Assessing the students’ evaluations of educational quality (SEEQ) questionnaire in Oman higher education

Assessing the students’ evaluations of... | 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/13-1329" }, "headline": "Assessing the students’ evaluations of educational quality (SEEQ) questionnaire in Oman higher education", "datePublished": "2024-11-06T17:15:56", "dateModified": "2025-02-10T17:37:33", "author": [ { "@type": "Person", "name": "Muna Al Kalbani" } ], "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 Student Evaluation of Education Quality (SEEQ) is a widely used tool for assessing educational quality. This local data study examined the SEEQ’s psychometric properties in Omani education, specifically its validity and reliability. This local data study examined the SEEQ’s psychometric properties in Omani education, specifically its validity and reliability. Methods This was quantitative research to assess educational quality from the students’ viewpoint. The study was conducted at Muscat College from January to March 2024.Simple randomization implemented at the course level helped to choose the participants. All students registered in the specified courses were asked to take part after a random sample of the courses Muscat College offers throughout the study term was chosen. Five hundred fifty students completed the survey. AMOS was used to conduct confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), and PSS was used to evaluate the internal consistency (IBM Corp., 2024a, 2024b). Results CFA of the SEEQ indicated that the eight -factor solution best fit the data. Results also showed that the SEEQ has overall good-to-excellent reliability. The adapted scale was psychometrically sound, proving SEEQ’s applicability Conclusions This study proposes using SEEQ to measure Oman’s education quality. " } { "@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/13-1329/v2", "name": "Assessing the students’ evaluations of educational quality (SEEQ)..." } } ] } Home Browse Assessing the students’ evaluations of educational quality (SEEQ)... ALL Metrics - Views Downloads Get PDF Get XML Cite How to cite this article Al Kalbani M. Assessing the students’ evaluations of educational quality (SEEQ) questionnaire in Oman higher education [version 2; peer review: 1 approved, 2 approved with reservations] . F1000Research 2025, 13 :1329 ( https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.157354.2 ) 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 Revised Assessing the students’ evaluations of educational quality (SEEQ) questionnaire in Oman higher education [version 2; peer review: 1 approved, 2 approved with reservations] Muna Al Kalbani https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3619-0849 Muna Al Kalbani https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3619-0849 PUBLISHED 10 Feb 2025 Author details Author details Computing, Muscat College, Ruwi, Muscat Governorate, Oman Muna Al Kalbani Roles: Conceptualization, Data Curation, Formal Analysis, Methodology, Project Administration, Validation, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing OPEN PEER REVIEW DETAILS REVIEWER STATUS Abstract Background Student Evaluation of Education Quality (SEEQ) is a widely used tool for assessing educational quality. This local data study examined the SEEQ’s psychometric properties in Omani education, specifically its validity and reliability. This local data study examined the SEEQ’s psychometric properties in Omani education, specifically its validity and reliability. Methods This was quantitative research to assess educational quality from the students’ viewpoint. The study was conducted at Muscat College from January to March 2024.Simple randomization implemented at the course level helped to choose the participants. All students registered in the specified courses were asked to take part after a random sample of the courses Muscat College offers throughout the study term was chosen. Five hundred fifty students completed the survey. AMOS was used to conduct confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), and PSS was used to evaluate the internal consistency (IBM Corp., 2024a, 2024b). Results CFA of the SEEQ indicated that the eight -factor solution best fit the data. Results also showed that the SEEQ has overall good-to-excellent reliability. The adapted scale was psychometrically sound, proving SEEQ’s applicability Conclusions This study proposes using SEEQ to measure Oman’s education quality. READ ALL READ LESS Keywords SEEQ, Student Evaluations of Teaching (SET), validity, reliability, teaching Corresponding Author(s) Muna Al Kalbani ( [email protected] ) Close Corresponding author: Muna Al Kalbani Competing interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Grant information: The author(s) declared that no grants were involved in supporting this work. Copyright: © 2025 Al Kalbani M. 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. How to cite: Al Kalbani M. Assessing the students’ evaluations of educational quality (SEEQ) questionnaire in Oman higher education [version 2; peer review: 1 approved, 2 approved with reservations] . F1000Research 2025, 13 :1329 ( https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.157354.2 ) First published: 06 Nov 2024, 13 :1329 ( https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.157354.1 ) Latest published: 10 Feb 2025, 13 :1329 ( https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.157354.2 ) Revised Amendments from Version 1 This updated version of the article introduces several important improvements: The literature review has been broadened to incorporate regionally relevant and recent studies, strengthening the conceptual framework. The methods section now provides clearer justifications for methodological choices, sampling rationale, and translation procedures. The discussion critically examines potential biases and contextual limitations, with a focus on cultural implications. Enhanced ethical considerations and explicit data transparency improve reproducibility and credibility. Minor inconsistencies in reference formatting and presentation have been corrected. This updated version of the article introduces several important improvements: The literature review has been broadened to incorporate regionally relevant and recent studies, strengthening the conceptual framework. The methods section now provides clearer justifications for methodological choices, sampling rationale, and translation procedures. The discussion critically examines potential biases and contextual limitations, with a focus on cultural implications. Enhanced ethical considerations and explicit data transparency improve reproducibility and credibility. Minor inconsistencies in reference formatting and presentation have been corrected. See the author's detailed response to the review by Dickson Okoree Mireku See the author's detailed response to the review by Margret Sigrun Sigurdardottir READ REVIEWER RESPONSES 1. Introduction Course and program evaluation is a critical quality control process performed by all colleges and universities. Student evaluations of teaching (SET), typically administered through questionnaires with rating scales (e.g., Likert scales), enable students to express their degree of agreement or disagreement with various statements. Initially designed for evaluating courses and programs, SETs have expanded to assess teaching effectiveness ( Marsh, 1987 ). Marsh (1987) defines teaching effectiveness as the assessment of various instructional components, including clarity of presentation, instructor enthusiasm, organization, interaction with students, and feedback provision. These factors reflect pedagogical skills beyond the subject matter and demonstrate how SETs assess both course quality and teaching effectiveness. One widely used tool in educational research is the Student Evaluation of Educational Quality (SEEQ) developed by Marsh (1982) . When developing SEEQ, several aspects of teaching and learning were taken into account, enabling its wide-ranging use in a variety of academic fields. SEEQ is globally recognized as a reliable and effective instrument for measuring teaching effectiveness ( Balam & Shannon, 2010 ; Coffey & Gibbs, 2001 ; Grammatikopoulos et al., 2015 ). Strong internal consistency has been demonstrated by SEEQ’s psychometric qualities; in a variety of international situations, Cronbach’s alpha scores range from 0.88 to 0.97 ( Marsh, 1982 ; Marsh & Roche, 1993 ). For example, a study in Oman by Al-Hinai (2011) reported a Cronbach’s alpha of 0.87, affirming its applicability within the Omani context. Despite these positive results, the SEEQ has yet to be fully explored within Oman’s higher education system. However, Constantinou and Wijnen-Meijer (2022) emphasize the importance of critically acknowledging SETs’ shortcomings. They point out that SETs are subject to potential biases such as gender bias, response bias, and the influence of non-teaching characteristics such as course difficulty or instructor popularity, which can affect assessments of teaching effectiveness. These biases may affect the validity of SETs as a solitary measure of instructional quality. As a result, while SETs provide valuable data, they should be utilized cautiously and in conjunction with other evaluation methodologies to ensure a more comprehensive and equitable assessment of teaching quality. Although SETs and tools like SEEQ are useful in the context of Oman’s higher education system, more research is required to examine their validity and reliability in a variety of cultural and educational contexts. By examining the psychometric qualities of the SEEQ among Omani college students, this study seeks to close this gap. The objectives of this study are to: (a) assess the Arabic version of SEEQ’s reliability and (b) use confirmatory factor analysis to determine its dimensional structure. 2. Methods 2.1 Study design The Students’ Evaluations of Educational Quality (SEEQ) Questionnaire ( Marsh & Roche, 1993 ) was utilized in this quantitative study to measure educational quality from the students’ perspective. A quantitative approach was chosen for its effectiveness in gathering numerical data that can be statistically analyzed to uncover correlations and patterns within the dataset ( Creswell & Creswell, 2017 ). This method provides an objective, measurable evaluation of educational quality, aligning with the research objectives. Although qualitative methods like interviews or case studies could offer deep insights into teaching effectiveness, a quantitative approach was preferred for its ability to generalize findings across a large sample and for its statistical rigor ( Creswell & Creswell, 2017 ). The study took place at Muscat College from January to March 2024. The findings aim to contribute to the broader discussion on evaluating higher education by collecting data on student assessments of course quality ( Hancock & Algozzine, 2016 ). 2.2 Sample size calculation and sampling method A total of 278 students needed to be surveyed to achieve a 95% confidence interval, a 5% significance level, and 80% power. The participants were selected by a simple randomization process. The participants were chosen through a simple randomization process at the course level. Completion is based upon checking the registration department for a comprehensive list of Muscat College students. Simple randomization implemented at the course level helped to choose the participants. Muscat College was chosen because it is the researcher’s workplace, making it convenient for distributing the questionnaire. Furthermore, the college’s wide array of departments, such as computing, business, and foundation courses, offered an ideal environment for collecting diverse student responses. The selection process was seeking to guarantee a wide representation of courses from different academic disciplines (e.g., computing, business, and foundation), course sizes (small to large lecture-based classrooms), and academic years (first year to senior-level students). All students enrolled in randomly selected classes were invited to participate. This approach was designed to capture a diverse and representative sample of student experiences, giving a solid foundation for assessing the findings’ generalizability. Five hundred fifty students completed the survey. The response rate was 91.7%, with 550 out of 600 individuals participating. 2.3 Participants In the current study, 550 students from three different departments at Muscat College participated by completing the questionnaires (SEEQ) distributed to them. The participants averaged 20 years old, with a 2.54-year standard deviation. 2.4 Ethical approval The ethical approval was received by Muscat College’s Research Ethical Committee under the reference MC/RC/1/2024, dated January 2024. Prior authorization was obtained before starting the search. Because the study only required completing a non-invasive, anonymous survey (SEEQ) measuring student assessments of educational quality, which had been approved by the research committee, all participants provided oral permission before they were contacted. Participants were told that their participation in this research was founded on the principles of confidentiality and autonomy, and that they might withdraw from the study at any moment. 2.5 Data collection procedures The Students’ Evaluations of Educational Quality (SEEQ) Questionnaire was used for data collecting; the chosen sample of students received paper-based questionnaires. The scheduled hour for the questionnaire administration was set; the teacher stayed outside the classroom to provide an objective environment while students were completing the surveys. Following completion of the surveys, a chosen student collected them, sealed them in an envelope, and handed the envelope to the authors. Students were advised that the teacher would not get any direct comments from the assessments, therefore ensuring the privacy of their answers. Three months, from January 2024 to March 2024, defined the data collecting period. Following the ethical standards set by the college, all completed surveys are accompanied by signed informed permission forms. To maintain anonymity, all data were securely stored, and no identifiable information was recorded. The study followed the college’s ethical guidelines, with informed consent obtained from all participants. Data collection occurred from January to March 2024. 2.6 Measures The Students’ Evaluations of Educational Quality (SEEQ) questionnaire was the tool used ( Marsh, 1982 ). The SEEQ consists of thirty items that measure eight dimensions under consideration, one of which measures the subject’s overall evaluation. The SEEQ consists of the following dimensions: breadth of coverage, assessment, assignments, learning value, teacher enthusiasm, organization, group interaction, individual rapport, and overall rating ( Marsh, 1982 ). Each component is rated on a five-point Likert scale: strongly disagree, disagree, neutral, agree, and strongly agree ( Marsh, 1982 ). The tool’s developer, Professor Herbert March, was contacted personally and granted permission to be used for study ( Marsh, 1982 ). The author translated SEEQ into Arabic prior to the study, and the instrument was then translated back into English by a bilingual expert who has experience in this area. Discrepancies that were identified were rectified in the Omani version of the instrument after the bilingual expert and the authors conducted a comparison between the two editions of the instrument (the original and the re-translated version). Subsequently, a preliminary test was administered to a selected group of students and colleagues to evaluate the reliability of the translated SEEQ. Modifications were implemented to improve the semantic significance of some words in Arabic. 2.7 Data analysis The SEEQ scale was validated using a combination of alternate methods and data analysis. An evaluation of the internal consistency of the scale and its three subscales was conducted using Cronbach’s alpha statistics. The structure of the SEEQ factors was examined using confirmatory factor analyses (CFAs) in AMOS v26, which is a structural equation modeling program. The model was evaluated using fit indices that are often used in the discipline ( Blunch, 2008 ). The Tucker-Lewis index (TLI), goodness-of-fit index (GFI), comparative fit index (CFI), and Chi-Square (χ 2 ) are among the measures. The model fit indices were deemed acceptable if the Comparative Fit Index (CFI), Goodness of Fit Index (GFI), and Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI) were above 0.90, and the Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) was below 0.08 ( Bentler, 1990 ). 3. Results 3.1 Reliability of internal consistency To determine the internal consistency reliability of each SEEQ scale, Cronbach’s alpha was used. The output was assessed using the corrected item-total correlation or alpha if an item was omitted ( Field, 2013 ). The reliability (alpha) coefficients for the eight 30-item SEEQ scales are presented in Table 1 . Table 1. Cronbach’s Alpha for the scale. Subscale No of items Alpha learning value 4 0.72 Enthusiasm 4 .77 Organization 4 .72 Group interaction 4 .76 .76 Individual rapport 4 .76 BREADTH 4 .76 .65 Examination 3 .65 ASSIGNMENTS 2 .68 Overall Cronbach’s Alpha for the scale 30 .95 3.2 Confirmatory factor analysis Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) is the most suitable technique for cross validating the factor structure of a test, as per Byrne (2001) . Using the AMOS version 26.0 statistical tool, a covariance matrix ( Figure 1 ) was used to evaluate the validity of the item allocation to the eight SEEQ measures ( IBM Corp, 2024a ). AMOS v26 was selected due to its sophisticated modeling capabilities and user-friendly interface, which make it well-suited for managing complex structural equation models. The eight-factor structure proposed for the original scale has been confirmed by the Arabic version of SEEQ’s acceptable CFA indices ( Figure 1 ). Figure 1. The measurement model for SEEQ. 4. Discussion The revised CFA model’s goodness-of-fit indices indicate a strong fit to the study data: χ 2 (df=349)=3854.401, CFI=.963, GFI=.970, PCOLOSE=1.00, and RMSEA=.032. These indices all exceeded thresholds. Cronbach’s Alpha showed 0.935 reliability, demonstrating high internal consistency. However, applying Cronbach’s alpha and Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) in a different cultural and linguistic context, such as the Arabic version of SEEQ in Oman, may present challenges. These challenges include potential variations in how scale items are interpreted due to language nuances and cultural differences that could affect students’ perceptions and responses. These factors should be considered when generalizing findings across different populations. The findings indicate that SEEQ is a valuable tool for evaluating both educational programs and individual courses in Oman’s higher education system. While this study demonstrates its applicability, further research with larger and more diverse samples is necessary to enhance the generalizability of the results to the broader student population in Oman. Despite the current sample limitations, SEEQ remains useful for program-level evaluations aimed at improving overall educational quality. Ethical approval The ethical approval was received by Muscat College’s Research Ethical Committee under the reference MC/RC/1/2024, dated January 2024. Prior authorization was obtained before starting the search. The nature of the research and the little risk involved led to oral consent instead than written permission. Participants in the research had to complete a non-invasive, anonymous survey (Students’ Evaluations of Educational Quality - SEEQ), which only gauges their opinions of educational quality. Written consent was believed to be not required given the low-risk nature of the survey and its anonymous form. The research committee authorized the oral consent procedure as well as the SEEQ tool. All participants provided oral permission before they were contacted. Participants were told that their participation in this research was founded on the principles of confidentiality and autonomy, and that they might withdraw from the study at any moment. Consent statement All participants provided informed consent before participating in the study. The consent process was approved by the college’s ethics committee. Participants agreed that their data would be used for research purposes and could be published. They also agreed to the anonymous use of their data, with no personal information published and the data presented without distortion of scientific meaning. I declare that the data provided is true and can be accounted for. Data availability Underlying data Figshare: Data 1_1 - Copy.xls https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.26494288.v2 ( Al-kalbani, 2024a ). This project contains the following underlying data: • Data 1_1 - Copy.xls Data are available under the terms of the Creative Commons Zero (CC0) All data has been deidentified using the Safe Harbour approach, therefore assuring ethical norms’ conformance. Among the authors who helped to produce this dataset was Muna Alkalbani. Extended data Figshare: SEEQ-Arabic version.pdf https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.27222894.v5 ( Al-kalbani, 2024b ). Additionally, the translated SEEQ questionnaire, the ethical approval for this research, and the informed consent template are available upon request. For more information, please contact the corresponding author. This project contains the following extended: • ilovepdf_merged (3).pdf Data are available under the terms of the Creative Commons Zero (CC0) Software availability statement IBM SPSS Statistics and IBM AMOS, proprietary program created by IBM Corp., were used in the data analysis for this research. Similar statistical analysis and structural equation modeling may be done using free substitutes such PSPP and the R package lavaan. Lavaan may be accessible via the R environment at https://lavaan.ugent.be/ . PSPP is available at [ https://www.gnu.org/software/pspp/ ]. References Al-Hinai NS: Effective college teaching and students’ ratings of teachers: What students think, what faculty believe, and what actual ratings show implications for policy and practice in teaching quality assurance and control in higher education in Oman (Doctoral dissertation). Durham University. Durham E-Theses Online. 2011. Reference Source Al-Kalbani M: Data 1_1 - Copy.xls. Dataset. figshare. 2024a. Publisher Full Text Al-Kalbani M: SEEQ-Arabic version.pdf. figshare. Figure. 2024b. Publisher Full Text Al-Muslim M, Arifin Z: The Usability of SEEQ in Quality Evaluation of Arabic Secondary Education in Malaysia. Int. Educ. Stud. 2015; 8 (3): 202. Publisher Full Text Balam EM, Shannon DM: Student ratings of college teaching: A comparison of faculty and their students. Assess. Eval. High. Educ. 2010; 35 (2): 209–221. Publisher Full Text Bentler PM: Comparative Fit Indexes in Structural Models. Psychol. Bull. 1990; 107 (2): 238–246. Publisher Full Text Blunch N: Introduction to Structural Equation Modeling Using SPSS and AMOS. Los Angeles: Sage Publication; 2008. Byrne BM: Structural Equation Modeling with AMOS: Basic Concepts, Applications, and Programming. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; 2001. Coffey M, Gibbs G: The evaluation of university teaching: A comparison of student and academic perspectives. Assess. Eval. High. Educ. 2001; 26 (3): 240–252. Publisher Full Text Constantinou C, Wijnen-Meijer M: Student evaluations of teaching and the development of a comprehensive measure of teaching effectiveness for medical schools. BMC Med. Educ. 2022; 22 (1): 113. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text Creswell JW, Creswell JD: Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches. Sage Publications; 2017. Field A: Discovering Statistics Using IBM SPSS Statistics. Sage Publications; 2013. Grammatikopoulos V, Linardakis M, Gregoriadis A, et al. : Assessing the Students’ Evaluations of Educational Quality (SEEQ) questionnaire in Greek higher education. High. Educ. 2015; 70 (3): 395–408. Publisher Full Text Hancock DR, Algozzine B: Doing Case Study Research: A Practical Guide for Beginning Researchers. Teachers College Press; 2016. IBM Corp: IBM SPSS Amos for Windows, Version 29.0. IBM Corp; 2024a. IBM Corp: IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, Version 29.0. IBM Corp; 2024b. Marsh HW: SEEQ: A reliable, valid, and useful instrument for collecting students’ evaluations of university teaching. Br. J. Educ. Psychol. 1982; 52 (1): 77–95. Publisher Full Text Marsh HW: Students’ evaluations of university teaching: Research findings, methodological issues, and directions for future research. Int. J. Educ. Res. 1987; 11 (3): 253–388. Publisher Full Text Marsh HW, Roche L: The use of students’ evaluations and an individually structured intervention to enhance university teaching effectiveness. Am. Educ. Res. J. 1993; 30 (1): 217–251. Publisher Full Text Comments on this article Comments (0) Version 2 VERSION 2 PUBLISHED 06 Nov 2024 ADD YOUR COMMENT Comment Author details Author details Computing, Muscat College, Ruwi, Muscat Governorate, Oman Muna Al Kalbani Roles: Conceptualization, Data Curation, Formal Analysis, Methodology, Project Administration, Validation, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing Competing interests No competing interests were disclosed. Grant information The author(s) declared that no grants were involved in supporting this work. Article Versions (2) version 2 Revised Published: 10 Feb 2025, 13:1329 https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.157354.2 version 1 Published: 06 Nov 2024, 13:1329 https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.157354.1 Copyright © 2025 Al Kalbani M. 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. 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 Al Kalbani M. Assessing the students’ evaluations of educational quality (SEEQ) questionnaire in Oman higher education [version 2; peer review: 1 approved, 2 approved with reservations] . F1000Research 2025, 13 :1329 ( https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.157354.2 ) 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 2 VERSION 2 PUBLISHED 10 Feb 2025 Revised Views 0 Cite How to cite this report: Suranto S. Reviewer Report For: Assessing the students’ evaluations of educational quality (SEEQ) questionnaire in Oman higher education [version 2; peer review: 1 approved, 2 approved with reservations] . F1000Research 2025, 13 :1329 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.177084.r387744 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/13-1329/v2#referee-response-387744 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 16 Jun 2025 Suranto Suranto , Universitas Muhammadiyah Surakarta, Surakarta, Central Java, Indonesia Approved with Reservations VIEWS 0 https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.177084.r387744 1. The background section of this article has presented the fundamental theories regarding the importance of teaching evaluation and the position of SEEQ as an internationally recognized instrument. The references used are quite strong, including Marsh’s research and several other relevant ... Continue reading READ ALL 1. The background section of this article has presented the fundamental theories regarding the importance of teaching evaluation and the position of SEEQ as an internationally recognized instrument. The references used are quite strong, including Marsh’s research and several other relevant studies. To strengthen the contextual foundation, the author should consider adding recent studies from countries in the Middle East or other developing nations that have conducted validations of the SET/SEEQ instrument. In addition, the research gap needs to be emphasized more explicitly — for example, by stating that to date, no study has comprehensively tested the structural validity and reliability of the Arabic version of SEEQ using CFA in the context of Oman. 2. The use of a quantitative research method with CFA as the primary analytical tool is appropriate for testing the construct validity and reliability of the instrument. The explanation regarding the sampling procedure and the use of AMOS for analysis is also clear. However, the author should provide more detailed information about the back-translation process, including who the translators were, their qualifications, as well as the mechanism of the preliminary instrument testing (number of participants, implementation procedures, and a brief summary of the results). In addition, it is necessary to explain the reason for adopting all 30 items in the SEEQ without modification, or if any modifications were made, which parts were adjusted. Information about the total student population at Muscat College should also be included so that readers can understand the proportion of the sample relative to the overall population. 3. The presentation of the instrument’s reliability results through Cronbach’s alpha values is very good and demonstrates high internal consistency across most subscales. It would be even better if the author provided the CFA results not only in the form of goodness-of-fit indices but also with a table of factor loadings for each SEEQ item. Additionally, the discussion of the reliability and validity results should be further elaborated by explaining which factors contributed the most or the least, and which factors were most responsive to the Omani context. 4. The discussion has addressed important aspects such as the implications of applying the instrument in different cultural contexts and the challenges of language adaptation. However, the discussion would be stronger if it also included theoretical implications for the development of cross-cultural validity studies of teaching evaluation instruments. In addition, the practical implications for higher education institutions in Oman, particularly regarding teaching quality policies and faculty evaluation systems, should be explained more comprehensively. The study’s limitations should also be described in greater detail — for example, regarding the research subjects being limited to a single institution and the absence of external validity testing. 5. The conclusion has effectively summarized the research findings and stated that the SEEQ is suitable for use in higher education in Oman. However, it would be stronger if it included a recommendation for implementing the SEEQ at the institutional level as a tool for monitoring the quality of teaching and learning. Additionally, suggestions for future research should be made more specific — for example, by recommending invariance testing across semesters, institutions, or academic programs to ensure the stability of the factors in various contexts. 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? Partly 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: I specialize in the field of educational management, which focuses on quality assurance, evaluation systems, and the development of educational policies within institutional settings. Research on the validation of the SEEQ instrument is highly relevant because teaching evaluation tools are a crucial component of educational quality management systems, particularly to ensure that student evaluations of lecturers are conducted using valid, reliable, and contextually appropriate measurement instruments. 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 Suranto S. Reviewer Report For: Assessing the students’ evaluations of educational quality (SEEQ) questionnaire in Oman higher education [version 2; peer review: 1 approved, 2 approved with reservations] . F1000Research 2025, 13 :1329 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.177084.r387744 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/13-1329/v2#referee-response-387744 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 Respond or Comment COMMENT ON THIS REPORT Views 0 Cite How to cite this report: Mireku DO. Reviewer Report For: Assessing the students’ evaluations of educational quality (SEEQ) questionnaire in Oman higher education [version 2; peer review: 1 approved, 2 approved with reservations] . F1000Research 2025, 13 :1329 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.177084.r365522 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/13-1329/v2#referee-response-365522 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 12 Feb 2025 Dickson Okoree Mireku , University of Cape Coast, Cape Coast, Ghana Approved VIEWS 0 https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.177084.r365522 Everything is fine. Please go ahead ... Continue reading READ ALL Everything is fine. Please go ahead and accept the manuscript for indexing. Thanks Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. 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. Close READ LESS CITE CITE HOW TO CITE THIS REPORT Mireku DO. Reviewer Report For: Assessing the students’ evaluations of educational quality (SEEQ) questionnaire in Oman higher education [version 2; peer review: 1 approved, 2 approved with reservations] . F1000Research 2025, 13 :1329 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.177084.r365522 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/13-1329/v2#referee-response-365522 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 Respond or Comment COMMENT ON THIS REPORT Version 1 VERSION 1 PUBLISHED 06 Nov 2024 Views 0 Cite How to cite this report: Mireku DO. Reviewer Report For: Assessing the students’ evaluations of educational quality (SEEQ) questionnaire in Oman higher education [version 2; peer review: 1 approved, 2 approved with reservations] . F1000Research 2025, 13 :1329 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.172790.r347907 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/13-1329/v1#referee-response-347907 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 02 Jan 2025 Dickson Okoree Mireku , University of Cape Coast, Cape Coast, Ghana Not Approved VIEWS 0 https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.172790.r347907 1. Clarity and Accuracy of Presentation and Citation of Current Literature The introduction does not reference relevant literature, citing only a few sources such as Al-Muslim and Arifin (2015) and Constantinou and Wijnen-Meijer (2022). This is because authors failed ... Continue reading READ ALL 1. Clarity and Accuracy of Presentation and Citation of Current Literature The introduction does not reference relevant literature, citing only a few sources such as Al-Muslim and Arifin (2015) and Constantinou and Wijnen-Meijer (2022). This is because authors failed to adequately connect the literature about students appraisal or evaluation of teaching performances (presumably what the authors aimed to review) about the context of higher education in Oman. This limitation will affect the discussion of the work as the authors may not have the opportunity to thoroughly discuss the findings of the study in relation to the reviewed literature. In this regard, the literature review needs to be more extensive to strengthen the conceptual and theoretical foundation of the work. To enhance the study, the following literature areas should be reviewed: a) The role of student evaluations in assessing teaching effectiveness and educational quality. b) Cross-cultural validation and adaptation of psychometric tools in higher education. c) Reliability and validity of the SEEQ questionnaire across different contexts. d) Best practices for using student evaluations to improve instructional methods. e) Challenges and implications of implementing SETs in higher education institutions in the Middle East. There is a lack of seamless transition between the global applications of SEEQ and its specific implementation in Oman, resulting in a disjointed narrative. Many cited studies are relatively old, and incorporating more recent literature could enhance the relevance of the discussion. 2. Study Design Appropriateness and Academic Merit a) While a quantitative approach is employed, the justification for selecting this methodology over alternatives for evaluating the psychometric properties of SEEQ is not provided. b) The sampling method is outlined, but it does not clarify the rationale behind choosing Muscat College and its three departments, limiting the broader relevance of the results. c) Although ethical considerations are acknowledged, the write-up lacks specifics on how anonymity and data protection were maintained beyond simply obtaining oral consent. 3. Adequate Details of Methods and Analysis for Replication a) The explanation of the questionnaire administration process is lacking, as it does not clarify how discrepancies in the translated instrument were resolved beyond basic semantic adjustments. b) The approach for calculating sample size lacks thorough justification for the selected parameters, including the 95% confidence interval and 80% power. c) While confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) is mentioned, there is insufficient detail on how the model's fit indices were computed and interpreted. 3. Appropriateness of Statistical Analysis and Interpretation a) Although Cronbach’s alpha and CFA are utilized effectively, the write-up does not critically examine the potential limitations of these methods for cross-validating SEEQ in a different cultural and linguistic context. b) There is no rationale provided for choosing AMOS v26, nor is there a discussion on its advantages over alternative software. c) While the discussion section highlights the findings positively, it fails to adequately consider the biases that may arise from the small sample size and the study's focus on a single institution. 4. Availability of Source Data and Reproducibility a) The write-up fails to specify how others can access the translated SEEQ questionnaire or the raw data, hindering transparency and reproducibility. b) While the process for securing permission from the tool’s developer is briefly mentioned, it lacks information on how the adapted Arabic version can be shared for future research. c) There is no indication of whether the complete ethical approval document or informed consent template is available for review, which would enhance reproducibility. 5. Suggestions about the general outlook of the paper/study: A) More recent and regionally relevant studies should be incorporated to strengthen the introduction and discussion sections. B) A justification for methodological choices would benefit from a clearer focus on context-specific relevance and limitations. C) Additionally, more detailed explanations regarding sample size calculation, ethical considerations, and translation processes are warranted. D) A critical assessment of the limitations of the statistical tools used and the contextual nuances in their interpretation would be beneficial. E) Enhancing transparency by specifying where supplementary materials (e.g., the dataset, translated questionnaire) can be accessed is also recommended. Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature? No Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound? No Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others? No If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate? No Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility? No Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results? No Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. 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. Close READ LESS CITE CITE HOW TO CITE THIS REPORT Mireku DO. Reviewer Report For: Assessing the students’ evaluations of educational quality (SEEQ) questionnaire in Oman higher education [version 2; peer review: 1 approved, 2 approved with reservations] . F1000Research 2025, 13 :1329 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.172790.r347907 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/13-1329/v1#referee-response-347907 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 10 Feb 2025 Muna Al Kalbani , Computing, Muscat College, Ruwi, Oman 10 Feb 2025 Author Response Thank you for your insightful feedback. In response to your first comment regarding the literature review’s scope and relevance, I have significantly revised the introduction and literature review to address the ... Continue reading Thank you for your insightful feedback. In response to your first comment regarding the literature review’s scope and relevance, I have significantly revised the introduction and literature review to address the areas you highlighted: I expanded the discussion on the role of student evaluations in teaching quality assessment, incorporating more recent literature. I included additional studies on the cross-cultural adaptation of psychometric tools and the reliability and validity of the SEEQ in various contexts. The transition between global and local applications of SEEQ was clarified, highlighting the need for further validation in Oman. I added more recent and regionally relevant sources to enhance the timeliness of the discussion. These revisions strengthen the theoretical framework and align the findings more closely with existing research. In response to your second comment: I added a justification for the quantitative methodology , emphasizing its suitability for statistical analysis and generalizing results (Creswell & Creswell, 2017). I provided a rationale for selecting Muscat College , explaining how its diverse disciplines, course sizes, and academic years offer a representative sample. I elaborated on ethical considerations , detailing data protection measures, secure storage, and the non-collection of identifiable information. Also, I revised the methods section to include: A detailed explanation of the translation process , specifying how discrepancies were addressed. A justification for the sample size parameters , referencing standard guidelines for confidence intervals and statistical power. Additional information on CFA fit indices , specifying thresholds for CFI, GFI, TLI, and RMSEA (Bentler, 1990). additionally, In response to your third comment: I added a discussion on the limitations of Cronbach’s alpha and CFA for cross-cultural validation, highlighting challenges with language nuances and cultural differences. I provided a rationale for selecting AMOS v26 , discussing its advantages over alternatives. I acknowledged potential biases related to sample size and the single-institution focus, emphasizing this as a limitation. In response to your fourth comment: I clarified that the translated SEEQ questionnaire and raw data will be available upon request. I included information on sharing the adapted version for future research. I noted the availability of ethical approval documents and consent templates for review. In response to your suggestions, I have made the following revisions: I incorporated recent and regionally relevant studies to strengthen the introduction and discussion. I provided clearer justifications for methodological choices . I elaborated on sample size, ethical considerations, and translation . I added a critical assessment of statistical tool limitations , focusing on cultural context. I clarified access to supplementary materials , including the dataset and translated questionnaire, to enhance transparency. Thank you for your insightful feedback. In response to your first comment regarding the literature review’s scope and relevance, I have significantly revised the introduction and literature review to address the areas you highlighted: I expanded the discussion on the role of student evaluations in teaching quality assessment, incorporating more recent literature. I included additional studies on the cross-cultural adaptation of psychometric tools and the reliability and validity of the SEEQ in various contexts. The transition between global and local applications of SEEQ was clarified, highlighting the need for further validation in Oman. I added more recent and regionally relevant sources to enhance the timeliness of the discussion. These revisions strengthen the theoretical framework and align the findings more closely with existing research. In response to your second comment: I added a justification for the quantitative methodology , emphasizing its suitability for statistical analysis and generalizing results (Creswell & Creswell, 2017). I provided a rationale for selecting Muscat College , explaining how its diverse disciplines, course sizes, and academic years offer a representative sample. I elaborated on ethical considerations , detailing data protection measures, secure storage, and the non-collection of identifiable information. Also, I revised the methods section to include: A detailed explanation of the translation process , specifying how discrepancies were addressed. A justification for the sample size parameters , referencing standard guidelines for confidence intervals and statistical power. Additional information on CFA fit indices , specifying thresholds for CFI, GFI, TLI, and RMSEA (Bentler, 1990). additionally, In response to your third comment: I added a discussion on the limitations of Cronbach’s alpha and CFA for cross-cultural validation, highlighting challenges with language nuances and cultural differences. I provided a rationale for selecting AMOS v26 , discussing its advantages over alternatives. I acknowledged potential biases related to sample size and the single-institution focus, emphasizing this as a limitation. In response to your fourth comment: I clarified that the translated SEEQ questionnaire and raw data will be available upon request. I included information on sharing the adapted version for future research. I noted the availability of ethical approval documents and consent templates for review. In response to your suggestions, I have made the following revisions: I incorporated recent and regionally relevant studies to strengthen the introduction and discussion. I provided clearer justifications for methodological choices . I elaborated on sample size, ethical considerations, and translation . I added a critical assessment of statistical tool limitations , focusing on cultural context. I clarified access to supplementary materials , including the dataset and translated questionnaire, to enhance transparency. Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Close Report a concern Respond or Comment COMMENTS ON THIS REPORT Author Response 10 Feb 2025 Muna Al Kalbani , Computing, Muscat College, Ruwi, Oman 10 Feb 2025 Author Response Thank you for your insightful feedback. In response to your first comment regarding the literature review’s scope and relevance, I have significantly revised the introduction and literature review to address the ... Continue reading Thank you for your insightful feedback. In response to your first comment regarding the literature review’s scope and relevance, I have significantly revised the introduction and literature review to address the areas you highlighted: I expanded the discussion on the role of student evaluations in teaching quality assessment, incorporating more recent literature. I included additional studies on the cross-cultural adaptation of psychometric tools and the reliability and validity of the SEEQ in various contexts. The transition between global and local applications of SEEQ was clarified, highlighting the need for further validation in Oman. I added more recent and regionally relevant sources to enhance the timeliness of the discussion. These revisions strengthen the theoretical framework and align the findings more closely with existing research. In response to your second comment: I added a justification for the quantitative methodology , emphasizing its suitability for statistical analysis and generalizing results (Creswell & Creswell, 2017). I provided a rationale for selecting Muscat College , explaining how its diverse disciplines, course sizes, and academic years offer a representative sample. I elaborated on ethical considerations , detailing data protection measures, secure storage, and the non-collection of identifiable information. Also, I revised the methods section to include: A detailed explanation of the translation process , specifying how discrepancies were addressed. A justification for the sample size parameters , referencing standard guidelines for confidence intervals and statistical power. Additional information on CFA fit indices , specifying thresholds for CFI, GFI, TLI, and RMSEA (Bentler, 1990). additionally, In response to your third comment: I added a discussion on the limitations of Cronbach’s alpha and CFA for cross-cultural validation, highlighting challenges with language nuances and cultural differences. I provided a rationale for selecting AMOS v26 , discussing its advantages over alternatives. I acknowledged potential biases related to sample size and the single-institution focus, emphasizing this as a limitation. In response to your fourth comment: I clarified that the translated SEEQ questionnaire and raw data will be available upon request. I included information on sharing the adapted version for future research. I noted the availability of ethical approval documents and consent templates for review. In response to your suggestions, I have made the following revisions: I incorporated recent and regionally relevant studies to strengthen the introduction and discussion. I provided clearer justifications for methodological choices . I elaborated on sample size, ethical considerations, and translation . I added a critical assessment of statistical tool limitations , focusing on cultural context. I clarified access to supplementary materials , including the dataset and translated questionnaire, to enhance transparency. Thank you for your insightful feedback. In response to your first comment regarding the literature review’s scope and relevance, I have significantly revised the introduction and literature review to address the areas you highlighted: I expanded the discussion on the role of student evaluations in teaching quality assessment, incorporating more recent literature. I included additional studies on the cross-cultural adaptation of psychometric tools and the reliability and validity of the SEEQ in various contexts. The transition between global and local applications of SEEQ was clarified, highlighting the need for further validation in Oman. I added more recent and regionally relevant sources to enhance the timeliness of the discussion. These revisions strengthen the theoretical framework and align the findings more closely with existing research. In response to your second comment: I added a justification for the quantitative methodology , emphasizing its suitability for statistical analysis and generalizing results (Creswell & Creswell, 2017). I provided a rationale for selecting Muscat College , explaining how its diverse disciplines, course sizes, and academic years offer a representative sample. I elaborated on ethical considerations , detailing data protection measures, secure storage, and the non-collection of identifiable information. Also, I revised the methods section to include: A detailed explanation of the translation process , specifying how discrepancies were addressed. A justification for the sample size parameters , referencing standard guidelines for confidence intervals and statistical power. Additional information on CFA fit indices , specifying thresholds for CFI, GFI, TLI, and RMSEA (Bentler, 1990). additionally, In response to your third comment: I added a discussion on the limitations of Cronbach’s alpha and CFA for cross-cultural validation, highlighting challenges with language nuances and cultural differences. I provided a rationale for selecting AMOS v26 , discussing its advantages over alternatives. I acknowledged potential biases related to sample size and the single-institution focus, emphasizing this as a limitation. In response to your fourth comment: I clarified that the translated SEEQ questionnaire and raw data will be available upon request. I included information on sharing the adapted version for future research. I noted the availability of ethical approval documents and consent templates for review. In response to your suggestions, I have made the following revisions: I incorporated recent and regionally relevant studies to strengthen the introduction and discussion. I provided clearer justifications for methodological choices . I elaborated on sample size, ethical considerations, and translation . I added a critical assessment of statistical tool limitations , focusing on cultural context. I clarified access to supplementary materials , including the dataset and translated questionnaire, to enhance transparency. Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Close Report a concern COMMENT ON THIS REPORT Views 0 Cite How to cite this report: Sigurdardottir MS. Reviewer Report For: Assessing the students’ evaluations of educational quality (SEEQ) questionnaire in Oman higher education [version 2; peer review: 1 approved, 2 approved with reservations] . F1000Research 2025, 13 :1329 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.172790.r344928 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/13-1329/v1#referee-response-344928 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 20 Dec 2024 Margret Sigrun Sigurdardottir , Faculty of Business Administration, University of Iceland, Sæmundargata, Iceland Approved with Reservations VIEWS 0 https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.172790.r344928 Thank you for the opportunity to review the article Assessing the students’ evaluations of educational quality (SEEQ) questionnaire in Oman higher education. The article discusses the use of Student Evaluation of Teaching (SET) tools, particularly the SEEQ, to assess teaching ... Continue reading READ ALL Thank you for the opportunity to review the article Assessing the students’ evaluations of educational quality (SEEQ) questionnaire in Oman higher education. The article discusses the use of Student Evaluation of Teaching (SET) tools, particularly the SEEQ, to assess teaching effectiveness and evaluate courses and programmes. While the topic is significant and timely, the authors fall short in addressing critical issues surrounding SET's broader use and the nuances involved in its application. The authors claim that while SET was originally designed to evaluate courses and programmes, it has since been repurposed to assess teaching effectiveness. However, this statement is presented without any supporting references. It would strengthen the article to provide evidence explaining how a tool intended for course evaluation has been adapted to measure teaching effectiveness and the mechanisms through which this occurs. A related point concerns the citation of Constantinou & Wijnen-Meijer (2022). While the paper is referenced to substantiate the claim that SET evaluates various aspects of teaching, the authors neglect to engage with the controversial aspects raised in the same work. For example, there is no discussion of the criticism surrounding SET, such as its potential biases or limited reliability in assessing teaching quality. This omission becomes particularly pronounced when the authors assert that SET has been used to support valuable decisions in academic career development—a statement that is neither referenced nor critically examined. The authors state that SEEQ is widely used worldwide and is regarded as one of the most accurate and useful tools for measuring teaching effectiveness. However, this sweeping assertion is supported by a single citation that discusses the SEEQ's usability in evaluating quality within Arabic secondary education in Malaysia. The reliance on this narrow context does not justify claims of global applicability or general reliability. A more nuanced review of SEEQ's strengths and limitations across varied educational settings would provide greater validity to this argument. The methods section lacks sufficient detail on the selection of courses evaluated using the SEEQ. For instance, the authors do not provide information on the diversity of subjects, course sizes, or academic years represented in the sample—all of which could significantly influence the SET results. Including such details topic would enable readers to assess the generalisability and robustness of the findings. Additionally, the discussion on SEEQ’s application to programmes versus individual courses is inconsistent. The authors emphasise SEEQ's use in evaluating education programmes but later recommend its application for individual instructors seeking feedback on modules. This raises questions about the scope and intended purpose of the SEEQ in the context of Oman’s higher education system. The need for further research is also highlighted, but the rationale for this call is unclear. Specifically, the authors suggest that more varied samples are needed to generalise findings to Omani students, yet they simultaneously endorse SEEQ's utility for evaluating programmes. This contradiction requires clarification. The consent statement asserts that participants gave informed oral consent to be interviewed. However, the article does not present any interview data, which renders this inclusion confusing. Further, the sentence describing participant consent—“The source of the informants was who agreed that the data were provided for research purpose and that the data can be published…”—is poorly written and lacks coherence. It should be rephrased for clarity and accuracy. The references list exhibits inconsistencies, with some citations appearing twice and formatting varying between bolded and highlighted titles. Ensuring adherence to a consistent citation style would improve the article’s professional presentation. 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? Partly If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate? Partly Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility? Partly Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results? Partly Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise: Higher Education teaching and learning, Scholarship of teaching and learning, qualitative research, 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 Sigurdardottir MS. Reviewer Report For: Assessing the students’ evaluations of educational quality (SEEQ) questionnaire in Oman higher education [version 2; peer review: 1 approved, 2 approved with reservations] . F1000Research 2025, 13 :1329 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.172790.r344928 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/13-1329/v1#referee-response-344928 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 10 Feb 2025 Muna Al Kalbani , Computing, Muscat College, Ruwi, Oman 10 Feb 2025 Author Response Thank you for your insightful feedback. In response to your first comment regarding the lack of evidence supporting the adaptation of Student Evaluations of Teaching (SETs) from course and programme evaluation ... Continue reading Thank you for your insightful feedback. In response to your first comment regarding the lack of evidence supporting the adaptation of Student Evaluations of Teaching (SETs) from course and programme evaluation to teaching effectiveness assessment, I have revised the manuscript to include additional references. Specifically, I have added a citation to Marsh (1987), which explains the mechanisms by which SETs assess various teaching dimensions, including clarity, organization, instructor enthusiasm, and student interaction. This provides a stronger foundation for the claim and addresses the broader use of SETs. Whereas, in response to your second comment concerning the citation of Constantinou & Wijnen-Meijer (2022) and the omission of a critical discussion on SET’s potential biases and reliability issues, I have revised the manuscript accordingly. I engaged with the controversies highlighted by the authors, particularly regarding biases and the limitations in measuring teaching quality. This addition enhances the discussion's depth and ensures a more balanced and nuanced perspective. In response to your third comment about the overgeneralization of SEEQ's global applicability, I have included additional references to support the claim. The revised manuscript now provides a more balanced discussion of SEEQ’s strengths and limitations in diverse educational contexts, reinforcing its broader applicability with stronger, more varied evidence. In response to your fourth comment about the lack of methodological detail, I have revised the Methods section to describe the diversity of subjects, course sizes, and academic years included in the sample. Additionally, I clarified the randomization process used for course selection. These enhancements improve the context and allow a more robust assessment of generalisability. Additionally, in response to your fifth comment regarding the inconsistency between SEEQ’s application for programmes and individual courses, I have clarified the discussion to state explicitly that SEEQ is applicable to both contexts. The revised manuscript resolves the contradiction by highlighting the need for larger and more diverse samples to enhance generalisability while maintaining SEEQ’s utility for various evaluation purposes. Also, in response to your sixth comment, I have removed the reference to interviews in the consent statement since no interview data were collected. The consent description has also been rephrased for clarity and coherence, accurately reflecting the approved consent process by the ethics committee. Finally, in response to your final comment regarding reference inconsistencies, I have thoroughly reviewed the references and corrected duplicate entries and formatting issues. The reference list now adheres to a consistent citation style, enhancing the article's overall professionalism and readability. Thank you for your insightful feedback. In response to your first comment regarding the lack of evidence supporting the adaptation of Student Evaluations of Teaching (SETs) from course and programme evaluation to teaching effectiveness assessment, I have revised the manuscript to include additional references. Specifically, I have added a citation to Marsh (1987), which explains the mechanisms by which SETs assess various teaching dimensions, including clarity, organization, instructor enthusiasm, and student interaction. This provides a stronger foundation for the claim and addresses the broader use of SETs. Whereas, in response to your second comment concerning the citation of Constantinou & Wijnen-Meijer (2022) and the omission of a critical discussion on SET’s potential biases and reliability issues, I have revised the manuscript accordingly. I engaged with the controversies highlighted by the authors, particularly regarding biases and the limitations in measuring teaching quality. This addition enhances the discussion's depth and ensures a more balanced and nuanced perspective. In response to your third comment about the overgeneralization of SEEQ's global applicability, I have included additional references to support the claim. The revised manuscript now provides a more balanced discussion of SEEQ’s strengths and limitations in diverse educational contexts, reinforcing its broader applicability with stronger, more varied evidence. In response to your fourth comment about the lack of methodological detail, I have revised the Methods section to describe the diversity of subjects, course sizes, and academic years included in the sample. Additionally, I clarified the randomization process used for course selection. These enhancements improve the context and allow a more robust assessment of generalisability. Additionally, in response to your fifth comment regarding the inconsistency between SEEQ’s application for programmes and individual courses, I have clarified the discussion to state explicitly that SEEQ is applicable to both contexts. The revised manuscript resolves the contradiction by highlighting the need for larger and more diverse samples to enhance generalisability while maintaining SEEQ’s utility for various evaluation purposes. Also, in response to your sixth comment, I have removed the reference to interviews in the consent statement since no interview data were collected. The consent description has also been rephrased for clarity and coherence, accurately reflecting the approved consent process by the ethics committee. Finally, in response to your final comment regarding reference inconsistencies, I have thoroughly reviewed the references and corrected duplicate entries and formatting issues. The reference list now adheres to a consistent citation style, enhancing the article's overall professionalism and readability. Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Close Report a concern Respond or Comment COMMENTS ON THIS REPORT Author Response 10 Feb 2025 Muna Al Kalbani , Computing, Muscat College, Ruwi, Oman 10 Feb 2025 Author Response Thank you for your insightful feedback. In response to your first comment regarding the lack of evidence supporting the adaptation of Student Evaluations of Teaching (SETs) from course and programme evaluation ... Continue reading Thank you for your insightful feedback. In response to your first comment regarding the lack of evidence supporting the adaptation of Student Evaluations of Teaching (SETs) from course and programme evaluation to teaching effectiveness assessment, I have revised the manuscript to include additional references. Specifically, I have added a citation to Marsh (1987), which explains the mechanisms by which SETs assess various teaching dimensions, including clarity, organization, instructor enthusiasm, and student interaction. This provides a stronger foundation for the claim and addresses the broader use of SETs. Whereas, in response to your second comment concerning the citation of Constantinou & Wijnen-Meijer (2022) and the omission of a critical discussion on SET’s potential biases and reliability issues, I have revised the manuscript accordingly. I engaged with the controversies highlighted by the authors, particularly regarding biases and the limitations in measuring teaching quality. This addition enhances the discussion's depth and ensures a more balanced and nuanced perspective. In response to your third comment about the overgeneralization of SEEQ's global applicability, I have included additional references to support the claim. The revised manuscript now provides a more balanced discussion of SEEQ’s strengths and limitations in diverse educational contexts, reinforcing its broader applicability with stronger, more varied evidence. In response to your fourth comment about the lack of methodological detail, I have revised the Methods section to describe the diversity of subjects, course sizes, and academic years included in the sample. Additionally, I clarified the randomization process used for course selection. These enhancements improve the context and allow a more robust assessment of generalisability. Additionally, in response to your fifth comment regarding the inconsistency between SEEQ’s application for programmes and individual courses, I have clarified the discussion to state explicitly that SEEQ is applicable to both contexts. The revised manuscript resolves the contradiction by highlighting the need for larger and more diverse samples to enhance generalisability while maintaining SEEQ’s utility for various evaluation purposes. Also, in response to your sixth comment, I have removed the reference to interviews in the consent statement since no interview data were collected. The consent description has also been rephrased for clarity and coherence, accurately reflecting the approved consent process by the ethics committee. Finally, in response to your final comment regarding reference inconsistencies, I have thoroughly reviewed the references and corrected duplicate entries and formatting issues. The reference list now adheres to a consistent citation style, enhancing the article's overall professionalism and readability. Thank you for your insightful feedback. In response to your first comment regarding the lack of evidence supporting the adaptation of Student Evaluations of Teaching (SETs) from course and programme evaluation to teaching effectiveness assessment, I have revised the manuscript to include additional references. Specifically, I have added a citation to Marsh (1987), which explains the mechanisms by which SETs assess various teaching dimensions, including clarity, organization, instructor enthusiasm, and student interaction. This provides a stronger foundation for the claim and addresses the broader use of SETs. Whereas, in response to your second comment concerning the citation of Constantinou & Wijnen-Meijer (2022) and the omission of a critical discussion on SET’s potential biases and reliability issues, I have revised the manuscript accordingly. I engaged with the controversies highlighted by the authors, particularly regarding biases and the limitations in measuring teaching quality. This addition enhances the discussion's depth and ensures a more balanced and nuanced perspective. In response to your third comment about the overgeneralization of SEEQ's global applicability, I have included additional references to support the claim. The revised manuscript now provides a more balanced discussion of SEEQ’s strengths and limitations in diverse educational contexts, reinforcing its broader applicability with stronger, more varied evidence. In response to your fourth comment about the lack of methodological detail, I have revised the Methods section to describe the diversity of subjects, course sizes, and academic years included in the sample. Additionally, I clarified the randomization process used for course selection. These enhancements improve the context and allow a more robust assessment of generalisability. Additionally, in response to your fifth comment regarding the inconsistency between SEEQ’s application for programmes and individual courses, I have clarified the discussion to state explicitly that SEEQ is applicable to both contexts. The revised manuscript resolves the contradiction by highlighting the need for larger and more diverse samples to enhance generalisability while maintaining SEEQ’s utility for various evaluation purposes. Also, in response to your sixth comment, I have removed the reference to interviews in the consent statement since no interview data were collected. The consent description has also been rephrased for clarity and coherence, accurately reflecting the approved consent process by the ethics committee. Finally, in response to your final comment regarding reference inconsistencies, I have thoroughly reviewed the references and corrected duplicate entries and formatting issues. The reference list now adheres to a consistent citation style, enhancing the article's overall professionalism and readability. 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 06 Nov 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 Version 2 (revision) 10 Feb 25 read read Version 1 06 Nov 24 read read Margret Sigrun Sigurdardottir , University of Iceland, Sæmundargata, Iceland Dickson Okoree Mireku , University of Cape Coast, Cape Coast, Ghana Suranto Suranto , Universitas Muhammadiyah Surakarta, Surakarta, Indonesia 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 Suranto S. 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. 16 Jun 2025 | for Version 2 Suranto Suranto , Universitas Muhammadiyah Surakarta, Surakarta, Central Java, Indonesia 0 Views copyright © 2025 Suranto S. 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. The background section of this article has presented the fundamental theories regarding the importance of teaching evaluation and the position of SEEQ as an internationally recognized instrument. The references used are quite strong, including Marsh’s research and several other relevant studies. To strengthen the contextual foundation, the author should consider adding recent studies from countries in the Middle East or other developing nations that have conducted validations of the SET/SEEQ instrument. In addition, the research gap needs to be emphasized more explicitly — for example, by stating that to date, no study has comprehensively tested the structural validity and reliability of the Arabic version of SEEQ using CFA in the context of Oman. 2. The use of a quantitative research method with CFA as the primary analytical tool is appropriate for testing the construct validity and reliability of the instrument. The explanation regarding the sampling procedure and the use of AMOS for analysis is also clear. However, the author should provide more detailed information about the back-translation process, including who the translators were, their qualifications, as well as the mechanism of the preliminary instrument testing (number of participants, implementation procedures, and a brief summary of the results). In addition, it is necessary to explain the reason for adopting all 30 items in the SEEQ without modification, or if any modifications were made, which parts were adjusted. Information about the total student population at Muscat College should also be included so that readers can understand the proportion of the sample relative to the overall population. 3. The presentation of the instrument’s reliability results through Cronbach’s alpha values is very good and demonstrates high internal consistency across most subscales. It would be even better if the author provided the CFA results not only in the form of goodness-of-fit indices but also with a table of factor loadings for each SEEQ item. Additionally, the discussion of the reliability and validity results should be further elaborated by explaining which factors contributed the most or the least, and which factors were most responsive to the Omani context. 4. The discussion has addressed important aspects such as the implications of applying the instrument in different cultural contexts and the challenges of language adaptation. However, the discussion would be stronger if it also included theoretical implications for the development of cross-cultural validity studies of teaching evaluation instruments. In addition, the practical implications for higher education institutions in Oman, particularly regarding teaching quality policies and faculty evaluation systems, should be explained more comprehensively. The study’s limitations should also be described in greater detail — for example, regarding the research subjects being limited to a single institution and the absence of external validity testing. 5. The conclusion has effectively summarized the research findings and stated that the SEEQ is suitable for use in higher education in Oman. However, it would be stronger if it included a recommendation for implementing the SEEQ at the institutional level as a tool for monitoring the quality of teaching and learning. Additionally, suggestions for future research should be made more specific — for example, by recommending invariance testing across semesters, institutions, or academic programs to ensure the stability of the factors in various contexts. 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? Partly 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 I specialize in the field of educational management, which focuses on quality assurance, evaluation systems, and the development of educational policies within institutional settings. Research on the validation of the SEEQ instrument is highly relevant because teaching evaluation tools are a crucial component of educational quality management systems, particularly to ensure that student evaluations of lecturers are conducted using valid, reliable, and contextually appropriate measurement instruments. 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) Suranto S. Peer Review Report For: Assessing the students’ evaluations of educational quality (SEEQ) questionnaire in Oman higher education [version 2; peer review: 1 approved, 2 approved with reservations] . F1000Research 2025, 13 :1329 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.177084.r387744) 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/13-1329/v2#referee-response-387744 keyboard_arrow_left Back to all reports Reviewer Report 0 Views copyright © 2025 Mireku D. 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. 12 Feb 2025 | for Version 2 Dickson Okoree Mireku , University of Cape Coast, Cape Coast, Ghana 0 Views copyright © 2025 Mireku D. 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 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 Everything is fine. Please go ahead and accept the manuscript for indexing. Thanks Competing Interests No competing interests were disclosed. 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. reply Respond to this report Responses (0) Mireku DO. Peer Review Report For: Assessing the students’ evaluations of educational quality (SEEQ) questionnaire in Oman higher education [version 2; peer review: 1 approved, 2 approved with reservations] . F1000Research 2025, 13 :1329 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.177084.r365522) 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/13-1329/v2#referee-response-365522 keyboard_arrow_left Back to all reports Reviewer Report 0 Views copyright © 2025 Mireku D. 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 Jan 2025 | for Version 1 Dickson Okoree Mireku , University of Cape Coast, Cape Coast, Ghana 0 Views copyright © 2025 Mireku D. 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) 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 1. Clarity and Accuracy of Presentation and Citation of Current Literature The introduction does not reference relevant literature, citing only a few sources such as Al-Muslim and Arifin (2015) and Constantinou and Wijnen-Meijer (2022). This is because authors failed to adequately connect the literature about students appraisal or evaluation of teaching performances (presumably what the authors aimed to review) about the context of higher education in Oman. This limitation will affect the discussion of the work as the authors may not have the opportunity to thoroughly discuss the findings of the study in relation to the reviewed literature. In this regard, the literature review needs to be more extensive to strengthen the conceptual and theoretical foundation of the work. To enhance the study, the following literature areas should be reviewed: a) The role of student evaluations in assessing teaching effectiveness and educational quality. b) Cross-cultural validation and adaptation of psychometric tools in higher education. c) Reliability and validity of the SEEQ questionnaire across different contexts. d) Best practices for using student evaluations to improve instructional methods. e) Challenges and implications of implementing SETs in higher education institutions in the Middle East. There is a lack of seamless transition between the global applications of SEEQ and its specific implementation in Oman, resulting in a disjointed narrative. Many cited studies are relatively old, and incorporating more recent literature could enhance the relevance of the discussion. 2. Study Design Appropriateness and Academic Merit a) While a quantitative approach is employed, the justification for selecting this methodology over alternatives for evaluating the psychometric properties of SEEQ is not provided. b) The sampling method is outlined, but it does not clarify the rationale behind choosing Muscat College and its three departments, limiting the broader relevance of the results. c) Although ethical considerations are acknowledged, the write-up lacks specifics on how anonymity and data protection were maintained beyond simply obtaining oral consent. 3. Adequate Details of Methods and Analysis for Replication a) The explanation of the questionnaire administration process is lacking, as it does not clarify how discrepancies in the translated instrument were resolved beyond basic semantic adjustments. b) The approach for calculating sample size lacks thorough justification for the selected parameters, including the 95% confidence interval and 80% power. c) While confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) is mentioned, there is insufficient detail on how the model's fit indices were computed and interpreted. 3. Appropriateness of Statistical Analysis and Interpretation a) Although Cronbach’s alpha and CFA are utilized effectively, the write-up does not critically examine the potential limitations of these methods for cross-validating SEEQ in a different cultural and linguistic context. b) There is no rationale provided for choosing AMOS v26, nor is there a discussion on its advantages over alternative software. c) While the discussion section highlights the findings positively, it fails to adequately consider the biases that may arise from the small sample size and the study's focus on a single institution. 4. Availability of Source Data and Reproducibility a) The write-up fails to specify how others can access the translated SEEQ questionnaire or the raw data, hindering transparency and reproducibility. b) While the process for securing permission from the tool’s developer is briefly mentioned, it lacks information on how the adapted Arabic version can be shared for future research. c) There is no indication of whether the complete ethical approval document or informed consent template is available for review, which would enhance reproducibility. 5. Suggestions about the general outlook of the paper/study: A) More recent and regionally relevant studies should be incorporated to strengthen the introduction and discussion sections. B) A justification for methodological choices would benefit from a clearer focus on context-specific relevance and limitations. C) Additionally, more detailed explanations regarding sample size calculation, ethical considerations, and translation processes are warranted. D) A critical assessment of the limitations of the statistical tools used and the contextual nuances in their interpretation would be beneficial. E) Enhancing transparency by specifying where supplementary materials (e.g., the dataset, translated questionnaire) can be accessed is also recommended. Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature? No Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound? No Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others? No If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate? No Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility? No Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results? No Competing Interests No competing interests were disclosed. 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 (1) Author Response 10 Feb 2025 Muna Al Kalbani, Computing, Muscat College, Ruwi, Oman Thank you for your insightful feedback. In response to your first comment regarding the literature review’s scope and relevance, I have significantly revised the introduction and literature review to address the areas you highlighted: I expanded the discussion on the role of student evaluations in teaching quality assessment, incorporating more recent literature. I included additional studies on the cross-cultural adaptation of psychometric tools and the reliability and validity of the SEEQ in various contexts. The transition between global and local applications of SEEQ was clarified, highlighting the need for further validation in Oman. I added more recent and regionally relevant sources to enhance the timeliness of the discussion. These revisions strengthen the theoretical framework and align the findings more closely with existing research. In response to your second comment: I added a justification for the quantitative methodology , emphasizing its suitability for statistical analysis and generalizing results (Creswell & Creswell, 2017). I provided a rationale for selecting Muscat College , explaining how its diverse disciplines, course sizes, and academic years offer a representative sample. I elaborated on ethical considerations , detailing data protection measures, secure storage, and the non-collection of identifiable information. Also, I revised the methods section to include: A detailed explanation of the translation process , specifying how discrepancies were addressed. A justification for the sample size parameters , referencing standard guidelines for confidence intervals and statistical power. Additional information on CFA fit indices , specifying thresholds for CFI, GFI, TLI, and RMSEA (Bentler, 1990). additionally, In response to your third comment: I added a discussion on the limitations of Cronbach’s alpha and CFA for cross-cultural validation, highlighting challenges with language nuances and cultural differences. I provided a rationale for selecting AMOS v26 , discussing its advantages over alternatives. I acknowledged potential biases related to sample size and the single-institution focus, emphasizing this as a limitation. In response to your fourth comment: I clarified that the translated SEEQ questionnaire and raw data will be available upon request. I included information on sharing the adapted version for future research. I noted the availability of ethical approval documents and consent templates for review. In response to your suggestions, I have made the following revisions: I incorporated recent and regionally relevant studies to strengthen the introduction and discussion. I provided clearer justifications for methodological choices . I elaborated on sample size, ethical considerations, and translation . I added a critical assessment of statistical tool limitations , focusing on cultural context. I clarified access to supplementary materials , including the dataset and translated questionnaire, to enhance transparency. View more View less Competing Interests No competing interests were disclosed. reply Respond Report a concern Mireku DO. Peer Review Report For: Assessing the students’ evaluations of educational quality (SEEQ) questionnaire in Oman higher education [version 2; peer review: 1 approved, 2 approved with reservations] . F1000Research 2025, 13 :1329 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.172790.r347907) 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/13-1329/v1#referee-response-347907 keyboard_arrow_left Back to all reports Reviewer Report 0 Views copyright © 2024 Sigurdardottir M. 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. 20 Dec 2024 | for Version 1 Margret Sigrun Sigurdardottir , Faculty of Business Administration, University of Iceland, Sæmundargata, Iceland 0 Views copyright © 2024 Sigurdardottir M. 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 Thank you for the opportunity to review the article Assessing the students’ evaluations of educational quality (SEEQ) questionnaire in Oman higher education. The article discusses the use of Student Evaluation of Teaching (SET) tools, particularly the SEEQ, to assess teaching effectiveness and evaluate courses and programmes. While the topic is significant and timely, the authors fall short in addressing critical issues surrounding SET's broader use and the nuances involved in its application. The authors claim that while SET was originally designed to evaluate courses and programmes, it has since been repurposed to assess teaching effectiveness. However, this statement is presented without any supporting references. It would strengthen the article to provide evidence explaining how a tool intended for course evaluation has been adapted to measure teaching effectiveness and the mechanisms through which this occurs. A related point concerns the citation of Constantinou & Wijnen-Meijer (2022). While the paper is referenced to substantiate the claim that SET evaluates various aspects of teaching, the authors neglect to engage with the controversial aspects raised in the same work. For example, there is no discussion of the criticism surrounding SET, such as its potential biases or limited reliability in assessing teaching quality. This omission becomes particularly pronounced when the authors assert that SET has been used to support valuable decisions in academic career development—a statement that is neither referenced nor critically examined. The authors state that SEEQ is widely used worldwide and is regarded as one of the most accurate and useful tools for measuring teaching effectiveness. However, this sweeping assertion is supported by a single citation that discusses the SEEQ's usability in evaluating quality within Arabic secondary education in Malaysia. The reliance on this narrow context does not justify claims of global applicability or general reliability. A more nuanced review of SEEQ's strengths and limitations across varied educational settings would provide greater validity to this argument. The methods section lacks sufficient detail on the selection of courses evaluated using the SEEQ. For instance, the authors do not provide information on the diversity of subjects, course sizes, or academic years represented in the sample—all of which could significantly influence the SET results. Including such details topic would enable readers to assess the generalisability and robustness of the findings. Additionally, the discussion on SEEQ’s application to programmes versus individual courses is inconsistent. The authors emphasise SEEQ's use in evaluating education programmes but later recommend its application for individual instructors seeking feedback on modules. This raises questions about the scope and intended purpose of the SEEQ in the context of Oman’s higher education system. The need for further research is also highlighted, but the rationale for this call is unclear. Specifically, the authors suggest that more varied samples are needed to generalise findings to Omani students, yet they simultaneously endorse SEEQ's utility for evaluating programmes. This contradiction requires clarification. The consent statement asserts that participants gave informed oral consent to be interviewed. However, the article does not present any interview data, which renders this inclusion confusing. Further, the sentence describing participant consent—“The source of the informants was who agreed that the data were provided for research purpose and that the data can be published…”—is poorly written and lacks coherence. It should be rephrased for clarity and accuracy. The references list exhibits inconsistencies, with some citations appearing twice and formatting varying between bolded and highlighted titles. Ensuring adherence to a consistent citation style would improve the article’s professional presentation. 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? Partly If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate? Partly Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility? Partly Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results? Partly Competing Interests No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise Higher Education teaching and learning, Scholarship of teaching and learning, qualitative research, 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 10 Feb 2025 Muna Al Kalbani, Computing, Muscat College, Ruwi, Oman Thank you for your insightful feedback. In response to your first comment regarding the lack of evidence supporting the adaptation of Student Evaluations of Teaching (SETs) from course and programme evaluation to teaching effectiveness assessment, I have revised the manuscript to include additional references. Specifically, I have added a citation to Marsh (1987), which explains the mechanisms by which SETs assess various teaching dimensions, including clarity, organization, instructor enthusiasm, and student interaction. This provides a stronger foundation for the claim and addresses the broader use of SETs. Whereas, in response to your second comment concerning the citation of Constantinou & Wijnen-Meijer (2022) and the omission of a critical discussion on SET’s potential biases and reliability issues, I have revised the manuscript accordingly. I engaged with the controversies highlighted by the authors, particularly regarding biases and the limitations in measuring teaching quality. This addition enhances the discussion's depth and ensures a more balanced and nuanced perspective. In response to your third comment about the overgeneralization of SEEQ's global applicability, I have included additional references to support the claim. The revised manuscript now provides a more balanced discussion of SEEQ’s strengths and limitations in diverse educational contexts, reinforcing its broader applicability with stronger, more varied evidence. In response to your fourth comment about the lack of methodological detail, I have revised the Methods section to describe the diversity of subjects, course sizes, and academic years included in the sample. Additionally, I clarified the randomization process used for course selection. These enhancements improve the context and allow a more robust assessment of generalisability. Additionally, in response to your fifth comment regarding the inconsistency between SEEQ’s application for programmes and individual courses, I have clarified the discussion to state explicitly that SEEQ is applicable to both contexts. The revised manuscript resolves the contradiction by highlighting the need for larger and more diverse samples to enhance generalisability while maintaining SEEQ’s utility for various evaluation purposes. Also, in response to your sixth comment, I have removed the reference to interviews in the consent statement since no interview data were collected. The consent description has also been rephrased for clarity and coherence, accurately reflecting the approved consent process by the ethics committee. Finally, in response to your final comment regarding reference inconsistencies, I have thoroughly reviewed the references and corrected duplicate entries and formatting issues. The reference list now adheres to a consistent citation style, enhancing the article's overall professionalism and readability. View more View less Competing Interests No competing interests were disclosed. reply Respond Report a concern Sigurdardottir MS. Peer Review Report For: Assessing the students’ evaluations of educational quality (SEEQ) questionnaire in Oman higher education [version 2; peer review: 1 approved, 2 approved with reservations] . F1000Research 2025, 13 :1329 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.172790.r344928) 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/13-1329/v1#referee-response-344928 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 = "Assessing the students\’ evaluations...".replace("'", ''); var linkedInUrl = "http://www.linkedin.com/shareArticle?url=https://f1000research.com/articles/13-1329/v2" + "&title=" + encodeURIComponent(lTitle) + "&summary=" + encodeURIComponent('Read the article by '); var deliciousUrl = "https://del.icio.us/post?url=https://f1000research.com/articles/13-1329/v2&title=" + encodeURIComponent(lTitle); var redditUrl = "http://reddit.com/submit?url=https://f1000research.com/articles/13-1329/v2" + "&title=" + encodeURIComponent(lTitle); linkedInUrl += encodeURIComponent('Al Kalbani M'); 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/13-1329/v2/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/13-1329", templates : { twitter : "Assessing the students\’ evaluations of educational quality.... Al Kalbani M, published by " + "@F1000Research" + ", https://f1000research.com/articles/13-1329/v2" } }; 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/157354/177084") new F1000.Clipboard(); new F1000.ThesaurusTermsDisplay("articles", "article", "177084"); $(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 = { "384133": 0, "384132": 0, "347908": 0, "384134": 0, "384129": 0, "347905": 0, "384128": 0, "347904": 0, "384131": 0, "347907": 13, "384130": 0, "347906": 0, "375439": 0, "375438": 0, "375445": 0, "375444": 0, "375447": 0, "375446": 0, "375441": 0, "375440": 0, "375443": 0, "375442": 0, "387741": 0, "387740": 0, "387743": 0, "387742": 0, "387739": 0, "385189": 0, "387748": 0, "385191": 0, "338855": 0, "385190": 0, "338854": 0, "387745": 0, "387744": 9, "387747": 0, "387746": 0, "385197": 0, "342189": 0, "338861": 0, "385196": 0, "342188": 0, "338860": 0, "342191": 0, "338863": 0, "385198": 0, "342190": 0, "338862": 0, "385193": 0, "338857": 0, "385192": 0, "338856": 0, "385195": 0, "342187": 0, "338859": 0, "385194": 0, "338858": 0, "342196": 0, "342193": 0, "342192": 0, "342195": 0, "342194": 0, "365523": 0, "365522": 10, "344925": 0, "344924": 0, "344927": 0, "344926": 0, "372325": 0, "344933": 0, "372324": 0, "344932": 0, "372327": 0, "372326": 0, "372321": 0, "344929": 0, "372320": 0, "344928": 16, "372323": 0, "344931": 0, "372322": 0, "344930": 0, "372329": 0, "372328": 0, "384125": 0, "347901": 0, "347900": 0, "384127": 0, "347903": 0, "384126": 0, "347902": 0, "347899": 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 = "f35a9087-378d-46fd-ac1e-f376287416bb"; 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(",","/")); } }); });