Additional Module Excursion – Münster Questionnaire for Evaluation (MFE-ZEx)

Abstract

The Additional Module Excursion – Münster Questionnaire for Evaluation (German: Münsteraner Fragebogen zur Evaluation – Zusatzmodul Exkursion; abbreviated as MFE-ZEx) is a specialized psychometric instrument developed within the Department of Psychology at the University of Münster (Westfälische Wilhelms-Universität Münster). Designed as a modular add-on to the core lecture and seminar evaluation inventories (MFE-Vr and MFE-Sr), the MFE-ZEx specifically assesses the pedagogical quality, career orientation potential, practical application relevance, and curricular integration of academic excursions, field trips, and on-site visits in higher education. Higher education didactics increasingly emphasize field experiences to bridge academic theory and occupational practice; however, standard course evaluation questionnaires frequently fail to capture the idiosyncratic experiential learning dimensions inherent to off-campus site visits. The MFE-ZEx addresses this diagnostic gap through a concise, five-item unidimensional scale rated on a 7-point Likert agreement format ranging from 1 ("stimme gar nicht zu" / strongly disagree) to 7 ("stimme vollkommen zu" / strongly agree), supplemented by a distinct "nicht sinnvoll beantwortbar" (not meaningfully answerable / not applicable) option.

Conceived within a broader quality management and evaluation framework (e.g., Grabbe, 2003; Moeck & Thielsch, 2004; Thielsch & Weltzin, 2012), the instrument evaluates whether an excursion provided professional orientation, demonstrated concrete vocational tasks, exposed students to applied domains of their discipline, enabled direct exchange with professional practitioners, and stimulated personal career reflections. Because the inventory was specifically adapted following the shift toward the Bologna Bachelor of Science and Master of Science curricula—where formal excursions were formally codified into program accreditation requirements—the instrument provides high institutional utility while maintaining extreme test economy to counter survey fatigue at the end of the academic term. This article provides an exhaustive psychometric documentation of the MFE-ZEx, delineating its theoretical foundation in Kolb's experiential learning theory, Social Cognitive Career Theory, its developmental history, structural validity considerations, operational administration guidelines, and practical implementation in university quality assurance.

Keywords

teaching evaluation, course evaluation, higher education assessment, academic excursion, field trip evaluation, career orientation, experiential learning, Münster Questionnaire for Evaluation, MFE-ZEx, psychometrics, survey economy, university quality assurance

Authors

The Münster Questionnaire for Evaluation system, including its modular supplementary batteries, was conceptualized, operationalized, and maintained by the Teaching Evaluation Project Group within the Department of Psychology at the University of Münster (Westfälische Wilhelms-Universität Münster), Germany:

• Dr. Meinald T. Thielsch — Psychologisches Institut 1, Westfälische Wilhelms-Universität Münster, Fliednerstraße 21, 48149 Münster, Germany. Email: [email protected]. Dr. Thielsch has spearheaded comprehensive research programs in online evaluation methodology, human-computer interaction, web credibility, and organizational psychometrics.
• Dipl.-Psych. Ina Grötemeier — Institut für Psychologie, Westfälische Wilhelms-Universität Münster, Fliednerstraße 21, 48149 Münster, Germany. Website: www.uni-muenster.de/PsyEval. Contributed to item revision, module refinement, and empirical testing across the Bologna cycle.
• Dipl.-Psych. Catrin Moeck — Westfälische Wilhelms-Universität Münster. Co-developed the initial modular expansion architecture of the Münster evaluation battery in 2003–2004.
• Dipl.-Psych. Nicole Grabbe — Westfälische Wilhelms-Universität Münster. Authored the foundational empirical work and didactic criteria catalog for seminar teaching evaluation in 2003 upon which the modular structure was erected.

Purpose

The primary purpose of the Additional Module Excursion (MFE-ZEx) is to furnish an empirically grounded, brief, and diagnostically sensitive instrument to evaluate academic field trips, institutional site visits, and company excursions organized within university degree programs. Within the higher education landscape of continental Europe, the implementation of the European Higher Education Area (the Bologna Process) placed pronounced weight on "employability" and the development of vocational action competence (Bologna Declaration, 1999). Academic excursions serve as an experiential didactic bridge connecting abstract theoretical principles taught in lecture halls with real-world operational workflows in clinical centers, industrial organizations, forensic facilities, human resource consultancies, and research institutes.

Despite their substantial logistical, financial, and temporal resource requirements, academic excursions were historically evaluated either through generic course feedback forms or not evaluated at all. Standard evaluation inventories—such as the Heidelberg Inventory for Teaching Evaluation (HILVE; Rindermann, 2001) or the Kiel Evaluation Inventory (BEval; Hoyer et al., 2002)—focus heavily on classroom-based instructor clarity, visual media presentation, syllabus structure, and grading transparency. When administered following an excursion, many of these standardized items become irrelevant or uninterpretable. Instructors and academic departments therefore faced a structural dilemma: either deploy irrelevant, generic evaluation instruments that alienate student respondents, or omit excursions from institutional quality assurance loops entirely.

The MFE-ZEx was explicitly engineered to resolve this diagnostic dilemma. Its clinical and organizational research applications encompass:

• Targeted Pedagogical Quality Assurance: Offering instructors granular, empirical student feedback regarding whether an excursion fulfilled its explicit curricular mandate of demonstrating applied vocational fields.
• Curricular Alignment and Accreditation Documentation: Supplying department chairs and university accreditation boards with quantitative quality indicators demonstrating that institutional excursions foster vocational orientation and career identity development.
• Minimization of Survey Fatigue: Adhering to the overarching Münster evaluation philosophy of maximal survey economy. Students evaluate the excursion via only five focused items, preserving compliance during high-stress end-of-semester examination preparation periods.
• Diagnostic Diagnostic Differentiation: Disentangling instructor didactic competence inside the classroom from the perceived value and organizational execution of the external field visit.

Psychological Construct

The MFE-ZEx operationalizes the multidimensional construct of perceived excursion quality and vocational contextualization (Lehrevaluation von Exkursionen). Rather than treating field trips merely as recreational travels or passive site inspections, the scale conceptualizes the academic excursion as a focused experiential learning intervention intended to trigger vocational identity exploration, practical knowledge application, and direct occupational socialization. The five items collectively probe several interrelated facets of this overarching construct:

1. Vocational Orientation and Self-Concept Crystallization

Vocational psychology posits that emerging adults progress through developmental stages of career exploration, moving from tentative interests toward crystallizing specific vocational preferences (Super, 1990). Item 1 ("Die Exkursion hat mir berufliche Orientierung gegeben" [The excursion provided me with vocational orientation]) and Item 5 ("Die Veranstaltung regte mich zu einer eigenen Berufsperspektive an" [The course stimulated me toward my own professional perspective]) directly measure the degree to which on-site field observation enables students to clarify their occupational interests, values, and personal career trajectories within the broader discipline.

2. Concrete Vocational Task Demonstration

Academic lectures routinely present abstract frameworks, research paradigms, and theoretical models, yet often leave students uninformed about the concrete, day-to-day work tasks performed by practicing professionals. Item 2 ("Die Exkursion zeigte mir konkrete berufliche Tätigkeiten auf" [The excursion demonstrated concrete occupational activities to me]) taps the degree of operational transparency provided by host institutions. By observing practitioners navigating software, diagnostic tests, therapy protocols, laboratory equipment, or corporate negotiations, students construct realistic job previews that diminish pre-graduation occupational shock.

3. Knowledge Application and Contextualization

Cognitive transfer theory highlights that declarative knowledge acquired in university environments remains "inert knowledge" unless individuals observe or practice its situational affordances in authentic settings (Renkl et al., 1996). Item 3 ("Ich habe interessante Anwendungsfelder meines Faches kennen gelernt" [I became acquainted with interesting applied fields of my subject]) assesses the breadth of applied disciplinary contexts made accessible to students. It captures cognitive broadening: demonstrating how abstract principles (e.g., cognitive psychology, statistics, organizational theory) are operationalized in industrial, healthcare, or public agency settings.

4. Professional Socialization and Networking Opportunities

Social learning and situated cognition stress that professional identity develops through social interactions within authentic communities of practice (Lave & Wenger, 1991). Item 4 ("Es bestand die Möglichkeit zu persönlichem Kontakt mit Berufspraktikern" [There was an opportunity for personal contact with professional practitioners]) captures the interactive, dialogic dimension of the excursion. High scores indicate that the site visit went beyond a passive, one-way tour, facilitating authentic Q&A sessions, networking, mentorship discussions, or informal exchange with working practitioners.

Theoretical Framework

The design and operationalization of the MFE-ZEx are grounded in three complementary theoretical paradigms within educational, organizational, and vocational psychology: Experiential Learning Theory, Social Cognitive Career Theory, and Higher Education Quality Assurance Models.

Kolb's Experiential Learning Theory (ELT)

David Kolb's Experiential Learning Theory (Kolb, 1984) serves as the primary didactic foundation for academic excursions. Kolb posits that learning is a continuous, four-stage cyclical process involving:

1. Concrete Experience (CE): Direct, sensory, and affective engagement with real-world environments.
2. Reflective Observation (RO): Stepping back from the immediate experience to reflect on what occurred, considering multiple perspectives.
3. Abstract Conceptualization (AC): Integrating observations into logical theories, models, and generalizable principles.
4. Active Experimentation (AE): Testing new concepts in novel environments, guiding future decisions and actions.

In standard academic curricula, university education heavily over-indexes on Stage 3 (Abstract Conceptualization). Field excursions serve as an intentional educational intervention to provide Stage 1 (Concrete Experience) and stimulate Stage 2 (Reflective Observation). The MFE-ZEx evaluates precisely whether this didactic cycle was achieved: seeing applied fields and meeting professionals (Concrete Experience) encourages students to relate these experiences back to their studies and reflect on their own professional trajectories (Reflective Observation and Active Experimentation).

Social Cognitive Career Theory (SCCT)

Grounded in Albert Bandura's social cognitive framework, Social Cognitive Career Theory (Lent, Brown, & Hackett, 1994) conceptualizes career interest formation, choice goals, and career decision-making as outcomes of self-efficacy beliefs, outcome expectations, and exposure to environmental supports and role models. When students participate in well-structured excursions, they observe practicing professionals acting as domain-specific role models. These observations shape outcome expectations ("If I pursue organizational psychology, this is the environment I will work in") and self-efficacy evaluations ("I can envision myself mastering these professional competencies"). The MFE-ZEx items mirror these theoretical mechanisms by assessing whether the visit stimulated personal career perspectives and provided concrete vocational orientation.

Rindermann's Multi-Level Framework for Teaching Evaluation

From an educational measurement perspective, the instrument draws on Heiner Rindermann's (1996, 2001) quality assurance framework. Rindermann emphasized that student evaluation of teaching (SET) does not merely fulfill an administrative control function; rather, its fundamental purpose is formative improvement. Effective evaluations must yield actionable diagnostic data across multiple levels:

• Instructor Level: Refining teaching methods, communication, and event planning.
• Course Level: Adjusting didactic design, readings, and experiential components.
• Curricular / Departmental Level: Evaluating whether structural degree requirements (e.g., compulsory excursions) actually accomplish their intended educational goals.

By offering an excursion-specific module, the Münster evaluation system prevents confounding: an instructor might deliver exceptional classroom seminars but organize a poorly aligned field trip, or conversely, coordinate a transformative excursion within an otherwise average seminar. Modular decomposition enables precise, unconfounded formative feedback.

Validity

Evaluating the psychometric validity of specialized course evaluation modules requires scrutinizing content validity, construct validity, criterion-related validity, and potential systematic response biases.

Content Validity

The content validity of the MFE-ZEx is established through its direct derivation from systematic empirical analyses of effective university teaching criteria (Grabbe, 2003; Moeck & Thielsch, 2004). The initial Münster item pool was developed through iterative consultations with university lecturers, educational researchers, and student representatives. Items that did not universally apply to all seminar formats (e.g., excursions, student presentations, small-group work) were isolated into targeted modules. Following the introduction of the Bologna Bachelor and Master degrees around 2008–2010, the excursion module underwent formal item reformulation to align precisely with the accredited curricular requirements of Bachelor degree regulations (Modulhandbuch Psychologie). The five items display high face validity and comprehensive coverage of the primary goals of academic site visits: vocational orientation, task illustration, knowledge contextualization, practitioner dialogue, and career reflection.

Construct, Convergent, and Discriminant Validity

Construct validity in student evaluations of teaching is demonstrated when specialized subscales correlate meaningfully with theoretically convergent external criteria while maintaining statistical divergence from unrelated dimensions (Marsh, 2007). In broader validation studies of the Münster Questionnaire for Evaluation system (e.g., Thielsch & Weltzin, 2012; Bechler & Thielsch, 2012):

• Convergent Validity: Modular ratings for practical relevance and vocational contextualization correlate substantially ($r = .55$ to $.72$) with global student satisfaction with course relevance, perceived competence gain, and perceived value of the course for future occupational goals.
• Discriminant Validity: Excursion module scores show low to modest correlations ($r = .15$ to $.30$) with ratings of physical classroom facilities, technological media functionality in lecture halls, and instructor grading fairness. This demonstrates that students clearly differentiate between the ambient features of traditional university classrooms and the experiential value of off-campus field visits.
• Resistance to Halo Effects: Modular evaluation architectures systematically attenuate the global "halo effect" common in holistic course evaluations. When given the opportunity to rate excursions separately via dedicated items, students do not let a disorganized site visit depress their evaluation of the instructor's didactic clarity during on-campus lectures.

Developmental Status and Research Caveats

In the official documentation of the Leibniz Institute for Psychology (ZIS; GESIS), the developmental status of this specific revised 5-item version was historically cataloged as unerprobt (empirically unverified / preliminary) because the excursion module was utilized less frequently under the historic German Diplom curriculum, where excursions were optional and infrequent. Empirical sample distributions were temporarily constrained until the formal rollout of compulsory Bachelor excursions. Consequently, while the broader MFE framework is extensively validated across tens of thousands of course evaluations (Haaser, Thielsch, & Moeck, 2007), independent cross-institutional factor-analytic replications of the MFE-ZEx specifically remain an ongoing area of educational psychometric inquiry.

Reliability

Reliability in teaching evaluation scales must be examined at two distinct statistical levels: individual student response reliability (the internal consistency of ratings provided by a single respondent) and course-aggregated reliability (the stability and agreement of mean scores across an entire student cohort; Marsh, 2007).

Internal Consistency (Item-Level Scale Reliability)

Within the broader family of MFE modular subscales, Cronbach's alpha ($lpha$) coefficients routinely fall in the good to excellent range, typically between $lpha = .78$ and $lpha = .91$ for short 4- to 6-item batteries (Thielsch & Weltzin, 2012). Because the five items of the MFE-ZEx all reflect the underlying core dimension of applied vocational and occupational value, high internal consistency is theoretically expected. Each item interrogates the same primary didactic objective from complementary angles (e.g., orientation, concrete tasks, domain breadth, direct networking, career perspective). Inter-item correlations among items addressing vocational task clarification (Item 2) and occupational orientation (Item 1) typically exceed $r = .60$.

Intraclass Correlation and Aggregated Reliability (Group Level)

In course evaluation methodology, the primary unit of diagnostic interpretation is usually the course mean ($M$), not the individual student score. Consequently, reliability is best quantified through intraclass correlation coefficients, specifically $ICC(1)$ (representing the proportion of variance attributable to course-level differences rather than student-level idiosyncratic variance) and $ICC(2)$ (representing the reliability of the course group means):

• ICC(1): In university teaching evaluations, $ICC(1)$ values typically range from $.15$ to $.35$, indicating substantial nested variance at the course level.
• ICC(2): Applying the Spearman-Brown prophecy formula to aggregate student cohorts, evaluation modules administered to standard seminar cohorts of 15 to 30 students consistently attain group-mean reliabilities of $ICC(2) ge .80$, indicating reliable discrimination between highly effective excursions and suboptimal field visits.

Test-Retest Stability

Because teaching evaluations are administered cross-sectionally at the conclusion of a semester, traditional test-retest reliability across multi-week intervals is rarely obtained due to rapid changes in student recall and post-semester detachment. However, split-half split-sample cross-validation (splitting an excursion cohort into two random halves) demonstrates robust score stability across comparable student subgroups.

Factor Analysis

The structural dimensionality of the MFE-ZEx was conceptualized to be strictly unidimensional. While academic seminars and comprehensive lectures possess multifaceted quality profiles (e.g., structure, didactic clarity, student interaction, workload, learning gain), the supplementary modules of the MFE were deliberately engineered to measure narrow, highly focused, single-dimension didactic components.

Hypothesized Factor Structure and Model Specification

In exploratory factor analyses (EFA) utilizing principal axis factoring or maximum likelihood estimation, the five items are hypothesized to yield a clean single-factor solution accounting for over 60% of the total item variance. The theoretical factor loading pattern for the unidimensional latent construct Excursion Quality & Vocational Benefit ($\xi_1$) is characterized as follows:

• Item 1 (Vocational Orientation): High factor loading ($lambda ge .75$), serving as a strong core marker of overall career orientation.
• Item 2 (Concrete Occupational Activities): High factor loading ($lambda ge .70$), reflecting the operational didactic utility of the excursion.
• Item 3 (Applied Fields of Discipline): Moderate to high factor loading ($lambda ge .65$), capturing theoretical-practical transfer.
• Item 4 (Contact with Practitioners): Moderate to high factor loading ($lambda ge .60$), assessing social networking and dialogic immersion.
• Item 5 (Stimulation of Career Perspective): High factor loading ($lambda ge .75$), capturing personal reflection and professional self-concept development.

Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) Considerations

When evaluated via Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) under robust maximum likelihood (MLR) estimation, a one-factor model should demonstrate adequate fit indices according to standard structural equation modeling benchmarks (Hu & Bentler, 1999):

• Comparative Fit Index (CFI): Expected $ge .95$
• Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI): Expected $ge .95$
• Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA): Expected $le .06$ (with 90% confidence interval upper bound $le .08$)
• Standardized Root Mean Square Residual (SRMR): Expected $le .05$

Because the scale comprises exactly 5 indicators, the degrees of freedom for a standard one-factor model equal $df = rac{p(p+1)}{2} – 2p = rac{5(6)}{2} – 10 = 5$, providing an overidentified model suitable for empirical falsification.

Instrument / Measurement Tool

The MFE-ZEx is structured as follows:

• Instrument Type: Standardized student evaluation of teaching (SET) supplementary module; rating inventory.
• Target Population: Undergraduate and graduate university students participating in academic excursions, site visits, or practice-oriented field explorations.
• Number of Items: 5 authentic items.
• Administration Mode: Integrated web-based online survey platform (optimized for mobile and desktop devices) or self-administered paper-and-pencil questionnaire.
• Completion Time: Approximately 1 to 2 minutes (highly economical).
• Instruction: Presented without independent instructional preamble. General instructions (data privacy, technical conditions, demographic inquiries) are presented upon initial system entry. The excursion module is displayed immediately following the completion of core seminar (MFE-Sr) or lecture (MFE-Vr) base modules.
• Response Format: A 7-point Likert-type agreement scale supplemented by an explicit non-applicability category:
  • 1 = "stimme gar nicht zu" (strongly disagree)
  • 2 = "stimme nicht zu" (disagree)
  • 3 = "stimme eher nicht zu" (somewhat disagree)
  • 4 = "neutral" (neutral)
  • 5 = "stimme eher zu" (somewhat agree)
  • 6 = "stimme zu" (agree)
  • 7 = "stimme vollkommen zu" (strongly agree)
  • Additional option: "nicht sinnvoll beantwortbar" (not meaningfully answerable / not applicable)
• Scoring and Aggregation Rules:
  • Items are coded numerically from 1 to 7.
  • The response "nicht sinnvoll beantwortbar" is treated as a structural missing value (system missing) and excluded from mean computations to prevent artificial score distortion.
  • All 5 items are positively phrased; no reverse-scoring is required.
  • Scale Score: Calculated by averaging the valid responses across the 5 items ($M = rac{\sum x_i}{k}$), yielding an overall excursion evaluation index between 1.00 and 7.00. Higher mean scores indicate superior perceived excursion quality and vocational benefit.
  • Item-Level Profiling: Instructors frequently evaluate individual item means to pinpoint specific strengths or weaknesses (e.g., high scores on theoretical knowledge transfer paired with low scores on practitioner contact indicate that future excursions should allow more time for personal dialogue).

Permissions & Fee and Test Year

The Münster Questionnaire for Evaluation (MFE) and its supplementary modules, including the MFE-ZEx, were initially developed in 2003 and extensively revised in 2010. The instrument is documented in the open-access psychometric repository of the Leibniz Institute for Psychology (ZIS / GESIS). The scale is made freely available for non-commercial academic research, higher education teaching evaluation, and institutional quality management. Academic institutions wishing to deploy the items within their own internal evaluation systems may do so with appropriate citation of the authors (University of Münster, Institute of Psychology). No licensing fees or royalties are charged for academic or pedagogical usage. Inquiries regarding automated deployment via the Münster evaluation platform may be directed to Dr. Meinald T. Thielsch ([email protected]).

References

• Bechler, C., & Thielsch, M. T. (2012). Evaluation in Zeiten von Bachelor und Master: Zum Einfluss des Erhebungszeitpunkts auf Evaluationsergebnisse. In M. T. Thielsch & T. Weltzin (Eds.), Lehrevaluation an Hochschulen: Praxisbeispiele und methodische Aspekte (pp. 53–66). Münster: Monsenstein und Vannerdat.
• Bologna Declaration. (1999). The European Higher Education Area: Joint declaration of the European Ministers of Education. Bologna: European Ministers of Education.
• Göritz, A. S., Soucek, R., & Bacher, J. (2005). Methodische Besonderheiten internetbasierter Befragungen. In Online-Marktforschung (pp. 31–58). Gabler Verlag. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-322-82470-7_2
• Grabbe, N. (2003). Entwicklung eines Fragebogens zur Evaluation von Seminaren am Fachbereich Psychologie der Westfälischen Wilhelms-Universität Münster (Unveröffentlichte Diplomarbeit). Westfälische Wilhelms-Universität Münster.
• Haaser, A., Thielsch, M. T., & Moeck, C. (2007). Online-Lehrevaluation: Erfahrungen an der Universität Münster. Wissenschaftsmanagement, 13(4), 16–21.
• Hoyer, W., Klatt, R., & Liepmann, D. (2002). Das Berliner Evaluationsinstrument für universitäre Lehrveranstaltungen (BEval). Diagnostica, 48(4), 185–194.
• Hu, L. t., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118
• Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
• Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511815355
• Lent, R. W., Brown, S. D., & Hackett, G. (1994). Toward a unifying social cognitive theory of career and academic interest, choice, and performance. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 45(1), 79–122. https://doi.org/10.1006/jvbe.1994.1027
• Marsh, H. W. (2007). Students’ evaluations of university teaching: Dimensionality, reliability, validity, potential baises and usefulness. In R. P. Perry & J. C. Smart (Eds.), The scholarship of teaching and learning in higher education: An evidence-based perspective (pp. 319–383). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/1-4020-5742-3_9
• Moeck, C., & Thielsch, M. T. (2004). Modularisierung der Lehrevaluation am Institut für Psychologie der Universität Münster (Interner Forschungsbericht). Westfälische Wilhelms-Universität Münster.
• Renkl, A., Mandl, H., & Gruber, H. (1996). Inert knowledge: Problems and solutions. Educational Psychologist, 31(2), 115–121. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep3102_3
• Rindermann, H. (1996). Untersuchungen zur Qualität von Lehre und Studium: Der Heidelberger Inventar zur Lehrveranstaltungs-Evaluation (HILVE). Landau: Verlag Empirische Pädagogik.
• Rindermann, H. (2001). Lehrevaluation: Einführung und Überblick zu Forschung und Praxis. Landau: Verlag Empirische Pädagogik.
• Schmidt, B., & Loßnitzer, T. (2010). Instrumente zur Evaluation von Lehrveranstaltungen an Hochschulen: Eine Übersicht. ZPID-Dokumentationsdienst. Trier: Leibniz-Zentrum für Psychologische Information und Dokumentation.
• Super, D. E. (1990). A life-span, life-space approach to career development. In D. Brown & L. Brooks (Eds.), Career choice and development: Applying contemporary theories to practice (2nd ed., pp. 197–261). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
• Thielsch, M. T., & Weltzin, T. (Eds.). (2012). Lehrevaluation an Hochschulen: Praxisbeispiele und methodische Aspekte. Münster: Monsenstein und Vannerdat.

Items of the Scale