A confirmatory factor analysis supports a four-factor structure of collaborative group engagement (behavioural, social, cognitive, conceptual-to-consequential) for the QCGE self-assessment scale¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study (2 entries) · associational r2 · 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¶

q3 i? In a validation study with university students, CFA fit indices indicated that the four-factor structure of the QCGE-SAS fits well. → Loris T. Jeitziner 2025

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? · design · r2

Confirmatory factor analysis (MLM robust estimator, N = 243 after three participants were excluded for missing responses) of the QCGE-SAS items, with the RMSEA of "0.069 with a 90% confidence interval of 0.051–0.088" indicating acceptable fit; CFI = 0.933, TLI = 0.911, SRMR = 0.062 were also reported.

"The robust root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) was RMSEA = 0.069 with a 90% confidence interval of 0.051–0.088, indicating an acceptable fit (Hu & Bentler, 1999)."

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

q3 · i? · associational · r2

The authors' summary of the same confirmatory factor analysis, stating the "four-factor structure of the QCGE-SAS fits well", interpreted against the chi-squared test of 140.51 (df = 48) and the complementary fit indices reported in the Results section.

"In summary, the CFA shows that the four-factor structure of the QCGE-SAS fits well."

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
• The self-report measure supports a refined 13-item, four-factor model with good fit — related
• Behavioural, cognitive and conceptual-to-consequential subscales of the QCGE-SAS show acceptable reliability, while the social engagement subscale shows unacceptable internal consistency — related
• Confirmatory factor analysis on FICSMath data confirms the 4C/ID Model's four components fit secondary-tertiary mathematics instructional experiences (CFI = 0.907, RMSEA = 0.050) — related
• No statistically significant association between QCGE dimension ratings and the collaborative product grade — related
• The TEFA-T model syntax meets goodness-of-fit criteria in confirmatory factor analysis, supporting its construct validity — related
• Confirmatory factor analysis supports both distinct 11-factor and four higher-order group structures of the Wheel across educational levels — related
• Global-fit evidence does not clearly favor unidimensional over multidimensional academic resilience measurement models, as fit-index pass rates diverge by index — related