ArticleF1000Research2025
Establishing the Perception of Academic Staff on Performance Monitoring in Private Chartered Universities in Western Uganda.
Article in F1000Research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Effective performance monitoring is essential for improving academic productivity, especially in private higher education institutions. This study aimed to establish the perception of academic staff toward performance monitoring and how these perceptions influence academic staff performance in private chartered universities in Western Uganda. Guided by Expectancy Theory and Self-Determination Theory, the study explored how monitoring practices affect motivation and performance outcomes. Methods: A convergent parallel mixed-methods design was employed. The quantitative strand involved 386 academic staff selected from five private chartered universities using stratified random sampling. Data were collected using structured questionnaires. In the qualitative strand, semi-structured interviews were conducted with 10 purposively selected Deans of Faculties. Quantitative data were analyzed using descriptive statistics, Pearson correlation, and regression analysis, while qualitative data were analyzed thematically. Results: Findings revealed that 58.2% of academic staff had a moderately positive perception of existing performance monitoring practices. Pearson correlation analysis showed a moderate positive relationship between perception of performance monitoring and academic staff performance (r = .476, p < 0.01). Regression analysis further indicated that perception of performance monitoring significantly predicted academic staff performance (β = 0.394, p = 0.000), explaining 18.7% of the variance (R Conclusions: The study concludes that academic staff performance can be enhanced when performance monitoring systems are perceived as fair, transparent, and participatory. It recommends the standardization of performance evaluation procedures, improved feedback mechanisms, and the active involvement of academic staff in setting performance targets. Strengthening these areas could improve motivation, engagement, and overall academic performance in private universities across the region.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.