Behavioural, cognitive and conceptual-to-consequential subscales of the QCGE-SAS show acceptable reliability, while the social engagement subscale shows unacceptable internal consistency¶
Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · associationalr2·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? Cronbach's alpha for the BE, CE and CC subscales exceeded 0.70, but the SE subscale's alpha of 0.560 did not reach the accepted threshold. → Loris T. Jeitziner 2025
q3 i? Composite reliability from the CFA confirmed the pattern, with the SE subscale again the only one below the 0.70 threshold. → 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? · associational · r2
Reliability analysis of the QCGE-SAS in the validation study (N = 246), covering "BE α = 0.754; SE α = 0.560; CE α = 0.775; and CC α = 0.738"; composite reliability from the CFA was BE = 0.76, SE = 0.61, CE = 0.80 and CC = 0.72.
"the Cronbach's alpha coefficients indicate mostly acceptable coefficients, namely for BE α = 0.754; SE α = 0.560; CE α = 0.775; and CC α = 0.738."
Discussion¶
Related Claims¶
- 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
- Construct validity of the QCGE-SAS is supported by significant correlations between its subscales and pre-validated related scales — related
- 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 — related
- Item analysis showed high self-reported engagement and subscale differences in discriminatory power, with social engagement items weakest and cognitive engagement items strongest — related
Page metadata
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
type |
claim |
id |
qcge-sas-social-subscale-unacceptable-reliability |
title |
Behavioural, cognitive and conceptual-to-consequential subscales of the QCGE-SAS show acceptable reliability, while the social engagement subscale shows unacceptable internal consistency |
description |
Behavioural, cognitive and conceptual-to-consequential subscales of the QCGE-SAS show acceptable reliability, while the social engagement subscale shows unacceptable internal consistency |
status |
review |
evidence_strength |
mixed |
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 |
1 — loris-t-jeitziner-2025 |
Frontmatter is the page's machine-readable record — see the Schema & Guide.