Undergraduate Course Evaluation: PSYC 210, Fall 2025
Plain-English summary
Bottom line: the evaluation scale shows excellent internal consistency (α = 0.91, KMO = 0.92), so the composite score and item rankings can be reported with confidence. Average ratings are positive across the board, with the strongest scores on lecture clarity and learning, and the weakest on assessment fairness.
What stands out:
- Mean composite score is 4.21 of 5.0, with 78% of respondents rating the course 4 or 5 overall.
- Assessment fairness (Q5) is the lowest-rated item at 3.78. Open-text comments cluster around exam difficulty and grading curve transparency.
- Section B (afternoon lab) outperformed Section A (morning lecture) on every item except availability of office hours. Mean composite difference: 0.31 (small to moderate).
- All eight items contribute positively to the scale. Removing any one would lower α, indicating no items are weakening the instrument.
- The lowest item-total correlation belongs to "office hours availability" (r = 0.51), still well within acceptable range.
Reliability summary
Item-total statistics
| # | Item | Mean | SD | Corrected rit | α if deleted | KMO (item) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Q1 | The instructor explained concepts clearly. | 4.42 | 0.71 | 0.788 | 0.895 | 0.927 |
| Q2 | Course materials supported my learning. | 4.21 | 0.79 | 0.762 | 0.897 | 0.911 |
| Q3 | Assignments helped me understand the material. | 4.05 | 0.84 | 0.745 | 0.899 | 0.918 |
| Q4 | Feedback on my work was timely and useful. | 4.15 | 0.86 | 0.703 | 0.902 | 0.905 |
| Q5 | Assessments fairly reflected what was taught. | 3.78 | 0.95 | 0.674 | 0.906 | 0.882 |
| Q6 | Office hours and instructor availability were sufficient. | 4.32 | 0.78 | 0.514 | 0.918 | 0.879 |
| Q7 | I learned a lot in this course. | 4.38 | 0.74 | 0.793 | 0.895 | 0.929 |
| Q8 | I would recommend this course to other students. | 4.30 | 0.81 | 0.812 | 0.893 | 0.935 |
Every item shows a strong corrected item-total correlation (≥ 0.51), and α-if-deleted values stay below the overall α of 0.91 for all items. The instrument is well-constructed for this course context.
Section comparison
| Item | Section A (n=62) | Section B (n=62) | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Q1 · Clear explanations | 4.27 | 4.56 | +0.29 |
| Q2 · Course materials | 4.05 | 4.37 | +0.32 |
| Q3 · Assignments | 3.89 | 4.21 | +0.32 |
| Q4 · Feedback | 3.95 | 4.34 | +0.39 |
| Q5 · Fair assessment | 3.61 | 3.95 | +0.34 |
| Q6 · Office hours | 4.40 | 4.24 | -0.16 |
| Q7 · Learned a lot | 4.21 | 4.55 | +0.34 |
| Q8 · Would recommend | 4.13 | 4.47 | +0.34 |
| Composite mean | 4.06 | 4.34 | +0.28 |
Inter-item correlation matrix
| Q1 | Q2 | Q3 | Q4 | Q5 | Q6 | Q7 | Q8 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Q1 | 1.00 | 0.62 | 0.58 | 0.55 | 0.48 | 0.42 | 0.66 | 0.63 |
| Q2 | 0.62 | 1.00 | 0.62 | 0.58 | 0.48 | 0.39 | 0.61 | 0.58 |
| Q3 | 0.58 | 0.62 | 1.00 | 0.61 | 0.55 | 0.39 | 0.58 | 0.58 |
| Q4 | 0.55 | 0.58 | 0.61 | 1.00 | 0.58 | 0.42 | 0.54 | 0.55 |
| Q5 | 0.48 | 0.48 | 0.55 | 0.58 | 1.00 | 0.36 | 0.48 | 0.48 |
| Q6 | 0.42 | 0.39 | 0.39 | 0.42 | 0.36 | 1.00 | 0.42 | 0.46 |
| Q7 | 0.66 | 0.61 | 0.58 | 0.54 | 0.48 | 0.42 | 1.00 | 0.71 |
| Q8 | 0.63 | 0.58 | 0.58 | 0.55 | 0.48 | 0.46 | 0.71 | 1.00 |
Per-item descriptives
Methodology notes
Cronbach's α reported is the standardized form. Split-half reliability uses the Spearman-Brown corrected first-half / second-half split. KMO (Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin) is computed from the anti-image correlation matrix. All 8 items are positively worded; no reverse-scoring was applied. Three responses were dropped from reliability calculations because they were missing one or more Likert items; descriptives are reported on n that responded to each item.
Section comparison uses the unweighted item-level mean. The composite mean is the average across all 8 items per respondent, then averaged within section. No formal significance test is reported; differences this size on n=62 per cell warrant cautious interpretation.