ArticleScientific reports2025
Research on the evaluation of undergraduate students' core competencies in the context of industry-education integration.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Under the dual impetus of industrial upgrading and higher education quality enhancement, it has become a common consensus to construct a student competency evaluation tool that can reflect the entire "teaching-learning-application" chain. However, existing studies remain insufficient in terms of system integrity and quantitative operability. Guided by the CIPP evaluation model (Context-Input-Process-Product), this study follows the logical progression of "context-input-process-output." Through a combination of literature review, expert interviews, and the Delphi method, an initial set of indicators was developed. The Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) was then employed to determine indicator weights, and a fuzzy comprehensive evaluation approach was integrated to construct the quantitative model. The results indicate that the established system effectively balances process monitoring and outcome orientation, emphasizing university-industry collaboration, authentic learning contexts, and ability transferability, while demonstrating strong interpretability and diagnostic value. The final framework includes 4 primary indicators, 11 secondary indicators, and 68 tertiary indicators. The expert authority coefficients for the two Delphi rounds were 0.840 and 0.845, respectively, with Kendall's coordination coefficients of 0.182 and 0.244. The AHP consistency test yielded CR < 0.1, confirming reliability. Using a sample of 132 students from the 2019 cohort of the Mechanical Engineering program at a "Double First-Class" university, model application results showed that 79.6% of students achieved an overall competency level of "good" or above. Among the first-level dimensions, the expected values of process evaluation and input evaluation outperformed those of context evaluation and output evaluation, suggesting the need to further strengthen institutional reputation building and graduate quality feedback mechanisms. The findings demonstrate that the proposed indicator system and evaluation model can effectively mitigate ambiguity and subjectivity in competency assessment. It possesses high applicability and promotional value in supporting teaching quality diagnostics, talent training program optimization, and deep university-industry collaboration.
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.