Evaluation of Validity Reliability and Moderation Quality in Examination Systems at the University of Education, The Gambia

Evaluation of Validity Reliability and Moderation Quality in Examination Systems at the University of Education, The Gambia | Research Square window.SnipcartSettings = { analytics: { enabled: false } }; (function() { var accessVector = localStorage.getItem('access_vector') || ''; window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; if (accessVector) { window.dataLayer.push({ user: { profile: { profileInfo: { snid: accessVector } } } }); } })(); (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;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-K279D39R'); Browse Preprints In Review Journals COVID-19 Preprints AJE Video Bytes Research Tools Research Promotion AJE Professional Editing AJE Rubriq About Preprint Platform In Review Editorial Policies Our Team Advisory Board Help Center Sign In Submit a Preprint Cite Share Download PDF Research Article Evaluation of Validity Reliability and Moderation Quality in Examination Systems at the University of Education, The Gambia Sheriff Ceesay, Lamin L Kanteh, Omar Ceesay This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-8927572/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract This paper evaluates key quality-assurance dimensions: validity, reliability, examination quality control, item quality control, administrative security, and moderation feedback at the University of Education, The Gambia School of Education (UEG-SoE). Using two validated instruments the Exam Committee Questionnaire (ECQ; N = 29; α = 0.87) and the Staff Assessment Practices Questionnaire (SAPQ; N = 68; α = 0.85) we found strong face validity (composite mean = 4.0138) and content validity (4.0483), acceptable construct validity (3.1517), and positive reliability (3.8103) anchored in marking guide practices. Examination quality control was found to be generally robust (3.7356), though difficulty-level consistency across departments was weak (2.8621). Item quality control was positive (3.5733), with strong review for clarity (4.3103) and clear intent (4.1724), but question repetition remains a concern (2.3793). Sound administrative quality control was manifested (3.6802), with strong secure storage and access controls (≈ 4.17), but a critical training gap on confidentiality/security (2.3448). Moderation compliance was high (98.5% submit), yet feedback was inconsistent, with 53% reporting rarely/never receiving feedback; where provided, feedback is rated useful/very useful by 83.8%, most often via one-on-one consultations (36.7%), although staff preferred email (32.4%) and written comments (19.1%). The study recommends standardized difficulty calibration, formalized and documented feedback protocols, item banking with exposure tracking, cognitive blueprints, and targeted training to close gaps and align with competency-based policy. validity reliability moderation quality assurance higher education assessment teacher education University of Education The Gambia 1 Introduction Assessment quality in higher education is a cornerstone of academic standards, fairness, and public trust, with particular salience in teacher education, where institutional practices model the assessment literacy that future teachers will enact in schools. Contemporary frameworks emphasise that quality is multidimensional, spanning validity (the extent to which interpretations and uses of scores are supported), reliability and consistency, moderation and standard-setting, item quality assurance, administrative security, and effective feedback loops for continuous improvement (Shaw & Crisp, 2011 ; American Educational Research Association (AERA), American Psychological Association (APA), & National Council on Measurement in Education [NCME], 2014; (Kane, 2013 ). Within outcome-based education, constructive alignment positions assessment as one component of a coherent system linking intended learning outcomes (ILOs), teaching/learning activities (TLAs), and assessment tasks, with cognitive demand calibrated against recognised taxonomies such as Bloom’s (Biggs & Tang, 2011 ; Anderson & Krathwohl, 2001 ). This calibration is not only a psychometric concern but a curricular one: what is assessed shapes what is taught and how students’ study. In The Gambia, recent reforms prioritise competency-based curricula, diagnostic assessment, and institutionalised continuous assessment across school phases (Ministry of Basic and Secondary Education [MoBSE], 2015 ; 2017; United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization [UNESCO], 2018 ; UNESCO International Institute for Educational Planning [IIEP-UNESCO], 2021 ). The University of Education, The Gambia (UEG) School of Education (SoE) thus occupies a system-critical position: strengthening the validity, reliability, and moderation of its assessments has consequences for teacher quality throughout the sector. Against this backdrop, the present study evaluates UEG-SoE’s assessment quality across six dimensions: face, content, and construct validity; reliability; examination and item quality control; and administrative security, alongside moderation compliance and feedback practices. We triangulate the perspectives of Examination Committee Questionnaire (ECQ; N = 29; Cronbach’s alpha (α) = 0.87) respondents and Staff Assessment Practices Questionnaire (SAPQ; N = 68; α = 0.85) respondents, offering an institution-wide snapshot of strengths and risks. We extend prior work by combining validated instruments with operational indicators (e.g., training coverage, access logging, exposure/repetition signals) and by linking findings to actionable improvements (e.g., blueprinting, calibration, item banking, feedback service levels). In doing so, this work contributes empirical evidence from a low- and middle-income context where comprehensive assessments of higher education quality assurance (QA) systems remain comparatively rare, and it aligns recommendations with international best practice and local policy priorities. 2 Literature Review 2.1 Validity and validation frameworks Validity concerns the degree to which evidence and theory support the interpretations of test scores for proposed uses (AERA/APA/NCME, 2014; Kane, 2013 ). While face and content validity speak to perceived appropriateness and representativeness, construct validity requires that assessments capture the intended competencies and that score-based decisions are defensible given the underlying claims. According to Kane ( 2013 ), argument-based approaches emphasise building and evaluating an interpretive/use argument with multiple sources of evidence, content, response processes, internal structure, relations to other variables, and consequences. In programme contexts, constructive alignment operationalises validity by ensuring that ILOs, TLAs, and assessments are coherent and that cognitive demand matches intended outcomes; superficial alignment (high-level verbs with low-level tasks) undermines construct validity (Biggs & Tang, 2011 ; Mor & Erşen, 2023 ). 2.2 Reliability, standardisation, and marking quality Reliability encompasses score consistency across markers, occasions, and parallel forms. In higher education, inter-marker reliability is improved by explicit criteria, calibrated rubrics, exemplars, and structured moderation (Crisp, Johnson, & Constantinou, 2016 ; Sadler, 2013 ). Marking guides can reduce subjectivity and support fair differentiation by cognitive level when well specified and used consistently; however, rubric design and marker calibration are prerequisites for realising these benefits (Brookhart, 2018 ; Hecker et al., 2024 ). Routine post-assessment checks (e.g., double-marking samples, blind remarking, marker drift monitoring) further bolster reliability and equity across cohorts and departments. 2.3 Moderation and feedback Moderation is a suite of pre-, during-, and post-assessment activities that aims to ensure comparability and defensibility of judgments across assessors, cohorts, and sites (University of Birmingham & University College of Birmingham (UCB), 2020; University of Edinburgh, 2024 ). Effective moderation features timely, documented, and actionable feedback to item writers and markers; transparent processes; and calibration exercises that align tacit standards (Hecker et al., 2024 ; Sadler, 2013 ). Where feedback is irregular or undocumented, opportunities for item improvement and professional learning are lost (Winstone & Pitt, 2025 ; Williams, 2024 ). Emerging work on feedback literacy underscores that both staff and students need capabilities to interpret, use, and seek feedback; formalising feedback channels (e.g., templates, email with tracked actions) supports uptake and organisational learning (Carless & Boud, 2018 ; Nicol & Macfarlane-Dick, 2006; Hattie & Timperley, 2007 ). 2.4 Item quality control and post-examination analytics Item quality is central to validity and reliability. Established to guidelines address clarity, relevance, avoidance of cueing, and cognitive demand, particularly for selected-response formats (Haladyna, Downing, & Rodriguez, 2002 ; Downing, 2005 ; Haladyna & Rodriguez, 2013). Post-exam analytics quantify performance and discrimination (e.g., facility indices, point-biserials) and test reliability (e.g., Kuder–Richardson Formula 20 (KR-20) and Cronbach’s alpha (α)), informing item retention, revision, or retirement (Tavakol & Dennick, 2011 ). Item banks with metadata (topic, Bloom level, difficulty) and exposure tracking mitigate repetition and leakage risks while enabling intentional cognitive sampling across cycles (Crisp et al., 2016 ). 2.5 Administrative quality control and assessment security Administrative controls, secure storage, role-based access, encryption, access logging, and breach protocols protect the integrity of assessments. Training for staff with access to materials is a critical control; absent or ad hoc training elevates operational risk (Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education [QAA], 2018 ). As digital workflows expand, policies must address file handling, version control, and traceability, supported by periodic audits and drills to test response capacity. 2.6 Cognitive alignment and blueprinting Blueprinting maps assessment content and cognitive demand to ILOs and ensures planned coverage across Bloom’s levels, with higher-order skills weighted appropriately to year/level (Anderson & Krathwohl, 2001 ; Biggs & Tang, 2011 ). Without blueprints and calibration, departments can drift towards recall-heavy assessments, reducing comparability and undermining competency-based goals. Stimulus-rich items and authentic tasks are often required to elicit analyse/evaluate/create, supported by rubrics that operationalise complex performances (Pellegrino, Chudowsky, & Glaser, 2001 ; Crisp et al., 2016 ). 3 Methods 3.1 Design and setting The study employed a descriptive, cross-sectional survey design to examine assessment quality assurance practices within the UEG SoE. Two complementary instruments targeted distinct respondent groups: the Examination Committee Questionnaire (ECQ) and the Staff Assessment Practices Questionnaire (SAPQ). The design ensured respondents’ opinions identified their compliance with quality assurance protocols and ascertained the standard required for examination validity and reliability. The study spanned the school’s two campuses (Brikama and Basse) and multiple departments, enabling institution-level inferences. 3.2 Participants and sampling Purposive sampling and simple random sampling were used to select the examination committee and staff, respectively. Examination and Moderation Committee members (N = 29) completed the ECQ; academic staff (N = 68) completed the SAPQ. Departments represented included Education & Professional Studies, Physical & Health Education, Mathematics, Science, Agriculture, Commerce, English, Home Science, Information and Communication Technology (ICT), Arts, Gender Studies, Social & Environmental Studies, and others. The staff sample was predominantly academic (over 98%), with qualifications ranging from Bachelor’s to Doctor of Philosophy (Ph.D.) degrees. Campus participation was approximately 70% Brikama and 30% Basse for the ECQ, consistent with staff distribution. Participation was voluntary and anonymous. 3.3 Instruments The ECQ (Cronbach’s alpha (α) = 0.87) assessed face, content, and construct validity; reliability/marking guide practices; examination and item quality control; and administrative security. The SAPQ (α = 0.85) captured moderation submission practices, frequency, and modalities of feedback, perceived usefulness of feedback, and preferred feedback channels. Both instruments underwent expert review for face and content validity, and items were rated on a five-point Likert scale (1 = Strongly disagree/Never; 5 = Strongly agree/Always). A priori, a threshold mean of 3.0 denoted acceptable agreement (Boone & Boone, 2012 ). 3.4 Procedures and data management Questionnaires were administered during routine assessment cycles. Responses were recorded digitally and checked for completeness. Descriptive statistics (means, medians, standard deviations, and percentages) were computed by domain and item. Composite/grand means summarised domain-level perceptions. Where appropriate, medians were reported to respect the ordinal nature of Likert data, and item-level standard deviations were used to characterise response dispersion (Boone & Boone, 2012 ). Free-text comments (where provided) were reviewed to contextualise quantitative patterns. No inferential comparisons between campuses or departments were conducted due to sample sizes. 3.5 Ethical considerations The study adhered to institutional guidelines for research with human participants. Participation was voluntary, no incentives were offered, and no personally identifying information was collected. Data were stored on secure, access-controlled drives, with access limited to the research team. 3.6 Reporting The work reports instrument reliability (Cronbach’s alpha (α)), central tendency, and dispersion for each domain, and key operational indicators (e.g., training coverage, access logging, item repetition signals). Findings are interpreted against contemporary validity/reliability frameworks and sector guidance on moderation and assessment security (AERA/APA/NCME, 2014; University of Birmingham & UCB, 2020; University of Edinburgh, 2024 ). 4 Results 4.1 Demographic information of respondents Table 1 Examination and Moderation Committee (ECQ; N = 29) Sex Campus Frequency Percent Female Brikama 6 100.0% Basse 0 0% Male Basse 7 30.4% Brikama 16 69.6% Total 29 100.0% Brikama respondents (ECQ): Brikama contributed 22 respondents, comprising both men and women. All six of the entire Examination Committee Questionnaire (ECQ) respondent pool is concentrated at Brikama, with 22 respondents, while Basse has 7. All six female respondents are from Brikama, and Basse respondents are exclusively male, indicating both a campus and gender skew in the sample. Table 2 Current status Sex Staff status Frequency Percent Female Lecturer 3 50.0% Senior Lecturer 3 50.0% Total 6 100.0% Male Administrative Staff 1 4.3% Assistant Lecturer 1 4.3% Lecturer 15 65.2% Senior Lecturer 6 26.1% Total 23 100.0% Among female respondents (n = 6), roles are evenly split between Lecturer (3) and Senior Lecturer (3), with no female Assistant Lecturer or Administrative staff. Among male respondents (n = 23), most are Lecturers (15), with fewer Senior Lecturers (6) and only one Assistant Lecturer and one administrative staff member. Taken together, the tables indicate that the ECQ sample was Brikama-heavy and male-dominated overall, with women’s perspectives represented solely from Brikama and Basse represented only by men. The respondent role profile centres on the Lecturer grade with a smaller senior cadre, suggesting that campus, gender, and rank composition should be considered when interpreting committee feedback and planning moderation practices. Table 3 Department Frequency Percent Agriculture 2 6.9% Arts 1 3.4% Commerce 2 6.9% Education & Professional Studies 4 13.8% English 2 6.9% Gender Studies 1 3.4% Home Science 2 6.9% Information & Communication Technology 1 3.4% Mathematics 3 10.3% Others 3 10.3% Physical & Health Education 4 13.8% Science 3 10.3% Social & Environmental Studies 1 3.4% Total 29 100.0 % The respondent pool spans a wide range of departments, with the largest contributions from Education & Professional Studies and Physical & Health Education. Mid-sized groups include Mathematics, Science, and Others, while smaller clusters come from Agriculture (2), Commerce (2), English (2), and Home Science (2). Single respondents represent Arts (1), Gender Studies (1), Information & Communication Technology (1), and Social & Environmental Studies (1). Overall, representation was diffused across disciplines with no single department dominating, though several areas are represented by only one respondent. Table 4 Highest academic qualification Frequency Percent B.Ed./B.Sc./B. A 7 24.1% H.T.C/Ad. Dip 1 3.4% M.Ed./M.Sc./M. A 17 58.6% PGD/PUEG 1 3.4% Ph.D. 3 10.3% Total 29 100.0 % On the level of qualification of the study respondents, the results confirmed that the minimum qualification amongst the respondents was an advanced diploma in education. This suggests that most staff who participated in this study have attained their first degree, except one with a diploma, with many others attaining other higher qualifications. Overall, a greater percentage of the respondents are master's degree holders (58.6%). This is followed by first degree holders (24.1%), with Ph.D. holders being the third highest, 10.3%. 4.2 Evaluation by examination and moderation committee members Table 5 Face Validity, N = 29 Statements on Face Validity Mean Median Std. Deviation Examination questions lack clarity, and is not easy to comprehend 4.2069 4.0000 0.90156 Examination questions are often confusing and misleading 4.2759 4.0000 0.92182 Examination questions measure accurately what they are intended to measure. 3.6552 4.0000 1.07822 Examination questions are suitable for the intended population. 3.9310 4.0000 0.75266 Examination questions are relevant to the topics being measured. 4.0000 4.0000 0.70711 Grand/Composite Mean 4.0138 In examining the face validity of the assessment instruments, it was concerned with examining the extent to which the instruments measure what they were intended to measure. This process was a subjective judgment from an expert perspective. The reliance on some measures of central tendency (mean and median) and the composite or grand mean determines the degree of satisfaction. Given a 5-point Likert scale, according to the literature (Boone & Boone, 2012 ), the reference point for success or agreement is 3.0 or higher. With all five questions assessing face validity achieving a mean score of at least 3.6, which is well above 3.0, this study therefore concludes that the items have generally satisfied the condition of face validity. This outcome is further substantiated by the higher composite mean value for face validity, 4.0138, from a possible maximum mean score of 5.0 and a median value of 4.0 for all items. Table 6 Construct Validity, N = 29 Statements on Construct Validity Mean Median Std. Deviation Examination questions comprehensively cover all topics intended to be assessed 3.0345 3.0000 1.01710 Examination questions focus on the subject matter and do not assess unrelated skills 3.3793 4.0000 1.11528 The difficulty level of the examination questions is appropriate for the intended Examinees 3.2069 4.0000 1.04810 The examination questions reflect real-world applications of the concepts being tested 3.1379 3.0000 1.02554 The examination questions do not assess unrelated skills or knowledge areas 3.0000 3.0000 1.28174 Grand/Composite Mean 3.15172 On the construct validity review, we are concerned with how well a test or assessment actually measures the theoretical concept, or construct, it claims to measure. Citing from the agreed threshold of 3.0 as a benchmark for a 5-point Likert scale, it is confirmed that all items assessing the extent of construct validity have passed the minimum threshold. This suggests that the University of Education, The Gambia, School of Education examination questions have mainly satisfied the construct validity test. This result is further justified by the composite mean score of 3.15172, which is also more than the acceptable minimum benchmark, and a median value of 3.0 or above. Table 7 Content Validity, N = 29 Statements on Content Validity Mean Median Std. Deviation The most important concepts in the course are adequately represented in the examination 3.6552 4.0000 1.04457 The examination questions are relevant to the learning objectives of the course 4.2414 4.0000 .57664 Examination instructions are clear and understandable 4.3103 4.0000 .54139 Examination questions have a good balance of easy, moderate, and difficult questions 3.7241 4.0000 .88223 The time allotted for the examination questions is enough to complete all the questions, to avoid rushing 4.3103 4.0000 .60376 Grand Mean 4.0483 The questionnaire responses on the content validity status of items were also examined to determine the suitability of the items from all viewpoints. This was done to determine whether the instruments adequately and accurately cover the full scope of the subject matters or constructs they are intended to measure. The confirmation of content validity guarantees that the instruments are representative, relevant, and aligned with learning objectives or curriculum standards. The responses revealed that all items assessing content validity have obtained a mean value higher than the threshold of 3.0, suggesting that respondents generally agreed on the content validity of the instruments. This assertion is further strengthened by the higher grand mean and median values way higher than the 3.0 threshold. Table 8 Reliability, N = 29 Statements on Reliability Mean Median Std. Deviation Marking guides are made available to the committee for evaluation 3.3448 4.0000 1.34366 The criteria in the marking guide are clear 3.4483 4.0000 1.15221 Examiners often refer to the marking guide while marking 3.5172 4.0000 1.02193 The marking guide reduces subjective judgment in scoring 4.1034 4.0000 .97632 The benchmark provided in the marking guide is helpful 4.2759 4.0000 .59140 The marking guide allows for fair differentiation between cognitive levels 4.0690 4.0000 .59348 Scoring of questions is consistent with similar responses 3.7241 4.0000 .95978 The marking guide helps assign scores consistently across different responses 4.0000 4.0000 .84515 Grand Mean 3.8103 A further review of the responses on the reliability of the assessment instruments ensued. This is meant to confirm the consistency, stability, and dependability of our assessment results, knowing that a reliable assessment yields similar outcomes under consistent conditions. With the same statistical threshold as the previous, the mean values for all items testing reliability have surpassed the minimum acceptable benchmark of 3.0. This confirms their reliability. Further to that, the composite mean for the test of reliability has also surpassed the 3.0 threshold, reaffirming the reliability status of our examination items from the viewpoint of the respondents. With the median values all being way higher than 3.0, this further strengthens the respondent's assertion that the instruments are reliable. Marking guides are central to reliability. Clarity and use are good, with strong perceptions that guide, reduce subjectivity, and enable cognitive differentiation. Table 9 Examination Quality Control, N = 29 Statements on Examination Quality Control Mean Median Std. Deviation Examination criteria were clearly communicated to all students before the examination 4.1724 4.0000 0.7106 Examination questions were relevant to the course content taught 4.0345 4.0000 0.6805 The difficulty level of the examination was consistent across different departments and Programmes 2.8621 3.0000 1.0255 The grading standards were applied uniformly to all students, regardless of department or programme 4.2414 5.0000 1.0231 The feedback on examination performance was provided in a timely and transparent manner 3.0690 3.0000 1.1317 The collation of examination questions was well organized across departments and programmes 3.5172 4.0000 1.1219 There are opportunities given to students to appeal examination results 3.1034 3.0000 1.1755 The examiners demonstrated importability when grading the examinations across all departments and programmes 4.3103 4.0000 0.6038 The examination process was fair and consistent across all departments and programmes. 4.3103 4.0000 0.4708 Grand Mean 3.7356 On the conduct of assessments at the University of Education, The Gambia, School of Education, the study reviews the examination quality control mechanisms to determine their level of effectiveness and alignment with the recognized standards. This review examines the responses of staff involved in the examination process. Relating the aggregate responses on a 5-point Likert scale to the grand mean and the threshold of 3.0, the results indicate an overall positive perception of examination quality control across the sample. For a review of the specific parameters designed to assess examination quality control effectiveness levels, 89% (8 out of 9) agree that the required quality control measures are in place. This is highly recognizable in the following cases: “The examination process was fair and consistent across all departments and programmes (Mean = 4.3103, SD = 0.4708), The grading standards were applied uniformly to all students regardless of department or programme (Mean = 4.2414, SD = 1.0231), Examination criteria were clearly communicated to all students before the examination (Mean = 4.1724, SD = 0.7106), with many other favourable results affirming high pedigree of examination quality control mechanisms. These results are further verified by the higher median values of at least 3.0 across the parameters. However, there still exists a point of disagreement on the aspect of consistency on the difficulty level of examinations across departments and programmes, with many believing that this is not sustained. The results detail that the difficulty level of examination was consistent across different departments and Programmes (Mean = 2.8621, SD = 1.0255). With the mean value considerably falling short of the threshold of 3.0, this suggests that the respondents have disputed the existence of a consistent difficulty level of examinations across departments and programmes. It confirms that the standard and difficulty level of School of Education examinations vary across departments and programmes, asserting that while some design tough exam materials, others develop much easier ones to assess learning outcomes. Table 10 Item Quality Control, N = 29 Statements on Item Quality Control Mean Median Std. Deviation The examination avoided unnecessary repetition of content across different questions 3.9310 4.0000 0.7527 Questions were repeated in the examination 2.3793 2.0000 0.9029 The examination contained multiple questions that tested the same concept in a similar way 3.2414 4.0000 1.0575 The intent of each examination is clear 4.1724 4.0000 0.5391 Certain questions are open to multiple interpretations. 3.5517 4.0000 1.0885 The examination questions were reviewed thoroughly to ensure clarity and accuracy. 4.3103 4.0000 0.6603 There were no typographical or factual errors in the examination questions 3.2759 4.0000 1.0986 The examination covered an appropriate range of topics without overemphasizing any single area. 3.7241 4.0000 0.7972 Grand Mean 3.5733 In the item quality control process, we are concerned with ensuring that the assessment instruments meet the required standards of validity, reliability, fairness, and clarity before they are used in an assessment. For the determination of the effectiveness of this process, statements were asked to some staff responsible for examination processes to gauge the quality status. Relating to a 5-point Likert scale and a threshold of 3.0, the grand mean of 3.5733 revealed that the mechanisms for item quality control are highly effective. These findings can be reaffirmed by the results generated for specific parameters, such as; The examination questions were reviewed thoroughly to ensure clarity and accuracy (Mean = 4.3103, SD = 0.6603), The examination avoided unnecessary repetition of content across different questions (Mean = 3.9310, SD = 0.7527), The examination covered an appropriate range of topics without overemphasizing any single area (Mean = 3.7241, SD = 0.7972) and some others asserting the same position. Conversely, there is an agreement that questions were often repeated, which has the tendency of leakage, thereby undermining the level of item quality control. This perspective is asserted by the result; Questions were repeated in the examination (Mean = 2.3793, SD = 0.9029). The result highlights that questions are often repeated, which raises a concern that stringent measures need to be put in place to maintain the high credibility and standards of our assessments. Table 11 Administrative Quality Control, N = 29 Statements on Administrative Quality Control Mean Median Std. Deviation Examination materials are stored in secure, access-controlled locations at all times 4.1724 4.0000 0.9285 Only authorized personnel have access to examination materials before, during, and after the examination period 4.0690 4.0000 1.2516 Procedures for handling examination materials are clearly documented and consistently followed 3.7586 4.0000 1.0575 There are effective measures in place to prevent unauthorized copying or sharing of examination content 3.8621 4.0000 1.1252 Examination rooms are securely locked to protect examination materials from unauthorized access 4.1724 4.0000 1.0375 Digital examination files are protected with strong passwords and encryption 3.7241 4.0000 1.0315 There is a clear process of tracking and logging all access to the examination materials 3.2759 3.0000 1.0656 Any breach or suspected breach of examination materials security is promptly reported and investigated. 3.7586 4.0000 0.8724 The examination and moderation committee regularly reviews and updates its security protocols for examination materials 3.5862 4.0000 1.0183 The examination and moderation committee receives regular training on examination confidentiality and security protocols 2.3448 2.0000 0.8567 There is designated staff responsible for overseeing examination materials security 3.7586 4.0000 1.2721 Grand Mean 3.6802 Further quality assurance and enforcement of compliance with standard practices extended to a review of the administrative quality control measures that are in place. These measures point to the assessment processes, systems, and checks that ensure administrative work in an organization is accurate, efficient, consistent, and aligned with standards, policies, and goals. Checking the rate of compliance from our results on a 5-point Likert scale data, we rely on the minimum benchmark of 3.0 to gauge agreement on the parameters with respect to their descriptive statistics and the composite mean. Overall, the composite mean score of 3.6802, which is way above the benchmark of 3.0, suggests a strong level of agreement on the diligent implementation of administrative quality control measures. On the specific parameters put forward to assess compliance with the administrative quality control measures, the mean values are mainly above the threshold. This is substantiated by some of the following points: Examination rooms are securely locked to protect examination materials from unauthorized access (Mean = 4.1724, SD = 1.0375), Only authorized personnel have access to examination materials before, during and after examination period (Mean = 4.0690, SD = 1.2516), Examination materials are stored in secured, access-controlled locations at all times (Mean = 4.1724, SD = 0.9285), There are effective measures in place to prevent unauthorized copying or sharing of examination content (Mean = 3.8621, SD = 1.1252), which all upheld the steadfastness of the administrative quality control measures. On the contrary, there exists a single point of agreement against the administrative quality control measures put in place, specifically on the training of the moderation committee. This is evident by the point: The examination and moderation committee receives regular training on examination confidentiality and security protocols (Mean = 2.3448, SD = 0.8567). With the mean value here being considerably lower than the threshold of 3.0, this indicates that the examination and moderation committee members have not benefited from any form of training on examination confidentiality and security protocols. This highlights a capacity gap that needs to be strengthened to enhance their effectiveness and efficiency. 4.3 Examination Question Submission and Moderation Feedback Practices and Preferences Table 12 Submission of Examination Questions to the Examination and Moderation Committee Response Frequency Percent No 1 1.5 Yes 67 98.5 Total 68 100.0 The table above presents the findings on the academic staff’s compliance with submitting their drafted examination questions for moderation. The results revealed that 98.5% of academic staff (67 out of 68 sample) report submitting their examination questions to the Examination and Moderation Committee for review, and only 1 staff member (1.5%) indicated non-submission. This shows a near-universal submission rate, reflecting a high level of adherence to internal quality assurance protocols. It is also a confirmation that the moderation of examination questions is an embedded and accepted practice within the School of Education. Table 13 Receipt of Feedback After Moderation of Submitted Examination Questions Response Frequency Percent Always 16 23.5 Sometimes 16 23.5 Rarely 14 20.6 Never 22 32.4 Total 68 100.0 The table above presents the findings on the reception of feedback on the moderated examination questions. The results reveal that feedback inconsistency is evident. While 23.5% of staff consistently receive feedback, a combined 53% (rarely and never) report receiving little to no feedback after moderation. The 32.4% reporting “Never” receiving feedback is particularly concerning, given that moderation is intended to enhance assessment quality and alignment. The absence or irregularity of feedback undermines the purpose of moderation and limits opportunities for professional growth and improvement of defective examination items for improved quality assessment. This irregularity in feedback provision further highlights the inactivity of some moderators. Table 14 Usual Form of Moderation Feedback on Examination Questions Responses Frequency Percent No response 1 1.5% Email communication 3 4.5% Feedback during departmental/committee meetings 14 20.6% No feedback provided 21 30.9% One-on-one consultation 25 36.7% Written comments on the exam script 4 5.9% Total 68 100.0% On the reception of feedback after the moderation and the frequency of its receipt, respondents reported the kind of feedback they usually receive from the moderators. The results reveal that one-on-one consultation (36.7%) is the dominant feedback method, suggesting a preference or institutional norm for personalized, informal dialogue. Despite this process's ability to foster deeper understanding, there is concern that it may lack documentation or consistency. Further to that, nearly one-third (30.9%) of staff report receiving no feedback at all, reinforcing earlier findings that moderation lacks a reliable feedback loop. The results further reveal that written feedback and email communication are severely underutilized, despite their professional status and the potential to provide clear, traceable, and actionable input. These unveil the dominance of informal feedback sharing mechanisms and the absence of feedback from the moderators, potentially defeating the ultimate purpose of moderation. Table 15 Perceived Usefulness of Moderation Feedback for Improving Examination Question Quality Responses Frequency Percent No response 4 5.9% Not useful 4 5.9% Slightly useful 3 4.4% Useful 13 19.1% Very useful 44 64.7% Total 68 100% On the usefulness of the feedback received and its ability to improve the quality of examination questions, reports revealed that, despite feedback not being given regularly, they have been very useful. The statistics show that over 83% of respondents (Useful + Very Useful) perceive feedback as beneficial to improving the quality of their examination questions. This reflects a positive institutional culture around assessment refinement. Conversely, about 10.3% reported little or no usefulness of the feedback (Slightly useful + Not useful), indicating that feedback quality or relevance remains a concern, possibly due to inconsistent moderation practices or lack of specificity. Table 16 Preferred Mode of Receiving Moderation Feedback on Examination Questions Responses Frequency Percent No response 1 1.5% Email communication 22 32.4% One-on-one consultation 19 27.9% Others 3 4.4% Verbal feedback during departmental meetings 7 10.3% WhatsApp message 3 4.4% Written comments on the submitted exam paper 13 19.1% Total 68 100.0% From Table 16 , the study finds the staff’s responses on their preferred way of receiving moderation feedback. The results reveal that email communication is the top preference (32.4%), indicating a desire for formal, asynchronous, and documented feedback. This is followed by one-on-one consultation (27.9%), reflecting the value placed on interactive, personalized feedback, which may foster deeper understanding and professional growth. Written comments on exam papers (19.1%) are also well-regarded, likely due to their direct linkage to specific content and actionable nature. However, other feedback means, such as Group-based feedback (10.3%) and informal channels like WhatsApp (4.4%), are less favoured, possibly due to their generality or lack of documentation. Interpretation: Compliance is strong. Feedback is inconsistently delivered and weakly documented, despite being valued when provided; staff prefer formal, traceable channels. 5 Discussion 5.1 Summary of principal findings Across domains, the School of Education demonstrates strong perceived face and content validity (grand means ≈ 4.01 and 4.05, respectively) and positive reliability anchored in the routine use of marking guides (grand mean ≈ 3.81). Examination quality control is generally robust (grand mean ≈ 3.74), with high ratings for fairness, impartial marking, and clear communication of criteria. Two systemic risks, however, are salient: inconsistency in difficulty across departments and programmes (Mean = 2.86) and evidence of question repetition (Mean = 2.38). Administrative security is viewed as strong overall (grand mean ≈ 3.68), especially for secure storage and authorised access, yet a critical capacity gap remains in regular training on confidentiality and security (Mean = 2.34). Moderation compliance is near-universal (98.5% submit for moderation), but the developmental feedback loop is weak: 53% report rarely or never receiving feedback; where provided, feedback is rated useful/very useful by 83.8%, with staff expressing a preference for formal, documented channels (email and written comments). 5.2 Interpretation in light of recent evidence The pattern of strong face/content validity and rubric-enabled reliability alongside middling construct validity is consistent with multi-institution evidence that assessments often under-sample complex, authentic performances even where outcomes-based language is used (Crisp, Johnson, & Constantinou, 2016 ; (AERA, APA, & (NCME, 2014; Kane, 2013 ). Studies in health and teacher education similarly report a dominance of lower-order cognitive demand in written examinations relative to staff intentions, with the gap attributed to design constraints, workload, and confidence in marking higher-order work (Tavakol & Dennick, 2011 ; Mor & Erşen, 2023 ). The finding of difficulty variability across departments echoes work on comparability, which argues that fairness requires not only common criteria but also shared standards enacted through calibration practices that surface tacit expectations (Sadler, 2013 ; University of Birmingham & University College Birmingham (UCB), 2020). Recent synthesis indicates that moderation is most effective when it embeds calibration conversations supported by exemplars and annotated rubrics, rather than relying solely on post hoc paper checks (Hecker et al., 2024 ). The observed weakness in the feedback loop aligns with sector-wide concerns that moderation is often compliance-focused, with limited actionable feedback recorded for item writers or markers (Winstone & Pitt, 2025 ). Contemporary feedback research emphasises feedback processes and literacies, timely, specific, and documented feedback that recipients are positioned and supported to use, over one-off comments (Carless & Boud, 2018 ; Winstone & Carless, 2020 ). Where institutions have adopted structured templates and service levels for staff-to-staff feedback in moderation, reported gains include clearer actionable points, better traceability, and improved subsequent item quality (Williams, 2024 ). Finally, item repetition and limited access logging are known test-security vulnerabilities. In the absence of systematic exposure tracking and audits, item recall and circulation can compromise validity and inflate scores, particularly in tight subject communities (Haladyna & Rodriguez, 2013; Wollack & Fremer, 2013 ). As assessment increasingly relies on digital workflows, recent work underscores the need to couple policy with regular, documented security training and scenario-based drills (Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education (QAA), 2018 ; Dawson, 2020 ). 5.3 Implications for policy and practice Strengthening construct validity requires intentional design choices. Mandating cognitive blueprints that map items to intended learning outcomes (ILOs) and Bloom levels, with explicit targets for Analyse/Evaluate/Create appropriate to year/level, is a feasible first step (Anderson & Krathwohl, 2001 ; Biggs & Tang, 2011 ). Stimulus-rich selected-response items (e.g., data displays, case vignettes, extended-matching formats) can elicit multi-step reasoning at scale when paired with rigorous item-writing guidelines and peer review; constructed-response tasks should be supported with criterion-referenced rubrics and exemplars to stabilise marking while preserving higher-order demand (Haladyna, Downing, & Rodriguez, 2002 ; Downing, 2005 ; Brookhart, 2018 ). Difficulty consistency is best addressed through cross-department calibration panels that agree on anchor items, marking expectations, and target facility distributions by course level; post-examination dashboards can flag outliers for targeted support and re-standardisation (Sadler, 2013 ; University of Edinburgh, 2024 ). To mitigate item repetition and leakage risks, a secure item bank with metadata (topic, Bloom level, difficulty), version control, and exposure tracking should be implemented, alongside periodic audits and duplication scans. Where resources allow, automatic item generation (AIG) and templating can diversify item pools while maintaining cognitive alignment (Gierl, Lai, & Turner, 2012 ; Gierl, Bulut, Guo, & Zhang, 2017). Administrative security should be reinforced through annual training for all personnel handling examination materials, role-based access logging with routine reviews, and breach-response drills (QAA, 2018 ; Dawson, 2020 ). Moderation should be reoriented from compliance to learning by instituting feedback service level agreements (SLAs), for example, documented written/email feedback within 10 working days using a standard template, paired with scheduled calibration sessions and an archive of feedback to support organisational learning (Hecker et al., 2024 ; Winstone & Carless, 2020 ). 5.4 Links to broader assessment reform agenda These recommendations align with trends toward programmatic assessment (PA) in competency-based education, wherein multiple low-stakes data points, rich feedback, and periodic high-stakes decisions are combined to enhance validity and support learning (van der Vleuten, Schuwirth, Driessen, Dijkstra, Tigelaar, Baartman, & van Tartwijk, 2015; Heeneman, Oudkerk Pool, Schuwirth, van der Vleuten, & Driessen, 2021 ). While full PA may be beyond current capacity, elements, such as staged authentic tasks with iterative feedback, longitudinal rubrics, and structured aggregation of evidence, can be adopted within existing examination systems. Likewise, assessment security practices drawn from the test-security literature (e.g., systematic exposure monitoring, statistical forensics for anomaly detection) can be adapted proportionately to institutional risk profiles (Wollack & Fremer, 2013 ). In digital contexts, pairing secure item banking with staff development on contract cheating risks and mitigation, or access logs. Future research should incorporate artifact audits, routine post-exam analytics (facility, discrimination, KR-20/Cronbach’s α), and moderation records to corroborate perceptions, and should report inter-rater reliability for any cognitive classifications. Where feasible, quasi-experimental designs can test the impact of blueprinting, calibration, and feedback SLAs on item quality, reliability, and student outcomes over time. 5.7 Future directions Near-term priorities include piloting cognitive blueprints and cross-department calibration panels; implementing a secure, metadata-rich item bank with exposure tracking; and formalising moderation feedback SLAs. Mixed-methods evaluations should examine effects on cognitive distributions, item analysis indices, reliability, and staff experiences. Capacity-building should focus on item writing for higher-order thinking, rubric design, moderation and calibration facilitation, assessment security, and feedback literacy. Decision-support technologies, such as natural language processing and machine learning (NLP/ML), aids to flag potential ambiguity, duplication, or cognitive imbalance in draft items, are promising complements to human review and warrant cautious pilots benchmarked against expert judgements (Crisp et al., 2016 ). Embedding plan-do-study-act (PDSA) cycles and dash boarded key performance indicators (KPIs), including difficulty consistency, cognitive coverage versus blueprints, item reuse rates, feedback timeliness, and training coverage, will support continuous improvement and accountability consistent with national competency-based policy priorities (MoBSE, 2015 ; 2017; IIEP-UNESCO, 2021 ). 6 Conclusion This study offers a system-level appraisal of assessment quality within the University of Education, The Gambia School of Education, triangulating Examination Committee and academic staff perspectives across key quality-assurance dimensions. Perceptions of face and content validity are strong, and reliability is positively anchored in the use of marking guides, while examination processes are broadly viewed as fair and consistent. Nonetheless, several systemic vulnerabilities emerge: inconsistency in difficulty across departments and programmes, signals of item repetition, limited access logging, and a pronounced gap in regular training on confidentiality and security. Moderation compliance is near-universal, yet the developmental value of moderation is constrained by weak, inconsistently documented feedback. Taken together, these findings indicate that while foundational elements of quality assurance are in place, construct validity, comparability, and continuous-improvement mechanisms require targeted strengthening. Addressing these gaps is central to fairness, integrity, and the constructive alignment of intended learning outcomes, teaching/learning activities, and assessment tasks. We recommend five mutually reinforcing priorities: mandate cognitive blueprints with explicit targets for higher-order thinking; institute cross-department calibration to stabilise difficulty and standards; deploy a secure, metadata-rich item bank with exposure tracking and duplication safeguards; formalise moderation as a feedback-rich process with service level agreements, templates, and archived records; and embed routine post-examination analytics and annual security training with access-log audits. These measures align with international standards for validity and reliability, are feasible within existing governance structures, and directly support The Gambia’s competency-based policy by modelling robust assessment practice for future teachers. Implementation should be staged and data-informed. A pragmatic 12-month roadmap, encompassing policy updates, staff development, pilot blueprinting and calibration, item-bank rollout, and dash boarded monitoring—can build momentum while enabling iterative refinement through plan–do–study–act cycles. Clear ownership, resourcing, and routine reporting to programme boards will be essential to sustain gains and ensure accountability. As processes mature, incorporating elements of programmatic assessment—staged authentic tasks with iterative feedback and structured aggregation of evidence—can further enhance validity and learning value. This evaluation is based on perceptions and composite indicators; future work should triangulate with independent audits of exam artifacts, item statistics, moderation records, and security logs, report inter-rater reliability for any cognitive classifications, and disaggregate findings by discipline and level. Quasi-experimental evaluations of blueprinting, calibration, and feedback interventions, as well as cautious pilots of decision-support tools (e.g., NLP/ML aids for item review), will help establish causal impacts on item quality, reliability, and student outcomes. By consolidating current strengths and acting on identified risks, the School of Education can enhance the defensibility, equity, and instructional value of its assessments. Doing so will not only bolster institutional trust but also cultivate the assessment literacy and professional judgement that graduates will carry into The Gambia’s schools, amplifying impact across the wider education system. 7 Recommendations The following recommendations translate the study’s findings into actionable, evidence-informed steps for the UEG-SoE. Recommendations targeted to the study’s findings Adopt a School-wide assessment quality assurance policy, mandate cognitive blueprints for all exams, set clear roles/timelines, and appoint leads to oversee implementation. Run regular workshops on item-writing for higher-order thinking, rubric design and calibration, moderation facilitation, post-exam analytics, and assessment security. Provide structured induction for new staff on SoE assessment policies, blueprinting, moderation, and security; pair novices with experienced setters/moderators. Deploy a secure, metadata-rich item bank with version control and exposure tracking; mandate duplication scans before approval; set rotation/retirement rules for reused items. Strengthen pre-moderation checklist with explicit clarity/ambiguity and error checks; require an “item intent” note for each question and a second reviewer sign-off; use small-scale cognitive walk-throughs for complex items. Require cognitive blueprints for every paper, mapping items to intended learning outcomes and Bloom levels; set minimum targets for application/analysis/evaluation appropriate to year/level; include authentic, stimulus-rich tasks; align rubrics to intended cognition. Make the marking guide a compulsory component of every submission pack; adopt standard rubric templates with annotated exemplars; double-mark a sample per course and discuss discrepancies. Introduce a moderation feedback service level agreement requiring written/email feedback via a standard template within 10 working days; archive all feedback; schedule brief follow-ups only where needed. Use a standard template that addresses clarity, content/construct alignment, difficulty, cognitive balance, and security notes; archive all feedback for audit and professional learning. Implement mandatory, annual security/confidentiality training (recorded) for all authorised staff; enforce role-based access with comprehensive logging and quarterly audits; run an annual breach-response drill. Provide cohort-level post-exam feedback briefs (common strengths, misconceptions, next steps) within 10 working days without disclosing secure content. Pilot natural language processing and machine learning (NLP/ML) tools to flag potential ambiguity, duplication, cognitive imbalance, and reading-load issues in draft items, complementing—not replacing—expert review. Declarations Funding The author(s) declare that no financial support was received for the research and/or publication of this article. Ethic The study was approved by the Research Ethic Committee of Gambia College with approval number GC/REC/2025/014. This study was performed in line with the tenets of the declaration of Helsinki. Conflict of interest All authors declared that they have no conflicts of interest. Consent to participate All the research participants gave voluntary informed consent to participate in the study Consent to publish All the research participants provided informed consent for participation and publication of the research findings. Data Availability Statement The datasets generated during and/or analysed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request. References AERA, APA, & NCME. (2014). Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing. Anderson LW, Krathwohl DR, editors. A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing. A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives; 2001. Biggs J, Tang C. Teaching for quality learning at university. 4th ed. Open University; 2011. Boone HN, Boone DA. (2012). Analysing Likert data. J Ext, 50(2). Bretag T, et al. Contract cheating: A survey of Australian university staff. Stud High Educ. 2019;44(11):1837–56. Brookhart SM. How to create and use rubrics for formative assessment and grading. 2nd ed. ASCD; 2018. Brookhart SM. How to create and use rubrics for formative assessment and grading. 2nd ed. ASCD; 2018. Carless D, Boud D. The development of student feedback literacy: Enabling uptake of feedback. Assess Evaluation High Educ. 2018;43(8):1315–25. Crisp V, Johnson M, Constantinou F. (2016). ‘Question quality’: The concept of quality in the context of exam questions. Cambridge Assessment. Dawson P. Defending assessment security in a digital world: Preventing e-cheating and supporting academic integrity. Routledge; 2020. Downing SM. The effects of violating standard item-writing principles on tests and students. Med Educ. 2005;39(3):282–9. Gierl MJ, Lai H, Turner SR. Using automatic item generation to create multiple-choice test items. Med Educ. 2012;46(8):757–65. Haladyna TM, Downing SM, Rodriguez MC. A review of multiple-choice item-writing guidelines. Appl Measur Educ. 2002;15(3):309–33. Hattie J, Timperley H. The power of feedback. Rev Educ Res. 2007;77(1):81–112. Hecker R, Peet J, El Haddad M, Chen Y, Lin F. Assessment moderation in higher education: Guiding practice with evidence—an integrative review. Nurse Educ Today. 2024. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nedt.2024.106512 . Heeneman S, Oudkerk Pool A, Schuwirth L, van der Vleuten C, Driessen E. The impact of programmatic assessment on student learning: Theory, practice, and future directions. Med Teach. 2021;43(6):641–8. IIEP-UNESCO. (2021). IIEP in Action 2020–2021. Kane MT. Validating the interpretations of test scores for proposed uses. Educational Measurement: Issues Pract. 2013;32(2):1–14. Langley GJ, et al. The Improvement Guide. 2nd ed. Jossey-Bass; 2009. MoBSE. (2015; 2017). National policy documents on competency-based curricula and assessment. Mor E, Erşen RK. Implications of current validity frameworks for classroom assessment. Int J Assess Tools Educ. 2023;10(SI):163–72. Mor E, Erşen RK. Implications of current validity frameworks for classroom assessment. Int J Assess Tools Educ. 2023;10(SI):163–72. Nickerson C. Face validity. Simply Psychology; 2024. Pellegrino JW, Chudowsky N, Glaser R, editors. Knowing what students know. National Academies; 2001. QAA. (2018). UK Quality Code for Higher Education: Advice and Guidance—Assessment. Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education (QAA). (2018). UK Quality Code for Higher Education: Advice and Guidance—Assessment. Sadler DR. Assuring academic achievement standards: From moderation to calibration. Assess Education: Principles Policy Pract. 2013;20(1):5–19. Shaw S, Crisp V. (2011). Tracing the evolution of validity in educational measurement. Cambridge Assessment. Tai J, Ajjawi R, Boud D, Dawson P, Panadero E. Developing evaluative judgement: Enabling students to make decisions about the quality of work. High Educ. 2018;76(3):467–81. Tavakol M, Dennick R. Post-examination analysis of objective tests. Med Teach. 2011;33(6):447–58. UNESCO. (2018). Global Education Monitoring Report 2018. University of Birmingham & University College Birmingham (UCB). (2020). Moderation code of practice. University of Edinburgh. (2024). Moderation Guidance. van der Vleuten CPM, Schuwirth L, Driessen E, Dijkstra J, Tigelaar D, Baartman L, van Tartwijk J. Twelve tips for programmatic assessment. Med Teach. 2015;37(1):27–32. Williams A. Delivering effective student feedback in higher education: Challenges and best practice. Int J Res Educ Sci. 2024;10(2):473–501. Winstone NE, Pitt E. Approaches to feedback on examination performance: Research, policy, and practice. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education; 2025. Winstone N, Carless D. Designing effective feedback processes in higher education: A learning-focused approach. Routledge; 2020. Wollack JA, Fremer JJ, editors. Handbook of Test Security. Routledge; 2013. Additional Declarations No competing interests reported. Cite Share Download PDF Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Research Square lets you share your work early, gain feedback from the community, and start making changes to your manuscript prior to peer review in a journal. As a division of Research Square Company, we’re committed to making research communication faster, fairer, and more useful. We do this by developing innovative software and high quality services for the global research community. Our growing team is made up of researchers and industry professionals working together to solve the most critical problems facing scientific publishing. Also discoverable on Platform About Our Team In Review Editorial Policies Advisory Board Help Center Resources Author Services Accessibility API Access RSS feed Manage Cookie Preferences © Research Square 2026 | ISSN 2693-5015 (online) Privacy Policy Terms of Service Do Not Sell My Personal Information {"props":{"pageProps":{"initialData":{"identity":"rs-8927572","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Research Article","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":631592440,"identity":"a0af0124-eb44-4f3f-b95d-882394a70d2e","order_by":0,"name":"Sheriff Ceesay","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"University of Education, The Gambia","correspondingAuthor":true,"prefix":"","firstName":"Sheriff","middleName":"","lastName":"Ceesay","suffix":""},{"id":631592442,"identity":"c45c4664-cb96-4f6a-8817-11e104eaa328","order_by":1,"name":"Lamin L Kanteh","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"University of Education, The Gambia","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Lamin","middleName":"L","lastName":"Kanteh","suffix":""},{"id":631592444,"identity":"f0ea8f65-fcca-4977-aefc-6a6ff357eed0","order_by":2,"name":"Omar Ceesay","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Ministry of Basic and Secondary Education","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Omar","middleName":"","lastName":"Ceesay","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2026-02-20 16:08:38","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":"","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-8927572/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-8927572/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":108182786,"identity":"6c4c8cac-080f-43f8-9bc5-4a127dd8c4aa","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-04-30 08:59:32","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":552300,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8927572/v1/7922a02a-f67a-4719-933c-360fe3eb00ae.pdf"}],"financialInterests":"No competing interests reported.","formattedTitle":"Evaluation of Validity Reliability and Moderation Quality in Examination Systems at the University of Education, The Gambia","fulltext":[{"header":"1 Introduction","content":"\u003cp\u003eAssessment quality in higher education is a cornerstone of academic standards, fairness, and public trust, with particular salience in teacher education, where institutional practices model the assessment literacy that future teachers will enact in schools. Contemporary frameworks emphasise that quality is multidimensional, spanning validity (the extent to which interpretations and uses of scores are supported), reliability and consistency, moderation and standard-setting, item quality assurance, administrative security, and effective feedback loops for continuous improvement (Shaw \u0026amp; Crisp, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR28\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2011\u003c/span\u003e; American Educational Research Association (AERA), American Psychological Association (APA), \u0026amp; National Council on Measurement in Education [NCME], 2014; (Kane, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR18\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e). Within outcome-based education, constructive alignment positions assessment as one component of a coherent system linking intended learning outcomes (ILOs), teaching/learning activities (TLAs), and assessment tasks, with cognitive demand calibrated against recognised taxonomies such as Bloom\u0026rsquo;s (Biggs \u0026amp; Tang, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2011\u003c/span\u003e; Anderson \u0026amp; Krathwohl, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2001\u003c/span\u003e). This calibration is not only a psychometric concern but a curricular one: what is assessed shapes what is taught and how students\u0026rsquo; study.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn The Gambia, recent reforms prioritise competency-based curricula, diagnostic assessment, and institutionalised continuous assessment across school phases (Ministry of Basic and Secondary Education [MoBSE], \u003cspan citationid=\"CR20\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e; 2017; United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization [UNESCO], \u003cspan citationid=\"CR31\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e; UNESCO International Institute for Educational Planning [IIEP-UNESCO], \u003cspan citationid=\"CR17\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e). The University of Education, The Gambia (UEG) School of Education (SoE) thus occupies a system-critical position: strengthening the validity, reliability, and moderation of its assessments has consequences for teacher quality throughout the sector. Against this backdrop, the present study evaluates UEG-SoE\u0026rsquo;s assessment quality across six dimensions: face, content, and construct validity; reliability; examination and item quality control; and administrative security, alongside moderation compliance and feedback practices. We triangulate the perspectives of Examination Committee Questionnaire (ECQ; N\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;29; Cronbach\u0026rsquo;s alpha (α)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.87) respondents and Staff Assessment Practices Questionnaire (SAPQ; N\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;68; α\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.85) respondents, offering an institution-wide snapshot of strengths and risks. We extend prior work by combining validated instruments with operational indicators (e.g., training coverage, access logging, exposure/repetition signals) and by linking findings to actionable improvements (e.g., blueprinting, calibration, item banking, feedback service levels). In doing so, this work contributes empirical evidence from a low- and middle-income context where comprehensive assessments of higher education quality assurance (QA) systems remain comparatively rare, and it aligns recommendations with international best practice and local policy priorities.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"2 Literature Review","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec3\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e2.1 Validity and validation frameworks\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eValidity concerns the degree to which evidence and theory support the interpretations of test scores for proposed uses (AERA/APA/NCME, 2014; Kane, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR18\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e). While face and content validity speak to perceived appropriateness and representativeness, construct validity requires that assessments capture the intended competencies and that score-based decisions are defensible given the underlying claims. According to Kane (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR18\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e), argument-based approaches emphasise building and evaluating an interpretive/use argument with multiple sources of evidence, content, response processes, internal structure, relations to other variables, and consequences. In programme contexts, constructive alignment operationalises validity by ensuring that ILOs, TLAs, and assessments are coherent and that cognitive demand matches intended outcomes; superficial alignment (high-level verbs with low-level tasks) undermines construct validity (Biggs \u0026amp; Tang, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2011\u003c/span\u003e; Mor \u0026amp; Erşen, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR21\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec4\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e2.2 Reliability, standardisation, and marking quality\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eReliability encompasses score consistency across markers, occasions, and parallel forms. In higher education, inter-marker reliability is improved by explicit criteria, calibrated rubrics, exemplars, and structured moderation (Crisp, Johnson, \u0026amp; Constantinou, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e; Sadler, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR27\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e). Marking guides can reduce subjectivity and support fair differentiation by cognitive level when well specified and used consistently; however, rubric design and marker calibration are prerequisites for realising these benefits (Brookhart, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR6\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e; Hecker et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR15\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e). Routine post-assessment checks (e.g., double-marking samples, blind remarking, marker drift monitoring) further bolster reliability and equity across cohorts and departments.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec5\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e2.3 Moderation and feedback\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eModeration is a suite of pre-, during-, and post-assessment activities that aims to ensure comparability and defensibility of judgments across assessors, cohorts, and sites (University of Birmingham \u0026amp; University College of Birmingham (UCB), 2020; University of Edinburgh, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR33\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e). Effective moderation features timely, documented, and actionable feedback to item writers and markers; transparent processes; and calibration exercises that align tacit standards (Hecker et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR15\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e; Sadler, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR27\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e). Where feedback is irregular or undocumented, opportunities for item improvement and professional learning are lost (Winstone \u0026amp; Pitt, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR36\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e; Williams, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR35\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e). Emerging work on feedback literacy underscores that both staff and students need capabilities to interpret, use, and seek feedback; formalising feedback channels (e.g., templates, email with tracked actions) supports uptake and organisational learning (Carless \u0026amp; Boud, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e; Nicol \u0026amp; Macfarlane-Dick, 2006; Hattie \u0026amp; Timperley, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR14\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2007\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec6\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e2.4 Item quality control and post-examination analytics\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eItem quality is central to validity and reliability. Established to guidelines address clarity, relevance, avoidance of cueing, and cognitive demand, particularly for selected-response formats (Haladyna, Downing, \u0026amp; Rodriguez, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR13\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2002\u003c/span\u003e; Downing, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR11\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2005\u003c/span\u003e; Haladyna \u0026amp; Rodriguez, 2013). Post-exam analytics quantify performance and discrimination (e.g., facility indices, point-biserials) and test reliability (e.g., Kuder\u0026ndash;Richardson Formula 20 (KR-20) and Cronbach\u0026rsquo;s alpha (α)), informing item retention, revision, or retirement (Tavakol \u0026amp; Dennick, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR30\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2011\u003c/span\u003e). Item banks with metadata (topic, Bloom level, difficulty) and exposure tracking mitigate repetition and leakage risks while enabling intentional cognitive sampling across cycles (Crisp et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec7\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e2.5 Administrative quality control and assessment security\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eAdministrative controls, secure storage, role-based access, encryption, access logging, and breach protocols protect the integrity of assessments. Training for staff with access to materials is a critical control; absent or ad hoc training elevates operational risk (Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education [QAA], \u003cspan citationid=\"CR25\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e). As digital workflows expand, policies must address file handling, version control, and traceability, supported by periodic audits and drills to test response capacity.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec8\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e2.6 Cognitive alignment and blueprinting\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eBlueprinting maps assessment content and cognitive demand to ILOs and ensures planned coverage across Bloom\u0026rsquo;s levels, with higher-order skills weighted appropriately to year/level (Anderson \u0026amp; Krathwohl, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2001\u003c/span\u003e; Biggs \u0026amp; Tang, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2011\u003c/span\u003e). Without blueprints and calibration, departments can drift towards recall-heavy assessments, reducing comparability and undermining competency-based goals. Stimulus-rich items and authentic tasks are often required to elicit analyse/evaluate/create, supported by rubrics that operationalise complex performances (Pellegrino, Chudowsky, \u0026amp; Glaser, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR24\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2001\u003c/span\u003e; Crisp et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"3 Methods","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec10\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e3.1 Design and setting\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe study employed a descriptive, cross-sectional survey design to examine assessment quality assurance practices within the UEG SoE. Two complementary instruments targeted distinct respondent groups: the Examination Committee Questionnaire (ECQ) and the Staff Assessment Practices Questionnaire (SAPQ). The design ensured respondents\u0026rsquo; opinions identified their compliance with quality assurance protocols and ascertained the standard required for examination validity and reliability. The study spanned the school\u0026rsquo;s two campuses (Brikama and Basse) and multiple departments, enabling institution-level inferences.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec11\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e3.2 Participants and sampling\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003ePurposive sampling and simple random sampling were used to select the examination committee and staff, respectively. Examination and Moderation Committee members (N\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;29) completed the ECQ; academic staff (N\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;68) completed the SAPQ. Departments represented included Education \u0026amp; Professional Studies, Physical \u0026amp; Health Education, Mathematics, Science, Agriculture, Commerce, English, Home Science, Information and Communication Technology (ICT), Arts, Gender Studies, Social \u0026amp; Environmental Studies, and others. The staff sample was predominantly academic (over 98%), with qualifications ranging from Bachelor\u0026rsquo;s to Doctor of Philosophy (Ph.D.) degrees. Campus participation was approximately 70% Brikama and 30% Basse for the ECQ, consistent with staff distribution. Participation was voluntary and anonymous.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec12\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e3.3 Instruments\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe ECQ (Cronbach\u0026rsquo;s alpha (α)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.87) assessed face, content, and construct validity; reliability/marking guide practices; examination and item quality control; and administrative security. The SAPQ (α\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.85) captured moderation submission practices, frequency, and modalities of feedback, perceived usefulness of feedback, and preferred feedback channels. Both instruments underwent expert review for face and content validity, and items were rated on a five-point Likert scale (1\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;Strongly disagree/Never; 5\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;Strongly agree/Always). A priori, a threshold mean of 3.0 denoted acceptable agreement (Boone \u0026amp; Boone, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR4\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2012\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec13\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e3.4 Procedures and data management\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eQuestionnaires were administered during routine assessment cycles. Responses were recorded digitally and checked for completeness. Descriptive statistics (means, medians, standard deviations, and percentages) were computed by domain and item. Composite/grand means summarised domain-level perceptions. Where appropriate, medians were reported to respect the ordinal nature of Likert data, and item-level standard deviations were used to characterise response dispersion (Boone \u0026amp; Boone, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR4\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2012\u003c/span\u003e). Free-text comments (where provided) were reviewed to contextualise quantitative patterns. No inferential comparisons between campuses or departments were conducted due to sample sizes.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec14\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e3.5 Ethical considerations\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe study adhered to institutional guidelines for research with human participants. Participation was voluntary, no incentives were offered, and no personally identifying information was collected. Data were stored on secure, access-controlled drives, with access limited to the research team.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec15\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e3.6 Reporting\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe work reports instrument reliability (Cronbach\u0026rsquo;s alpha (α)), central tendency, and dispersion for each domain, and key operational indicators (e.g., training coverage, access logging, item repetition signals). Findings are interpreted against contemporary validity/reliability frameworks and sector guidance on moderation and assessment security (AERA/APA/NCME, 2014; University of Birmingham \u0026amp; UCB, 2020; University of Edinburgh, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR33\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"4 Results","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec17\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e4.1 Demographic information of respondents\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab1\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 1\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eExamination and Moderation Committee (ECQ; N\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;29)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"4\"\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cthead\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSex\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCampus\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eFrequency\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePercent\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/thead\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\" morerows=\"1\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eFemale\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eBrikama\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e6\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e100.0%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eBasse\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\" morerows=\"1\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMale\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eBasse\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e7\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e30.4%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eBrikama\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e16\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e69.6%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eTotal\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e29\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e100.0%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eBrikama respondents (ECQ): Brikama contributed 22 respondents, comprising both men and women. All six of the entire Examination Committee Questionnaire (ECQ) respondent pool is concentrated at Brikama, with 22 respondents, while Basse has 7. All six female respondents are from Brikama, and Basse respondents are exclusively male, indicating both a campus and gender skew in the sample.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab2\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 2\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCurrent status\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"4\"\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cthead\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSex\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eStaff status\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eFrequency\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePercent\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/thead\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\" morerows=\"2\" rowspan=\"3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eFemale\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eLecturer\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e50.0%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSenior Lecturer\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e50.0%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eTotal\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e6\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e100.0%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\" morerows=\"4\" rowspan=\"5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMale\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eAdministrative Staff\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4.3%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eAssistant Lecturer\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4.3%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eLecturer\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e15\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e65.2%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSenior Lecturer\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e6\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e26.1%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eTotal\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e23\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e100.0%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAmong female respondents (n\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;6), roles are evenly split between Lecturer (3) and Senior Lecturer (3), with no female Assistant Lecturer or Administrative staff. Among male respondents (n\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;23), most are Lecturers (15), with fewer Senior Lecturers (6) and only one Assistant Lecturer and one administrative staff member.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eTaken together, the tables indicate that the ECQ sample was Brikama-heavy and male-dominated overall, with women\u0026rsquo;s perspectives represented solely from Brikama and Basse represented only by men. The respondent role profile centres on the Lecturer grade with a smaller senior cadre, suggesting that campus, gender, and rank composition should be considered when interpreting committee feedback and planning moderation practices.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"No\" id=\"Taba\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"3\"\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cthead\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eTable\u0026nbsp;3 Department\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eFrequency\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePercent\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/thead\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eAgriculture\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e6.9%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eArts\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3.4%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCommerce\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e6.9%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eEducation \u0026amp; Professional Studies\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e13.8%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eEnglish\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e6.9%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eGender Studies\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3.4%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eHome Science\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e6.9%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eInformation \u0026amp; Communication Technology\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3.4%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMathematics\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e10.3%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eOthers\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e10.3%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePhysical \u0026amp; Health Education\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e13.8%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eScience\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e10.3%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSocial \u0026amp; Environmental Studies\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3.4%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eTotal\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e29\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e100.0\u003c/b\u003e%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe respondent pool spans a wide range of departments, with the largest contributions from Education \u0026amp; Professional Studies and Physical \u0026amp; Health Education. Mid-sized groups include Mathematics, Science, and Others, while smaller clusters come from Agriculture (2), Commerce (2), English (2), and Home Science (2). Single respondents represent Arts (1), Gender Studies (1), Information \u0026amp; Communication Technology (1), and Social \u0026amp; Environmental Studies (1). Overall, representation was diffused across disciplines with no single department dominating, though several areas are represented by only one respondent.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"No\" id=\"Tabb\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"3\"\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cthead\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eTable\u0026nbsp;4 Highest academic qualification\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eFrequency\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePercent\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/thead\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eB.Ed./B.Sc./B. A\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e7\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e24.1%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eH.T.C/Ad. Dip\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3.4%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eM.Ed./M.Sc./M. A\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e17\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e58.6%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePGD/PUEG\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3.4%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePh.D.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e10.3%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eTotal\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e29\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e100.0\u003c/b\u003e%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eOn the level of qualification of the study respondents, the results confirmed that the minimum qualification amongst the respondents was an advanced diploma in education. This suggests that most staff who participated in this study have attained their first degree, except one with a diploma, with many others attaining other higher qualifications. Overall, a greater percentage of the respondents are master's degree holders (58.6%). This is followed by first degree holders (24.1%), with Ph.D. holders being the third highest, 10.3%.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec18\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e4.2 Evaluation by examination and moderation committee members\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab3\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 5\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eFace Validity, N\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;29\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"4\"\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cthead\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eStatements on Face Validity\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMean\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMedian\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eStd. Deviation\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/thead\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eExamination questions lack\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eclarity, and is not easy to comprehend\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4.2069\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4.0000\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.90156\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eExamination questions are often confusing and misleading\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4.2759\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4.0000\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.92182\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eExamination questions measure accurately what they are intended to measure.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3.6552\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4.0000\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.07822\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eExamination questions are suitable for the intended population.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3.9310\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4.0000\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.75266\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eExamination questions are relevant to the topics being measured.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4.0000\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4.0000\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.70711\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eGrand/Composite Mean\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e4.0138\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn examining the face validity of the assessment instruments, it was concerned with examining the extent to which the instruments measure what they were intended to measure. This process was a subjective judgment from an expert perspective. The reliance on some measures of central tendency (mean and median) and the composite or grand mean determines the degree of satisfaction.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eGiven a 5-point Likert scale, according to the literature (Boone \u0026amp; Boone, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR4\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2012\u003c/span\u003e), the reference point for success or agreement is 3.0 or higher. With all five questions assessing face validity achieving a mean score of at least 3.6, which is well above 3.0, this study therefore concludes that the items have generally satisfied the condition of face validity. This outcome is further substantiated by the higher composite mean value for face validity, 4.0138, from a possible maximum mean score of 5.0 and a median value of 4.0 for all items.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab4\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 6\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eConstruct Validity, N\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;29\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"4\"\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cthead\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eStatements on Construct Validity\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMean\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMedian\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eStd. Deviation\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/thead\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eExamination questions comprehensively cover all topics intended to be assessed\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3.0345\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3.0000\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.01710\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eExamination questions focus on the subject matter and do not assess unrelated skills\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3.3793\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4.0000\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.11528\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe difficulty level of the examination questions is appropriate for the intended Examinees\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3.2069\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4.0000\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.04810\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe examination questions reflect real-world applications of the concepts being tested\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3.1379\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3.0000\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.02554\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe examination questions do not assess unrelated skills or knowledge areas\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3.0000\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3.0000\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.28174\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eGrand/Composite Mean\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e3.15172\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eOn the construct validity review, we are concerned with how well a test or assessment actually measures the theoretical concept, or construct, it claims to measure. Citing from the agreed threshold of 3.0 as a benchmark for a 5-point Likert scale, it is confirmed that all items assessing the extent of construct validity have passed the minimum threshold. This suggests that the University of Education, The Gambia, School of Education examination questions have mainly satisfied the construct validity test. This result is further justified by the composite mean score of 3.15172, which is also more than the acceptable minimum benchmark, and a median value of 3.0 or above.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab5\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 7\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eContent Validity, N\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;29\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"4\"\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cthead\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eStatements on Content Validity\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMean\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMedian\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eStd. Deviation\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/thead\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe most important concepts in the course are adequately represented in the examination\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3.6552\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4.0000\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.04457\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe examination questions are relevant to the learning objectives of the course\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4.2414\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4.0000\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.57664\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eExamination instructions are clear and understandable\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4.3103\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4.0000\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.54139\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eExamination questions have a good balance of easy, moderate, and difficult questions\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3.7241\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4.0000\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.88223\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe time allotted for the examination questions is enough to complete all the questions, to avoid rushing\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4.3103\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4.0000\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.60376\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eGrand Mean\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e4.0483\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe questionnaire responses on the content validity status of items were also examined to determine the suitability of the items from all viewpoints. This was done to determine whether the instruments adequately and accurately cover the full scope of the subject matters or constructs they are intended to measure. The confirmation of content validity guarantees that the instruments are representative, relevant, and aligned with learning objectives or curriculum standards. The responses revealed that all items assessing content validity have obtained a mean value higher than the threshold of 3.0, suggesting that respondents generally agreed on the content validity of the instruments. This assertion is further strengthened by the higher grand mean and median values way higher than the 3.0 threshold.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab6\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 8\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eReliability, N\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;29\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"4\"\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cthead\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eStatements on Reliability\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMean\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMedian\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eStd. Deviation\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/thead\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMarking guides are made available to the committee for evaluation\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3.3448\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4.0000\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.34366\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe criteria in the marking guide are clear\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3.4483\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4.0000\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.15221\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eExaminers often refer to the marking guide while marking\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3.5172\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4.0000\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.02193\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe marking guide reduces subjective judgment in scoring\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4.1034\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4.0000\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.97632\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe benchmark provided in the marking guide is helpful\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4.2759\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4.0000\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.59140\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe marking guide allows for fair differentiation between cognitive levels\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4.0690\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4.0000\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.59348\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eScoring of questions is consistent with similar responses\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3.7241\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4.0000\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.95978\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe marking guide helps assign scores consistently across different responses\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4.0000\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4.0000\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.84515\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eGrand Mean\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e3.8103\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eA further review of the responses on the reliability of the assessment instruments ensued. This is meant to confirm the consistency, stability, and dependability of our assessment results, knowing that a reliable assessment yields similar outcomes under consistent conditions. With the same statistical threshold as the previous, the mean values for all items testing reliability have surpassed the minimum acceptable benchmark of 3.0. This confirms their reliability. Further to that, the composite mean for the test of reliability has also surpassed the 3.0 threshold, reaffirming the reliability status of our examination items from the viewpoint of the respondents. With the median values all being way higher than 3.0, this further strengthens the respondent's assertion that the instruments are reliable. Marking guides are central to reliability. Clarity and use are good, with strong perceptions that guide, reduce subjectivity, and enable cognitive differentiation.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab7\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 9\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eExamination Quality Control, N\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;29\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"4\"\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cthead\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eStatements on Examination Quality Control\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMean\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMedian\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eStd. Deviation\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/thead\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eExamination criteria were clearly communicated to all students before the examination\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4.1724\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4.0000\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.7106\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eExamination questions were relevant to the course content taught\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4.0345\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4.0000\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.6805\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe difficulty level of the examination was consistent across different departments and Programmes\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2.8621\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3.0000\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.0255\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe grading standards were applied uniformly to all students, regardless of department or programme\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4.2414\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e5.0000\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.0231\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe feedback on examination performance was provided in a timely and transparent manner\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3.0690\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3.0000\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.1317\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe collation of examination questions was well organized across departments and programmes\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3.5172\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4.0000\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.1219\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eThere are opportunities given to students to appeal examination results\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3.1034\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3.0000\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.1755\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe examiners demonstrated importability when grading the examinations across all departments and programmes\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4.3103\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4.0000\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.6038\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe examination process was fair and consistent across all departments and programmes.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4.3103\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4.0000\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.4708\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eGrand Mean\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e3.7356\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eOn the conduct of assessments at the University of Education, The Gambia, School of Education, the study reviews the examination quality control mechanisms to determine their level of effectiveness and alignment with the recognized standards. This review examines the responses of staff involved in the examination process. Relating the aggregate responses on a 5-point Likert scale to the grand mean and the threshold of 3.0, the results indicate an overall positive perception of examination quality control across the sample. For a review of the specific parameters designed to assess examination quality control effectiveness levels, 89% (8 out of 9) agree that the required quality control measures are in place. This is highly recognizable in the following cases: \u0026ldquo;The examination process was fair and consistent across all departments and programmes (Mean\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;4.3103, SD\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.4708), The grading standards were applied uniformly to all students regardless of department or programme (Mean\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;4.2414, SD\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;1.0231), Examination criteria were clearly communicated to all students before the examination (Mean\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;4.1724, SD\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.7106), with many other favourable results affirming high pedigree of examination quality control mechanisms. These results are further verified by the higher median values of at least 3.0 across the parameters. However, there still exists a point of disagreement on the aspect of consistency on the difficulty level of examinations across departments and programmes, with many believing that this is not sustained. The results detail that the difficulty level of examination was consistent across different departments and Programmes (Mean\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;2.8621, SD\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;1.0255). With the mean value considerably falling short of the threshold of 3.0, this suggests that the respondents have disputed the existence of a consistent difficulty level of examinations across departments and programmes. It confirms that the standard and difficulty level of School of Education examinations vary across departments and programmes, asserting that while some design tough exam materials, others develop much easier ones to assess learning outcomes.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab8\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 10\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eItem Quality Control, N\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;29\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"4\"\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cthead\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eStatements on Item Quality Control\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMean\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMedian\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eStd. Deviation\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/thead\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe examination avoided unnecessary repetition of content across different questions\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3.9310\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4.0000\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.7527\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eQuestions were repeated in the examination\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2.3793\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2.0000\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.9029\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe examination contained multiple questions that tested the same concept in a similar way\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3.2414\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4.0000\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.0575\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe intent of each examination is clear\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4.1724\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4.0000\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.5391\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCertain questions are open to multiple interpretations.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3.5517\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4.0000\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.0885\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe examination questions were reviewed thoroughly to ensure clarity and accuracy.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4.3103\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4.0000\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.6603\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eThere were no typographical or factual errors in the examination questions\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3.2759\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4.0000\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.0986\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe examination covered an appropriate range of topics without overemphasizing any single area.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3.7241\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4.0000\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.7972\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eGrand Mean\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e3.5733\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn the item quality control process, we are concerned with ensuring that the assessment instruments meet the required standards of validity, reliability, fairness, and clarity before they are used in an assessment. For the determination of the effectiveness of this process, statements were asked to some staff responsible for examination processes to gauge the quality status. Relating to a 5-point Likert scale and a threshold of 3.0, the grand mean of 3.5733 revealed that the mechanisms for item quality control are highly effective. These findings can be reaffirmed by the results generated for specific parameters, such as; The examination questions were reviewed thoroughly to ensure clarity and accuracy (Mean\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;4.3103, SD\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.6603), The examination avoided unnecessary repetition of content across different questions (Mean\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;3.9310, SD\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.7527), The examination covered an appropriate range of topics without overemphasizing any single area (Mean\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;3.7241, SD\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.7972) and some others asserting the same position. Conversely, there is an agreement that questions were often repeated, which has the tendency of leakage, thereby undermining the level of item quality control. This perspective is asserted by the result; Questions were repeated in the examination (Mean\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;2.3793, SD\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.9029). The result highlights that questions are often repeated, which raises a concern that stringent measures need to be put in place to maintain the high credibility and standards of our assessments.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab9\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 11\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eAdministrative Quality Control, N\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;29\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"4\"\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cthead\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eStatements on Administrative Quality Control\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMean\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMedian\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eStd. Deviation\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/thead\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eExamination materials are stored in secure, access-controlled locations at all times\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4.1724\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4.0000\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.9285\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eOnly authorized personnel have access to examination materials before, during, and after the examination period\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4.0690\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4.0000\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.2516\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eProcedures for handling examination materials are clearly documented and consistently followed\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3.7586\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4.0000\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.0575\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eThere are effective measures in place to prevent unauthorized copying or sharing of examination content\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3.8621\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4.0000\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.1252\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eExamination rooms are securely locked to protect examination materials from unauthorized access\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4.1724\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4.0000\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.0375\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eDigital examination files are protected with strong passwords and encryption\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3.7241\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4.0000\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.0315\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eThere is a clear process of tracking and logging all access to the examination materials\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3.2759\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3.0000\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.0656\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eAny breach or suspected breach of examination materials security is promptly reported and investigated.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3.7586\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4.0000\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.8724\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe examination and moderation committee regularly reviews and updates its security protocols for examination materials\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3.5862\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4.0000\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.0183\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe examination and moderation committee receives regular training on examination confidentiality and security protocols\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2.3448\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2.0000\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.8567\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eThere is designated staff responsible for overseeing examination materials security\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3.7586\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4.0000\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.2721\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eGrand Mean\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e3.6802\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFurther quality assurance and enforcement of compliance with standard practices extended to a review of the administrative quality control measures that are in place. These measures point to the assessment processes, systems, and checks that ensure administrative work in an organization is accurate, efficient, consistent, and aligned with standards, policies, and goals. Checking the rate of compliance from our results on a 5-point Likert scale data, we rely on the minimum benchmark of 3.0 to gauge agreement on the parameters with respect to their descriptive statistics and the composite mean. Overall, the composite mean score of 3.6802, which is way above the benchmark of 3.0, suggests a strong level of agreement on the diligent implementation of administrative quality control measures. On the specific parameters put forward to assess compliance with the administrative quality control measures, the mean values are mainly above the threshold. This is substantiated by some of the following points: Examination rooms are securely locked to protect examination materials from unauthorized access (Mean\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;4.1724, SD\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;1.0375), Only authorized personnel have access to examination materials before, during and after examination period (Mean\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;4.0690, SD\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;1.2516), Examination materials are stored in secured, access-controlled locations at all times (Mean\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;4.1724, SD\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.9285), There are effective measures in place to prevent unauthorized copying or sharing of examination content (Mean\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;3.8621, SD\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;1.1252), which all upheld the steadfastness of the administrative quality control measures.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eOn the contrary, there exists a single point of agreement against the administrative quality control measures put in place, specifically on the training of the moderation committee. This is evident by the point: The examination and moderation committee receives regular training on examination confidentiality and security protocols (Mean\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;2.3448, SD\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.8567). With the mean value here being considerably lower than the threshold of 3.0, this indicates that the examination and moderation committee members have not benefited from any form of training on examination confidentiality and security protocols. This highlights a capacity gap that needs to be strengthened to enhance their effectiveness and efficiency.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec19\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e4.3 Examination Question Submission and Moderation Feedback Practices and Preferences\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab10\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 12\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSubmission of Examination Questions to the Examination and Moderation Committee\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"3\"\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cthead\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eResponse\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eFrequency\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePercent\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/thead\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eNo\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.5\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eYes\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e67\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e98.5\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eTotal\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e68\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e100.0\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe table above presents the findings on the academic staff\u0026rsquo;s compliance with submitting their drafted examination questions for moderation. The results revealed that 98.5% of academic staff (67 out of 68 sample) report submitting their examination questions to the Examination and Moderation Committee for review, and only 1 staff member (1.5%) indicated non-submission. This shows a near-universal submission rate, reflecting a high level of adherence to internal quality assurance protocols. It is also a confirmation that the moderation of examination questions is an embedded and accepted practice within the School of Education.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab11\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 13\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eReceipt of Feedback After Moderation of Submitted Examination Questions\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"3\"\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cthead\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eResponse\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eFrequency\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePercent\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/thead\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eAlways\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e16\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e23.5\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSometimes\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e16\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e23.5\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eRarely\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e14\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e20.6\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eNever\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e22\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e32.4\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eTotal\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e68\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e100.0\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe table above presents the findings on the reception of feedback on the moderated examination questions. The results reveal that feedback inconsistency is evident. While 23.5% of staff consistently receive feedback, a combined 53% (rarely and never) report receiving little to no feedback after moderation. The 32.4% reporting \u0026ldquo;Never\u0026rdquo; receiving feedback is particularly concerning, given that moderation is intended to enhance assessment quality and alignment. The absence or irregularity of feedback undermines the purpose of moderation and limits opportunities for professional growth and improvement of defective examination items for improved quality assessment. This irregularity in feedback provision further highlights the inactivity of some moderators.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab12\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 14\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eUsual Form of Moderation Feedback on Examination Questions\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"3\"\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cthead\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eResponses\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eFrequency\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePercent\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/thead\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eNo response\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.5%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eEmail communication\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4.5%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eFeedback during departmental/committee meetings\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e14\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e20.6%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eNo feedback provided\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e21\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e30.9%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eOne-on-one consultation\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e25\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e36.7%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eWritten comments on the exam script\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e5.9%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eTotal\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e68\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e100.0%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eOn the reception of feedback after the moderation and the frequency of its receipt, respondents reported the kind of feedback they usually receive from the moderators. The results reveal that one-on-one consultation (36.7%) is the dominant feedback method, suggesting a preference or institutional norm for personalized, informal dialogue. Despite this process's ability to foster deeper understanding, there is concern that it may lack documentation or consistency. Further to that, nearly one-third (30.9%) of staff report receiving no feedback at all, reinforcing earlier findings that moderation lacks a reliable feedback loop. The results further reveal that written feedback and email communication are severely underutilized, despite their professional status and the potential to provide clear, traceable, and actionable input. These unveil the dominance of informal feedback sharing mechanisms and the absence of feedback from the moderators, potentially defeating the ultimate purpose of moderation.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab13\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 15\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePerceived Usefulness of Moderation Feedback for Improving Examination Question Quality\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"3\"\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cthead\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eResponses\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eFrequency\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePercent\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/thead\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eNo response\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e5.9%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eNot useful\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e5.9%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSlightly useful\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4.4%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eUseful\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e13\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e19.1%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eVery useful\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e44\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e64.7%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eTotal\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e68\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e100%\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eOn the usefulness of the feedback received and its ability to improve the quality of examination questions, reports revealed that, despite feedback not being given regularly, they have been very useful. The statistics show that over 83% of respondents (Useful\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;Very Useful) perceive feedback as beneficial to improving the quality of their examination questions. This reflects a positive institutional culture around assessment refinement. Conversely, about 10.3% reported little or no usefulness of the feedback (Slightly useful\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;Not useful), indicating that feedback quality or relevance remains a concern, possibly due to inconsistent moderation practices or lack of specificity.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab14\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 16\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePreferred Mode of Receiving Moderation Feedback on Examination Questions\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"3\"\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cthead\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eResponses\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eFrequency\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePercent\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/thead\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eNo response\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.5%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eEmail communication\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e22\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e32.4%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eOne-on-one consultation\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e19\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e27.9%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eOthers\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4.4%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eVerbal feedback during departmental meetings\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e7\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e10.3%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eWhatsApp message\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4.4%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eWritten comments on the submitted exam paper\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e13\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e19.1%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eTotal\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e68\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e100.0%\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFrom Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab14\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e16\u003c/span\u003e, the study finds the staff\u0026rsquo;s responses on their preferred way of receiving moderation feedback. The results reveal that email communication is the top preference (32.4%), indicating a desire for formal, asynchronous, and documented feedback. This is followed by one-on-one consultation (27.9%), reflecting the value placed on interactive, personalized feedback, which may foster deeper understanding and professional growth. Written comments on exam papers (19.1%) are also well-regarded, likely due to their direct linkage to specific content and actionable nature. However, other feedback means, such as Group-based feedback (10.3%) and informal channels like WhatsApp (4.4%), are less favoured, possibly due to their generality or lack of documentation.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eInterpretation: Compliance is strong. Feedback is inconsistently delivered and weakly documented, despite being valued when provided; staff prefer formal, traceable channels.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"5 Discussion","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec21\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e5.1 Summary of principal findings\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eAcross domains, the School of Education demonstrates strong perceived face and content validity (grand means\u0026thinsp;\u0026asymp;\u0026thinsp;4.01 and 4.05, respectively) and positive reliability anchored in the routine use of marking guides (grand mean\u0026thinsp;\u0026asymp;\u0026thinsp;3.81). Examination quality control is generally robust (grand mean\u0026thinsp;\u0026asymp;\u0026thinsp;3.74), with high ratings for fairness, impartial marking, and clear communication of criteria. Two systemic risks, however, are salient: inconsistency in difficulty across departments and programmes (Mean\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;2.86) and evidence of question repetition (Mean\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;2.38). Administrative security is viewed as strong overall (grand mean\u0026thinsp;\u0026asymp;\u0026thinsp;3.68), especially for secure storage and authorised access, yet a critical capacity gap remains in regular training on confidentiality and security (Mean\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;2.34). Moderation compliance is near-universal (98.5% submit for moderation), but the developmental feedback loop is weak: 53% report rarely or never receiving feedback; where provided, feedback is rated useful/very useful by 83.8%, with staff expressing a preference for formal, documented channels (email and written comments).\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec22\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e5.2 Interpretation in light of recent evidence\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe pattern of strong face/content validity and rubric-enabled reliability alongside middling construct validity is consistent with multi-institution evidence that assessments often under-sample complex, authentic performances even where outcomes-based language is used (Crisp, Johnson, \u0026amp; Constantinou, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e; (AERA, APA, \u0026amp; (NCME, 2014; Kane, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR18\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e). Studies in health and teacher education similarly report a dominance of lower-order cognitive demand in written examinations relative to staff intentions, with the gap attributed to design constraints, workload, and confidence in marking higher-order work (Tavakol \u0026amp; Dennick, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR30\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2011\u003c/span\u003e; Mor \u0026amp; Erşen, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR21\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e). The finding of difficulty variability across departments echoes work on comparability, which argues that fairness requires not only common criteria but also shared standards enacted through calibration practices that surface tacit expectations (Sadler, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR27\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e; University of Birmingham \u0026amp; University College Birmingham (UCB), 2020). Recent synthesis indicates that moderation is most effective when it embeds calibration conversations supported by exemplars and annotated rubrics, rather than relying solely on post hoc paper checks (Hecker et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR15\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe observed weakness in the feedback loop aligns with sector-wide concerns that moderation is often compliance-focused, with limited actionable feedback recorded for item writers or markers (Winstone \u0026amp; Pitt, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR36\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e). Contemporary feedback research emphasises feedback processes and literacies, timely, specific, and documented feedback that recipients are positioned and supported to use, over one-off comments (Carless \u0026amp; Boud, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e; Winstone \u0026amp; Carless, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR37\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e). Where institutions have adopted structured templates and service levels for staff-to-staff feedback in moderation, reported gains include clearer actionable points, better traceability, and improved subsequent item quality (Williams, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR35\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e). Finally, item repetition and limited access logging are known test-security vulnerabilities. In the absence of systematic exposure tracking and audits, item recall and circulation can compromise validity and inflate scores, particularly in tight subject communities (Haladyna \u0026amp; Rodriguez, 2013; Wollack \u0026amp; Fremer, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR38\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e). As assessment increasingly relies on digital workflows, recent work underscores the need to couple policy with regular, documented security training and scenario-based drills (Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education (QAA), \u003cspan citationid=\"CR26\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e; Dawson, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR10\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec23\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e5.3 Implications for policy and practice\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eStrengthening construct validity requires intentional design choices. Mandating cognitive blueprints that map items to intended learning outcomes (ILOs) and Bloom levels, with explicit targets for Analyse/Evaluate/Create appropriate to year/level, is a feasible first step (Anderson \u0026amp; Krathwohl, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2001\u003c/span\u003e; Biggs \u0026amp; Tang, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2011\u003c/span\u003e). Stimulus-rich selected-response items (e.g., data displays, case vignettes, extended-matching formats) can elicit multi-step reasoning at scale when paired with rigorous item-writing guidelines and peer review; constructed-response tasks should be supported with criterion-referenced rubrics and exemplars to stabilise marking while preserving higher-order demand (Haladyna, Downing, \u0026amp; Rodriguez, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR13\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2002\u003c/span\u003e; Downing, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR11\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2005\u003c/span\u003e; Brookhart, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR6\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e). Difficulty consistency is best addressed through cross-department calibration panels that agree on anchor items, marking expectations, and target facility distributions by course level; post-examination dashboards can flag outliers for targeted support and re-standardisation (Sadler, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR27\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e; University of Edinburgh, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR33\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e). To mitigate item repetition and leakage risks, a secure item bank with metadata (topic, Bloom level, difficulty), version control, and exposure tracking should be implemented, alongside periodic audits and duplication scans. Where resources allow, automatic item generation (AIG) and templating can diversify item pools while maintaining cognitive alignment (Gierl, Lai, \u0026amp; Turner, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR12\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2012\u003c/span\u003e; Gierl, Bulut, Guo, \u0026amp; Zhang, 2017). Administrative security should be reinforced through annual training for all personnel handling examination materials, role-based access logging with routine reviews, and breach-response drills (QAA, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR25\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e; Dawson, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR10\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e). Moderation should be reoriented from compliance to learning by instituting feedback service level agreements (SLAs), for example, documented written/email feedback within 10 working days using a standard template, paired with scheduled calibration sessions and an archive of feedback to support organisational learning (Hecker et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR15\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e; Winstone \u0026amp; Carless, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR37\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec24\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e5.4 Links to broader assessment reform agenda\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThese recommendations align with trends toward programmatic assessment (PA) in competency-based education, wherein multiple low-stakes data points, rich feedback, and periodic high-stakes decisions are combined to enhance validity and support learning (van der Vleuten, Schuwirth, Driessen, Dijkstra, Tigelaar, Baartman, \u0026amp; van Tartwijk, 2015; Heeneman, Oudkerk Pool, Schuwirth, van der Vleuten, \u0026amp; Driessen, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e). While full PA may be beyond current capacity, elements, such as staged authentic tasks with iterative feedback, longitudinal rubrics, and structured aggregation of evidence, can be adopted within existing examination systems. Likewise, assessment security practices drawn from the test-security literature (e.g., systematic exposure monitoring, statistical forensics for anomaly detection) can be adapted proportionately to institutional risk profiles (Wollack \u0026amp; Fremer, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR38\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e). In digital contexts, pairing secure item banking with staff development on contract cheating risks and mitigation, or access logs. Future research should incorporate artifact audits, routine post-exam analytics (facility, discrimination, KR-20/Cronbach\u0026rsquo;s α), and moderation records to corroborate perceptions, and should report inter-rater reliability for any cognitive classifications. Where feasible, quasi-experimental designs can test the impact of blueprinting, calibration, and feedback SLAs on item quality, reliability, and student outcomes over time.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec25\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e5.7 Future directions\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eNear-term priorities include piloting cognitive blueprints and cross-department calibration panels; implementing a secure, metadata-rich item bank with exposure tracking; and formalising moderation feedback SLAs. Mixed-methods evaluations should examine effects on cognitive distributions, item analysis indices, reliability, and staff experiences. Capacity-building should focus on item writing for higher-order thinking, rubric design, moderation and calibration facilitation, assessment security, and feedback literacy. Decision-support technologies, such as natural language processing and machine learning (NLP/ML), aids to flag potential ambiguity, duplication, or cognitive imbalance in draft items, are promising complements to human review and warrant cautious pilots benchmarked against expert judgements (Crisp et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e). Embedding plan-do-study-act (PDSA) cycles and dash boarded key performance indicators (KPIs), including difficulty consistency, cognitive coverage versus blueprints, item reuse rates, feedback timeliness, and training coverage, will support continuous improvement and accountability consistent with national competency-based policy priorities (MoBSE, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR20\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e; 2017; IIEP-UNESCO, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR17\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"6 Conclusion","content":"\u003cp\u003eThis study offers a system-level appraisal of assessment quality within the University of Education, The Gambia School of Education, triangulating Examination Committee and academic staff perspectives across key quality-assurance dimensions. Perceptions of face and content validity are strong, and reliability is positively anchored in the use of marking guides, while examination processes are broadly viewed as fair and consistent. Nonetheless, several systemic vulnerabilities emerge: inconsistency in difficulty across departments and programmes, signals of item repetition, limited access logging, and a pronounced gap in regular training on confidentiality and security. Moderation compliance is near-universal, yet the developmental value of moderation is constrained by weak, inconsistently documented feedback. Taken together, these findings indicate that while foundational elements of quality assurance are in place, construct validity, comparability, and continuous-improvement mechanisms require targeted strengthening.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAddressing these gaps is central to fairness, integrity, and the constructive alignment of intended learning outcomes, teaching/learning activities, and assessment tasks. We recommend five mutually reinforcing priorities: mandate cognitive blueprints with explicit targets for higher-order thinking; institute cross-department calibration to stabilise difficulty and standards; deploy a secure, metadata-rich item bank with exposure tracking and duplication safeguards; formalise moderation as a feedback-rich process with service level agreements, templates, and archived records; and embed routine post-examination analytics and annual security training with access-log audits. These measures align with international standards for validity and reliability, are feasible within existing governance structures, and directly support The Gambia\u0026rsquo;s competency-based policy by modelling robust assessment practice for future teachers.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eImplementation should be staged and data-informed. A pragmatic 12-month roadmap, encompassing policy updates, staff development, pilot blueprinting and calibration, item-bank rollout, and dash boarded monitoring\u0026mdash;can build momentum while enabling iterative refinement through plan\u0026ndash;do\u0026ndash;study\u0026ndash;act cycles. Clear ownership, resourcing, and routine reporting to programme boards will be essential to sustain gains and ensure accountability. As processes mature, incorporating elements of programmatic assessment\u0026mdash;staged authentic tasks with iterative feedback and structured aggregation of evidence\u0026mdash;can further enhance validity and learning value.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis evaluation is based on perceptions and composite indicators; future work should triangulate with independent audits of exam artifacts, item statistics, moderation records, and security logs, report inter-rater reliability for any cognitive classifications, and disaggregate findings by discipline and level. Quasi-experimental evaluations of blueprinting, calibration, and feedback interventions, as well as cautious pilots of decision-support tools (e.g., NLP/ML aids for item review), will help establish causal impacts on item quality, reliability, and student outcomes.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eBy consolidating current strengths and acting on identified risks, the School of Education can enhance the defensibility, equity, and instructional value of its assessments. Doing so will not only bolster institutional trust but also cultivate the assessment literacy and professional judgement that graduates will carry into The Gambia\u0026rsquo;s schools, amplifying impact across the wider education system.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"7 Recommendations","content":"\u003cp\u003eThe following recommendations translate the study\u0026rsquo;s findings into actionable, evidence-informed steps for the UEG-SoE.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eRecommendations targeted to the study\u0026rsquo;s findings\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003col\u003e \u003cspan\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003eAdopt a School-wide assessment quality assurance policy, mandate cognitive blueprints for all exams, set clear roles/timelines, and appoint leads to oversee implementation.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003c/span\u003e \u003cspan\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003eRun regular workshops on item-writing for higher-order thinking, rubric design and calibration, moderation facilitation, post-exam analytics, and assessment security.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003c/span\u003e \u003cspan\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003eProvide structured induction for new staff on SoE assessment policies, blueprinting, moderation, and security; pair novices with experienced setters/moderators.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003c/span\u003e \u003cspan\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003eDeploy a secure, metadata-rich item bank with version control and exposure tracking; mandate duplication scans before approval; set rotation/retirement rules for reused items.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003c/span\u003e \u003cspan\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003eStrengthen pre-moderation checklist with explicit clarity/ambiguity and error checks; require an \u0026ldquo;item intent\u0026rdquo; note for each question and a second reviewer sign-off; use small-scale cognitive walk-throughs for complex items.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003c/span\u003e \u003cspan\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003eRequire cognitive blueprints for every paper, mapping items to intended learning outcomes and Bloom levels; set minimum targets for application/analysis/evaluation appropriate to year/level; include authentic, stimulus-rich tasks; align rubrics to intended cognition.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003c/span\u003e \u003cspan\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003eMake the marking guide a compulsory component of every submission pack; adopt standard rubric templates with annotated exemplars; double-mark a sample per course and discuss discrepancies.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003c/span\u003e \u003cspan\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003eIntroduce a moderation feedback service level agreement requiring written/email feedback via a standard template within 10 working days; archive all feedback; schedule brief follow-ups only where needed.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003c/span\u003e \u003cspan\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003eUse a standard template that addresses clarity, content/construct alignment, difficulty, cognitive balance, and security notes; archive all feedback for audit and professional learning.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003c/span\u003e \u003cspan\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003eImplement mandatory, annual security/confidentiality training (recorded) for all authorised staff; enforce role-based access with comprehensive logging and quarterly audits; run an annual breach-response drill.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003c/span\u003e \u003cspan\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003eProvide cohort-level post-exam feedback briefs (common strengths, misconceptions, next steps) within 10 working days without disclosing secure content.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003c/span\u003e \u003cspan\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003ePilot natural language processing and machine learning (NLP/ML) tools to flag potential ambiguity, duplication, cognitive imbalance, and reading-load issues in draft items, complementing\u0026mdash;not replacing\u0026mdash;expert review.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003c/span\u003e \u003c/ol\u003e \u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Declarations","content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eFunding\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe author(s) declare that no financial support was received for the research and/or publication of this article.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eEthic\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe study was approved by the Research Ethic Committee of Gambia College with approval number GC/REC/2025/014. This study was performed in line with the tenets of the declaration of Helsinki.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eConflict of interest\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAll authors declared that they have no conflicts of interest.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eConsent to participate\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAll the research participants gave voluntary informed consent to participate in the study\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eConsent to publish\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAll the research participants provided informed consent for participation and publication of the research findings.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eData Availability Statement\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe datasets generated during and/or analysed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"References","content":"\u003col\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAERA, APA, \u0026amp; NCME. (2014). Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAnderson LW, Krathwohl DR, editors. A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing. A revision of Bloom\u0026rsquo;s taxonomy of educational objectives; 2001.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBiggs J, Tang C. Teaching for quality learning at university. 4th ed. Open University; 2011.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBoone HN, Boone DA. (2012). Analysing Likert data. J Ext, 50(2).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBretag T, et al. Contract cheating: A survey of Australian university staff. Stud High Educ. 2019;44(11):1837\u0026ndash;56.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBrookhart SM. How to create and use rubrics for formative assessment and grading. 2nd ed. ASCD; 2018.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBrookhart SM. How to create and use rubrics for formative assessment and grading. 2nd ed. ASCD; 2018.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eCarless D, Boud D. The development of student feedback literacy: Enabling uptake of feedback. Assess Evaluation High Educ. 2018;43(8):1315\u0026ndash;25.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eCrisp V, Johnson M, Constantinou F. (2016). \u0026lsquo;Question quality\u0026rsquo;: The concept of quality in the context of exam questions. Cambridge Assessment.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eDawson P. Defending assessment security in a digital world: Preventing e-cheating and supporting academic integrity. Routledge; 2020.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eDowning SM. The effects of violating standard item-writing principles on tests and students. Med Educ. 2005;39(3):282\u0026ndash;9.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eGierl MJ, Lai H, Turner SR. Using automatic item generation to create multiple-choice test items. Med Educ. 2012;46(8):757\u0026ndash;65.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHaladyna TM, Downing SM, Rodriguez MC. A review of multiple-choice item-writing guidelines. Appl Measur Educ. 2002;15(3):309\u0026ndash;33.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHattie J, Timperley H. The power of feedback. Rev Educ Res. 2007;77(1):81\u0026ndash;112.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHecker R, Peet J, El Haddad M, Chen Y, Lin F. Assessment moderation in higher education: Guiding practice with evidence\u0026mdash;an integrative review. Nurse Educ Today. 2024. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.nedt.2024.106512\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.nedt.2024.106512\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHeeneman S, Oudkerk Pool A, Schuwirth L, van der Vleuten C, Driessen E. The impact of programmatic assessment on student learning: Theory, practice, and future directions. Med Teach. 2021;43(6):641\u0026ndash;8.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eIIEP-UNESCO. (2021). IIEP in Action 2020\u0026ndash;2021.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKane MT. Validating the interpretations of test scores for proposed uses. Educational Measurement: Issues Pract. 2013;32(2):1\u0026ndash;14.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLangley GJ, et al. The Improvement Guide. 2nd ed. Jossey-Bass; 2009.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMoBSE. (2015; 2017). National policy documents on competency-based curricula and assessment.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMor E, Erşen RK. Implications of current validity frameworks for classroom assessment. Int J Assess Tools Educ. 2023;10(SI):163\u0026ndash;72.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMor E, Erşen RK. Implications of current validity frameworks for classroom assessment. Int J Assess Tools Educ. 2023;10(SI):163\u0026ndash;72.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eNickerson C. Face validity. Simply Psychology; 2024.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003ePellegrino JW, Chudowsky N, Glaser R, editors. Knowing what students know. National Academies; 2001.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eQAA. (2018). UK Quality Code for Higher Education: Advice and Guidance\u0026mdash;Assessment.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eQuality Assurance Agency for Higher Education (QAA). (2018). UK Quality Code for Higher Education: Advice and Guidance\u0026mdash;Assessment.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSadler DR. Assuring academic achievement standards: From moderation to calibration. Assess Education: Principles Policy Pract. 2013;20(1):5\u0026ndash;19.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eShaw S, Crisp V. (2011). Tracing the evolution of validity in educational measurement. Cambridge Assessment.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eTai J, Ajjawi R, Boud D, Dawson P, Panadero E. Developing evaluative judgement: Enabling students to make decisions about the quality of work. High Educ. 2018;76(3):467\u0026ndash;81.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eTavakol M, Dennick R. Post-examination analysis of objective tests. Med Teach. 2011;33(6):447\u0026ndash;58.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eUNESCO. (2018). Global Education Monitoring Report 2018.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eUniversity of Birmingham \u0026amp; University College Birmingham (UCB). (2020). Moderation code of practice.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eUniversity of Edinburgh. (2024). Moderation Guidance.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003evan der Vleuten CPM, Schuwirth L, Driessen E, Dijkstra J, Tigelaar D, Baartman L, van Tartwijk J. Twelve tips for programmatic assessment. Med Teach. 2015;37(1):27\u0026ndash;32.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eWilliams A. Delivering effective student feedback in higher education: Challenges and best practice. Int J Res Educ Sci. 2024;10(2):473\u0026ndash;501.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eWinstone NE, Pitt E. Approaches to feedback on examination performance: Research, policy, and practice. Assessment \u0026amp; Evaluation in Higher Education; 2025.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eWinstone N, Carless D. Designing effective feedback processes in higher education: A learning-focused approach. Routledge; 2020.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eWollack JA, Fremer JJ, editors. Handbook of Test Security. Routledge; 2013.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/ol\u003e"}],"fulltextSource":"","fullText":"","funders":[],"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow":false,"hasManuscriptDocX":true,"hasOptedInToPreprint":true,"hasPassedJournalQc":"","hasAnyPriority":true,"hideJournal":true,"highlight":"","institution":"","isAcceptedByJournal":false,"isAuthorSuppliedPdf":false,"isDeskRejected":"","isHiddenFromSearch":false,"isInQc":false,"isInWorkflow":false,"isPdf":false,"isPdfUpToDate":true,"isWithdrawnOrRetracted":false,"journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true},"keywords":"validity, reliability, moderation, quality assurance, higher education assessment, teacher education, University of Education, The Gambia","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-8927572/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-8927572/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"\u003cp\u003eThis paper evaluates key quality-assurance dimensions: validity, reliability, examination quality control, item quality control, administrative security, and moderation feedback at the University of Education, The Gambia School of Education (UEG-SoE). Using two validated instruments the Exam Committee Questionnaire (ECQ; N\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;29; α\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.87) and the Staff Assessment Practices Questionnaire (SAPQ; N\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;68; α\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.85) we found strong face validity (composite mean\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;4.0138) and content validity (4.0483), acceptable construct validity (3.1517), and positive reliability (3.8103) anchored in marking guide practices. Examination quality control was found to be generally robust (3.7356), though difficulty-level consistency across departments was weak (2.8621). Item quality control was positive (3.5733), with strong review for clarity (4.3103) and clear intent (4.1724), but question repetition remains a concern (2.3793). Sound administrative quality control was manifested (3.6802), with strong secure storage and access controls (\u0026asymp;\u0026thinsp;4.17), but a critical training gap on confidentiality/security (2.3448). Moderation compliance was high (98.5% submit), yet feedback was inconsistent, with 53% reporting rarely/never receiving feedback; where provided, feedback is rated useful/very useful by 83.8%, most often via one-on-one consultations (36.7%), although staff preferred email (32.4%) and written comments (19.1%). The study recommends standardized difficulty calibration, formalized and documented feedback protocols, item banking with exposure tracking, cognitive blueprints, and targeted training to close gaps and align with competency-based policy.\u003c/p\u003e","manuscriptTitle":"Evaluation of Validity Reliability and Moderation Quality in Examination Systems at the University of Education, The Gambia","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2026-04-30 06:33:27","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-8927572/v1","editorialEvents":[{"type":"communityComments","content":0}],"status":"published","journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true}}],"origin":"","ownerIdentity":"e504ba49-f886-4f7b-b6e9-46a742bf539a","owner":[],"postedDate":"April 30th, 2026","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"posted","subjectAreas":[],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2026-04-30T06:33:27+00:00","versionOfRecord":[],"versionCreatedAt":"2026-04-30 06:33:27","video":"","vorDoi":"","vorDoiUrl":"","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-8927572","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-8927572","identity":"rs-8927572","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"XKTyCvWXoU3ODBz1xrDgd","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}