Item analysis showed high self-reported engagement and subscale differences in discriminatory power, with social engagement items weakest and cognitive engagement items strongest¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study (2 entries) · associational r2 · q2
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¶

q2 i? Participants tended to report high levels of engagement, shown in item skewness and difficulty. → Loris T. Jeitziner 2025 q2 i? Items from the SE subscale showed rather low discriminatory power whereas CE items showed rather high values. → 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

q2 · i? · associational · r2

Item analysis (difficulty, variance, skewness, discriminatory power per Moosbrugger and Kelava's guidelines) across the full scale, visualised in Fig. 1; the analysis found participants "tended to report high levels of engagement", consistent with high item difficulty.

"The skewness of the items indicates that the participants overall tended to report high levels of engagement."

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

Same item analysis of the full item set reported in the Results section: discriminatory power spanned "a range of low to high values", with SE items such as SE3 low and CE items such as CE3 high; items were iteratively removed based on these analyses.

"the items show a range of low to high values – for example, items from the SE subscale show rather low discriminatory power (e.g. SE3); whereas, the values for the CE subscale are rather high (e.g. CE3)."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Chinese college ESP learners show high amotivation-subscale, external-regulation, identified-regulation and intrinsic (knowledge, accomplishment) item means — related
• Negative affective experience items were dropped due to floor effects and poor discrimination — related
• CoI survey ratings reveal uneven presence profiles: course organization and exploration rated highest while most facilitation items and three cognitive-presence items (curiosity, reflection, testing and applying knowledge) rated below 4.0 — related
• Most subscale reliabilities of the task-specific questionnaire were moderate to low (three of four subscales with 16 students, all four with 190), despite acceptable full-instrument reliability — 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
• CTT item selection dropped five low-discrimination items, retaining 20 items of moderate difficulty — related
• The social presence subscale of the CoI survey instrument shows inconsistent dimensionality across validation studies — related