Münster questionnaire for the evaluation of lectures – revised (MFE-Vr)

Abstract

The Münster questionnaire for the evaluation of lectures – revised (MFE-Vr) is a validated, specialized basic module within the broader Münster Questionnaire for Evaluation system, developed and primarily utilized at the University of Münster. This instrument is designed for the standardized measurement of student feedback regarding university lectures. The MFE-Vr represents a significant revision of its predecessor (MFE-V), focusing on enhanced psychometric properties and increased economy (brevity) for use in large-scale online data collection. It assesses three core dimensions of instructional quality and student experience.

Keywords

teaching evaluation, lecture, revision, higher education, psychometrics, student feedback, didactics, overload, course materials, German

Authors

Dr. Dipl.-Psych. Meinald Thielsch, Dr. Dipl.-Psych. Gerrit Hirschfeld

Purpose

The primary purpose of the MFE-Vr is to serve as a reliable and economical tool for Teaching Evaluation in higher education, specifically for university lectures. Developed in the context of the Psychology Department at the University of Münster, the instrument is engineered for web-based distribution to maximize efficiency in data collection, evaluation, and feedback generation. Its construction aimed to achieve high economy—meaning minimal burden on students—while still capturing essential aspects of teaching quality, instructor performance, and potential student overchallenge.

The scale allows institutions to systematically monitor and improve the quality of instruction, fulfill statutory requirements for quality assurance, and provide actionable feedback to lecturers. It also seeks to measure potential bias variables (e.g., impact of room quality or scheduling) alongside the core instructional quality metrics.

Construct

The core construct measured by the MFE-Vr is Teaching Evaluation (Lehrevaluation) in the context of university lectures. Based on confirmatory factor analysis, the instrument is structured around three distinct, yet related, dimensions of the lecture experience:

• Dozent & Didaktik (Instructor & Didactics): Focuses on the lecturer’s performance, teaching methods, clarity, use of examples, organizational skills, and responsiveness to student inquiries.
• Überforderung (Overload/Overchallenge): Measures the student perception of difficulty, pace of content delivery, and the time commitment required for the course, assessing potential student stress.
• Materialien (Materials): Evaluates the quality and utility of media and supplementary materials provided during the lecture (e.g., slides, handouts, web resources).

Validity

The validation of the MFE-Vr focused on establishing content, convergent, and discriminant validity across its three subscales. Developers acknowledged the inherent difficulty in validating teaching evaluation instruments due to the lack of universally accepted criteria for “good teaching.”

Evidence for Content Validity is supported by the focus on instructor behavior and didactics, aligning with established models of teaching success (e.g., Rindermann, 2009). Convergent Validity is demonstrated by significant correlations between the subscale scores and students’ overall rating of the lecture. Specifically, the Instructor & Didactics scale showed a very high correlation (.90) with overall assessment, and Materials showed a high correlation (.77). The Overload scale correlated negatively (-.29), as expected (higher overload correlates with lower overall ratings).

Discriminant Validity was established by demonstrating that the scale scores were largely independent of known potential bias variables, such as the suitability of the lecture time slot or the adequacy of the lecture hall’s physical environment (correlations < .30). Furthermore, all three subscales showed significant discrimination (e.g., Didactics: Eta-Squared = .59) between lectures rated by students as the best and those rated as the worst, confirming their ability to differentiate instructional quality.

Reliability

The MFE-Vr exhibits strong internal consistency across all subscales, particularly considering the brevity of the instrument (six items for Didactics, three items each for Overload and Materials). Cronbach’s Alpha coefficients based on the sample population (N=429) demonstrate good to very good reliability:

• Dozent & Didaktik (Instructor & Didactics): Cronbach’s Alpha = .93
• Überforderung (Overload): Cronbach’s Alpha = .85
• Materialien (Materials): Cronbach’s Alpha = .81

These values are comparable to those reported for more extensive teaching evaluation instruments, confirming the MFE-Vr’s utility as an economical yet reliable measure.

Factor Analysis

The psychometric properties of the MFE-Vr were rigorously examined using both exploratory and Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA). The CFA was performed on data from the Winter Semester 2009/10, using a clean dataset of N=429 student evaluations, employing the conventional Maximum Likelihood estimator in AMOS.

The analysis tested a model assigning the twelve core items (Items 8-19) to the three theoretically derived factors: Instructor & Didactics, Overload, and Materials. The resulting model demonstrated acceptable fit indices: Chi-Square = 187.0 (df = 51); TLI = .95; CFI = .96; RMSEA = .08. Inter-factor correlations were observed: Instructor & Didactics correlated highly with Materials (.87), and negatively with Overload (-.29). The correlations support the proposed three-dimensional structure of the instrument.

Instrument

Test Type: Questionnaire/Survey Instrument (Psychological Scale)

Format: Primarily web-based (online platform using PHP/MySQL), also occasionally administered in mixed-mode (paper-and-pencil).

Language Available: German (deutsch)

Population Group: University Students

Age Group: Adults (Sample range: 18 to 43 years; Mean = 22.85)

Population Details: The validation sample (N=429) consisted primarily of psychology students (Bachelor and Diploma programs, 71.8%), along with students from related fields such as Education and Pedagogics.

Test Methodology: The core items (8-19) utilize a 7-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 = “stimme gar nicht zu” (strongly disagree) to 7 = “stimme vollkommen zu” (strongly agree), plus the option “nicht sinnvoll beantwortbar” (not sensible to answer). Other items use nominal categories or open-ended response fields. The test is administered online toward the end of the semester.

Keywords

didactics, student workload, quality assurance, higher education, psychometrics, survey, student evaluation, Münster

Authors

Author ORCID Identifier: Not provided in source content.

Affiliation Email addresses: [email protected], [email protected]

Correspondence Address:

• Dr. Dipl.-Psych. Meinald Thielsch, Westfälische Wilhelms-Universität Münster, Psychologisches Institut 1, Fliednerstr. 21, 48149 Münster.
• Dr. Dipl.-Psych. Gerrit Hirschfeld, Vodafone Stiftungsinstitut und Lehrstuhl für Kinderschmerztherapie und Pädiatrische Palliativmedizin Vestische Kinder- und Jugendklinik Datteln, Private Universität Witten/Herdecke, Dr.-Friedrich-Steiner-Str. 5, 45711 Datteln.

Permissions & Fee and Test Year

The MFE-Vr is developed and utilized for internal quality assurance purposes, primarily within the Psychology Department at the University of Münster. Information regarding general licensing or fees for external use is not detailed in the source content. The scale development and validation reported here utilized data collected specifically during the Summer Semester 2009 and the Winter Semester 2009/10.

Reference’s

The following references were cited in the scale documentation:

• Bechler & Thielsch (2012).
• Gediga et al. (2000).
• Gollwitzer & Schlotz (2003).
• Göritz, Soucek & Bacher (2005).
• Grabbe (2003).
• Greenwald (1997).
• Haaser (2006).
• Haaser, Thielsch & Moeck (2007).
• Hirschfeld & Thielsch (2009).
• Marsh (1984).
• Mutz (2003).
• Rindermann (1996).
• Rindermann (2003).
• Rindermann (2009).
• Schmidt & Loßnitzer (2010).
• Souvignier und Gold (2002).
• Staufenbiel (2000).
• Thielsch & Weltzin (2012).
• Thielsch et al. (2010).

Items of the Münster questionnaire for the evaluation of lectures – revised (MFE-Vr)

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

Core Items (Items 8-19) measured on a 7-point Likert scale plus ‘not sensible to answer’:

Items zu Dozent & Didaktik (Instructor & Didactics)

8. Ich finde, die Vorlesung gab einen guten Überblick über das Themengebiet.
9. Der/Die Lehrende benutzte oft Beispiele, die zum Verständnis der Lehrinhalte beitrugen.
10. Ich finde, der/die Lehrende ging auf Fragen und Anregungen der Studierenden angemessen ein.
11. Der/Die Lehrende hat das Thema interessant aufgearbeitet.
12. Ich konnte im Verlauf der Vorlesung die Gliederung immer nachvollziehen.
13. Ich finde, der/die Lehrende teilte die zur Verfügung stehende Zeit gut ein.

Items zu Überforderung (Overload/Overchallenge)

14. Die Inhalte der Vorlesung waren zu schwierig für mich.
15. Das Tempo der Stoffvermittlung war für mich zu hoch.
16. Der mit der Vorlesung verbundene Zeitaufwand hat mich überfordert.

Items zu Materialien (Materials)

17. Die in der Vorlesung verwendeten Medien (Folien, Filme, Skizzen, etc.) trugen zum Verständnis der Inhalte bei.
18. Die Qualität der in der Vorlesung verwendeten Medien (Folien, Filme, Skizzen, etc.) war gut.
19. Die Qualität der zusätzlichen Materialien war gut.

Additional Items (Varying Response Formats)

• Nr. 1: Wie viele Sitzungen hast Du bei dieser Vorlesung gefehlt? (Response: keine, eine, zwei, drei oder mehr Sitzungen)
• Nr. 2: Wie viele Stunden hast Du die Vorlesung im Schnitt pro Woche vor- und nachbereitet? (Response: Offenes Antwortfeld)
• Nr. 3: Ich habe diese Vorlesung besucht (Mehrfachantworten möglich): (Response: weil es eine Pflichtveranstaltung ist, aus Interesse am Thema, wegen des/r Dozenten/in, zur Vorbereitung auf Prüfungen)
• Nr. 4: Ich finde, die räumliche Ausstattung des Vorlesungssaals war angemessen. (Response: Wie Items 8 bis 19)
• Nr. 5: Die Lautstärke war so, dass ich immer alles gut verstehen konnte. (Response: Wie Items 8 bis 19)
• Nr. 6: Der Vorlesungstermin passte gut in meine Zeitplanung. (Response: Wie Items 8 bis 19)
• Nr. 7: Ich habe immer ohne Probleme einen Sitzplatz bekommen. (Response: Wie Items 8 bis 19)
• Nr. 20: Ich habe folgende Materialien zusätzlich zur Veranstaltung benutzt (Mehrfachantworten möglich): (Response: keine, Folien, Skript, Literaturangaben, Webseite des Dozenten/der Veranstaltung, andere Webseiten, Handout, Sonstiges)
• Nr. 21: Ich fand die Menge des Materials, das zu dieser Veranstaltung zur Verfügung gestellt wurde, war: (Response: zu gering, angemessen, zu groß, nicht sinnvoll beantwortbar)
• Nr. 22: Ich habe in der Veranstaltung viel gelernt. (Response: Ja, Nein)
• Nr. 23: Ich würde diese Vorlesung anderen Studierenden weiterempfehlen. (Response: Ja, Nein)
• Nr. 24: Im Punktesystem der gymnasialen Oberstufe (0 [ungenügend] bis 15 [sehr gut +]) bewerte ich die Veranstaltung insgesamt mit folgender Punktzahl: ___ (Response: Offenes Antwortfeld)
• Nr. 25: Anmerkungen für den/die Lehrende/n (Vorschläge/Lob/konstruktive Kritik): (Response: Offenes Antwortfeld)