Comparación de la aplicación de rúbricas para evaluar a los candidatos al grado de doctor

Abstract

Introduction: Doctorate is the highest degree awarded by universities, and the candidacy exam, which is a requirement for obtaining it, has significant consequences, as it determinates whether students can continue in the process to obtain the degree. Therefore, it is desirable to have a tool to evaluate it objectively.

Objective: To report the results of applying the adjusted rubrics and compare them with the first versions.

Method: Non-experimental cross-sectional study. Modify rubrics (B) from the first version (A) were administered to 50 students from both the 2023 (43) and 2024 (7) cohorts (B version). The rubrics were modified so that both had the same number of items, and the numerical scale was adjusted to determine whether or not to grant candidacy. The results were contrasted to those obtained from 195 students from the 2019, 2020, 2021 and 2022 generations. Reliability analysis, and a factorial analysis with extraction of principal components were performed.

Results: When compared there were no differences in the numerical scores according to the variables: cohort, student’s sex, and number of synods; the scores in the written section in B version were lower. The correlation for both versions in the results of the oral and written evaluations was similar (0.7). The factorial analysis of version B was grouped into two dimensions while in the A version was grouped un one.

Conclusion: Version B presented some differences with version A, as now in both sections of B the items were grouped into two dimensions (written: structure of the writing and knowledge of the subject; oral: defense and confidence and structure of the presentation). These two dimensions indicate that both the student’s knowledge and presentation and defense are assessed separately, even though they form part of the same construct, suggesting a more detailed assessment with version B.