Abstract:

Introduction:
The convergence of European Higher Education Area (EHEA) has led to major changes in the university systems of the different countries. One of the most relevant is the appearance of the bachelor thesis (BT). Currently, there is a lack of tools for the evaluation of the management of BT. In order to try to reduce the impact of evaluative heterogeneity in the BT, most Spanish universities resort to evaluation by rubrics although it is not possible to eliminate all subjectivity in the evaluation of the BT.

Aim:
To analyze which factors interfere in the evaluation of the BT both as supervisor and thesis committee.

Methods:
Cross-sectional study carried out in the Faculty of Nursing Nuestra Señora de los Desamparados of the Catholic University of Valencia. The study period covers the academic year 2015-2016. The variables included were the note of the supervisor and the thesis committe, the profession of the lecturers (Nurses, doctors, other health sciences such as pharmacists, biologists, physiotherapists,... Psychologists and other professions such as engineering, mathematicians, etc.). University dedication (full-time dedication, part-time dedication or external teachers with exclusive teaching dedication for the realization of the BT), academic degree (doctor or not), type of BT performed (original quantitative or qualitative research (OR), systematic review (SR), standardized care plan (SCP) and community health diagnosis (CH)) and call in which the work is defended (first or second) and the realization of a voluntary training course for teachers involved in the BT process.

Results:
A total of 460 rubrics of BT supervisors and thesis committee were analyzed. The mean rating given by the supervisor was 8.62 (1.51) while the mean rating of thesis committee 7.63 (1.57). There were statistically significant differences between the supervisors’ grade and thesis committee’s grade with a mean difference of 0.99; CI95%:0.80-1.17; p<0.001. MANOVA tested the differences in the dependent variables (supervisor's rate and thesis committee) with the independent variables of type of BT, profession, dedication, call, academic degree and course completion. No differences were found in the variables type of work, dedication, profession of the lecturer and call, although differences were found in the peer analysis in all the variables, with the tutor being the one who gave the highest mark. Differences were found in the profession of the lecturer and the academic degree of the doctor. The results from a one-way MANOVA revealed significant differences on the dependent variables of mark of the supervisors and thesis committee between accomplishment of the course of direction and evaluation of BT with a moderate size of the effect (ɳ2p =0.063). No differences were found on the assessment between supervisors and thesis committee in the lecturers who took the course.

Conclusions:
The supervisor assessment is higher than the thesis committee. The type of BT, the dedication and profession of the lecturer, the call and the academic degree of the lecturer do not interfere with the presence of the difference of averages. The realization of an educational intervention on the lecturers involved in the management and evaluation of the BT is the only variable that increases the equity in the assessment between the supervisor and the thesis committee.

Keywords:

Bachelor thesis, rubrics, assessment, quality assessment.