Faculty Beliefs about Grades Inventory

Abstract

The Faculty Beliefs about Grades Inventory (FBGI) is a 24-item psychometric instrument developed to systematically assess the philosophical and practical beliefs held by university faculty regarding academic grading practices. The inventory focuses on quantifying attitudes across two primary, often competing, dimensions of assessment: the use of norm-referenced versus criterion-referenced grading systems, and the perception of grades serving a gatekeeping function within higher education.

Keywords

Faculty Beliefs, Academic Grading, Norm-referenced, Criterion-referenced, Gatekeeping, Psychometrics, Higher Education, Assessment Philosophy

Authors

L. B. Barnes

Purpose

The primary purpose of the FBGI is to provide researchers and administrators with a standardized tool for measuring the underlying philosophies that guide faculty members’ grading decisions. Understanding these orientations is crucial, as faculty beliefs directly influence pedagogical approaches, assessment rigor, and institutional discussions surrounding grade inflation and academic standards.

The scale was constructed to differentiate between faculty who prioritize relative student standing (norm-referenced perspectives) and those who emphasize absolute mastery of course material (criterion-referenced perspectives). Furthermore, it gauges the extent to which faculty view grades as a necessary mechanism for maintaining institutional quality and rigor, often referred to as the gatekeeping role.

Construct

The Faculty Beliefs about Grades Inventory is designed to measure two principal psychological constructs related to academic assessment philosophy, validated through factor analysis.

• Frame of Reference: This factor measures the degree to which faculty favor comparative grading methods (e.g., grading on the curve, comparing students to peers) over absolute performance standards. A high score on this dimension reflects an inclination toward norm-referenced assessment.
• Gatekeeping: This factor measures beliefs regarding the role of grading in maintaining academic standards and rigor. Faculty who score highly on this dimension view grades as essential mechanisms for institutional accountability and ensuring only qualified students progress, often exhibiting skepticism toward high grade point averages or lenient grading practices.

Validity

The validity of the FBGI was established through comprehensive developmental procedures and subsequent statistical analysis. Content validity was ensured during the initial scale construction phase through a thorough review of existing literature on grading, extensive interviews with faculty members regarding their practices, and personal observations of grading environments.

Construct validity was supported by conducting an exploratory factor analysis on the retained items. The resulting two-factor solution—Frame of Reference and Gatekeeping—was found to be theoretically sound and consistent with the definitions of grading philosophies reviewed during the item generation phase.

Reliability

The FBGI demonstrates strong internal consistency, confirming that the items within each subscale reliably measure their respective constructs. Reliability was assessed using coefficients of internal consistency (Cronbach’s Alpha) on the final 24-item inventory. The coefficient for the Frame of Reference factor was reported as 0.86, and the coefficient for the Gatekeeping factor was 0.83. These values indicate high reliability for both core dimensions of the scale.

Factor Analysis

The factor analysis of the Faculty Beliefs about Grades Inventory was performed to delineate the underlying structure of faculty grading philosophies. Although an initial analysis utilizing an oblique rotation yielded four factors that collectively accounted for 39 percent of the total variance, only the first two factors were deemed conceptually interpretable based on the theoretical framework.

Consequently, a two-factor solution was accepted as the most representative model. The first factor, Frame of Reference, consists of 13 items (Items 1, 2, 4, 7, 8, 10, 13, 14, 18, 20, 22, 23, and 24). The second factor, Gatekeeping, contains the remaining 11 items (Items 3, 5, 6, 9, 11, 12, 15, 16, 17, 19, and 21).

Instrument

Test Type: Self-report inventory; Psychometric Scale

Format: 24 Likert-type items using a 7-point rating scale.

Language Available: English (Original)

Population Group: University Faculty

Age Group: Adult (Professional academic staff)

Population Details: The original sample consisted of 243 randomly selected tenure-track undergraduate faculty members drawn from two universities located in the Midwestern United States.

Test Methodology: Respondents rate their level of agreement with each statement using the following 7-point scale: 7 = Strongly Agree; 6 = Agree; 5 = Unsure but tend to Agree; 4 = Neither Agree nor Disagree; 3 = Unsure but tend to Disagree; 2 = Disagree; and 1 = Strongly Disagree. Items 3, 5, 13, 14, 18, 20, 21, and 24 are reverse-scored for calculation purposes.

Keywords

Higher Education Policy, Grading Practices, Faculty Attitudes, Assessment, Educational Measurement, Likert Scale, Academic Standards

Authors

Author ORCID Identifier: Not Provided

Affiliation Email addresses: Not Provided

Correspondence Address: Not Provided

Permissions & Fee and Test Year

Test Year: 1997

Permissions and Fees: Information regarding current permissions and usage fees is not provided in the source material. Researchers should contact the original author or the journal Educational and Psychological Measurement for specific licensing details.

Reference’s

• Barnes, L. B. (1997). Development of the Faculty Beliefs about Grades Inventory. Educational and Psychological Measurement 57:459–68.
• Geisinger, K. F., and Rabinowitz, W. (1982). Individual differences among college faculty in grading. Journal of Instructional Psychology 7:20–27.
• Goldman, L. (1985). The betrayal of gatekeepers: Grade inflation. Journal of General Education 37:97–121.
• Milton, O., et al. (1986). Making sense of college grades: Why the grading system does not work and what can be done about it. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Items of the Faculty Beliefs about Grades Inventory

IMPORTANT: The following scale items must be preserved in their original language and must not be changed in any way.

1. The highest scoring student should receive an “A” no matter what the highest score is.
2. Differentiating among students on the basis of achievement is a primary purpose of grading.
3. The distribution of scores on a well-written major exam following effective instruction should be “piled up” at the upper end of the scale range.
4. Instructors should determine cutoffs for grades from the distribution of their students’ scores.
5. Courses in which students learn the most are typically those with many high grades.
6. Students have little respect for instructors who assign many high grades.
7. Comparative grading methods such as grading “on the curve” are the fairest ways of evaluating student performance.
8. Preset performance standards developed by instructors for assigning grades are, for the most part, arbitrary and meaningless.
9. A final exam in which all students score quite high is probably too easy, no matter how well students know the material.
10. Grades should indicate to students where they stand relative to their peers.
11. Leniency in grading constitutes inaccurate feedback and is detrimental to student progress.
12. Generally, a high percentage of “As” in class indicates low standards or a lack of rigor in assessing achievement.
13. A grade should reflect the degree to which a student has mastered course objectives, without regard for his/her ranking in the class.
14. The highest scoring student on an exam should receive an “A” only if that student’s score is above a pre-established cutoff.
15. Departments with high grade point averages generally have lower academic standards.
16. Leniency in grading reduces the value of a college degree.
17. Even with effective instruction the idea that half the class deserves “As” is unreasonable.
18. To be fair, an instructor should try to avoid making comparisons among students in evaluating achievement.
19. The distribution of scores on a well-written major exam following effective instruction should be approximately bell-shaped.
20. A student’s grade should be determined by his/her own performance and not be influenced by how well classmates do.
21. It is theoretically possible for every student in my class to earn an “A.”
22. When I assign course grades, the number or percentage of students in each grade category is an important factor in grading decisions.
23. If the class average on an exam is quite a bit lower than expected, I would adjust the grades upward.
24. I do not believe in “curving” the grades.