira: PhD in Administration from the Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul (UFRGS). Professor at the Universidade Federal de Santa Maria, Santa Maria, state of Rio Grande do Sul (Brazil). Contact: Kelmara.vieira@ufsm.br.

Aline Kárem Santos Carvalho: Master in Public Administration from the Universidade Federal de Santa Maria, Santa Maria, state of Rio Grande do Sul (Brazil). Contact: alinekaremsc@gmail.com

Leander Luiz Klein: PhD in Administration from the Universidade Federal de Santa Maria (UFSM). Professor at the Universidade Federal de Santa Maria, Santa Maria, state of Rio Grande do Sul (Brazil). Contact: leander.klein@ufsm.br

Breno Augusto Diniz Pereira: PhD in Administration from the Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul (UFRGS). Professor at the Universidade Federal de Santa Maria, Santa Maria, state of Rio Grande do Sul (Brazil). Contact: breno.pereira@ufsm.br

Conflicts of interest: The authors declare that they have no commercial or associative interest that represents a conflict of interest in relation to the manuscript.

Dimension		Items	Scale
HEI Infrastructure	1	Resources made available by UFSM libraries.	1 = Inadequate 2 = Not suitable 3 = Adequate 4 = Very suitable 5 = Totally adequate
	2	Infrastructure available at the Teaching Centres (or campuses outside the headquarters) for holding conferences and events.
	3	Safety measures practised at the university.
	4	The campus infrastructure.
	5	The infrastructure used by the program.
	6	The adequacy of the infrastructure used by the program for PNE (Persons with Special Needs).
	7	The equipment available.
	8	The labs available.
	9	Internet access in the classrooms used by the program.
	10	Internet access in common areas at the university.
	11	Internet access in my workroom.
Course Professors	12	The professors are responsive.	1 = I totally disagree 2 = I partially disagree 3 = I neither disagree nor agree 4 = I partially agree 5 = I totally agree
	13	The professors are accessible.
	14	The professors adopt good teaching practices.
	15	The professors have specific knowledge that they add to my training.
	16	The professors have general knowledge that adds to my training.
	17	The professors have international academic contacts.
	18	The professors publish in international journals.
Course Subjects	19	I can understand the concepts discussed in the subjects.
	20	I can apply the concepts discussed in the subjects.
	21	I believe the classes are of good quality.
	22	The subject’s activities are adequate.
	23	The bibliography is predominantly based on international literature.
	24	The bibliography is updated.
	25	The use of writing articles as an assessing criterion is appropriate.
	26	The assessment criteria are adequate.
	27	I receive feedback from the activities I perform in the course.
	28	Grading is consistent with my performance.
	29	The recommended readings are appropriate to what is discussed in the classroom.
	30	The amount of readings is adequate to what is discussed in the classroom.
	31	The course workload is fulfilled.
	32	The program content is fulfilled.
Advisor Support	33	My advisor has a good relationship with me.
	34	My advisor treats me respectfully.
	35	My advisor is a good researcher.
	36	My advisor is patient with me.
	37	My advisor always assists me when I need it.
	38	My advisor quickly returns the requests I submit.
	39	My advisor is easily accessible.
	40	My advisor encourages me to attend events.
	41	My advisor helps me publish articles in national journals.
	42	My advisor helps me publish articles in international journals.
	43	My advisor helps me get international academic contacts.
	44	My advisor places me in activities (meetings, presentations, projects, articles etc.).
	45	My advisor masters the knowledge related to the subject of my dissertation/thesis.
	46	My advisor masters the methodological procedures necessary for the development of my dissertation/thesis.
	47	My advisor discusses my research with me regularly.
	48	My advisor teaches me to find work that is relevant to the development of my work.
	49	My advisor provides constructive feedback and guidance for my work.
	50	My advisor is essential for the elaboration of my dissertation/thesis.
Administrative Support	51	The secretary is courteous.
	52	The secretary is always willing to help.
	53	The secretary provides correct information.
	54	The secretary is accessible during working hours.
	55	The secretary answers my questions.
	56	The secretary treats me respectfully.
	57	The secretary updates me with academic proceedings.
Graduate Course Impacts	58	The teaching quality of the course is high.
	59	The international performance of the course is relevant.
	60	The regional impact of the course is high.
	61	The national impact of the course is high.
	62	The course is properly coordinated.
	63	The course has an efficient information system (website, emails, media).
Professional Development	64	My national academic production evolved from the learning acquired in the course.
	65	My international academic production evolved from the learning acquired in the course.
	66	The course improved my specific knowledge in my field of expertise.
	67	The completion of the course has been important for my professional career.
Selection Processes	68	The requirements for joining the program are clear.
	69	The selection process is fair.
	70	The criteria for awarding scholarships are clear.
	71	The curriculum structure of the course (research lines, subjects, credits) is adequate to the course goals.
Satisfaction with the Course	72	Course curriculum structure.	0 (completely unsatisfied) to 10 (completely satisfied)
	73	Course faculty competencies.
	74	Course internationalisation.
	75	Regional impacts of the course.
	76	Incentive to Academic Production.
	77	Course Selection Criteria.
	78	Career/labour market preparation.
	79	Overall satisfaction with the advisor.
	80	Overall satisfaction with the course.

Variable	Factor loading	Variance	Cronbach’s Alpha
Factor 1 - HEI Infrastructure
Question 9	0,863	60,76	0,918
Question 11	0,828
Question 10	0,825
Question 7	0,790
Question 5	0,787
Question 8	0,743
Question 4	0,740
Question 2	0,722
Question 3	0,691
Question 1	0,656
Question 6	0,646
Factor 2 – Course Subjects
Question 32	0,719	35,83	0,930
Question 31	0,711	35,83	0,930
Question 28	0,698	35,83	0,930
Question 29	0,685
Question 30	0,671
Question 22	0,671
Question 26	0,669
Question 21	0,639
Question 27	0,628
Question 19	0,612
Question 20	0,596
Question 25	0,584
Question 23	0,558
Question 24	0,550
Factor 3 – Course Professors
Question 16	0,762	31,35	0,901
Question 15	0,735
Question 12	0,720
Question 13	0,702
Question 14	0,696
Question 18	0,676
Question 17	0,617
Factor 4 – Advisor Support
Question 42	0,818	26,83	0,955
Question 43	0,795
Question 41	0,784
Question 47	0,780
Question 48	0,778
Question 50	0,760
Question 49	0,749
Question 44	0,732
Question 40	0,698
Question 45	0,694
Question 46	0,668	26,83	0,955
Question 38	0,609
Question 35	0,567
Factor 5 – Administrative Support
Question 55	0,924	21,47	0,958
Question 52	0,923
Question 54	0,890
Question 51	0,887
Question 53	0,870
Question 56	0,854
Question 57	0,820
Factor 6 – Graduate Course Impacts
Question 69	0,846	23,93	0,879
Question 68	0,787
Question 67	0,729
Question 70	0,606
Question 61	0,599
Question 71	0,531
Factor 7 – Professional Development
Question 62	0,762	20,59	0,775
Question 64	0,759
Question 65	0,700
Question 63	0,683
Factor 8 – Selection Processes
Question 59	0,835	20,1	0,777
Question 58	0,811
Question 60	0,686
Question 66	0,405
Factor 9 – Satisfaction with the Course
Question 80	0,861	62,87	0,918
Question 73	0,854
Question 78	0,827
Question 76	0,811
Question 72	0,808
Question 75	0,802
Question 77	0,767
Question 74	0,765
Question 79	0,591

Indices	Limits	HEI Infrastructure		Course Subjects		Course Professors		Advisor Support		Administrative Support		Graduate Course Impacts		Professional Development		Selection Processes		Satisfaction with the Course

		IM	FM	IM	FM	IM	FM	IM	FM	IM	FM	IM	FM	IM	FM	IM	FM	IM	FM
X ² (value)	-	2297,456	79,003	3162,662	254,244	629,026	37,603	757,859	194,880	1088,604	17,106	702,589	702,589	230,900	0,007	5,261		544,394	72,602
DF/X ²	-	52,215	4,158	41,074	4,889	116,359	4,178	42,429	4,753	77,757	2,138	78,065	78,065	115,450	0,007	2,630		20,163	4,536
CFI	> 0,950	0,837	0,994	0,831	0,988	0,831	0,997	0,887	0,994	0,934	0,999	0,896	0,896	0,915	1,00	0,999		0,956	0,995
TLI	> 0,950	0,796	0,99	0,800	0,983	0,747	0,993	0,864	0,988	0,901	0,999	0,826	0,826	0,745	1,002	0,996		0,941	0,989
RMSR	< 0,080	0,080	0,016	0,049	0,015	0,079	0,009	0,067	0,016	0,026	0,003	0,058	0,058	0,057	0,000	0,008		0,140	0,047
RMSEA	< 0,060	0,159	0,039	0,140	0,044	0,238	0,040	0,143	0,043	0,194	0,024	0,195	0,195	0,237	0,000	0,028		0,097	0,042
CR	> 0,700	....	0,902	....	0,932	...	0,889	...	0,951	...	0,954	......	......	...	0,781	0,794		...	0,918
AVE	> 0,500	....	0,510	....	0,513	...	0,538	...	0,604	...	0,750	......	......	...	0,482	0,500		...	0,560
Alpha	> 0,700	0,918	0,906	0,930	0,934	...	0,901	...	0,955	...	0,958	0,879	0,879	...	0,775	0,777		...	0,918

	Inf-IES	Dis-C	Do-C	Su-O	Su-A	Im-PPG	DV	Pr-S	Sa-PPG
HEI Infrastructure (Inf-IES)	0,714
Course Subjects (Dis-C)	0,517	0,716
Course Professors (Do-C)	0,500	0,892	0,733
Advisor Support (Su-O)	0,291	0,520	0,625	0,777
Administrative Support (Su-A)	0,273	0,395	0,473	0,337	0,866
Graduate Course Impacts (Im-PPG)	0,478	0,730	0,747	0,515	0,401	0,749
Professional Development (DV)	0,417	0,707	0,693	0,605	0,324	0,754	0,694
Selection Processes (Pr-S)	0,408	0,701	0,668	0,472	0,408	0,684	0,641	0,707
Satisfaction with the Course (Sa-PPG)	0,335	0,582	0,590	0,428	0,284	0,615	0,587	0,530	0,748

Indices	Criteria	Course Assessment (second-order construct)		Integrated Model

		IM	FM	IM	FM
x² (value)	---	162,246	367,400	17465,421	6104,581
x² (probability)	>0,05	0,000	0,000	0,000	0,000
x² /degrees of freedom	< 5	28,443	7,654	6,687	2,769
CFI – Comparative Fit Index	> 0,95	0,889	0,977	0,885	0,966
TLI – Tucker-Lewis Index	> 0,95	0,847	0,963	0,878	0,963
RMSR – Root Mean Square Residual	< 0,08	0,069	0,032	0,250	0,044
RMSEA – R.M.S. Error of Approximation	< 0,06	0,116	0,057	0,053	0,029

[1] Information about the authors

Kelmara Mendes Vieira: PhD in Administration from the Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul (UFRGS). Professor at the Universidade Federal de Santa Maria, Santa Maria, state of Rio Grande do Sul (Brazil). Contact: Kelmara.vieira@ufsm.br.

Aline Kárem Santos Carvalho: Master in Public Administration from the Universidade Federal de Santa Maria, Santa Maria, state of Rio Grande do Sul (Brazil). Contact: alinekaremsc@gmail.com

Leander Luiz Klein: PhD in Administration from the Universidade Federal de Santa Maria (UFSM). Professor at the Universidade Federal de Santa Maria, Santa Maria, state of Rio Grande do Sul (Brazil). Contact: leander.klein@ufsm.br

Breno Augusto Diniz Pereira: PhD in Administration from the Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul (UFRGS). Professor at the Universidade Federal de Santa Maria, Santa Maria, state of Rio Grande do Sul (Brazil). Contact: breno.pereira@ufsm.br

Brasil

Brasil

Autoevaluación del estudiante del curso de posgrado: una propuesta de modelo multidimensional

Resumen