{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.03780718336483932, 'fraction_numerical': 0.00945179584120983, 'mean_word_length': 5.251968503937008, '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}}
Reliability of College Students' Evaluation of Instructors' Competence

Although students, faculty and administrators may be in essential agreement with the concept of students' evaluations of instructors' competence, there is little reported agreemenc about how scudencs' evaluations should be compiled. Perhaps because of the apparent lack of such unanimity, no systematic attempts to ascertain the reliability or validity of scudencs' evaluation forms have been reported. This paper describes an initial pilot attempc to determine the reliability of a single instructor evaluation form. Battle's Instructor Evaluation Inventory-as used. This scale presents 10 questions, e.g., "Is your instructor sensitive to the level of students' comprehension?," or "Is your instructor willing to help students who need additional assistance?", and each question has response alternatives which range, for example, from "1" = "always" through "5" = "never." Three hundred male and female students enrolled in the same introductory psychology class, taught by an experienced, white instructor were administered the scale. They evaluated their instructor on the 10 items and then exactly 48 hr. later they were readministered the scale. Test-retest correlations for the 10 items ranged from .l6 to .70 (average r = .52 ). Thus, most items on the scale have acceptable test-retest stability, suggesting that Ss respond to the items in a consistent manner. While the present study addressed the issue of reliability, assessment of the validity of this scale is a necessary problem for future research.