Abstract
Due to a clerical error, a teaching evaluation form used in a psychology department during Fall, 1990, combined a grading format with opinion items. Course evaluations on the incongruous form were compared with evaluations of the same courses taught by the same instructors using a consistent opinion format. Results for individual instructors, courses, and items were similar on the two administrations, supporting the view that the terms used in teaching evaluation scales are interpreted metaphorically rather than literally.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.