{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.02464550979068197, 'fraction_numerical': 0.010465901417960837, 'mean_word_length': 4.867326732673267, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
An Index of Students' Satisfaction with Instruction

Debates have been held since the 1950s on the validity of students’ evaluations of faculty (SEF). While opinion is split over the application of SEF to the management of the professoriate, the majority of the researchers addressing this issue support the use of SEF in the areas of faculty development and instructional improvement. The primary premises underlying use of students’ ratings of the instructional abilities of faculty has been repeatedly addressed by educational researchers. The reliability and validity of such measures have been the subject of numerous studies. While their results have not been consistent, they have predominantly supported the stability and validity of students’ evaluations of faculty. The use of a single global measure to assess instructional ability has also received the attention of the researchers, and it has been established that such a measure can be valid. Students evaluate every instructor at the Texas College of Osteopathic Medicine. The items on the required evaluation form can be changed to correspond to the needs of academic departments and the unique characters of instructional programs. However, the final item on each and every evaluation form is constant across all courses. That item states ‘‘Overall, this is an effective instructor.’’ Responses to this question are made on a five-point scale and reported on a 80-point scale (strongly agree equates to an SSI of 100, agree = 80, neutral = 60, disagree = 40, and strongly disagree = 20). In practice, the SSI works like grades assigned to students in graduate and professional training programs. Medical students seldom use the lower half of the rating scale. Their responses result in SSI scores from the 60s through the 90s, with a mean score of 77. The SSI score is transmitted, along with responses to the other concepts assessed, to the faculty member and the department chair. Predictably, when an SSI drops below 70 the department’s chair begins to comb through other data on teaching performance to find out why the faculty member is not doing well. During the past 15 years faculty members have expressed a variety of concerns about the SSI. Faculty members think the SSI reflects the students’ moods at the moment and, thus provides unreliable results. They feel that students are not capable of judging their instruction and that their peers would provide different (presumably more favorable) results. They suggest that the students’ ratings correlate highly with the grades the students receive. Many feel that an assessment made at the end of the course disadvantages those who teach early. Each of these beliefs casts doubt on the reliability and validity of the SSI. These are the questions that are addressed in this study: (1) Is the SSI reliable? (2) Is the SSI valid? (3) Is the SSI biased by grades? (4) Is the SSI biased by the time lag between performance and measurement?