Validating instructional practice scale for university instructors in Ethiopia

Validating instructional practice scale for... | F1000Research "use strict";function _typeof(t){return(_typeof="function"==typeof Symbol&&"symbol"==typeof Symbol.iterator?function(t){return typeof t}:function(t){return t&&"function"==typeof Symbol&&t.constructor===Symbol&&t!==Symbol.prototype?"symbol":typeof t})(t)}!function(){var t=function(){var t,e,o=[],n=window,r=n;for(;r;){try{if(r.frames.__tcfapiLocator){t=r;break}}catch(t){}if(r===n.top)break;r=r.parent}t||(!function t(){var e=n.document,o=!!n.frames.__tcfapiLocator;if(!o)if(e.body){var r=e.createElement("iframe");r.style.cssText="display:none",r.name="__tcfapiLocator",e.body.appendChild(r)}else setTimeout(t,5);return!o}(),n.__tcfapi=function(){for(var t=arguments.length,n=new Array(t),r=0;r 3&&2===parseInt(n[1],10)&&"boolean"==typeof n[3]&&(e=n[3],"function"==typeof n[2]&&n[2]("set",!0)):"ping"===n[0]?"function"==typeof n[2]&&n[2]({gdprApplies:e,cmpLoaded:!1,cmpStatus:"stub"}):o.push(n)},n.addEventListener("message",(function(t){var e="string"==typeof t.data,o={};if(e)try{o=JSON.parse(t.data)}catch(t){}else o=t.data;var n="object"===_typeof(o)&&null!==o?o.__tcfapiCall:null;n&&window.__tcfapi(n.command,n.version,(function(o,r){var a={__tcfapiReturn:{returnValue:o,success:r,callId:n.callId}};t&&t.source&&t.source.postMessage&&t.source.postMessage(e?JSON.stringify(a):a,"*")}),n.parameter)}),!1))};"undefined"!=typeof module?module.exports=t:t()}(); dataLayer = dataLayer || []; // Standard GTM initialization - Google Consent Mode handles consent automatically (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start': new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0], j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src= 'https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl+ '>m_auth=hzk0Vc3qFsQYhCrIoHz68A>m_preview=env-1>m_cookies_win=x';f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f); })(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-MWFK8L5J'); ;window.NREUM||(NREUM={});NREUM.init={distributed_tracing:{enabled:true},privacy:{cookies_enabled:true},ajax:{deny_list:["bam.nr-data.net"]}}; ;NREUM.loader_config={accountID:"438030",trustKey:"438030",agentID:"772317073",licenseKey:"97f8f67f26",applicationID:"772317073"} ;NREUM.info={beacon:"bam.nr-data.net",errorBeacon:"bam.nr-data.net",licenseKey:"97f8f67f26",applicationID:"772317073",sa:1} ;/*! For license information please see nr-loader-spa-1.236.0.min.js.LICENSE.txt */ (()=>{"use strict";var e,t,r={5763:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{P_:()=>l,Mt:()=>g,C5:()=>s,DL:()=>v,OP:()=>T,lF:()=>D,Yu:()=>y,Dg:()=>h,CX:()=>c,GE:()=>b,sU:()=>_});var n=r(8632),i=r(9567);const o={beacon:n.ce.beacon,errorBeacon:n.ce.errorBeacon,licenseKey:void 0,applicationID:void 0,sa:void 0,queueTime:void 0,applicationTime:void 0,ttGuid:void 0,user:void 0,account:void 0,product:void 0,extra:void 0,jsAttributes:{},userAttributes:void 0,atts:void 0,transactionName:void 0,tNamePlain:void 0},a={};function s(e){if(!e)throw new Error("All info objects require an agent identifier!");if(!a[e])throw new Error("Info for ".concat(e," was never set"));return a[e]}function c(e,t){if(!e)throw new Error("All info objects require an agent identifier!");a[e]=(0,i.D)(t,o),(0,n.Qy)(e,a[e],"info")}var u=r(7056);const d=()=>{const e={blockSelector:"[data-nr-block]",maskInputOptions:{password:!0}};return{allow_bfcache:!0,privacy:{cookies_enabled:!0},ajax:{deny_list:void 0,enabled:!0,harvestTimeSeconds:10},distributed_tracing:{enabled:void 0,exclude_newrelic_header:void 0,cors_use_newrelic_header:void 0,cors_use_tracecontext_headers:void 0,allowed_origins:void 0},session:{domain:void 0,expiresMs:u.oD,inactiveMs:u.Hb},ssl:void 0,obfuscate:void 0,jserrors:{enabled:!0,harvestTimeSeconds:10},metrics:{enabled:!0},page_action:{enabled:!0,harvestTimeSeconds:30},page_view_event:{enabled:!0},page_view_timing:{enabled:!0,harvestTimeSeconds:30,long_task:!1},session_trace:{enabled:!0,harvestTimeSeconds:10},harvest:{tooManyRequestsDelay:60},session_replay:{enabled:!1,harvestTimeSeconds:60,sampleRate:.1,errorSampleRate:.1,maskTextSelector:"*",maskAllInputs:!0,get blockClass(){return"nr-block"},get ignoreClass(){return"nr-ignore"},get maskTextClass(){return"nr-mask"},get blockSelector(){return e.blockSelector},set blockSelector(t){e.blockSelector+=",".concat(t)},get maskInputOptions(){return e.maskInputOptions},set maskInputOptions(t){e.maskInputOptions={...t,password:!0}}},spa:{enabled:!0,harvestTimeSeconds:10}}},f={};function l(e){if(!e)throw new Error("All configuration objects require an agent identifier!");if(!f[e])throw new Error("Configuration for ".concat(e," was never set"));return f[e]}function h(e,t){if(!e)throw new Error("All configuration objects require an agent identifier!");f[e]=(0,i.D)(t,d()),(0,n.Qy)(e,f[e],"config")}function g(e,t){if(!e)throw new Error("All configuration objects require an agent identifier!");var r=l(e);if(r){for(var n=t.split("."),i=0;i {r.d(t,{D:()=>i});var n=r(50);function i(e,t){try{if(!e||"object"!=typeof e)return(0,n.Z)("Setting a Configurable requires an object as input");if(!t||"object"!=typeof t)return(0,n.Z)("Setting a Configurable requires a model to set its initial properties");const r=Object.create(Object.getPrototypeOf(t),Object.getOwnPropertyDescriptors(t)),o=0===Object.keys(r).length?e:r;for(let a in o)if(void 0!==e[a])try{"object"==typeof e[a]&&"object"==typeof t[a]?r[a]=i(e[a],t[a]):r[a]=e[a]}catch(e){(0,n.Z)("An error occurred while setting a property of a Configurable",e)}return r}catch(e){(0,n.Z)("An error occured while setting a Configurable",e)}}},6818:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{Re:()=>i,gF:()=>o,q4:()=>n});const n="1.236.0",i="PROD",o="CDN"},385:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{FN:()=>a,IF:()=>u,Nk:()=>f,Tt:()=>s,_A:()=>o,il:()=>n,pL:()=>c,v6:()=>i,w1:()=>d});const n="undefined"!=typeof window&&!!window.document,i="undefined"!=typeof WorkerGlobalScope&&("undefined"!=typeof self&&self instanceof WorkerGlobalScope&&self.navigator instanceof WorkerNavigator||"undefined"!=typeof globalThis&&globalThis instanceof WorkerGlobalScope&&globalThis.navigator instanceof WorkerNavigator),o=n?window:"undefined"!=typeof WorkerGlobalScope&&("undefined"!=typeof self&&self instanceof WorkerGlobalScope&&self||"undefined"!=typeof globalThis&&globalThis instanceof WorkerGlobalScope&&globalThis),a=""+o?.location,s=/iPad|iPhone|iPod/.test(navigator.userAgent),c=s&&"undefined"==typeof SharedWorker,u=(()=>{const e=navigator.userAgent.match(/Firefox[/\s](\d+\.\d+)/);return Array.isArray(e)&&e.length>=2?+e[1]:0})(),d=Boolean(n&&window.document.documentMode),f=!!navigator.sendBeacon},1117:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{w:()=>o});var n=r(50);const i={agentIdentifier:"",ee:void 0};class o{constructor(e){try{if("object"!=typeof e)return(0,n.Z)("shared context requires an object as input");this.sharedContext={},Object.assign(this.sharedContext,i),Object.entries(e).forEach((e=>{let[t,r]=e;Object.keys(i).includes(t)&&(this.sharedContext[t]=r)}))}catch(e){(0,n.Z)("An error occured while setting SharedContext",e)}}}},8e3:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{L:()=>d,R:()=>c});var n=r(2177),i=r(1284),o=r(4322),a=r(3325);const s={};function c(e,t){const r={staged:!1,priority:a.p[t]||0};u(e),s[e].get(t)||s[e].set(t,r)}function u(e){e&&(s[e]||(s[e]=new Map))}function d(){let e=arguments.length>0&&void 0!==arguments[0]?arguments[0]:"",t=arguments.length>1&&void 0!==arguments[1]?arguments[1]:"feature";if(u(e),!e||!s[e].get(t))return a(t);s[e].get(t).staged=!0;const r=[...s[e]];function a(t){const r=e?n.ee.get(e):n.ee,a=o.X.handlers;if(r.backlog&&a){var s=r.backlog[t],c=a[t];if(c){for(var u=0;s&&u {let[t,r]=e;return r.staged}))&&(r.sort(((e,t)=>e[1].priority-t[1].priority)),r.forEach((e=>{let[t]=e;a(t)})))}function f(e,t){var r=e[1];(0,i.D)(t[r],(function(t,r){var n=e[0];if(r[0]===n){var i=r[1],o=e[3],a=e[2];i.apply(o,a)}}))}},2177:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{c:()=>f,ee:()=>u});var n=r(8632),i=r(2210),o=r(1284),a=r(5763),s="nr@context";let c=(0,n.fP)();var u;function d(){}function f(e){return(0,i.X)(e,s,l)}function l(){return new d}function h(){u.aborted=!0,u.backlog={}}c.ee?u=c.ee:(u=function e(t,r){var n={},c={},f={},g=!1;try{g=16===r.length&&(0,a.OP)(r).isolatedBacklog}catch(e){}var p={on:b,addEventListener:b,removeEventListener:y,emit:v,get:x,listeners:w,context:m,buffer:A,abort:h,aborted:!1,isBuffering:E,debugId:r,backlog:g?{}:t&&"object"==typeof t.backlog?t.backlog:{}};return p;function m(e){return e&&e instanceof d?e:e?(0,i.X)(e,s,l):l()}function v(e,r,n,i,o){if(!1!==o&&(o=!0),!u.aborted||i){t&&o&&t.emit(e,r,n);for(var a=m(n),s=w(e),d=s.length,f=0;fn,p:()=>i});var n=r(2177).ee.get("handle");function i(e,t,r,i,o){o?(o.buffer([e],i),o.emit(e,t,r)):(n.buffer([e],i),n.emit(e,t,r))}},4322:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{X:()=>o});var n=r(5546);o.on=a;var i=o.handlers={};function o(e,t,r,o){a(o||n.E,i,e,t,r)}function a(e,t,r,i,o){o||(o="feature"),e||(e=n.E);var a=t[o]=t[o]||{};(a[r]=a[r]||[]).push([e,i])}},3239:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{bP:()=>s,iz:()=>c,m$:()=>a});var n=r(385);let i=!1,o=!1;try{const e={get passive(){return i=!0,!1},get signal(){return o=!0,!1}};n._A.addEventListener("test",null,e),n._A.removeEventListener("test",null,e)}catch(e){}function a(e,t){return i||o?{capture:!!e,passive:i,signal:t}:!!e}function s(e,t){let r=arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2]&&arguments[2],n=arguments.length>3?arguments[3]:void 0;window.addEventListener(e,t,a(r,n))}function c(e,t){let r=arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2]&&arguments[2],n=arguments.length>3?arguments[3]:void 0;document.addEventListener(e,t,a(r,n))}},4402:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{Ht:()=>u,M:()=>c,Rl:()=>a,ky:()=>s});var n=r(385);const i="xxxxxxxx-xxxx-4xxx-yxxx-xxxxxxxxxxxx";function o(e,t){return e?15&e[t]:16*Math.random()|0}function a(){const e=n._A?.crypto||n._A?.msCrypto;let t,r=0;return e&&e.getRandomValues&&(t=e.getRandomValues(new Uint8Array(31))),i.split("").map((e=>"x"===e?o(t,++r).toString(16):"y"===e?(3&o()|8).toString(16):e)).join("")}function s(e){const t=n._A?.crypto||n._A?.msCrypto;let r,i=0;t&&t.getRandomValues&&(r=t.getRandomValues(new Uint8Array(31)));const a=[];for(var s=0;s {r.d(t,{Bq:()=>n,Hb:()=>o,oD:()=>i});const n="NRBA",i=144e5,o=18e5},7894:(e,t,r)=>{function n(){return Math.round(performance.now())}r.d(t,{z:()=>n})},7243:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{e:()=>o});var n=r(385),i={};function o(e){if(e in i)return i[e];if(0===(e||"").indexOf("data:"))return{protocol:"data"};let t;var r=n._A?.location,o={};if(n.il)t=document.createElement("a"),t.href=e;else try{t=new URL(e,r.href)}catch(e){return o}o.port=t.port;var a=t.href.split("://");!o.port&&a[1]&&(o.port=a[1].split("/")[0].split("@").pop().split(":")[1]),o.port&&"0"!==o.port||(o.port="https"===a[0]?"443":"80"),o.hostname=t.hostname||r.hostname,o.pathname=t.pathname,o.protocol=a[0],"/"!==o.pathname.charAt(0)&&(o.pathname="/"+o.pathname);var s=!t.protocol||":"===t.protocol||t.protocol===r.protocol,c=t.hostname===r.hostname&&t.port===r.port;return o.sameOrigin=s&&(!t.hostname||c),"/"===o.pathname&&(i[e]=o),o}},50:(e,t,r)=>{function n(e,t){"function"==typeof console.warn&&(console.warn("New Relic: ".concat(e)),t&&console.warn(t))}r.d(t,{Z:()=>n})},2587:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{N:()=>c,T:()=>u});var n=r(2177),i=r(5546),o=r(8e3),a=r(3325);const s={stn:[a.D.sessionTrace],err:[a.D.jserrors,a.D.metrics],ins:[a.D.pageAction],spa:[a.D.spa],sr:[a.D.sessionReplay,a.D.sessionTrace]};function c(e,t){const r=n.ee.get(t);e&&"object"==typeof e&&(Object.entries(e).forEach((e=>{let[t,n]=e;void 0===u[t]&&(s[t]?s[t].forEach((e=>{n?(0,i.p)("feat-"+t,[],void 0,e,r):(0,i.p)("block-"+t,[],void 0,e,r),(0,i.p)("rumresp-"+t,[Boolean(n)],void 0,e,r)})):n&&(0,i.p)("feat-"+t,[],void 0,void 0,r),u[t]=Boolean(n))})),Object.keys(s).forEach((e=>{void 0===u[e]&&(s[e]?.forEach((t=>(0,i.p)("rumresp-"+e,[!1],void 0,t,r))),u[e]=!1)})),(0,o.L)(t,a.D.pageViewEvent))}const u={}},2210:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{X:()=>i});var n=Object.prototype.hasOwnProperty;function i(e,t,r){if(n.call(e,t))return e[t];var i=r();if(Object.defineProperty&&Object.keys)try{return Object.defineProperty(e,t,{value:i,writable:!0,enumerable:!1}),i}catch(e){}return e[t]=i,i}},1284:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{D:()=>n});const n=(e,t)=>Object.entries(e||{}).map((e=>{let[r,n]=e;return t(r,n)}))},4351:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{P:()=>o});var n=r(2177);const i=()=>{const e=new WeakSet;return(t,r)=>{if("object"==typeof r&&null!==r){if(e.has(r))return;e.add(r)}return r}};function o(e){try{return JSON.stringify(e,i())}catch(e){try{n.ee.emit("internal-error",[e])}catch(e){}}}},3960:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{K:()=>a,b:()=>o});var n=r(3239);function i(){return"undefined"==typeof document||"complete"===document.readyState}function o(e,t){if(i())return e();(0,n.bP)("load",e,t)}function a(e){if(i())return e();(0,n.iz)("DOMContentLoaded",e)}},8632:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{EZ:()=>u,Qy:()=>c,ce:()=>o,fP:()=>a,gG:()=>d,mF:()=>s});var n=r(7894),i=r(385);const o={beacon:"bam.nr-data.net",errorBeacon:"bam.nr-data.net"};function a(){return i._A.NREUM||(i._A.NREUM={}),void 0===i._A.newrelic&&(i._A.newrelic=i._A.NREUM),i._A.NREUM}function s(){let e=a();return e.o||(e.o={ST:i._A.setTimeout,SI:i._A.setImmediate,CT:i._A.clearTimeout,XHR:i._A.XMLHttpRequest,REQ:i._A.Request,EV:i._A.Event,PR:i._A.Promise,MO:i._A.MutationObserver,FETCH:i._A.fetch}),e}function c(e,t,r){let i=a();const o=i.initializedAgents||{},s=o[e]||{};return Object.keys(s).length||(s.initializedAt={ms:(0,n.z)(),date:new Date}),i.initializedAgents={...o,[e]:{...s,[r]:t}},i}function u(e,t){a()[e]=t}function d(){return function(){let e=a();const t=e.info||{};e.info={beacon:o.beacon,errorBeacon:o.errorBeacon,...t}}(),function(){let e=a();const t=e.init||{};e.init={...t}}(),s(),function(){let e=a();const t=e.loader_config||{};e.loader_config={...t}}(),a()}},7956:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{N:()=>i});var n=r(3239);function i(e){let t=arguments.length>1&&void 0!==arguments[1]&&arguments[1],r=arguments.length>2?arguments[2]:void 0,i=arguments.length>3?arguments[3]:void 0;return void(0,n.iz)("visibilitychange",(function(){if(t)return void("hidden"==document.visibilityState&&e());e(document.visibilityState)}),r,i)}},1214:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{em:()=>v,u5:()=>N,QU:()=>S,_L:()=>I,Gm:()=>L,Lg:()=>M,gy:()=>U,BV:()=>Q,Kf:()=>ee});var n=r(2177);const i="nr@original";var o=Object.prototype.hasOwnProperty,a=!1;function s(e,t){return e||(e=n.ee),r.inPlace=function(e,t,n,i,o){n||(n="");var a,s,c,u="-"===n.charAt(0);for(c=0;c 2?n-2:0),o=2;o {r(A[T],e,w),r(E[T],e,w)})),r(l._A,"fetch",y),t.on(y+"end",(function(e,r){var n=this;if(r){var i=r.headers.get("content-length");null!==i&&(n.rxSize=i),t.emit(y+"done",[null,r],n)}else t.emit(y+"done",[e],n)})),t}const O={},j=["pushState","replaceState"];function S(e){const t=function(e){return(e||n.ee).get("history")}(e);return!l.il||O[t.debugId]++||(O[t.debugId]=1,s(t).inPlace(window.history,j,"-")),t}var P=r(3239);const C={},R=["appendChild","insertBefore","replaceChild"];function I(e){const t=function(e){return(e||n.ee).get("jsonp")}(e);if(!l.il||C[t.debugId])return t;C[t.debugId]=!0;var r=s(t),i=/[?&](?:callback|cb)=([^&#]+)/,o=/(.*)\.([^.]+)/,a=/^(\w+)(\.|$)(.*)$/;function c(e,t){var r=e.match(a),n=r[1],i=r[3];return i?c(i,t[n]):t[n]}return r.inPlace(Node.prototype,R,"dom-"),t.on("dom-start",(function(e){!function(e){if(!e||"string"!=typeof e.nodeName||"script"!==e.nodeName.toLowerCase())return;if("function"!=typeof e.addEventListener)return;var n=(a=e.src,s=a.match(i),s?s[1]:null);var a,s;if(!n)return;var u=function(e){var t=e.match(o);if(t&&t.length>=3)return{key:t[2],parent:c(t[1],window)};return{key:e,parent:window}}(n);if("function"!=typeof u.parent[u.key])return;var d={};function f(){t.emit("jsonp-end",[],d),e.removeEventListener("load",f,(0,P.m$)(!1)),e.removeEventListener("error",l,(0,P.m$)(!1))}function l(){t.emit("jsonp-error",[],d),t.emit("jsonp-end",[],d),e.removeEventListener("load",f,(0,P.m$)(!1)),e.removeEventListener("error",l,(0,P.m$)(!1))}r.inPlace(u.parent,[u.key],"cb-",d),e.addEventListener("load",f,(0,P.m$)(!1)),e.addEventListener("error",l,(0,P.m$)(!1)),t.emit("new-jsonp",[e.src],d)}(e[0])})),t}var k=r(5763);const H={};function L(e){const t=function(e){return(e||n.ee).get("mutation")}(e);if(!l.il||H[t.debugId])return t;H[t.debugId]=!0;var r=s(t),i=k.Yu.MO;return i&&(window.MutationObserver=function(e){return this instanceof i?new i(r(e,"fn-")):i.apply(this,arguments)},MutationObserver.prototype=i.prototype),t}const z={};function M(e){const t=function(e){return(e||n.ee).get("promise")}(e);if(z[t.debugId])return t;z[t.debugId]=!0;var r=n.c,o=s(t),a=k.Yu.PR;return a&&function(){function e(r){var n=t.context(),i=o(r,"executor-",n,null,!1);const s=Reflect.construct(a,[i],e);return t.context(s).getCtx=function(){return n},s}l._A.Promise=e,Object.defineProperty(e,"name",{value:"Promise"}),e.toString=function(){return a.toString()},Object.setPrototypeOf(e,a),["all","race"].forEach((function(r){const n=a[r];e[r]=function(e){let i=!1;[...e||[]].forEach((e=>{this.resolve(e).then(a("all"===r),a(!1))}));const o=n.apply(this,arguments);return o;function a(e){return function(){t.emit("propagate",[null,!i],o,!1,!1),i=i||!e}}}})),["resolve","reject"].forEach((function(r){const n=a[r];e[r]=function(e){const r=n.apply(this,arguments);return e!==r&&t.emit("propagate",[e,!0],r,!1,!1),r}})),e.prototype=a.prototype;const n=a.prototype.then;a.prototype.then=function(){var e=this,i=r(e);i.promise=e;for(var a=arguments.length,s=new Array(a),c=0;c e())),t};function m(e,t){i.inPlace(t,["onreadystatechange"],"fn-",E)}function b(){var e=this,t=r.context(e);e.readyState>3&&!t.resolved&&(t.resolved=!0,r.emit("xhr-resolved",[],e)),i.inPlace(e,f,"fn-",E)}if(function(e,t){for(var r in e)t[r]=e[r]}(o,p),p.prototype=o.prototype,i.inPlace(p.prototype,J,"-xhr-",E),r.on("send-xhr-start",(function(e,t){m(e,t),function(e){h.push(e),a&&(y?y.then(A):u?u(A):(w=-w,x.data=w))}(t)})),r.on("open-xhr-start",m),a){var y=c&&c.resolve();if(!u&&!c){var w=1,x=document.createTextNode(w);new a(A).observe(x,{characterData:!0})}}else t.on("fn-end",(function(e){e[0]&&e[0].type===d||A()}));function A(){for(var e=0;e {r.d(t,{t:()=>n});const n=r(3325).D.ajax},6660:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{A:()=>i,t:()=>n});const n=r(3325).D.jserrors,i="nr@seenError"},3081:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{gF:()=>o,mY:()=>i,t9:()=>n,vz:()=>s,xS:()=>a});const n=r(3325).D.metrics,i="sm",o="cm",a="storeSupportabilityMetrics",s="storeEventMetrics"},4649:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{t:()=>n});const n=r(3325).D.pageAction},7633:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{Dz:()=>i,OJ:()=>a,qw:()=>o,t9:()=>n});const n=r(3325).D.pageViewEvent,i="firstbyte",o="domcontent",a="windowload"},9251:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{t:()=>n});const n=r(3325).D.pageViewTiming},3614:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{BST_RESOURCE:()=>i,END:()=>s,FEATURE_NAME:()=>n,FN_END:()=>u,FN_START:()=>c,PUSH_STATE:()=>d,RESOURCE:()=>o,START:()=>a});const n=r(3325).D.sessionTrace,i="bstResource",o="resource",a="-start",s="-end",c="fn"+a,u="fn"+s,d="pushState"},7836:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{BODY:()=>A,CB_END:()=>E,CB_START:()=>u,END:()=>x,FEATURE_NAME:()=>i,FETCH:()=>_,FETCH_BODY:()=>v,FETCH_DONE:()=>m,FETCH_START:()=>p,FN_END:()=>c,FN_START:()=>s,INTERACTION:()=>l,INTERACTION_API:()=>d,INTERACTION_EVENTS:()=>o,JSONP_END:()=>b,JSONP_NODE:()=>g,JS_TIME:()=>T,MAX_TIMER_BUDGET:()=>a,REMAINING:()=>f,SPA_NODE:()=>h,START:()=>w,originalSetTimeout:()=>y});var n=r(5763);const i=r(3325).D.spa,o=["click","submit","keypress","keydown","keyup","change"],a=999,s="fn-start",c="fn-end",u="cb-start",d="api-ixn-",f="remaining",l="interaction",h="spaNode",g="jsonpNode",p="fetch-start",m="fetch-done",v="fetch-body-",b="jsonp-end",y=n.Yu.ST,w="-start",x="-end",A="-body",E="cb"+x,T="jsTime",_="fetch"},5938:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{W:()=>o});var n=r(5763),i=r(2177);class o{constructor(e,t,r){this.agentIdentifier=e,this.aggregator=t,this.ee=i.ee.get(e,(0,n.OP)(this.agentIdentifier).isolatedBacklog),this.featureName=r,this.blocked=!1}}},9144:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{j:()=>m});var n=r(3325),i=r(5763),o=r(5546),a=r(2177),s=r(7894),c=r(8e3),u=r(3960),d=r(385),f=r(50),l=r(3081),h=r(8632);function g(){const e=(0,h.gG)();["setErrorHandler","finished","addToTrace","inlineHit","addRelease","addPageAction","setCurrentRouteName","setPageViewName","setCustomAttribute","interaction","noticeError","setUserId"].forEach((t=>{e[t]=function(){for(var r=arguments.length,n=new Array(r),i=0;i 1?r-1:0),i=1;i {e.exposed&&e.api[t]&&o.push(e.api[t](...n))})),o.length>1?o:o[0]}(t,...n)}}))}var p=r(2587);function m(e){let t=arguments.length>1&&void 0!==arguments[1]?arguments[1]:{},m=arguments.length>2?arguments[2]:void 0,v=arguments.length>3?arguments[3]:void 0,{init:b,info:y,loader_config:w,runtime:x={loaderType:m},exposed:A=!0}=t;const E=(0,h.gG)();y||(b=E.init,y=E.info,w=E.loader_config),(0,i.Dg)(e,b||{}),(0,i.GE)(e,w||{}),(0,i.sU)(e,x),y.jsAttributes??={},d.v6&&(y.jsAttributes.isWorker=!0),(0,i.CX)(e,y),g();const T=function(e,t){t||(0,c.R)(e,"api");const h={};var g=a.ee.get(e),p=g.get("tracer"),m="api-",v=m+"ixn-";function b(t,r,n,o){const a=(0,i.C5)(e);return null===r?delete a.jsAttributes[t]:(0,i.CX)(e,{...a,jsAttributes:{...a.jsAttributes,[t]:r}}),x(m,n,!0,o||null===r?"session":void 0)(t,r)}function y(){}["setErrorHandler","finished","addToTrace","inlineHit","addRelease"].forEach((e=>h[e]=x(m,e,!0,"api"))),h.addPageAction=x(m,"addPageAction",!0,n.D.pageAction),h.setCurrentRouteName=x(m,"routeName",!0,n.D.spa),h.setPageViewName=function(t,r){if("string"==typeof t)return"/"!==t.charAt(0)&&(t="/"+t),(0,i.OP)(e).customTransaction=(r||"http://custom.transaction")+t,x(m,"setPageViewName",!0)()},h.setCustomAttribute=function(e,t){let r=arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2]&&arguments[2];if("string"==typeof e){if(["string","number"].includes(typeof t)||null===t)return b(e,t,"setCustomAttribute",r);(0,f.Z)("Failed to execute setCustomAttribute.\nNon-null value must be a string or number type, but a type of was provided."))}else(0,f.Z)("Failed to execute setCustomAttribute.\nName must be a string type, but a type of was provided."))},h.setUserId=function(e){if("string"==typeof e||null===e)return b("enduser.id",e,"setUserId",!0);(0,f.Z)("Failed to execute setUserId.\nNon-null value must be a string type, but a type of was provided."))},h.interaction=function(){return(new y).get()};var w=y.prototype={createTracer:function(e,t){var r={},i=this,a="function"==typeof t;return(0,o.p)(v+"tracer",[(0,s.z)(),e,r],i,n.D.spa,g),function(){if(p.emit((a?"":"no-")+"fn-start",[(0,s.z)(),i,a],r),a)try{return t.apply(this,arguments)}catch(e){throw p.emit("fn-err",[arguments,this,"string"==typeof e?new Error(e):e],r),e}finally{p.emit("fn-end",[(0,s.z)()],r)}}}};function x(e,t,r,i){return function(){return(0,o.p)(l.xS,["API/"+t+"/called"],void 0,n.D.metrics,g),i&&(0,o.p)(e+t,[(0,s.z)(),...arguments],r?null:this,i,g),r?void 0:this}}function A(){r.e(439).then(r.bind(r,7438)).then((t=>{let{setAPI:r}=t;r(e),(0,c.L)(e,"api")})).catch((()=>(0,f.Z)("Downloading runtime APIs failed...")))}return["actionText","setName","setAttribute","save","ignore","onEnd","getContext","end","get"].forEach((e=>{w[e]=x(v,e,void 0,n.D.spa)})),h.noticeError=function(e,t){"string"==typeof e&&(e=new Error(e)),(0,o.p)(l.xS,["API/noticeError/called"],void 0,n.D.metrics,g),(0,o.p)("err",[e,(0,s.z)(),!1,t],void 0,n.D.jserrors,g)},d.il?(0,u.b)((()=>A()),!0):A(),h}(e,v);return(0,h.Qy)(e,T,"api"),(0,h.Qy)(e,A,"exposed"),(0,h.EZ)("activatedFeatures",p.T),T}},3325:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{D:()=>n,p:()=>i});const n={ajax:"ajax",jserrors:"jserrors",metrics:"metrics",pageAction:"page_action",pageViewEvent:"page_view_event",pageViewTiming:"page_view_timing",sessionReplay:"session_replay",sessionTrace:"session_trace",spa:"spa"},i={[n.pageViewEvent]:1,[n.pageViewTiming]:2,[n.metrics]:3,[n.jserrors]:4,[n.ajax]:5,[n.sessionTrace]:6,[n.pageAction]:7,[n.spa]:8,[n.sessionReplay]:9}}},n={};function i(e){var t=n[e];if(void 0!==t)return t.exports;var o=n[e]={exports:{}};return r[e](o,o.exports,i),o.exports}i.m=r,i.d=(e,t)=>{for(var r in t)i.o(t,r)&&!i.o(e,r)&&Object.defineProperty(e,r,{enumerable:!0,get:t[r]})},i.f={},i.e=e=>Promise.all(Object.keys(i.f).reduce(((t,r)=>(i.f[r](e,t),t)),[])),i.u=e=>(({78:"page_action-aggregate",147:"metrics-aggregate",242:"session-manager",317:"jserrors-aggregate",348:"page_view_timing-aggregate",412:"lazy-feature-loader",439:"async-api",538:"recorder",590:"session_replay-aggregate",675:"compressor",733:"session_trace-aggregate",786:"page_view_event-aggregate",873:"spa-aggregate",898:"ajax-aggregate"}[e]||e)+"."+{78:"ac76d497",147:"3dc53903",148:"1a20d5fe",242:"2a64278a",317:"49e41428",348:"bd6de33a",412:"2f55ce66",439:"30bd804e",538:"1b18459f",590:"cf0efb30",675:"ae9f91a8",733:"83105561",786:"06482edd",860:"03a8b7a5",873:"e6b09d52",898:"998ef92b"}[e]+"-1.236.0.min.js"),i.o=(e,t)=>Object.prototype.hasOwnProperty.call(e,t),e={},t="NRBA:",i.l=(r,n,o,a)=>{if(e[r])e[r].push(n);else{var s,c;if(void 0!==o)for(var u=document.getElementsByTagName("script"),d=0;d {s.onerror=s.onload=null,clearTimeout(h);var i=e[r];if(delete e[r],s.parentNode&&s.parentNode.removeChild(s),i&&i.forEach((e=>e(n))),t)return t(n)},h=setTimeout(l.bind(null,void 0,{type:"timeout",target:s}),12e4);s.onerror=l.bind(null,s.onerror),s.onload=l.bind(null,s.onload),c&&document.head.appendChild(s)}},i.r=e=>{"undefined"!=typeof Symbol&&Symbol.toStringTag&&Object.defineProperty(e,Symbol.toStringTag,{value:"Module"}),Object.defineProperty(e,"__esModule",{value:!0})},i.j=364,i.p="https://js-agent.newrelic.com/",(()=>{var e={364:0,953:0};i.f.j=(t,r)=>{var n=i.o(e,t)?e[t]:void 0;if(0!==n)if(n)r.push(n[2]);else{var o=new Promise(((r,i)=>n=e[t]=[r,i]));r.push(n[2]=o);var a=i.p+i.u(t),s=new Error;i.l(a,(r=>{if(i.o(e,t)&&(0!==(n=e[t])&&(e[t]=void 0),n)){var o=r&&("load"===r.type?"missing":r.type),a=r&&r.target&&r.target.src;s.message="Loading chunk "+t+" failed.\n("+o+": "+a+")",s.name="ChunkLoadError",s.type=o,s.request=a,n[1](s)}}),"chunk-"+t,t)}};var t=(t,r)=>{var n,o,[a,s,c]=r,u=0;if(a.some((t=>0!==e[t]))){for(n in s)i.o(s,n)&&(i.m[n]=s[n]);if(c)c(i)}for(t&&t(r);u {i.r(o);var e=i(3325),t=i(5763);const r=Object.values(e.D);function n(e){const n={};return r.forEach((r=>{n[r]=function(e,r){return!1!==(0,t.Mt)(r,"".concat(e,".enabled"))}(r,e)})),n}var a=i(9144);var s=i(5546),c=i(385),u=i(8e3),d=i(5938),f=i(3960),l=i(50);class h extends d.W{constructor(e,t,r){let n=!(arguments.length>3&&void 0!==arguments[3])||arguments[3];super(e,t,r),this.auto=n,this.abortHandler,this.featAggregate,this.onAggregateImported,n&&(0,u.R)(e,r)}importAggregator(){let e=arguments.length>0&&void 0!==arguments[0]?arguments[0]:{};if(this.featAggregate||!this.auto)return;const r=c.il&&!0===(0,t.Mt)(this.agentIdentifier,"privacy.cookies_enabled");let n;this.onAggregateImported=new Promise((e=>{n=e}));const o=async()=>{let t;try{if(r){const{setupAgentSession:e}=await Promise.all([i.e(860),i.e(242)]).then(i.bind(i,3228));t=e(this.agentIdentifier)}}catch(e){(0,l.Z)("A problem occurred when starting up session manager. This page will not start or extend any session.",e)}try{if(!this.shouldImportAgg(this.featureName,t))return void(0,u.L)(this.agentIdentifier,this.featureName);const{lazyFeatureLoader:r}=await i.e(412).then(i.bind(i,8582)),{Aggregate:o}=await r(this.featureName,"aggregate");this.featAggregate=new o(this.agentIdentifier,this.aggregator,e),n(!0)}catch(e){(0,l.Z)("Downloading and initializing ".concat(this.featureName," failed..."),e),this.abortHandler?.(),n(!1)}};c.il?(0,f.b)((()=>o()),!0):o()}shouldImportAgg(r,n){return r!==e.D.sessionReplay||!1!==(0,t.Mt)(this.agentIdentifier,"session_trace.enabled")&&(!!n?.isNew||!!n?.state.sessionReplay)}}var g=i(7633),p=i(7894);class m extends h{static featureName=g.t9;constructor(r,n){let i=!(arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2];if(super(r,n,g.t9,i),("undefined"==typeof PerformanceNavigationTiming||c.Tt)&&"undefined"!=typeof PerformanceTiming){const n=(0,t.OP)(r);n[g.Dz]=Math.max(Date.now()-n.offset,0),(0,f.K)((()=>n[g.qw]=Math.max((0,p.z)()-n[g.Dz],0))),(0,f.b)((()=>{const t=(0,p.z)();n[g.OJ]=Math.max(t-n[g.Dz],0),(0,s.p)("timing",["load",t],void 0,e.D.pageViewTiming,this.ee)}))}this.importAggregator()}}var v=i(1117),b=i(1284);class y extends v.w{constructor(e){super(e),this.aggregatedData={}}store(e,t,r,n,i){var o=this.getBucket(e,t,r,i);return o.metrics=function(e,t){t||(t={count:0});return t.count+=1,(0,b.D)(e,(function(e,r){t[e]=w(r,t[e])})),t}(n,o.metrics),o}merge(e,t,r,n,i){var o=this.getBucket(e,t,n,i);if(o.metrics){var a=o.metrics;a.count+=r.count,(0,b.D)(r,(function(e,t){if("count"!==e){var n=a[e],i=r[e];i&&!i.c?a[e]=w(i.t,n):a[e]=function(e,t){if(!t)return e;t.c||(t=x(t.t));return t.min=Math.min(e.min,t.min),t.max=Math.max(e.max,t.max),t.t+=e.t,t.sos+=e.sos,t.c+=e.c,t}(i,a[e])}}))}else o.metrics=r}storeMetric(e,t,r,n){var i=this.getBucket(e,t,r);return i.stats=w(n,i.stats),i}getBucket(e,t,r,n){this.aggregatedData[e]||(this.aggregatedData[e]={});var i=this.aggregatedData[e][t];return i||(i=this.aggregatedData[e][t]={params:r||{}},n&&(i.custom=n)),i}get(e,t){return t?this.aggregatedData[e]&&this.aggregatedData[e][t]:this.aggregatedData[e]}take(e){for(var t={},r="",n=!1,i=0;i t.max&&(t.max=e),e 2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2];super(e,r,j.t,n),c.il&&((0,t.OP)(e).initHidden=Boolean("hidden"===document.visibilityState),(0,N.N)((()=>(0,s.p)("docHidden",[(0,p.z)()],void 0,j.t,this.ee)),!0),(0,O.bP)("pagehide",(()=>(0,s.p)("winPagehide",[(0,p.z)()],void 0,j.t,this.ee))),this.importAggregator())}}var P=i(3081);class C extends h{static featureName=P.t9;constructor(e,t){let r=!(arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2];super(e,t,P.t9,r),this.importAggregator()}}var R,I=i(2210),k=i(1214),H=i(2177),L={};try{R=localStorage.getItem("__nr_flags").split(","),console&&"function"==typeof console.log&&(L.console=!0,-1!==R.indexOf("dev")&&(L.dev=!0),-1!==R.indexOf("nr_dev")&&(L.nrDev=!0))}catch(e){}function z(e){try{L.console&&z(e)}catch(e){}}L.nrDev&&H.ee.on("internal-error",(function(e){z(e.stack)})),L.dev&&H.ee.on("fn-err",(function(e,t,r){z(r.stack)})),L.dev&&(z("NR AGENT IN DEVELOPMENT MODE"),z("flags: "+(0,b.D)(L,(function(e,t){return e})).join(", ")));var M=i(6660);class B extends h{static featureName=M.t;constructor(r,n){let i=!(arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2];super(r,n,M.t,i),this.skipNext=0;try{this.removeOnAbort=new AbortController}catch(e){}const o=this;o.ee.on("fn-start",(function(e,t,r){o.abortHandler&&(o.skipNext+=1)})),o.ee.on("fn-err",(function(t,r,n){o.abortHandler&&!n[M.A]&&((0,I.X)(n,M.A,(function(){return!0})),this.thrown=!0,(0,s.p)("err",[n,(0,p.z)()],void 0,e.D.jserrors,o.ee))})),o.ee.on("fn-end",(function(){o.abortHandler&&!this.thrown&&o.skipNext>0&&(o.skipNext-=1)})),o.ee.on("internal-error",(function(t){(0,s.p)("ierr",[t,(0,p.z)(),!0],void 0,e.D.jserrors,o.ee)})),this.origOnerror=c._A.onerror,c._A.onerror=this.onerrorHandler.bind(this),c._A.addEventListener("unhandledrejection",(t=>{const r=function(e){let t="Unhandled Promise Rejection: ";if(e instanceof Error)try{return e.message=t+e.message,e}catch(t){return e}if(void 0===e)return new Error(t);try{return new Error(t+(0,D.P)(e))}catch(e){return new Error(t)}}(t.reason);(0,s.p)("err",[r,(0,p.z)(),!1,{unhandledPromiseRejection:1}],void 0,e.D.jserrors,this.ee)}),(0,O.m$)(!1,this.removeOnAbort?.signal)),(0,k.gy)(this.ee),(0,k.BV)(this.ee),(0,k.em)(this.ee),(0,t.OP)(r).xhrWrappable&&(0,k.Kf)(this.ee),this.abortHandler=this.#e,this.importAggregator()}#e(){this.removeOnAbort?.abort(),this.abortHandler=void 0}onerrorHandler(t,r,n,i,o){"function"==typeof this.origOnerror&&this.origOnerror(...arguments);try{this.skipNext?this.skipNext-=1:(0,s.p)("err",[o||new F(t,r,n),(0,p.z)()],void 0,e.D.jserrors,this.ee)}catch(t){try{(0,s.p)("ierr",[t,(0,p.z)(),!0],void 0,e.D.jserrors,this.ee)}catch(e){}}return!1}}function F(e,t,r){this.message=e||"Uncaught error with no additional information",this.sourceURL=t,this.line=r}let U=1;const q="nr@id";function G(e){const t=typeof e;return!e||"object"!==t&&"function"!==t?-1:e===c._A?0:(0,I.X)(e,q,(function(){return U++}))}function V(e){if("string"==typeof e&&e.length)return e.length;if("object"==typeof e){if("undefined"!=typeof ArrayBuffer&&e instanceof ArrayBuffer&&e.byteLength)return e.byteLength;if("undefined"!=typeof Blob&&e instanceof Blob&&e.size)return e.size;if(!("undefined"!=typeof FormData&&e instanceof FormData))try{return(0,D.P)(e).length}catch(e){return}}}var X=i(7243);class W{constructor(e){this.agentIdentifier=e,this.generateTracePayload=this.generateTracePayload.bind(this),this.shouldGenerateTrace=this.shouldGenerateTrace.bind(this)}generateTracePayload(e){if(!this.shouldGenerateTrace(e))return null;var r=(0,t.DL)(this.agentIdentifier);if(!r)return null;var n=(r.accountID||"").toString()||null,i=(r.agentID||"").toString()||null,o=(r.trustKey||"").toString()||null;if(!n||!i)return null;var a=(0,_.M)(),s=(0,_.Ht)(),c=Date.now(),u={spanId:a,traceId:s,timestamp:c};return(e.sameOrigin||this.isAllowedOrigin(e)&&this.useTraceContextHeadersForCors())&&(u.traceContextParentHeader=this.generateTraceContextParentHeader(a,s),u.traceContextStateHeader=this.generateTraceContextStateHeader(a,c,n,i,o)),(e.sameOrigin&&!this.excludeNewrelicHeader()||!e.sameOrigin&&this.isAllowedOrigin(e)&&this.useNewrelicHeaderForCors())&&(u.newrelicHeader=this.generateTraceHeader(a,s,c,n,i,o)),u}generateTraceContextParentHeader(e,t){return"00-"+t+"-"+e+"-01"}generateTraceContextStateHeader(e,t,r,n,i){return i+"@nr=0-1-"+r+"-"+n+"-"+e+"----"+t}generateTraceHeader(e,t,r,n,i,o){if(!("function"==typeof c._A?.btoa))return null;var a={v:[0,1],d:{ty:"Browser",ac:n,ap:i,id:e,tr:t,ti:r}};return o&&n!==o&&(a.d.tk=o),btoa((0,D.P)(a))}shouldGenerateTrace(e){return this.isDtEnabled()&&this.isAllowedOrigin(e)}isAllowedOrigin(e){var r=!1,n={};if((0,t.Mt)(this.agentIdentifier,"distributed_tracing")&&(n=(0,t.P_)(this.agentIdentifier).distributed_tracing),e.sameOrigin)r=!0;else if(n.allowed_origins instanceof Array)for(var i=0;i 2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2];super(r,n,Z.t,i),(0,t.OP)(r).xhrWrappable&&(this.dt=new W(r),this.handler=(e,t,r,n)=>(0,s.p)(e,t,r,n,this.ee),(0,k.u5)(this.ee),(0,k.Kf)(this.ee),function(r,n,i,o){function a(e){var t=this;t.totalCbs=0,t.called=0,t.cbTime=0,t.end=E,t.ended=!1,t.xhrGuids={},t.lastSize=null,t.loadCaptureCalled=!1,t.params=this.params||{},t.metrics=this.metrics||{},e.addEventListener("load",(function(r){_(t,e)}),(0,O.m$)(!1)),c.IF||e.addEventListener("progress",(function(e){t.lastSize=e.loaded}),(0,O.m$)(!1))}function s(e){this.params={method:e[0]},T(this,e[1]),this.metrics={}}function u(e,n){var i=(0,t.DL)(r);i.xpid&&this.sameOrigin&&n.setRequestHeader("X-NewRelic-ID",i.xpid);var a=o.generateTracePayload(this.parsedOrigin);if(a){var s=!1;a.newrelicHeader&&(n.setRequestHeader("newrelic",a.newrelicHeader),s=!0),a.traceContextParentHeader&&(n.setRequestHeader("traceparent",a.traceContextParentHeader),a.traceContextStateHeader&&n.setRequestHeader("tracestate",a.traceContextStateHeader),s=!0),s&&(this.dt=a)}}function d(e,t){var r=this.metrics,i=e[0],o=this;if(r&&i){var a=V(i);a&&(r.txSize=a)}this.startTime=(0,p.z)(),this.listener=function(e){try{"abort"!==e.type||o.loadCaptureCalled||(o.params.aborted=!0),("load"!==e.type||o.called===o.totalCbs&&(o.onloadCalled||"function"!=typeof t.onload)&&"function"==typeof o.end)&&o.end(t)}catch(e){try{n.emit("internal-error",[e])}catch(e){}}};for(var s=0;s 1?e[1]=i:e.push(i)}else e[0]&&e[0].headers&&s(e[0].headers,n)&&(this.dt=n);function s(e,t){var r=!1;return t.newrelicHeader&&(e.set("newrelic",t.newrelicHeader),r=!0),t.traceContextParentHeader&&(e.set("traceparent",t.traceContextParentHeader),t.traceContextStateHeader&&e.set("tracestate",t.traceContextStateHeader),r=!0),r}}function x(e,t){this.params={},this.metrics={},this.startTime=(0,p.z)(),this.dt=t,e.length>=1&&(this.target=e[0]),e.length>=2&&(this.opts=e[1]);var r,n=this.opts||{},i=this.target;"string"==typeof i?r=i:"object"==typeof i&&i instanceof Y?r=i.url:c._A?.URL&&"object"==typeof i&&i instanceof URL&&(r=i.href),T(this,r);var o=(""+(i&&i instanceof Y&&i.method||n.method||"GET")).toUpperCase();this.params.method=o,this.txSize=V(n.body)||0}function A(t,r){var n;this.endTime=(0,p.z)(),this.params||(this.params={}),this.params.status=r?r.status:0,"string"==typeof this.rxSize&&this.rxSize.length>0&&(n=+this.rxSize);var o={txSize:this.txSize,rxSize:n,duration:(0,p.z)()-this.startTime};i("xhr",[this.params,o,this.startTime,this.endTime,"fetch"],this,e.D.ajax)}function E(t){var r=this.params,n=this.metrics;if(!this.ended){this.ended=!0;for(var o=0;o 2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2];super(e,t,we.t,r),this.importAggregator()}}new class{constructor(e){let t=arguments.length>1&&void 0!==arguments[1]?arguments[1]:(0,_.ky)(16);c._A?(this.agentIdentifier=t,this.sharedAggregator=new y({agentIdentifier:this.agentIdentifier}),this.features={},this.desiredFeatures=new Set(e.features||[]),this.desiredFeatures.add(m),Object.assign(this,(0,a.j)(this.agentIdentifier,e,e.loaderType||"agent")),this.start()):(0,l.Z)("Failed to initial the agent. Could not determine the runtime environment.")}get config(){return{info:(0,t.C5)(this.agentIdentifier),init:(0,t.P_)(this.agentIdentifier),loader_config:(0,t.DL)(this.agentIdentifier),runtime:(0,t.OP)(this.agentIdentifier)}}start(){const t="features";try{const r=n(this.agentIdentifier),i=[...this.desiredFeatures];i.sort(((t,r)=>e.p[t.featureName]-e.p[r.featureName])),i.forEach((t=>{if(r[t.featureName]||t.featureName===e.D.pageViewEvent){const n=function(t){switch(t){case e.D.ajax:return[e.D.jserrors];case e.D.sessionTrace:return[e.D.ajax,e.D.pageViewEvent];case e.D.sessionReplay:return[e.D.sessionTrace];case e.D.pageViewTiming:return[e.D.pageViewEvent];default:return[]}}(t.featureName);n.every((e=>r[e]))||(0,l.Z)("".concat(t.featureName," is enabled but one or more dependent features has been disabled (").concat((0,D.P)(n),"). This may cause unintended consequences or missing data...")),this.features[t.featureName]=new t(this.agentIdentifier,this.sharedAggregator)}})),(0,T.Qy)(this.agentIdentifier,this.features,t)}catch(e){(0,l.Z)("Failed to initialize all enabled instrument classes (agent aborted) -",e);for(const e in this.features)this.features[e].abortHandler?.();const r=(0,T.fP)();return delete r.initializedAgents[this.agentIdentifier]?.api,delete r.initializedAgents[this.agentIdentifier]?.[t],delete this.sharedAggregator,r.ee?.abort(),delete r.ee?.get(this.agentIdentifier),!1}}}({features:[J,m,S,class extends h{static featureName=oe;constructor(t,r){if(super(t,r,oe,!(arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2]),!c.il)return;const n=this.ee;let i;(0,k.QU)(n),this.eventsEE=(0,k.em)(n),this.eventsEE.on(se,(function(e,t){this.bstStart=(0,p.z)()})),this.eventsEE.on(ae,(function(t,r){(0,s.p)("bst",[t[0],r,this.bstStart,(0,p.z)()],void 0,e.D.sessionTrace,n)})),n.on(ce+ne,(function(e){this.time=(0,p.z)(),this.startPath=location.pathname+location.hash})),n.on(ce+ie,(function(t){(0,s.p)("bstHist",[location.pathname+location.hash,this.startPath,this.time],void 0,e.D.sessionTrace,n)}));try{i=new PerformanceObserver((t=>{const r=t.getEntries();(0,s.p)(te,[r],void 0,e.D.sessionTrace,n)})),i.observe({type:re,buffered:!0})}catch(e){}this.importAggregator({resourceObserver:i})}},C,xe,B,class extends h{static featureName=de;constructor(e,r){if(super(e,r,de,!(arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2]),!c.il)return;if(!(0,t.OP)(e).xhrWrappable)return;try{this.removeOnAbort=new AbortController}catch(e){}let n,i=0;const o=this.ee.get("tracer"),a=(0,k._L)(this.ee),s=(0,k.Lg)(this.ee),u=(0,k.BV)(this.ee),d=(0,k.Kf)(this.ee),f=this.ee.get("events"),l=(0,k.u5)(this.ee),h=(0,k.QU)(this.ee),g=(0,k.Gm)(this.ee);function m(e,t){h.emit("newURL",[""+window.location,t])}function v(){i++,n=window.location.hash,this[ve]=(0,p.z)()}function b(){i--,window.location.hash!==n&&m(0,!0);var e=(0,p.z)();this[pe]=~~this[pe]+e-this[ve],this[ye]=e}function y(e,t){e.on(t,(function(){this[t]=(0,p.z)()}))}this.ee.on(ve,v),s.on(be,v),a.on(be,v),this.ee.on(ye,b),s.on(ge,b),a.on(ge,b),this.ee.buffer([ve,ye,"xhr-resolved"],this.featureName),f.buffer([ve],this.featureName),u.buffer(["setTimeout"+le,"clearTimeout"+fe,ve],this.featureName),d.buffer([ve,"new-xhr","send-xhr"+fe],this.featureName),l.buffer([me+fe,me+"-done",me+he+fe,me+he+le],this.featureName),h.buffer(["newURL"],this.featureName),g.buffer([ve],this.featureName),s.buffer(["propagate",be,ge,"executor-err","resolve"+fe],this.featureName),o.buffer([ve,"no-"+ve],this.featureName),a.buffer(["new-jsonp","cb-start","jsonp-error","jsonp-end"],this.featureName),y(l,me+fe),y(l,me+"-done"),y(a,"new-jsonp"),y(a,"jsonp-end"),y(a,"cb-start"),h.on("pushState-end",m),h.on("replaceState-end",m),window.addEventListener("hashchange",m,(0,O.m$)(!0,this.removeOnAbort?.signal)),window.addEventListener("load",m,(0,O.m$)(!0,this.removeOnAbort?.signal)),window.addEventListener("popstate",(function(){m(0,i>1)}),(0,O.m$)(!0,this.removeOnAbort?.signal)),this.abortHandler=this.#e,this.importAggregator()}#e(){this.removeOnAbort?.abort(),this.abortHandler=void 0}}],loaderType:"spa"})})(),window.NRBA=o})(); window.jQuery || document.write(' ') CKEDITOR_BASEPATH='https://f1000research.com/js/vendor/ckeditor/' window.reactTheme = 'research'; window.MathJax = { CommonHTML: { linebreaks: { automatic: true } }, 'HTML-CSS': { linebreaks: { automatic: true } }, SVG: { linebreaks: { automatic: true } }, AuthorInit: function() { MathJax.Hub.Register.MessageHook('End Process', function () { let timeout = false; // holder for timeout id const delay = 250; // delay after event is "complete" to run callback const reflowMath = function() { const dispFormulas = document.querySelectorAll('.disp-formula.panel'); if (!dispFormulas) { return; } for (const dispFormula of dispFormulas) { const child = dispFormula.querySelector('.MathJax_Preview').nextSibling.firstChild; const isMultiline = MathJax.Hub.getAllJax(dispFormula)[0].root.isMultiline; if (dispFormula.offsetWidth < child.offsetWidth || isMultiline) { MathJax.Hub.Queue(['Rerender', MathJax.Hub, dispFormula]); } } }; window.addEventListener('resize', function() { clearTimeout(timeout); // clear the timeout timeout = setTimeout(reflowMath, delay); // start timing for event "completion" }); }); }, }; if (window.location.hash == '#_=_'){ window.location = window.location.href.split('#')[0] } !function(f,b,e,v,n,t,s){if(f.fbq)return;n=f.fbq=function() {n.callMethod? n.callMethod.apply(n,arguments):n.queue.push(arguments)} ;if(!f._fbq)f._fbq=n; n.push=n;n.loaded=!0;n.version='2.0';n.queue=[];t=b.createElement(e);t.async=!0; t.src=v;s=b.getElementsByTagName(e)[0];s.parentNode.insertBefore(t,s)}(window, document,'script','https://connect.facebook.net/en_US/fbevents.js'); fbq('init', '1641728616063202'); fbq('track', "PixelInitialized", {}); (function(h,o,t,j,a,r){ h.hj=h.hj||function(){(h.hj.q=h.hj.q||[]).push(arguments)}; h._hjSettings={hjid:2318163,hjsv:6}; a=o.getElementsByTagName('head')[0]; r=o.createElement('script');r.async=1; r.src=t+h._hjSettings.hjid+j+h._hjSettings.hjsv; a.appendChild(r); })(window,document,'https://static.hotjar.com/c/hotjar-','.js?sv='); search file_upload Submit your research search menu close search Browse Gateways & Collections How to Publish Submit your Research My Submissions Article Guidelines Article Guidelines (New Versions) Open Data, Software and Code Guidelines Open Data and Accessible Source Materials Guidelines (HSS) Open Data, Software and Code Guidelines (PSE) Prepublication Checks Production Process Posters and Slides Guidelines Document Guidelines Article Processing Charges Peer Review Finding Article Reviewers About How it Works For Reviewers Our Advisors Policies Glossary FAQs For Developers Newsroom Contact My Research Submissions Content and Tracking Alerts My Details Sign In file_upload Submit your research { "@context": "https://schema.org", "@type": "ScholarlyArticle", "mainEntityOfPage": { "@type": "WebPage", "@id": "https://f1000research.com/articles/13-975" }, "headline": "Validating instructional practice scale for university instructors in Ethiopia", "datePublished": "2024-08-28T17:34:33", "dateModified": "2025-05-07T16:01:16", "author": [ { "@type": "Person", "name": "Anemut Mehari" }, { "@type": "Person", "name": "Bezina Kassahun" }, { "@type": "Person", "name": "Hana Berhanu" }, { "@type": "Person", "name": "Biniam Birru" }, { "@type": "Person", "name": "Tarkegn T.Gemeda" } ], "publisher": { "@type": "Organization", "name": "F1000Research", "logo": { "@type": "ImageObject", "url": "https://f1000research.com/img/AMP/F1000Research_image.png", "height": 480, "width": 60 } }, "image": { "@type": "ImageObject", "url": "https://f1000research.com/img/AMP/F1000Research_image.png", "height": 1200, "width": 150 }, "description": " Background Measurement is essential for methods of instruction to be successful. Having an instrument that is reliable and validated in the given setting is vital. The primary goal of this research project is to validate the instructional practice scale (IPS) for university instructors in the Ethiopian context. Methods By implementing a cross-sectional descriptive survey research design, 1,254 participants across four public universities – Arbaminch, Dilla, Wachamo, and Jinka representing the first, second, third, and fourth generations, respectively were randomly selected and participated. The data was split in half and underwent an exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). Results The three components of the EFA were alternately filled with seventeen items that satisfied certain standards, had a loading value of > .5, and a Cronbach alpha of ≥ .874. The factors identified in the EFA have been confirmed to be the thirteen items with loading, Cronbach alpha, Raykov’s rho coefficient (rho_A), composite reliability (CR) value of >.7, and Average Variance Explained (AVE) value of > .5. Tests of measurement and structural models showed a good fit. The Fornell-Larcker criterion, which is employed in discriminant validity analysis, demonstrates that the square root of the AVE for each construct is higher than the correlation it exhibits with other constructs. The correlations’ heterotrait–monotrait (HTMT) ratio is getting close to zero, and there isn’t one in the confidence interval at the.05 significance level. Both guaranteed strong discriminant validity. Conclusion For university instructors, the 13 items generally have powerful psychometric properties. The three subsections of the instruction practice scale—planning (4 indicators), delivering (4 indicators), and assessment (5 indicators) — are meant to measure the instructional practice effectively. Implications of the findings were further discussed. " } { "@context": "http://schema.org", "@type": "BreadcrumbList", "itemListElement": [ { "@type": "ListItem", "position": "1", "item": { "@id": "https://f1000research.com/", "name": "Home" } }, { "@type": "ListItem", "position": "2", "item": { "@id": "https://f1000research.com/browse/articles", "name": "Browse" } }, { "@type": "ListItem", "position": "3", "item": { "@id": "https://f1000research.com/articles/13-975/v1", "name": "Validating instructional practice scale for university instructors..." } } ] } Home Browse Validating instructional practice scale for university instructors... ALL Metrics - Views Downloads Get PDF Get XML Cite How to cite this article Mehari A, Kassahun B, Berhanu H et al. Validating instructional practice scale for university instructors in Ethiopia [version 1; peer review: 1 approved with reservations] . F1000Research 2024, 13 :975 ( https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.152815.1 ) NOTE: If applicable, it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article. Close Copy Citation Details Export Export Citation Sciwheel EndNote Ref. Manager Bibtex ProCite Sente EXPORT Select a format first Track Share ▬ ✚ Research Article Validating instructional practice scale for university instructors in Ethiopia [version 1; peer review: 1 approved with reservations] Anemut Mehari https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8573-2144 1 , Bezina Kassahun https://orcid.org/0009-0006-1329-349X 1 , Hana Berhanu 1 , Biniam Birru 1 , Tarkegn T.Gemeda https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4806-2134 1 Anemut Mehari https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8573-2144 1 , Bezina Kassahun https://orcid.org/0009-0006-1329-349X 1 , [...] Hana Berhanu 1 , Biniam Birru 1 , Tarkegn T.Gemeda https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4806-2134 1 PUBLISHED 28 Aug 2024 Author details Author details 1 Dilla University, Dilla, Southern Nations, Nationalities, and People's Region, Ethiopia Anemut Mehari Roles: Conceptualization, Data Curation, Funding Acquisition, Investigation, Methodology, Software, Validation, Visualization, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing Bezina Kassahun Roles: Conceptualization, Funding Acquisition, Investigation Hana Berhanu Roles: Conceptualization, Methodology, Validation Biniam Birru Roles: Data Curation, Formal Analysis, Resources, Writing – Original Draft Preparation Tarkegn T.Gemeda Roles: Conceptualization, Data Curation, Formal Analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Software, Supervision, Validation, Visualization, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing OPEN PEER REVIEW DETAILS REVIEWER STATUS Abstract Background Measurement is essential for methods of instruction to be successful. Having an instrument that is reliable and validated in the given setting is vital. The primary goal of this research project is to validate the instructional practice scale (IPS) for university instructors in the Ethiopian context. Methods By implementing a cross-sectional descriptive survey research design, 1,254 participants across four public universities – Arbaminch, Dilla, Wachamo, and Jinka representing the first, second, third, and fourth generations, respectively were randomly selected and participated. The data was split in half and underwent an exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). Results The three components of the EFA were alternately filled with seventeen items that satisfied certain standards, had a loading value of > .5, and a Cronbach alpha of ≥ .874. The factors identified in the EFA have been confirmed to be the thirteen items with loading, Cronbach alpha, Raykov’s rho coefficient (rho_A), composite reliability (CR) value of >.7, and Average Variance Explained (AVE) value of > .5. Tests of measurement and structural models showed a good fit. The Fornell-Larcker criterion, which is employed in discriminant validity analysis, demonstrates that the square root of the AVE for each construct is higher than the correlation it exhibits with other constructs. The correlations’ heterotrait–monotrait (HTMT) ratio is getting close to zero, and there isn’t one in the confidence interval at the.05 significance level. Both guaranteed strong discriminant validity. Conclusion For university instructors, the 13 items generally have powerful psychometric properties. The three subsections of the instruction practice scale—planning (4 indicators), delivering (4 indicators), and assessment (5 indicators) — are meant to measure the instructional practice effectively. Implications of the findings were further discussed. READ ALL READ LESS Keywords Instructional practice, public university instructors, validation, factor analysis Corresponding Author(s) Anemut Mehari ( [email protected] ) Close Corresponding author: Anemut Mehari Competing interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Grant information: The study is funded by Dilla University The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. Copyright: © 2024 Mehari A et al . This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. The author(s) is/are employees of the US Government and therefore domestic copyright protection in USA does not apply to this work. The work may be protected under the copyright laws of other jurisdictions when used in those jurisdictions. How to cite: Mehari A, Kassahun B, Berhanu H et al. Validating instructional practice scale for university instructors in Ethiopia [version 1; peer review: 1 approved with reservations] . F1000Research 2024, 13 :975 ( https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.152815.1 ) First published: 28 Aug 2024, 13 :975 ( https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.152815.1 ) Latest published: 07 May 2025, 13 :975 ( https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.152815.2 )  There is a newer version of this article available. Suppress this message for one day. 1. Introduction One of the most important factors in encouraging students to learn and succeed better is the instructors’ instructional practice. In a transmission model of teaching, a teacher imparts knowledge and students absorb it passively ( Emanalia, 2017 ). Traditionally, instructional practice—also referred to as teacher-centred practice—is a formal and controlled instructional practice where the instructor plans what, when, and how students learn ( Horvat-Samardžija, 2011 ). An alternative view of instructional practice highlights the needs and viewpoints of pupils. How, what, and when learning occurs is set by both the instructor and the pupils ( Horvat-Samardžija, 2011 ). In addition, it was stated by Saleh and Jing (2020) that teachers were the ones who created the lesson in the classroom. Similarly, Bibon (2022) addresses it from the standpoint of how educational institutions organize or plan, implement or deliver, and evaluate or assess their students’ learning. Research indicates that teachers, a lack of course materials, students’ disinterest in the subject, and ineffective teaching strategies are all important factors influencing students’ performance ( Majo, 2016 ). In fact, significant funds are allocated to enhancing institutions and developing educational materials to augment students’ performance ( Barrett, 2018 ). Nonetheless, there have been initiatives to deliver education; Open University (2018) and Iglesias (2016) , for instance, modified the science curriculum to provide instruction that enhances student learning. This generally suggests that instrument validation intended to evaluate one of the essential components of success—that is, instructional practice—is either not prioritized or is not given enough weight. Competency-based assessments utilizing instruments that have been contextually validated have lagged despite the amplification of the instruction issue. Many academics evaluate teaching or instructional practices from diverse angles. Learner-centred teaching practices, such as those found in Sarwar, Zerpa, Hachey, Simon, & Barneveld (2012) ; classroom organization, student orientation, and enhanced activities-based measures that were adapted from the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) (2009) ; high school instructional practice measures that emphasize a focus on people ( Fischer, Fishman, Dede, Eisenkraft, Frumin, Foster,… McCoy, 2018 ); performance criteria-based measures ( Zemelman, Daniels & Hyde, 2005 ); teaching for conceptual understanding measures ( Mullis, Martin, Gonzalez, Gregory, Garden, O’Connor, & Smith, 2000 ); and observations ( Saleh & Jing, 2020 ). Neither of them speaks of every stage of instructional practice, from preparation to evaluation. By assessment, Bibon (2022) addresses these kinds of problems. Collecting the items from Abundo (2019) , Benosa (2018) , and Sergio (2018) into components related to instructional planning, delivery, and assessment, Bibon (2022) addresses these kinds of problems. In general, we validated the instructional practice scale to more accurately assess the construct in the context of Ethiopian university instructors, presuming that the Ministry of Education would provide freshman students with uniform learning modules. Measuring this construct using a validated instrument is essential to gaining knowledge of it, effectively conveying that to others, and making necessary corrections. A construct needs to be evaluated using a reliable and appropriate in-context tool to obtain its images. In light of this, the following goals of the study were set: ✓ Investigate the fundamental factor structures in instructional practice in EFA. ✓ Verify the structures discovered using exploratory factor analysis. ✓ Assess the tool’s psychometric qualities, such as validity and reliability, in the setting of Ethiopian public university instructors. 2. Methods 2.1 Study design, setting, and the instrument The purpose of this study was to validate the instructional practice tool in the context of Ethiopian public university instructors. Hence, we employed a cross-sectional descriptive survey method to gather data from the target population at certain points in time. We randomly select the southern part of the country. All eight universities identified in it, are categorized based on generation (year of establishment). Four public universities—Arbaminch, Dilla, Wachamo, and Jinka—representing the first, second, third, and fourth generations, respectively, were utilized to select participants. The items were first developed by Abundo (2019) , Benosa (2018) , and Sergio (2018) to account for the instructional practice of teachers through classroom observations to compile their thesis at Bicol University. By 2022, Bibon extracted those items and compiled them in the form of a scale responded in five alternative responses - never, rare, sometimes, frequently, and always. Grounding on the constructivism of teaching and learning and the suggestion of educational institutions, Bibon (2022) classified into three categories of instructional practice. These include—planning (8 indicators), delivering (9 indicators), and assessing (8 indicators)—the scale is meant to measure the instructions used by scientific teachers. In his study, the scale’s Cronbach alpha of .86 indicated better internal consistency when assessing the construct. 2.2 Population (or participants and sampling) The study’s target population consisted of instructors at Arbaminch, Dilla, Wachamo, and Jinka universities. Various sample sizes have been suggested to perform factor analysis. For instance, the following criteria are deemed excellent: at least ten times as many subjects as variables ( Everitt, 1975 ; Nunnally, 1978 ); at least 100 subjects ( Gorsuch, 1983 ; Kline, 1994 ); sample size to the number of variables (e.g., three to six subjects per variable) ( Cattell, 1978 ); sample size-to-parameter ratio of 20:1 ( Jackson, 2003 ); and 50 - Very poor, 100 - poor, 200 - fair, 300 - good, 500 - very good, and 1,000 or more scale of sample adequacy are excellent ( Comrey & Lee, 1992 ). According to Comrey and Lee, a total of 1300 individuals were chosen to detect structures, representing an excellent sample size (1000) accounting for a maximum response error of 30%. Kothari’s (2004) stratified proportional sample size formula, nh = (Nh/N)*n, was employed to draw participants proportionally from the four universities. Where N represents the entire population size, Nh represents the sample size for the h th stratum, nh represents the sample size, and n is the sample size. Therefore, nh calculated as follows: 432 for Arbaminch University out of 1,720 instructors, 318 for Dilla University out of 1,263 instructors, 281 for Wachamo out of 1,119 instructors, and 269 for Jinka University out of 1,069 instructors, assuming N = 5,171 and n = 1300. Since they were either inadequately completed, incomplete, or not returned, 46 response papers were removed. The 1,254-participant data were randomly divided into two groups, 627 participants in each group. The data was then utilized to find patterns of structure and confirm them using confirmatory factor analysis (627). 2.3 Procedures 2.3.1 Content validity evaluation According to Almohanna, Win, Meedya, and Vlahu-Gjorgievska (2022) , reliable instruments yield reliable data. Lawshe’s (1975) content validity quantitative evaluation method was used to evaluate each item by nine experienced subject matter experts (SMEs) from the following fields: social psychology, educational planning and management, curriculum and instructional provision, educational measurement and evaluation, and so on. The formula for computation is displayed as follows: CVR = ( ne − N / 2 ) / ( N / 2 ) CVR = content validity ratio ne = number of panellists pointing to the item as ‘essential’ N = total number of panellists A three-point rating system was used to rank each item on the draft data-gathering tool (1 not essential, 2 useful but not essential, and 3 essential). CVR has a value between -1 and +1. The item is deemed acceptable and clear if the value is positive; it should be reworded, modified, or rejected if the value is negative; and it is deemed necessary and legitimate if 50% of the panellists in the N size assess the item as essential. In general, every item satisfies the acceptable standard of ≥.75 ( Lawshe, 1975 ), suggesting that the items are extremely important. The overall mean of all items in the scale using the Content Validity Index (CVI) statistical technique was .88, exceeding ≥.70 standard given by Tilden, Nelson, and May (1990) , and ≥.8 suggested by Davis (1992) . Table 1. Instructors’ instructional practice tool content validity ratings. Item Panelists CVR Decision 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 3 .77 Appropriate 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 Appropriate 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 Appropriate 4 3 3 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 .77 Appropriate 5 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 Appropriate 6 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 Appropriate 7 3 3 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 .77 Appropriate 8 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 Appropriate 9 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 3 .77 Appropriate 10 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 Appropriate 11 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 .77 Appropriate 12 3 3 3 3 3 2 3 3 3 .77 Appropriate 13 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 Appropriate 14 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 Appropriate 15 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 3 .77 Appropriate 16 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 .77 Appropriate 17 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 Appropriate 18 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 3 .77 Appropriate 19 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 Appropriate 20 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 .77 Appropriate 21 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 Appropriate 22 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 Appropriate 23 3 3 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 .77 Appropriate 24 3 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 .77 Appropriate 25 3 3 3 3 3 2 3 3 3 .77 Appropriate S-CVI/Ave .92 .92 .92 .76 1 .84 1 .68 .92 .88 Appropriate 2.3.2 Data collection This study was conducted in 2022 to 2023/24 academic year. The participants were recruited between May 1st and May 30th, 2023, and data was gathered from June 1st to June 30th, 2023. The questionnaire was administered in person. We gathered an endorsement letter and reached out to department heads and deans of colleges and institutes. They were given a brief overview of the study’s objectives, the possible participants, the type of data collection tool, and the typical amount of time needed to complete the questionnaire. Through establishing a communication channel with these high-ranking officials at various stages, a survey was dispersed around departmental offices. After that, it was distributed at random among instructors who provided consent until the target number of participants was attained. 2.3.3 Data analysis Cleansing of data was done before data analysis. As a result, eight response sheets that were improperly filled out and 3 that were not returned were excluded. SPSS-23 ( https://www.ibm.com/support/pages/downloading-ibm-spss-statistics-23 ) and a free trial version smartPLS-4 ( https://www.smartpls.com/downloads/ ) were utilized for the data analysis. SmartPLS was used to investigate confirmation factor analysis, and descriptive statistics and exploratory factor analysis were carried out using SPSS. 2.4 Ethics and consent The Center for Educational Research along with the Office of Research and Dissemination and the Office of Vice President for Research and Technology Transfer at Dilla University have ensured that the issue under investigation complies with academic research criteria and ethical standards on 13/01/2023. Potential participants received brief instructions regarding the study’s overall goal and the characteristics of the data collection instrument. The representatives from the above-mentioned offices on the same date confirmed that collecting oral consent from participants is sufficient for the present study. Accordingly, we obtained verbal informed consent from each participant. The confidentiality of the participants was greatly protected by avoiding mentioning their names and other relevant identifiers during the data collecting and reporting procedure. Representatives from Center for Educational Research, Office of Research and Dissemination, and the Office of Vice President for Research and Technology Transfer at Dilla University were approved the unharmfull nature of the data collection tool and assumed the number of participants and confirmed that collecting verbal consent from participants is sufficient for the present study. 3. Result and discussion 3.1 Socio-demographic characteristics Table 2 indicates that 1,254 instructors took part. Approximately 956 (76.2%) participants were male, and 298 (23.8 %) participants were female, making up around three-fourths and one-fourth of the total, respectively. The age distribution has a mean of 34.16 years and a standard deviation of 4.37, falling between the minimum age of 28 and the maximum age of 45. This number appears to be in line with the distributions of work experiences and academic ranks. There were 1186 (94.6%) master’s degree holders, 50 (4%) PhD holders and 18 (1.4%) assistant lecturers as the final minimum size. This means that the instructors in the minimum, maximum, and average age groups will be covered, accordingly. One year of work experience at a university is the minimum, while sixteen years is the maximum. Ultimately, 852 (67.9 %) participants, or the higher two-thirds, underwent training for higher education teaching under the Higher Diploma Program (HDP). In contrast, approximately one-fourth of instructors were not. Table 2. Socio-demographic characteristics of participants (N = 1,254). Variables Attribute Frequency (%) Sex Male 956 (76.2) Female 298 (23.8) Age (years) Min. 28 Mean (SD) 34.16 (4.37) Max. 45 Academic rank Assistant lecturer 18 (1.4) Lecturer 1186 (94.6) PhD 50 (4) Work experience (university, years) Min. 1 Mean (SD) 5.11 (3.06) Max. 16 Higher Diploma Program Yes 852 (67.9) No 402 (32.1) 3.2 Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) We employed the Direct Oblimin with Kaiser Normalization Rotation Method, a Maximum Likelihood (ML) Extraction Method, an Eigenvalue exceeding one, and a factor loading cut-off value of .5 (greater than the default criteria, i.e., .3). By assuming that the observed variables are normally distributed, ML produces factor structures with high correlations of indicators. With big sample sizes, ML yields estimates that are effective, less skewed, and less variable. 3.2.1 Assumption test result To move forward with EFA, multiple assumptions were examined. According to George and Mallery (2019) and Hair, Hult, Ringle, and Sarstedt (2022) , the data distribution resulted in a relatively normal distribution, falling within the range of ±1, -.394 for skewness, and 0.014 for kurtosis. Other tests, such as the Kolmogorov-Smirnova, Shapiro-Wilk, and Z values or critical ratios for normalcy, have shown minor violations (skewed to negative). Variance Inflation Factor (VIF) results for instructional planning, delivery, and assessment were 1.052, 1.049, and 1.004, respectively. Tolerance values were.95 for instructional planning, .954 for instructional delivery, and.996 for instructional assessment sub-scales. As indicated in the literature, both tests verified that there was no issue with multicollinearity with this set of data. for example, a VIF higher than 5 to 10 ( Kim, 2019 ), VIF greater than 10 and a tolerance value < 0.10 ( Hair, Black, Babin, & Anderson, 2010 ) indicates a potential problem of multicollinearity, a VIF < 5 ( Ringle, Da Silva, & Bido, 2014 ; Rogerson, 2001 ) and even 4 ( Pan & Jackson, 2008 ) are considered acceptable. The internal consistency of the overall and subscale items was checked using Cronbach alpha, resulting in .874, .928, .886, .786 and instructional planning, delivery, assessment subscales and overall scale, respectively ( Table 4 ). As stated by Sarstedt (2019) , this guarantees the measurement’s unidimensionality and sub-dimensionality nature and satisfies the need for EFA analysis (.7 minimum criteria). The Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) measure of sampling adequacy is .846, which is around the desired (≥.70) category, according to Kaiser (1974) , Hoelzle & Meyer (2013) , and Lloret, Ferreres, Hernandez, & Tomas (2017) . Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity, 7921.264 (p=.00), further confirms that the data are suitable for EFA analysis ( Table 3 ). Table 3. KMO and Bartlett’s Test. Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy .818 Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity Approx. Chi-Square 7921.264 df 300 Sig. .000 3.2.2 Exploratory factor analysis result Six factors were obtained by rotating the matrix. But there wasn’t a single item loaded in the sixth factor. In the fourth factor, only two items (items 5 and 6) and in the fifth factor, only one item (item 16) were loaded. Therefore, the last three factors were eliminated since they did not meet the criteria for having three to five items in each component and were not appropriate for conducting confirmatory factor analysis, as stated by ( MacCallum, Widaman, Zhang, & Hong, 1999 ; Raubenheimer, 2004 ). Additionally, there was no loading in any factor for items 8, 13, 14, 15, and 17. This means that items were loaded below the given threshold (.50). Eight items were eliminated overall. Table 4 illustrates the rotation of eight items to the instructional assessment (IA) subscale (loading .573 to .821), four items to the instructional delivery (ID) subscale (loading .854 to .892), and five items to the instructional planning (IP) subscale (loading .569 to .874). For IA, ID, IP, and overall scale, the internal consistency or reliability values of .886, .928, .874, and .806 exhibit robust ( Taber, 2018 ) and good dependability ( Salkind, 2015 ; Tavakol and Dennick, 2011 ; Lavrakas, 2008 ). Table 4. Summary of descriptive statistics, rotated factor matrix, and alpha value of instructional practice (N = 627). Factor Item code Items Loading Uniqness Alpha Instructional Assessment (8 items) IA21 Uses multiple assessment methods, including adjusted pacing and flexible grouping, to engage learners in active learning opportunities that promote the development of critical and creative thinking, problem-solving, and performance capabilities .821 .344 .886 IA25 Creates assessment method that is sustainable and with continuity to trace behavioral and cognitive changes of learners through time .768 .435 IA24 Uses learning materials like module, activity sheets, SIM etc. that evaluates learning inside and outside the school .749 .410 IA19 Provides opportunities for the development of performance-based assessment .743 .401 IA23 Provides assessment that allows learners to work individually or in groups through independent/cooperative learning .701 .495 IA22 Provides multiple assessment strategies for the differentiation and accommodation of individual differences .664 .499 IA20 Shows relevance and connection between topic discussed vis-à-vis assessment strategy .601 .629 IA18 Provides opportunities for the development of product-based assessment .573 .532 Instructional Delivery (4 items) ID11 Facilitates a learning environment where sense of belonging of learners through individual differences is respected .892 .205 .928 ID10 Connects prior knowledge of the learners to the new information of the lesson .871 .226 ID9 Discusses lessons in increasing levels of complexity and difficulty .870 .234 ID12 Uses varying perspectives, theories and methods of investigation and inquiry in instructing the concept of the lesson .854 .266 Instructional Planning (5 items) IP4 Creates and plans strategies that allow multiple learning areas to be integrated in the lesson .874 .207 .874 IP2 Assesses teaching materials for its relevance to the learning competency attainment and needs of learners. .872 .232 IP1 Uses and analyzes information of learners to design instruction that meets the diverse needs of learners and leads to ongoing growth and achievement .749 .429 IP3 Uses present data of learners to design instruction that is differentiated on the individual learning needs of learners. .738 .458 IP7 Uses sociodemographic information regarding learners’ background like culture, family structure and status, and communities in planning instruction suited to the needs of the learners .569 .634 According to the total variance explained analysis, the three components collectively account for 60.95% of the variance in instructional practice. This demonstrates that irrespective of rotation methods and disciplines, 50% explained variance is sufficient ( Sürücü, Şeşen, & Maslakçı, 2021 ; Beavers, Lounsbury, Richards, Huck, Skolits, & Esquivel, 2013 ; Hair, Sarstedt, Pieper, & Ringle, 2012 ; Pett, Lackey, & Sullivan, 2003 ). Furthermore, instructional delivery and instructional planning variables accounted for roughly comparable variance (18.51% and 18.47%), respectively. Whereas the instructional evaluation factor explains the relatively highest share of variance (23.97%) ( Table 5 ). Table 5. Total variance explained. Factor Initial eigenvalues Extraction sums of squared loadings Rotation sums of squared loadings Total % of variance Cumulative % Total % of variance Cumulative % Total % of variance Cumulative % 1 4.678 27.518 27.518 3.326 19.563 19.563 4.075 23.973 23.973 2 3.672 21.597 49.116 3.796 22.332 41.895 3.147 18.513 42.486 3 3.070 18.059 67.174 3.240 19.060 60.955 3.140 18.470 60.955 When the sample size is 200 or higher, Cattell’s Scree Plot test is still another trustworthy method to ascertain the number of components ( Sürücü, Yikilmaz, & Maslakci, 2022 ). Starting with the fourth component indicates a notable linear trend in the eigenvalue pattern ( Figure 1 ). We reasonably retained the three factors at 60.95%. Figure 1. Scree plot factor. Furthermore, we conducted parallel analysis to confirm wether the number of components in EFA loading and scree plot are actual factors or due to chance. Six hundred twenty seven cases, 25 items, 95% specifications, and principal components analysis method were specified. As a result, only the first three rawdata egenvalues are greater than the respective prcntyle of the random data egenvalues ( Figure 2 ). The parallel analysis confitrmed that three components are extracted in EFA as suggested by ( O’Connor, 2000 ). Figure 2. Parallel analysis plot. 3.3 Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) Result 3.3.1 Common Method Bias (CMB) CMB analysis is advised as the data samples were obtained by a questionnaire and/or all variables were obtained from the same individuals ( Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee, & Podsakoff, 2003 ). As a result, we used Harman’s single-factor test to assess CMB, and the results showed that it explains 24.284% of the variation, which is lower than the 50% acceptable limit. 3.3.2 Measurement Model Convergent validity, internal consistency reliability, and discriminant validity were examined using a reflective measurement approach. The extent to which a component is positively correlated with another factor that assesses the same construct is known as convergent validity. Factor loadings and average variance extraction were used for testing it. As a result, Items 22, 20, 23, and 25 in the instructional assessment factor and Item 1 in the instructional planning factor were loaded .398, .582, .606, .694, and.698 respectively ( Figure 3 ). Figure 3. Outer loading and AVE values before modification. According to Hair, Hult, Ringle, and Sarstedt (2016) , Henseler, Ringle, & Sarstedt (2014) , and Hair, Black, and Babin (2010) , this indicates below the threshold (≥.7). Following a sequential removal and reanalysis of the first three relatively low-loaded items (items 22, 20, and 23), item 25 improved from .694 to .723, satisfying the threshold. As a result, according to Sarstedt, Ringle, and Hair et al. (2017) , Henseler et al. (2014) , and Hair et al. (2010) , the Average Variance Explained (AVE) in instructional assessment also improved from.476 ( Figure 3 ) to .607 ( Figure 4 ), met the minimum acceptable criterion (>.5). To satisfy the minimally acceptable standards of item loading values and AVE values, four items—three from the instructional assessment and one from the instructional planning—were generally removed. Figure 4. Outer loading and AVE values after modification. Raykov’s rho coefficient, composite reliability (CR), and Cronbach alpha were employed to assess the construct validity and reliability ( Table 6 ). As per ( Hair, Hult, Ringle, & Sarstedt, 2017 ; Hair, Black, Babin, & Anderson, 2010 ), the outcome satisfies the acceptable criterion for all (.7 to .95). Table 6. Construct reliability and validity test. Constructs n items Cronbach alpha (>.7) rho_A (>.7) CR (>.7) AVE (>.5) IA 5 0.861 1.046 0.884 0.607 ID 4 0.928 0.937 0.949 0.822 IP 4 0.849 0.891 0.895 0.681 The degree of differentiation between a component and another component is known as discriminant validity. The results of the tests on the heterotrait–monotrait (HTMT) ratio of correlations between constructs and the Fornell-Larcker criterion are displayed in Table 7 and fall within an acceptable range. According to Hair, Risher, Sarstedt, & Ringle (2019) ; Henseler, Ringle, & Sarstedt (2014) ; Fornell, Larcker (1981) , this indicates that each construct’s square root of the AVE (all bold crossing values) in the Fornell-Larcker criterion exceeds its intercorrelations with other constructs or greater than the absolute measure of any correlation. Henseler et al. (2014) criticized the Fornell and Larcker test for not consistently detecting the absence of discriminant validity in some study scenarios. Table 7. Discriminant validity. Fornell-and-Larcker test Heterotrat-Monotrait Ratio (HTMT) IA ID IP IA ID IP IA 0.779 IA ID 0.149 0.907 ID 0.137 IP 0.310 0.087 0.825 IP 0.242 0.100 In order to evaluate discriminant validity, we thus looked at an alternative set of HTMT criteria. The results indicate that there is no discriminant validity issue, according to Hair et al. (2019) and Henseler et al. (2014) . Because there is a positive correlation between IP and IA ( r = .242, p =.00), IP and ID ( r = .1, p =.00), and IA and ID ( r = .137, p =.000). The ratio of correlations is also getting closer to zero. The two-tailed confidence interval at the.05 significance level does not include one. 3.3.3. Structural model We checked the estimated model’s goodness-of-fit. There was a .08 marginal standard root means square residual (SRMR). Based on Brown’s (2015) analysis, the model is appropriate if ≤ 0.08. We also used the variance inflation factor (VIF) to assess for multicollinearity amongst the latent components. Multicollinearity problems are indicated by a VIF of greater than five ( Hair, Risher, Sarstedt, & Ringle, 2019 ; Sarstedt, Ringle, Hair, 2017 ). Since all of the numbers in Table 8 are ≤ 3.529, multicollinearity is not an issue for the model. Table 8. Items loading, mean, standard deviation, and variance inflation. Constructs Indicators Loading Mean Sd VIF (≤5) IA IA18 0.873 2.824 1.123 1.580 IA19 0.767 2.478 1.071 1.730 IA21 0.774 2.492 1.103 2.644 IA24 0.753 2.625 1.049 1.844 IA25 0.723 2.639 1.081 2.368 ID ID10 0.918 3.577 1.036 3.327 ID11 0.907 3.555 1.007 3.529 ID12 0.895 3.558 1.005 3.017 ID9 0.906 3.507 1.036 3.179 IP IP2 0.846 3.449 1.005 2.726 IP3 0.764 3.465 1.029 1.980 IP4 0.895 3.397 1.033 2.672 IP7 0.790 3.344 1.018 1.445 4. Conclusion and future research directions Success depends on validating the instrument according to the demands of a particular context, including people, culture, time, and setting. An instructional practice scale for Ethiopian public university lecturers was validated in this study. A total of twenty-five items—eight IPs, nine IDs, and eight IAs—were reduced to seventeen powerful items loaded in the three primary factors (five IPs, four IDs, and eight IAs) using EFA. A final 13 items (4 IPs, 4 IDs, and 5 IAs) were confirmed in the CFA analysis. We offered an effective and dependable instrument for evaluating university-level instructors’ instructional practices. The tool can be used for a variety of tasks, such as investigating and assessing training for promotion. The instrument is approved, nevertheless, for use in general-level university courses. We were aware that the type of instruction should vary according to the disciplines or subject areas. Therefore, it is advised that future researchers build and validate instruments that are unique to their respective specialties. The self-report measure served as the sole basis for the study. In this specific context, what is actually done before, during, and after class practice is not investigated. Potential biases (e.g., socially desirable outcomes) may result from this. Future researchers can therefore complement it (e.g., with observational data and peer ratings) to maximize its robustness. Ethics and consent The Center for Educational Research along with the Office of Research and Dissemination and the Office of Vice President for Research and Technology Transfer at Dilla University have ensured that the issue under investigation complies with academic research criteria and ethical standards on 13/01/2023 (DU/164/2023). Potential participants received brief instructions regarding the study’s overall goal and the characteristics of the data collection instrument. The representatives from the above-mentioned offices on the same date confirmed that collecting oral consent from participants is sufficient for the present study. When requested, participants preferred to give their consent orally rather than in writing. They perceived written consent as requiring a lot of resources, including time. Accordingly, we obtained verbal informed consent from each participant. Representatives from Center for Educational Research, Office of Research and Dissemination, and the Office of Vice President for Research and Technology Transfer at Dilla University approved the unharmful nature of the data collection tool and assumed the number of participants and confirmed that collecting verbal consent from participants is sufficient for the present study. Data availability Underlying data Zenodo: validating instructional practice scale for instructors in some selected Ethiopian public universities: confirmatory factor analysis. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.11493518 ( Mehari et al. , 2024b ). The project contains the following underlying data: • .csv dataset for the study “validating instructional practice scale for instructors in some selected Ethiopian public universities: confirmatory factor analysis” Extended data Zenodo: Original instrument/scale. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.11667235 ( Mehari et al. , 2024a ). The project contains the following extended data: • Original instrument/scale Zenodo: Validating Instructional Practice Scale (IPS) for University Instructors: Parallel analysis [Data set]. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.12204587 ( Mehari, 2024b ). The project contains the following extended data: • Parallel analysis dataset Reporting guidelines Zenodo: STROBE checklist for validating instructional practice scale for instructors in some selected Ethiopian public universities. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.12705646 ( Mehari, 2024a ). Data are available under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license (CC-BY 4.0). Acknowledgements We express our gratitude to Dilla University for providing funding for this study, under the major theme of “Students’ learning styles and instructors’ teaching practices as determinants of academic achievement among first-year university students in Ethiopia, SNNPR universities”. We also thank the participants and all stakeholders who contributed to the feasibility of the study. References Abundo L: Teaching in K-12 classroom: Accounts from the practices of teachers. Bicol University; 2019. [Unpublished master’s thesis]. Almohanna AAS, Win KT, Meedya S, et al. : Design and content validation of an instrument measuring user perception of the persuasive design principles in a breastfeeding mHealth app: A modified Delphi study. Int. J. Med. Inform. 2022; 164 : 104789. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text Barrett K: The evidence is clear: More money for schools means better learner outcomes. neaToday. 2018. Reference Source Beavers AS, Lounsbury JW, Richards JK, et al. : Practical considerations for using exploratory factor analysis in educational research. Pract. Assess. Res. Eval. 2013; 18 (1): 6. Benosa E: Observation of teachers’ common teaching practices in K-12 curriculum science. Bicol University; 2018. [Unpublished master’s thesis]. Bibon MB: Teachers’ Instructional Practices and Learners’ Academic Achievement in Science. Contemp. Math. Sci. Educ. 2022; 3 (1). Publisher Full Text Brown TA: Confirmatory Factor Analysis for Applied Research. New York, NY, USA: The Guilford Press; 2015. Cattell R: The Scientific Use of Factor Analysis. New York: Plenum; 1978. Comrey A, Lee H: A first course in factor analysis. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum; 1992. Davis L: Instrument review: Getting the most from a panel of experts. Appl. Nurs. Res. 1992; 5 (4): 194–197. Emanalia I: Teacher-centered or student-centered learning approach to promote learning? J. Sos Human. 2017; 10 (2): 59–70. Publisher Full Text Everitt B: Multivariate analysis: The need for data, and other problems. Br. J. Psychiatry. 1975; 126 : 237–240. PubMed Abstract Fischer C, Fishman B, Dede C, et al. : Investigating relationships between school context, teacher professional development, teaching practices, and student achievement in response to a nationwide science reform. Teach. Teach. Educ. 2018; 72 : 107–121. Publisher Full Text Fornell C, Larcker DF: Structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error: algebra and statistics. J. Mark. Res. 1981; 18 (3): 382–388. Publisher Full Text George D, Mallery P: IBM SPSS statistics 25 step by step: A simple guide and reference. 15th ed. ch. 7.New York: Routledge; 2019. Gorsuch RL: Factor Analysis. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum; 1983. Hair JF Jr, Hult GTM, Ringle C, et al. : A Primer on Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications; 2016. Hair JF, Hult GTM, Ringle CM, et al. : A Primer on Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM). 3rd ed.Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage; 2022. Hair JF, Sarstedt M, Pieper TM, et al. : The use of partial least squares structural equation modeling in strategic management research: A review of past practices and recommendations for future applications. Long Range Plan. 2012; 45 (5–6): 320–340. Publisher Full Text Hair JF Jr, Risher JJ, Sarstedt M, et al. : When to use and how to report the results of PLS-SEM. Eur. Bus. Rev. 2019; 31 (1): 2–24. Hair JF, Black WC, Babin BJ: Multivariate Data Analysis: A Global Perspective. London: Pearson Education; 2010; 2010 . . Hair JF, Hult GTM, Ringle CM, et al. : A primer on partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM). 2nd ed.London: Sage; 2017. Hair JF Jr, Black WC, Babin BJ, et al. : Multivariate Data Analysis. 7th ed.Prentice Hall: Upper Saddle River, NJ, USA; 2010. Hair JF, Risher JJ, Sarstedt M, et al. : When to use and how to report the results of PLS-SEM. Eur. Bus. Rev. 2019; 31 (1): 2–24. Publisher Full Text Henseler J, Ringle CM, Sarstedt M: A new criterion for assessing discriminant validity in variance-based structural equation modeling. J. Acad. Mark. Sci. 2014; 43 : 115–135. Publisher Full Text Hoelzle JB, Meyer GJ: Exploratory factor analysis: Basics and beyond.Weiner IB, Schinka JA, Velicer WF, editors. Handbook of psychology: Research methods in psychology. 2nd ed.Hoboken, NJ: Wiley; 2013; Vol. 2 . : pp. 164–188. (1) (PDF) Exploratory Factor Analysis: A Guide to Best Practice. [accessed May 18 2024]. Reference Source Horvat-Samardžija D: Alternative and/or traditional way of teaching and evaluation in the 4th grade of nine-year primary school. Metodik obzori. 2011; 11 (6): 161–164. Iglesias I: K-12 should be implemented-Briones. The Manila Times. 2016. Reference Source Jackson DL: Revisiting sample size and number of parameter estimates: Some support for the N:q hypothesis. Struct. Equ. Model. Multidiscip. J. 2003; 10 : 128–141. Publisher Full Text Kaiser HF: An index of factorial simplicity. Psychometrika. 1974; 39 (1): 31–36. Publisher Full Text Kim JH: Multicollinearity and misleading statistical results. Korean J. Anesthesiol. 2019; 72 (6): 558–569. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text Kline P: An Easy Guide to Factor Analysis. New York: Routledge; 1994. Kothari CR: Research methodology: Methods and Techniques. New Delhi: New Age International (P) Ltd., Publishers; 2004. Lavrakas P: Encyclopedia of Survey Research Methods. 1st ed.SAGE; 2008. Lawshe CH: A quantitative approach to content validity. Pers. Psychol. 1975; 28 : 563–575. Publisher Full Text Lloret S, Ferreres A, Hernandez A, et al. : The exploratory factor analysis of items: Guided analysis based on empirical data and software. Analesde Psicologia. 2017; 33 : 417–432. Publisher Full Text MacCallum RC, Widaman KF, Zhang S, et al. : Sample size in factor analysis. Psychol. Methods. 1999; 4 (1): 84. Majo S: Factors influencing poor performance in science subjects in seconday schools in Shinyanga Municipality. Munich: GRIN Verlag; 2016. Reference Source Mehari A: completed_STROBE_cross_sectional_checklist. Zenodo. 2024a. Publisher Full Text Mehari A: Validating Instructional Practice Scale (IPS) for University Instructors: Parallel analysis. [Data set]. Zenodo. 2024b. Publisher Full Text Mehari A, Kassahun B, Berhanu H, et al. : Original instrument/scale. Zenodo. 2024a. Publisher Full Text Mehari A, Kassahun B, Berhanu H, et al. : Validating instructional practice scale for instructors in some selected Ethiopian public universities: confirmatory factor analysis. [Data set]. Zenodo. 2024b. Publisher Full Text Mullis IVS, Martin MO, Gonzalez EJ, et al. : TIMSS 1999 international mathematics report: Findings from IEA’s repeat of the Third International Mathematics and Science Study at the eighth grade. Chestnut Hill, MA: The International Study Center, Boston College; 2000. Nunnally J: Psychometric Theory. 2nd ed.New York: McGraw-Hill; 1978. O’Connor BP: SPSS and SAS programs for determining the number of components using parallel analysis and Velicer’s MAP test. Behav. Res. Methods Instrum. Comput. 2000; 32 : 396–402. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD): Teaching Practices, Teachers’ Beliefs and Attitudes: Creating Effective Teaching and Learning Environments, 87-135. First Results from Teaching and Learning International Survey (TALIS). 2009. 978-92-64-05605-3. Pan Y, Jackson RT: Ethnic difference in the relationship between acute inflammation and serum ferritin in US adult males. Epidemiol. Infect. 2008; 136 : 421–431. PubMed Abstract Pett MA, Lackey NR, Sullivan JJ: Making Sense of Factor Analysis: The use of factor analysis for instrument development in health care research. California: Sage Publications Inc; 2003. Podsakoff PM, MacKenzie SB, Lee JY, et al. : Common method biases in behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. J. Appl. Psychol. 2003; 88 (5): 879–903. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text Raubenheimer J: An item selection procedure to maximise scale reliability and validity. SA J. Ind. Psychol. 2004; 30 (4). Reference Source Ringle CM, Da Silva D, Bido DDS: Structural equation modeling with the smartpls. The Revista Brasileira de Marketing. 2014; 13 (2): 56–73. Publisher Full Text Rogerson PA: Statistical methods for geography. London: Sage; 2001. Saleh S, Jing TA: Instructional Practices in Science Education in German and Malaysian Secondary Schools: A Comparative Case Study. Int. J. Instr. 2020; 13 (4): 267–282. Publisher Full Text Salkind N: Encyclopedia of Measurement and Statistics. 1st ed.SAGE; 2015. Sarstedt M: Revisiting Hair et al.’s multivariate data analysis: 40 years later.Ringle CM, Sarstedt S, Nitzl M, editors. The great facilitator: Reflecting on the Contributions of Jörg Henseler to the Social Sciences. Springer; 2019; 113–119. Publisher Full Text Sarstedt M, Ringle CM, Hair JF: Partial least squares structural equation modelling.Homburg C, Klarmann M, Vomberg A, editors. Handbook of Market Research. Cham: Springer; 2017. Publisher Full Text Sarwar GS, Zerpa C, Hachey K, et al. : Teaching Practices and Student Motivation that Influence Student Achievement on Large-Scale Assessments. Int. J. Educ. 2012; 4 (3). Publisher Full Text Sergio JP: Correlating teachers’ instruction between mainland and island schools in Albay: A K-12 perspective. Bicol University; 2018. [Unpublished master’s thesis]. Sürücü L, Şeşen H, Maslakçı A: SPSS, AMOS ve PROCESS macro ile ilişkisel, aracı/düzenleyici ve yapısal eşitlik modellemesi uygulamalı analizler. Detay Yayıncılık: Ankara; 2021. Sürücü L, Yikilmaz İ, Maslakci A: Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) in quantitative researches and practical considerations. Center for Open Science; 2022. fgd4e. Publisher Full Text Reference Source Taber KS: The Use of Cronbach’s Alpha When Developing and Reporting Research Instruments in Science Education. Res. Sci. Educ. 2018; 48 : 1273–1296. Publisher Full Text Tavakol M, Dennick R: Making Sense of Cronbach’s Alpha. Int. J. Med. Educ. 2011; 2 : 53–55. Editorial. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text The Open University: Changes in science education: Contemporary issues in science learning.2018. Reference Source Tilden V, Nelson C, May B: Use of qualitative methods to enhance content validity. Nurs. Res. 1990; 39 (3): 172–175. PubMed Abstract Zemelman S, Daniels H, Hyde A: Best practice: Today’s standards for teaching and learning in America’s schools. 3rd ed.Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann; 2005. Comments on this article Comments (0) Version 2 VERSION 2 PUBLISHED 28 Aug 2024 ADD YOUR COMMENT Comment Author details Author details 1 Dilla University, Dilla, Southern Nations, Nationalities, and People's Region, Ethiopia Anemut Mehari Roles: Conceptualization, Data Curation, Funding Acquisition, Investigation, Methodology, Software, Validation, Visualization, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing Bezina Kassahun Roles: Conceptualization, Funding Acquisition, Investigation Hana Berhanu Roles: Conceptualization, Methodology, Validation Biniam Birru Roles: Data Curation, Formal Analysis, Resources, Writing – Original Draft Preparation Tarkegn T.Gemeda Roles: Conceptualization, Data Curation, Formal Analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Software, Supervision, Validation, Visualization, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing Competing interests No competing interests were disclosed. Grant information The study is funded by Dilla University The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. Article Versions (2) version 2 Revised Published: 07 May 2025, 13:975 https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.152815.2 version 1 Published: 28 Aug 2024, 13:975 https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.152815.1 Copyright © 2024 Mehari A et al . This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. The author(s) is/are employees of the US Government and therefore domestic copyright protection in USA does not apply to this work. The work may be protected under the copyright laws of other jurisdictions when used in those jurisdictions. Download Export To Sciwheel Bibtex EndNote ProCite Ref. Manager (RIS) Sente metrics Views Downloads F1000Research - - PubMed Central info_outline Data from PMC are received and updated monthly. - - Citations open_in_new 0 open_in_new 0 open_in_new SEE MORE DETAILS CITE how to cite this article Mehari A, Kassahun B, Berhanu H et al. Validating instructional practice scale for university instructors in Ethiopia [version 1; peer review: 1 approved with reservations] . F1000Research 2024, 13 :975 ( https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.152815.1 ) NOTE: If applicable, it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article. COPY CITATION DETAILS track receive updates on this article Track an article to receive email alerts on any updates to this article. TRACK THIS ARTICLE Share Open Peer Review Current Reviewer Status: ? Key to Reviewer Statuses VIEW HIDE Approved The paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approved Fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions Version 1 VERSION 1 PUBLISHED 28 Aug 2024 Views 0 Cite How to cite this report: Stutchbury K. Reviewer Report For: Validating instructional practice scale for university instructors in Ethiopia [version 1; peer review: 1 approved with reservations] . F1000Research 2024, 13 :975 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.167618.r373620 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/13-975/v1#referee-response-373620 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. Close Copy Citation Details Reviewer Report 26 Apr 2025 Kris Stutchbury , Faculty of Wellbeing, Education and Language Studies, The Open University, Milton Keynes, England, UK Approved with Reservations VIEWS 0 https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.167618.r373620 Firstly I must stress that my knowledge of statistics is insufficient to judge the quality of the statistically analysis, although the number of responses obtained is impressive. However, I do understand pedagogy and am interested in an instrument that claims ... Continue reading READ ALL Firstly I must stress that my knowledge of statistics is insufficient to judge the quality of the statistically analysis, although the number of responses obtained is impressive. However, I do understand pedagogy and am interested in an instrument that claims to measure effective instructional practices. In the introduction the authors write as if ‘teacher-centred practices’ and ‘learner-centred-practices’ are at opposite ends of a continuum. I do not subscribe to this view. Michele Schweisfurth’s work on leaner-centered education (LCE) suggests that learner-centeredness is more about attitudes than practices (Schweisfurth, 2013). I would therefore expect a survey that claims to measure instructional practices that are ‘learner-centred’ to include some items which focus on attitudes to learners and learning. Schweisfurth sets out some suggestions: classroom relationships (authoritarian – democratic); learner motivation (extrinsic-intrinsic); the nature of knowledge (fixed – fluid); role of the teachers (authoritative vs facilitator of learning) and fixed curriculum vs negotiated content. Good teachers would also take the view that all learners can learn given the right support rather than taking the view that they are born with a fixed level of intelligence. Some of these attitudes are implied in the items listed in Table 4, but since the practices are self-reported – it is difficult to know whether reported actions are underpinned by genuine beliefs and are therefore likely to be sustained effectively overtime. My experience of self-reported practice is that after pedagogical training, participants often give themselves a lower rating as they better understand what that practice entails, so guidance on how to complete the survey is important. I would be a little skeptical of the results produced by this instrument (even if the statistics are sound) because it is self-reported and it does not include items that explore teachers’ underlying beliefs. For example, one of the items is ‘Facilitates a learning environment where sense of belonging of learners through individual differences is respected’. It would be helpful to a reader like me to know how participants were guided in making this judgement about their own practice – what sort of actions would they be taking in their classroom if they were doing this effectively? The contribution as I understand it is that they bring together measures of planning, delivery and assessment in one instrument and have proved that there is consistency across IP, ID and IA. They have only retained items that give consistent results. I see an instrument like this as a useful starting point for a discussion of professional development needs rather than an absolute measure of competence. This perhaps needs to be acknowledged in the conclusion, or details about how participants were guided in judging their practice needs to be included. Schweisfurth, M. (2013). Learner-centred Education in International Perspective: Whose pedagogy for whose development? Routledge. Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature? Yes Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound? Yes Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others? Yes If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate? I cannot comment. A qualified statistician is required. Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility? Yes Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results? Partly Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise: Pedgagogy and pedagogical change I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however I have significant reservations, as outlined above. Close READ LESS CITE CITE HOW TO CITE THIS REPORT Stutchbury K. Reviewer Report For: Validating instructional practice scale for university instructors in Ethiopia [version 1; peer review: 1 approved with reservations] . F1000Research 2024, 13 :975 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.167618.r373620 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/13-975/v1#referee-response-373620 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article. COPY CITATION DETAILS Report a concern Author Response 09 May 2025 Anemut Mehari , Dilla University, Dilla, Ethiopia 09 May 2025 Author Response Responses to reviewer's comments Dear Reviewer, We greatly appreciate your insightful and constructive feedback. The revised manuscript has been amended to address all of the points you raised, as detailed ... Continue reading Responses to reviewer's comments Dear Reviewer, We greatly appreciate your insightful and constructive feedback. The revised manuscript has been amended to address all of the points you raised, as detailed below. 1. We acknowledged the Schweisfurth’s (2013) contributions, as referenced in the introduction section. 2. “Facilitates a learning environment where the sense of belonging of learners through individual differences is respected.” To assure such instructors beliefs, a random 2-5 class students were checked to see if their instructors allowed them to select assignment topics related to their interests, facilitated a discussion where students suggested norms and agreed on respectful behavior standards, incorporated texts, examples, and case studies that reflected students’ diverse cultural backgrounds, and considered varying learning styles (e.g., visual, auditory, kinesthetic) in lesson delivery. 3. “Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results? Partly” The conclusion section has been revised in response to the feedback provided. 4. "The instrument like this as a useful starting point for a discussion of professional development needs rather than an absolute measure of competence" is acknowledged in the conclusion section. 5. We also incorporated the actions undertaken, along with the limitations associated with self-reported data, as outlined in the limitations section. To mitigate potential misunderstandings, clear explanations of instructional practice definitions, survey items, and completion guidelines were provided to participants prior to data collection. Thank you! Responses to reviewer's comments Dear Reviewer, We greatly appreciate your insightful and constructive feedback. The revised manuscript has been amended to address all of the points you raised, as detailed below. 1. We acknowledged the Schweisfurth’s (2013) contributions, as referenced in the introduction section. 2. “Facilitates a learning environment where the sense of belonging of learners through individual differences is respected.” To assure such instructors beliefs, a random 2-5 class students were checked to see if their instructors allowed them to select assignment topics related to their interests, facilitated a discussion where students suggested norms and agreed on respectful behavior standards, incorporated texts, examples, and case studies that reflected students’ diverse cultural backgrounds, and considered varying learning styles (e.g., visual, auditory, kinesthetic) in lesson delivery. 3. “Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results? Partly” The conclusion section has been revised in response to the feedback provided. 4. "The instrument like this as a useful starting point for a discussion of professional development needs rather than an absolute measure of competence" is acknowledged in the conclusion section. 5. We also incorporated the actions undertaken, along with the limitations associated with self-reported data, as outlined in the limitations section. To mitigate potential misunderstandings, clear explanations of instructional practice definitions, survey items, and completion guidelines were provided to participants prior to data collection. Thank you! Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Close Report a concern Respond or Comment COMMENTS ON THIS REPORT Author Response 09 May 2025 Anemut Mehari , Dilla University, Dilla, Ethiopia 09 May 2025 Author Response Responses to reviewer's comments Dear Reviewer, We greatly appreciate your insightful and constructive feedback. The revised manuscript has been amended to address all of the points you raised, as detailed ... Continue reading Responses to reviewer's comments Dear Reviewer, We greatly appreciate your insightful and constructive feedback. The revised manuscript has been amended to address all of the points you raised, as detailed below. 1. We acknowledged the Schweisfurth’s (2013) contributions, as referenced in the introduction section. 2. “Facilitates a learning environment where the sense of belonging of learners through individual differences is respected.” To assure such instructors beliefs, a random 2-5 class students were checked to see if their instructors allowed them to select assignment topics related to their interests, facilitated a discussion where students suggested norms and agreed on respectful behavior standards, incorporated texts, examples, and case studies that reflected students’ diverse cultural backgrounds, and considered varying learning styles (e.g., visual, auditory, kinesthetic) in lesson delivery. 3. “Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results? Partly” The conclusion section has been revised in response to the feedback provided. 4. "The instrument like this as a useful starting point for a discussion of professional development needs rather than an absolute measure of competence" is acknowledged in the conclusion section. 5. We also incorporated the actions undertaken, along with the limitations associated with self-reported data, as outlined in the limitations section. To mitigate potential misunderstandings, clear explanations of instructional practice definitions, survey items, and completion guidelines were provided to participants prior to data collection. Thank you! Responses to reviewer's comments Dear Reviewer, We greatly appreciate your insightful and constructive feedback. The revised manuscript has been amended to address all of the points you raised, as detailed below. 1. We acknowledged the Schweisfurth’s (2013) contributions, as referenced in the introduction section. 2. “Facilitates a learning environment where the sense of belonging of learners through individual differences is respected.” To assure such instructors beliefs, a random 2-5 class students were checked to see if their instructors allowed them to select assignment topics related to their interests, facilitated a discussion where students suggested norms and agreed on respectful behavior standards, incorporated texts, examples, and case studies that reflected students’ diverse cultural backgrounds, and considered varying learning styles (e.g., visual, auditory, kinesthetic) in lesson delivery. 3. “Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results? Partly” The conclusion section has been revised in response to the feedback provided. 4. "The instrument like this as a useful starting point for a discussion of professional development needs rather than an absolute measure of competence" is acknowledged in the conclusion section. 5. We also incorporated the actions undertaken, along with the limitations associated with self-reported data, as outlined in the limitations section. To mitigate potential misunderstandings, clear explanations of instructional practice definitions, survey items, and completion guidelines were provided to participants prior to data collection. Thank you! Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Close Report a concern COMMENT ON THIS REPORT Comments on this article Comments (0) Version 2 VERSION 2 PUBLISHED 28 Aug 2024 ADD YOUR COMMENT Comment keyboard_arrow_left keyboard_arrow_right Open Peer Review Reviewer Status info_outline Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article: Approved The paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approved Fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions Reviewer Reports Invited Reviewers 1 2 3 4 Version 2 (revision) 07 May 25 read read read Version 1 28 Aug 24 read Kris Stutchbury , The Open University, Milton Keynes, UK Fahad A. Salendab , Sultan Kudarat State University, Tacurong City, Philippines Wendy M Smith , University of Nebraska-Lincoln, Lincoln, USA Anh Hoang Khau , Tra Vinh University, Trà Vinh, Vietnam Comments on this article All Comments (0) Add a comment Sign up for content alerts Sign Up You are now signed up to receive this alert Browse by related subjects keyboard_arrow_left Back to all reports Reviewer Report 0 Views copyright © 2025 Khau A. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. 05 Jun 2025 | for Version 2 Anh Hoang Khau , Tra Vinh University, Trà Vinh, Tra Vinh, Vietnam 0 Views copyright © 2025 Khau A. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. format_quote Cite this report speaker_notes Responses (0) Approved With Reservations info_outline Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article: Approved The paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approved Fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions Thank you for giving me this chance. I appreciate how hard work the authors have put in. They, actually, went through meticulous analysis. However, I have some suggestions. The authors can refer to some more updated publications about the construct and its dimensions in different contexts for comparison. Second, for CFA, I get confused as the goal of the study is to validate the questionnaire, but in analysis of CFA, the authors used a framework examining effects of other dimensions on instructional assessment. Could you explain this? Finally, the discussion and conclusion parts left out the content of the questionnaire, which reduce the interest of the paper. Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature? Partly Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound? Yes Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others? Yes If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate? Yes Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility? Yes Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results? Partly Competing Interests No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise I mainly focus on psychometric research in education, Educational leadership, English teaching methods, and second language acquisition. I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however I have significant reservations, as outlined above. reply Respond to this report Responses (0) Khau AH. Peer Review Report For: Validating instructional practice scale for university instructors in Ethiopia [version 1; peer review: 1 approved with reservations] . F1000Research 2024, 13 :975 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.181205.r385286) NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/13-975/v2#referee-response-385286 keyboard_arrow_left Back to all reports Reviewer Report 0 Views copyright © 2025 Smith W. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. 03 Jun 2025 | for Version 2 Wendy M Smith , Center for Science, Mathematics & Computer Education and Department of Mathematics, University of Nebraska-Lincoln, Lincoln, USA 0 Views copyright © 2025 Smith W. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. format_quote Cite this report speaker_notes Responses (0) Not Approved info_outline Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article: Approved The paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approved Fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions It is very important to take existing instruments and investigate specific uses and score interpretations. Thus, this type of study is important, to understand how Ethiopian instructors respond to the items. The authors had expert review of items on the instrument and conducted a reasonable random sample with a sufficiently large number of the target population of university instructors in Ethiopia. I have two significant concerns about how the manuscript is framed, both with the deficit orientation to instructors and students and with the presentation of validity as a feature of an instrument rather than a dynamic argumentation process. These concerns then influenced my estimation of the appropriateness of the literature cited, study design, and conclusions drawn. My response of “partly” to the question about could other researchers replicate this study with the given information was based on the authors never explaining the answer choices for the 25 items: were these binary? A likert-type scale? Categorical? Frequency estimations? Without understanding what the options for the items were, another research team could not replicate this. The type of response options is also important information for a validation argument (response processes). An instrument cannot be “validated” but rather researchers can construct a validity argument with evidence-supported claims for a particular instrument use and score interpretation. While the work on factor analysis is certainly an appropriate part of providing evidence for a validation argument, there is more to a validation argument than just establishing the internal structure of the instrument. See, for instance, Kane and Burns (2013) https://doi.org/10.1080/02796015.2013.12087465 or the AERA/NCME/APA (2014) guidelines https://www.aera.net/publications/books/standards-for-educational-psychological-testing-2014-edition . The argumentation approach to validity thus suggests significant changes throughout the manuscript. The manuscript can still feature factor analysis, but that needs to be positioned as just one part of a larger validity argument, and needs to be part of a larger argument that includes score interpretation (in addition to the use statement that you do have related to Ethiopian classrooms). You never mention what scores you would calculate (and how) based on the original instrument or the reduced version with items removed. If your instrument is capturing effective instructional practices, then you need at least some ranges of scores to characterize “good” vs “inadequate”. Further, though, such claims would need to be connected to related variables, including student knowledge. One manuscript does not need to necessarily represent a complete validation argument, but the manuscript should frame validation as a dynamic argumentation process, and identify which components you will provide evidence for (content, internal structure) and which are left for future research (response processes, relations to other variables, consequences of testing). You would also need to, at a minimum, describe what future research could categorize score interpretations. On page 3, the literature connections are framed very negatively (student disinterest, ineffective teaching, lack of materials). These points can be framed with more asset orientations that avoid blaming instructors or students for what are often more complex systemic issues. The approach also is about “universal” instructional practices, that ignores that there might be specific practices that are more or less relevant or appropriate for different disciplines. While I’m not arguing there cannot be some universal instructional practices, you could strengthen your argument through additional literature citations. When describing the EFA, you said you assumed the responses were normally distributed. This does not seem like a robust assumption, and is something you can empirically test instead. The numerical values you get from an EFA process should not be the sole reason for determining which items group together into scales. There should also be a theoretical component of items from an intellectual standpoint of connecting items to a theoretical framing and research literature. Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature? Partly Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound? Partly Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others? Yes If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate? Partly Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility? Yes Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results? Partly Competing Interests No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise mathematics education research, statistical modeling, improving instructional practices and student outcomes, especially at the tertiary level I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to state that I do not consider it to be of an acceptable scientific standard, for reasons outlined above. reply Respond to this report Responses (0) Smith WM. Peer Review Report For: Validating instructional practice scale for university instructors in Ethiopia [version 1; peer review: 1 approved with reservations] . F1000Research 2024, 13 :975 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.181205.r383624) NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/13-975/v2#referee-response-383624 keyboard_arrow_left Back to all reports Reviewer Report 0 Views copyright © 2025 Salendab F. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. 02 Jun 2025 | for Version 2 Fahad A. Salendab , Sultan Kudarat State University, Tacurong City, Region XII, Philippines 0 Views copyright © 2025 Salendab F. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. format_quote Cite this report speaker_notes Responses (0) Approved With Reservations info_outline Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article: Approved The paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approved Fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions 1. Provide a further description in analyzing the data. It is good if the authors would mention specific statistical analyses that are appropriate to this study. 2. In-text citations must be updated since most citations are outdated. it must follow the journal's guidelines for in-text citations. 3. State the appropriateness and suitability of research design. Is the design appropriate to answer the objectives in this study? what makes it appropriate or suitable in answering the research questions. 4. Describe how did you select respondents? did you use parametric or non parametric technique? Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature? Partly Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound? Partly Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others? Yes If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate? Partly Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility? Yes Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results? Yes Competing Interests No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise Higher Education, Educational Leadership, Pedagogy, Learning Assessment, Language Teaching I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however I have significant reservations, as outlined above. reply Respond to this report Responses (0) Salendab FA. Peer Review Report For: Validating instructional practice scale for university instructors in Ethiopia [version 1; peer review: 1 approved with reservations] . F1000Research 2024, 13 :975 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.181205.r383621) NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/13-975/v2#referee-response-383621 keyboard_arrow_left Back to all reports Reviewer Report 0 Views copyright © 2025 Stutchbury K. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. 26 Apr 2025 | for Version 1 Kris Stutchbury , Faculty of Wellbeing, Education and Language Studies, The Open University, Milton Keynes, England, UK 0 Views copyright © 2025 Stutchbury K. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. format_quote Cite this report speaker_notes Responses (1) Approved With Reservations info_outline Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article: Approved The paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approved Fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions Firstly I must stress that my knowledge of statistics is insufficient to judge the quality of the statistically analysis, although the number of responses obtained is impressive. However, I do understand pedagogy and am interested in an instrument that claims to measure effective instructional practices. In the introduction the authors write as if ‘teacher-centred practices’ and ‘learner-centred-practices’ are at opposite ends of a continuum. I do not subscribe to this view. Michele Schweisfurth’s work on leaner-centered education (LCE) suggests that learner-centeredness is more about attitudes than practices (Schweisfurth, 2013). I would therefore expect a survey that claims to measure instructional practices that are ‘learner-centred’ to include some items which focus on attitudes to learners and learning. Schweisfurth sets out some suggestions: classroom relationships (authoritarian – democratic); learner motivation (extrinsic-intrinsic); the nature of knowledge (fixed – fluid); role of the teachers (authoritative vs facilitator of learning) and fixed curriculum vs negotiated content. Good teachers would also take the view that all learners can learn given the right support rather than taking the view that they are born with a fixed level of intelligence. Some of these attitudes are implied in the items listed in Table 4, but since the practices are self-reported – it is difficult to know whether reported actions are underpinned by genuine beliefs and are therefore likely to be sustained effectively overtime. My experience of self-reported practice is that after pedagogical training, participants often give themselves a lower rating as they better understand what that practice entails, so guidance on how to complete the survey is important. I would be a little skeptical of the results produced by this instrument (even if the statistics are sound) because it is self-reported and it does not include items that explore teachers’ underlying beliefs. For example, one of the items is ‘Facilitates a learning environment where sense of belonging of learners through individual differences is respected’. It would be helpful to a reader like me to know how participants were guided in making this judgement about their own practice – what sort of actions would they be taking in their classroom if they were doing this effectively? The contribution as I understand it is that they bring together measures of planning, delivery and assessment in one instrument and have proved that there is consistency across IP, ID and IA. They have only retained items that give consistent results. I see an instrument like this as a useful starting point for a discussion of professional development needs rather than an absolute measure of competence. This perhaps needs to be acknowledged in the conclusion, or details about how participants were guided in judging their practice needs to be included. Schweisfurth, M. (2013). Learner-centred Education in International Perspective: Whose pedagogy for whose development? Routledge. Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature? Yes Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound? Yes Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others? Yes If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate? I cannot comment. A qualified statistician is required. Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility? Yes Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results? Partly Competing Interests No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise Pedgagogy and pedagogical change I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however I have significant reservations, as outlined above. reply Respond to this report Responses (1) Author Response 09 May 2025 Anemut Mehari, Dilla University, Dilla, Ethiopia Responses to reviewer's comments Dear Reviewer, We greatly appreciate your insightful and constructive feedback. The revised manuscript has been amended to address all of the points you raised, as detailed below. 1. We acknowledged the Schweisfurth’s (2013) contributions, as referenced in the introduction section. 2. “Facilitates a learning environment where the sense of belonging of learners through individual differences is respected.” To assure such instructors beliefs, a random 2-5 class students were checked to see if their instructors allowed them to select assignment topics related to their interests, facilitated a discussion where students suggested norms and agreed on respectful behavior standards, incorporated texts, examples, and case studies that reflected students’ diverse cultural backgrounds, and considered varying learning styles (e.g., visual, auditory, kinesthetic) in lesson delivery. 3. “Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results? Partly” The conclusion section has been revised in response to the feedback provided. 4. "The instrument like this as a useful starting point for a discussion of professional development needs rather than an absolute measure of competence" is acknowledged in the conclusion section. 5. We also incorporated the actions undertaken, along with the limitations associated with self-reported data, as outlined in the limitations section. To mitigate potential misunderstandings, clear explanations of instructional practice definitions, survey items, and completion guidelines were provided to participants prior to data collection. Thank you! View more View less Competing Interests No competing interests were disclosed. reply Respond Report a concern Stutchbury K. Peer Review Report For: Validating instructional practice scale for university instructors in Ethiopia [version 1; peer review: 1 approved with reservations] . F1000Research 2024, 13 :975 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.167618.r373620) NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/13-975/v1#referee-response-373620 Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article: Approved - the paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations - A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approved - fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions Adjust parameters to alter display View on desktop for interactive features Includes Interactive Elements View on desktop for interactive features Competing Interests Policy Provide sufficient details of any financial or non-financial competing interests to enable users to assess whether your comments might lead a reasonable person to question your impartiality. Consider the following examples, but note that this is not an exhaustive list: Examples of 'Non-Financial Competing Interests' Within the past 4 years, you have held joint grants, published or collaborated with any of the authors of the selected paper. You have a close personal relationship (e.g. parent, spouse, sibling, or domestic partner) with any of the authors. You are a close professional associate of any of the authors (e.g. scientific mentor, recent student). You work at the same institute as any of the authors. You hope/expect to benefit (e.g. favour or employment) as a result of your submission. You are an Editor for the journal in which the article is published. Examples of 'Financial Competing Interests' You expect to receive, or in the past 4 years have received, any of the following from any commercial organisation that may gain financially from your submission: a salary, fees, funding, reimbursements. You expect to receive, or in the past 4 years have received, shared grant support or other funding with any of the authors. You hold, or are currently applying for, any patents or significant stocks/shares relating to the subject matter of the paper you are commenting on. Stay Updated Sign up for content alerts and receive a weekly or monthly email with all newly published articles Register with F1000Research Already registered? Sign in Not now, thanks close PLEASE NOTE If you are an AUTHOR of this article, please check that you signed in with the account associated with this article otherwise we cannot automatically identify your role as an author and your comment will be labelled as a “User Comment”. If you are a REVIEWER of this article, please check that you have signed in with the account associated with this article and then go to your account to submit your report, please do not post your review here. If you do not have access to your original account, please contact us . All commenters must hold a formal affiliation as per our Policies . The information that you give us will be displayed next to your comment. User comments must be in English, comprehensible and relevant to the article under discussion. We reserve the right to remove any comments that we consider to be inappropriate, offensive or otherwise in breach of the User Comment Terms and Conditions . Commenters must not use a comment for personal attacks. When criticisms of the article are based on unpublished data, the data should be made available. I accept the User Comment Terms and Conditions Please confirm that you accept the User Comment Terms and Conditions. Affiliation ✕ refresh Please enter your institution. Note: To add your institution or organisation, start typing the name and then select the correct name from the list. Where applicable, the name will appear in both the original language and in English. Do not paste in the name. If the name does not appear in the drop-down list, we will display the information you have entered. ✕ refresh Country/Region * USA UK Canada China France Germany Afghanistan Aland Islands Albania Algeria American Samoa Andorra Angola Anguilla Antarctica Antigua and Barbuda Argentina Armenia Aruba Australia Austria Azerbaijan Bahamas Bahrain Bangladesh Barbados Belarus Belgium Belize Benin Bermuda Bhutan Bolivia Bosnia and Herzegovina Botswana Bouvet Island Brazil British Indian Ocean Territory British Virgin Islands Brunei Bulgaria Burkina Faso Burundi Cambodia Cameroon Canada Cape Verde Cayman Islands Central African Republic Chad Chile China Christmas Island Cocos (Keeling) Islands Colombia Comoros Congo Cook Islands Costa Rica Cote d'Ivoire Croatia Cuba Cyprus Czech Republic Democratic Republic of the Congo Denmark Djibouti Dominica Dominican Republic Ecuador Egypt El Salvador Equatorial Guinea Eritrea Estonia Ethiopia Falkland Islands Faroe Islands Federated States of Micronesia Fiji Finland France French Guiana French Polynesia French Southern Territories Gabon Georgia Germany Ghana Gibraltar Greece Greenland Grenada Guadeloupe Guam Guatemala Guernsey Guinea Guinea-Bissau Guyana Haiti Heard Island and Mcdonald Islands Holy See (Vatican City State) Honduras Hong Kong Hungary Iceland India Indonesia Iran Iraq Ireland Israel Italy Jamaica Japan Jersey Jordan Kazakhstan Kenya Kiribati Kosovo (Serbia and Montenegro) Kuwait Kyrgyzstan Lao People's Democratic Republic Latvia Lebanon Lesotho Liberia Libya Liechtenstein Lithuania Luxembourg Macao Madagascar Malawi Malaysia Maldives Mali Malta Marshall Islands Martinique Mauritania Mauritius Mayotte Mexico Minor Outlying Islands of the United States Moldova Monaco Mongolia Montenegro Montserrat Morocco Mozambique Myanmar Namibia Nauru Nepal Netherlands Antilles New Caledonia New Zealand Nicaragua Niger Nigeria Niue Norfolk Island North Korea North Macedonia Northern Mariana Islands Norway Oman Pakistan Palau Palestinian Territory Panama Papua New Guinea Paraguay Peru Philippines Pitcairn Poland Portugal Puerto Rico Qatar Reunion Romania Russian Federation Rwanda Saint Helena Saint Kitts and Nevis Saint Lucia Saint Pierre and Miquelon Saint Vincent and the Grenadines Samoa San Marino Sao Tome and Principe Saudi Arabia Senegal Serbia Seychelles Sierra Leone Singapore Slovakia Slovenia Solomon Islands Somalia South Africa South Georgia and the South Sandwich Is South Korea South Sudan Spain Sri Lanka Sudan Suriname Svalbard and Jan Mayen Swaziland Sweden Switzerland Syria Taiwan Tajikistan Tanzania Thailand The Gambia The Netherlands Timor-Leste Togo Tokelau Tonga Trinidad and Tobago Tunisia Turkey Turkmenistan Turks and Caicos Islands Tuvalu UK USA Uganda Ukraine United Arab Emirates United States Virgin Islands Uruguay Uzbekistan Vanuatu Venezuela Vietnam Wallis and Futuna West Bank and Gaza Strip Western Sahara Yemen Zambia Zimbabwe Please select your country/region. You must enter a comment. Competing Interests Please disclose any competing interests that might be construed to influence your judgment of the article's or peer review report's validity or importance. Competing Interests Policy Provide sufficient details of any financial or non-financial competing interests to enable users to assess whether your comments might lead a reasonable person to question your impartiality. Consider the following examples, but note that this is not an exhaustive list: Examples of 'Non-Financial Competing Interests' Within the past 4 years, you have held joint grants, published or collaborated with any of the authors of the selected paper. You have a close personal relationship (e.g. parent, spouse, sibling, or domestic partner) with any of the authors. You are a close professional associate of any of the authors (e.g. scientific mentor, recent student). You work at the same institute as any of the authors. You hope/expect to benefit (e.g. favour or employment) as a result of your submission. You are an Editor for the journal in which the article is published. Examples of 'Financial Competing Interests' You expect to receive, or in the past 4 years have received, any of the following from any commercial organisation that may gain financially from your submission: a salary, fees, funding, reimbursements. You expect to receive, or in the past 4 years have received, shared grant support or other funding with any of the authors. You hold, or are currently applying for, any patents or significant stocks/shares relating to the subject matter of the paper you are commenting on. Please state your competing interests The comment has been saved. An error has occurred. Please try again. Cancel Post var lTitle = "Validating instructional practice scale for...".replace("'", ''); var linkedInUrl = "http://www.linkedin.com/shareArticle?url=https://f1000research.com/articles/13-975/v1" + "&title=" + encodeURIComponent(lTitle) + "&summary=" + encodeURIComponent('Read the article by '); var deliciousUrl = "https://del.icio.us/post?url=https://f1000research.com/articles/13-975/v1&title=" + encodeURIComponent(lTitle); var redditUrl = "http://reddit.com/submit?url=https://f1000research.com/articles/13-975/v1" + "&title=" + encodeURIComponent(lTitle); linkedInUrl += encodeURIComponent('Mehari A et al.'); var offsetTop = /chrome/i.test( navigator.userAgent ) ? 4 : -10; var addthis_config = { ui_offset_top: offsetTop, services_compact : "facebook,twitter,www.linkedin.com,www.mendeley.com,reddit.com", services_expanded : "facebook,twitter,www.linkedin.com,www.mendeley.com,reddit.com", services_custom : [ { name: "LinkedIn", url: linkedInUrl, icon:"/img/icon/at_linkedin.svg" }, { name: "Mendeley", url: "http://www.mendeley.com/import/?url=https://f1000research.com/articles/13-975/v1/mendeley", icon:"/img/icon/at_mendeley.svg" }, { name: "Reddit", url: redditUrl, icon:"/img/icon/at_reddit.svg" }, ] }; var addthis_share = { url: "https://f1000research.com/articles/13-975", templates : { twitter : "Validating instructional practice scale for university instructors.... Mehari A et al., published by " + "@F1000Research" + ", https://f1000research.com/articles/13-975/v1" } }; if (typeof(addthis) != "undefined"){ addthis.addEventListener('addthis.ready', checkCount); addthis.addEventListener('addthis.menu.share', checkCount); } $(".f1r-shares-twitter").attr("href", "https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?text=" + addthis_share.templates.twitter); $(".f1r-shares-facebook").attr("href", "https://www.facebook.com/sharer/sharer.php?u=" + addthis_share.url); $(".f1r-shares-linkedin").attr("href", addthis_config.services_custom[0].url); $(".f1r-shares-reddit").attr("href", addthis_config.services_custom[2].url); $(".f1r-shares-mendelay").attr("href", addthis_config.services_custom[1].url); function checkCount(){ setTimeout(function(){ $(".addthis_button_expanded").each(function(){ var count = $(this).text(); if (count !== "" && count != "0") $(this).removeClass("is-hidden"); else $(this).addClass("is-hidden"); }); }, 1000); } close How to cite this report {{reportCitation}} Cancel Copy Citation Details $(function(){R.ui.buttonDropdowns('.dropdown-for-downloads');}); $(function(){R.ui.toolbarDropdowns('.toolbar-dropdown-for-downloads');}); $.get("/articles/acj/152815/167618") new F1000.Clipboard(); new F1000.ThesaurusTermsDisplay("articles", "article", "167618"); $(document).ready(function() { $( "#frame1" ).on('load', function() { var mydiv = $(this).contents().find("div"); var h = mydiv.height(); console.log(h) }); var tooltipLivingFigure = jQuery(".interactive-living-figure-label .icon-more-info"), titleLivingFigure = tooltipLivingFigure.attr("title"); tooltipLivingFigure.simpletip({ fixed: true, position: ["-115", "30"], baseClass: 'small-tooltip', content:titleLivingFigure + " " }); tooltipLivingFigure.removeAttr("title"); $("body").on("click", ".cite-living-figure", function(e) { e.preventDefault(); var ref = $(this).attr("data-ref"); $(this).closest(".living-figure-list-container").find("#" + ref).fadeIn(200); }); $("body").on("click", ".close-cite-living-figure", function(e) { e.preventDefault(); $(this).closest(".popup-window-wrapper").fadeOut(200); }); $(document).on("mouseup", function(e) { var metricsContainer = $(".article-metrics-popover-wrapper"); if (!metricsContainer.is(e.target) && metricsContainer.has(e.target).length === 0) { $(".article-metrics-close-button").click(); } }); var articleId = $('#articleId').val(); if($("#main-article-count-box").attachArticleMetrics) { $("#main-article-count-box").attachArticleMetrics(articleId, { articleMetricsView: true }); } }); var figshareWidget = $(".new_figshare_widget"); if (figshareWidget.length > 0) { window.figshare.load("f1000", function(Widget) { // Select a tag/tags defined in your page. In this tag we will place the widget. _.map(figshareWidget, function(el){ var widget = new Widget({ articleId: $(el).attr("figshare_articleId") //height:300 // this is the height of the viewer part. [Default: 550] }); widget.initialize(); // initialize the widget widget.mount(el); // mount it in a tag that's on your page // this will save the widget on the global scope for later use from // your JS scripts. This line is optional. //window.widget = widget; }); }); } close Error Close Add Reset F1000.MICROSERVICES.AFFILIATION = ''; $(document).ready(function () { $('.js-affiliations-form').each((index, form) => { new AffiliationForm({ formId: form.id, institutionErrorSelector: '.comment-enter-institution', departmentErrorSelector: '.comment-enter-department', placeSelector: '.js-add-comment-place', stateSelector: '.js-add-comment-state', zipCodeSelector: '.js-add-comment-zipcode', countrySelector: '.js-add-comment-country', countryErrorSelector: '.comment-enter-country', }); }); }); $(document).ready(function () { var reportIds = { "385285": 0, "385284": 0, "385287": 0, "385286": 15, "385283": 0, "385282": 0, "343053": 0, "343055": 0, "343054": 0, "385289": 0, "385288": 0, "385291": 0, "385290": 0, "343056": 0, "433692": 0, "433693": 0, "433690": 0, "433691": 0, "433708": 0, "433706": 0, "433707": 0, "433704": 0, "433705": 0, "326980": 0, "326981": 0, "326982": 0, "326983": 0, "326979": 0, "326988": 0, "335437": 0, "335436": 0, "335439": 0, "335438": 0, "326984": 0, "326985": 0, "326986": 0, "335435": 0, "326987": 0, "335434": 0, "335440": 0, "373621": 0, "373620": 24, "389748": 0, "373623": 0, "373622": 0, "389745": 0, "389744": 0, "373619": 0, "389747": 0, "389746": 0, "373628": 0, "389759": 0, "346750": 0, "373625": 0, "373624": 0, "373627": 0, "373626": 0, "383621": 8, "383620": 0, "383623": 0, "383622": 0, "383617": 0, "389761": 0, "383616": 0, "389760": 0, "383619": 0, "389763": 0, "383618": 0, "389762": 0, "391309": 0, "435854": 0, "391308": 0, "435855": 0, "391311": 0, "391310": 0, "435853": 0, "391305": 0, "383625": 0, "383624": 9, "391307": 0, "391306": 0, "391313": 0, "391312": 0, "435856": 0, "391314": 0, "435857": 0, "319132": 0, "435870": 0, "319133": 0, "435871": 0, "319134": 0, "319135": 0, "435869": 0, "319128": 0, "319129": 0, "319130": 0, "319131": 0, "330919": 0, "319136": 0, "319137": 0, "435872": 0, "330925": 0, "330924": 0, "330927": 0, "330926": 0, "330921": 0, "330920": 0, "330923": 0, "330922": 0, "330928": 0, "338639": 0, "338645": 0, "338644": 0, "338647": 0, "338646": 0, "323543": 0, "338641": 0, "338640": 0, "338643": 0, "338642": 0, "323548": 0, "323549": 0, "323550": 0, "323551": 0, "323544": 0, "338648": 0, "323545": 0, "323546": 0, "323547": 0, "323552": 0, "383486": 0, }; $(".referee-response-container,.js-referee-report").each(function(index, el) { var reportId = $(el).attr("data-reportid"), reportCount = reportIds[reportId] || 0; $(el).find(".comments-count-container,.js-referee-report-views").html(reportCount); }); var uuidInput = $("#article_uuid"), oldUUId = uuidInput.val(), newUUId = "e46eeda2-7051-4404-94ff-87fd37519cf3"; uuidInput.val(newUUId); $("a[href*='article_uuid=']").each(function(index, el) { var newHref = $(el).attr("href").replace(oldUUId, newUUId); $(el).attr("href", newHref); }); }); An innovative open access publishing platform offering rapid publication and open peer review, whilst supporting data deposition and sharing. Browse Gateways Collections How it Works Contact For Developers Cookie Notice Privacy Notice RSS Submit Your Research Follow us © 2012-2026 F1000 Research Ltd. ISSN 2046-1402 | Legal | Partner of Research4Life • CrossRef • ORCID • FAIRSharing R.templateTests.simpleTemplate = R.template(' $text $text $text $text $text '); R.templateTests.runTests(); var F1000platform = new F1000.Platform({ name: "f1000research", displayName: "F1000Research", hostName: "f1000research.com", id: "1", editorialEmail: "[email protected]", infoEmail: "[email protected]", usePmcStats: true }); $(function(){R.ui.dropdowns('.dropdown-for-authors, .dropdown-for-about, .dropdown-for-myresearch');}); // $(function(){R.ui.dropdowns('.dropdown-for-referees');}); $(document).ready(function () { if ($(".cookie-warning").is(":visible")) { $(".sticky").css("margin-bottom", "35px"); $(".devices").addClass("devices-and-cookie-warning"); } $(".cookie-warning .close-button").click(function (e) { $(".devices").removeClass("devices-and-cookie-warning"); $(".sticky").css("margin-bottom", "0"); }); $("#tweeter-feed .tweet-message").each(function (i, message) { var self = $(message); self.html(linkify(self.html())); }); $(".partner").on("mouseenter mouseleave", function() { $(this).find(".gray-scale, .colour").toggleClass("is-hidden"); }); }); Sign In Remember me Forgotten your password? Sign In Cancel Email or password not correct. Please try again Please wait... $(function(){ // Note: All the setup needs to run against a name attribute and *not* the id due the clonish // nature of facebox... $("a[id=googleSignInButton]").click(function(event){ event.preventDefault(); $("input[id=oAuthSystem]").val("GOOGLE"); $("form[id=oAuthForm]").submit(); }); $("a[id=facebookSignInButton]").click(function(event){ event.preventDefault(); $("input[id=oAuthSystem]").val("FACEBOOK"); $("form[id=oAuthForm]").submit(); }); $("a[id=orcidSignInButton]").click(function(event){ event.preventDefault(); $("input[id=oAuthSystem]").val("ORCID"); $("form[id=oAuthForm]").submit(); }); }); If you've forgotten your password, please enter your email address below and we'll send you instructions on how to reset your password. The email address should be the one you originally registered with F1000. Email address not valid, please try again You registered with F1000 via Google, so we cannot reset your password. To sign in, please click here . If you still need help with your Google account password, please click here . You registered with F1000 via Facebook, so we cannot reset your password. To sign in, please click here . If you still need help with your Facebook account password, please click here . Code not correct, please try again Reset password Cancel Email us for further assistance. Server error, please try again. If your email address is registered with us, we will email you instructions to reset your password. If you think you should have received this email but it has not arrived, please check your spam filters and/or contact for further assistance. Please wait... Register $(document).ready(function () { signIn.createSignInAsRow($("#sign-in-form-gfb-popup")); $(".target-field").each(function () { var uris = $(this).val().split("/"); if (uris.pop() === "login") { $(this).val(uris.toString().replace(",","/")); } }); });