Criterion validity testing related QCGE-SAS subscale correlations and a regression on objectively graded group products for a laboratory subsample¶
Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study (2 entries) · associationalr2·q2–q3
Currency · newest study 2025 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person · recheck by 2028: tool and model accuracy changes quickly
Subclaims¶
Reading the evidence codes
q is the design tier, i the impact, n the sample, and the kind with its r
the rigour judged within that kind: what each code means.
This claim: no standardized effect is recorded in observations/ for it yet, so no benchmark reading is possible.
q3 i? Criterion validity was examined by correlating the four QCGE-SAS subscales with self-reported learning outcomes, supported by significant correlations. → Loris T. Jeitziner 2025
q2 i? For the subsample graded on collaborative group products, a linear regression model assessed the unique contribution of each engagement dimension to the group task grade. → Loris T. Jeitziner 2025 (2)
Evidence¶
Loris T. Jeitziner 2025¶
Loris T. Jeitziner, Lisa Paneth, Oliver Rack, Susanne Bleisch, Carmen Zahn. (2025). Measuring the quality of collaborative group engagement: Development and validation of the QCGE self-assessment scale (QCGE-SAS). Intern. J. Comput.-Support. Collab. Learn. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11412-025-09445-8
q3 · i? · associational · r2
Criterion validity analysis correlating the four QCGE-SAS subscales with the single-item self-reported learning outcome ('I learned a lot from our group work', seven-point scale). The abstract reports "significant correlations with... self-reported... learning outcomes"; coefficient values were not available in the supplied text.
"Construct and criterion validity were supported by significant correlations with related scales and with self-reported and objective learning outcomes."
Loris T. Jeitziner 2025 (2)¶
Loris T. Jeitziner, Lisa Paneth, Oliver Rack, Susanne Bleisch, Carmen Zahn. (2025). Measuring the quality of collaborative group engagement: Development and validation of the QCGE self-assessment scale (QCGE-SAS). Intern. J. Comput.-Support. Collab. Learn. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11412-025-09445-8
q2 · i? · associational · r2
Subsample analysis using the students graded on their collaborative group work (drawn from the laboratory subsample; grading used a weighted scoring grid with two independent expert raters reaching "good interrater reliability (ICC = 0.825)" over 19 models).
"The model included the four dimensions of engagement measured in the questionnaire as independent variables and the group task grade as the dependent variable."
Discussion¶
Related Claims¶
- Frequencies of nonverbal behaviors descriptively rise with higher engagement ratings across the four QCGE dimensions
- Construct validity of the QCGE-SAS is supported by significant correlations between its subscales and pre-validated related scales — related
- No statistically significant association between QCGE dimension ratings and the collaborative product grade — reports the opposite
Page metadata
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
type |
claim |
id |
qcge-sas-criterion-validity-learning-outcomes |
title |
Criterion validity testing related QCGE-SAS subscale correlations and a regression on objectively graded group products for a laboratory subsample |
description |
Criterion validity testing related QCGE-SAS subscale correlations and a regression on objectively graded group products for a laboratory subsample |
status |
review |
evidence_strength |
weak |
newest_evidence |
2025 |
recheck_by |
2028 |
generated |
by process:wiki-ingest on 2026-10-18 |
trust |
unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content |
sources |
2 — loris-t-jeitziner-2025, loris-t-jeitziner-2025-2 |
Frontmatter is the page's machine-readable record — see the Schema & Guide.