With the dawn of a new era, ideological politics education plays an increasingly high role in college education, so the responsibilities given to ideological politics teachers in universities are increasing. The traditional teaching quality estimate model lags behind in accuracy, precision, and recall rate. Therefore, aiming at this phenomenon, this paper puts forward a teaching quality evaluation model for ideological politics teachers in universities based on the structural equation model. The purpose is to improve the estimated test time and improve the evaluation accuracy and accuracy. The research results of the article show the following: (1) The comparison results of the four models show that the estimate results of the model constructed in this paper have the highest accuracy, accuracy, and recall, with an average accuracy of 98.49%, an average accuracy of 98.31%, and an average recall rate of 98.28%. (2) After testing, the structural equation model takes the least time, with an average test time of 9.4 ms, which is far lower than the test time of the other three models. (3) According to the statistics of the weight of each index, among the first-class indexes, the weight of teachers’ self-evaluation is the lowest, and the weight of students’ evaluation is the highest, accounting for 0.625. The weights of the middle class, teaching implementation, and teaching and educating people in the secondary indicators are all above 0.5, and most of the rest are between 0.2 and 0.4. (4) For the formal estimate of teachers’ teaching quality, the results show that the scores of the test subjects are above 90 points, the highest score is 99, and the average score is 94.5, which meets the test standard. (5) Finally, the model is evaluated, and it is concluded that each score is above 4.5, the highest score is 4.9, and the average score is 4.7, indicating that the model meets the standards and is highly recognized in people’s hearts.

1. Introduction

Ideological politics education is in the stage of rapid development, so it is necessary to establish a scientific and reasonable estimate system of teaching quality. Ideological politics education is a particularly important subject in the current social development. The responsibility of ideological and political teachers is self-evident. Therefore, we should pay attention to improving the teaching quality of ideological and political teachers. Structural equation modeling is a reliable and flexible statistical method [1] and has a high value, especially for evaluation research. Now, it has become a popular method [2], used to estimate complex models with potential variables and their relationships. Evaluation researchers are increasingly interested in structural equation model technology [3]. The structural equation model is of great significance in evaluation research [4]. The advantage of this method is that the analysis can be replicated according to the matrix and information specific to the model [5]. This model describes one of the most prominent research methods across multiple disciplines [6]. The structural equation model is a comprehensive statistical method [7]. It is mainly used to test hypotheses about the relationship between observed variables and potential variables. Structural equation modeling now uses the maximum likelihood method to deal with missing data [8]. This is a technology widely used in instrument verification and model testing [9]. We use this method to evaluate the teaching quality of teachers [10]. On the basis of teaching quality management in colleges and universities, the evaluation model of teaching quality is constructed by using the analytic hierarchy process [11]. The evaluation of education quality needs to go through the stages of task determination, standard proposal, development, and exploration [12]. To construct the quality evaluation system of ideological politics education in colleges and universities, we must adhere to the leadership of the Party, seek quality orientation in moral education, and pay attention to the internal and external coordination of ideological and political education quality. For the sake of improving teachers’ teaching quality, we can implement the evaluation method of teachers’ teaching quality [13]. The model takes student evaluation as the main body [14]. It is helpful to master teachers’ teaching situations and improve teaching quality. The evaluation of teachers’ teaching quality is the judgment of teachers’ values [15].

2. Theoretical Basis

2.1. Structural Equation Model

2.1.1. Introduction to Structural Equation Modeling

The structural equation model (SEM) is also called a causality model [16]. In the 1870s, Swiss scholars put forward this method by combining the measurement characteristics of factor analysis with the regression modeling characteristics of path analysis.

2.1.2. Structural Equation Model Expression

Structural equation modeling includes a measurement model and structural model. Formula (1) is the structural model, and formulas (2) and (3) are the measurement equations. The mathematical expression is as follows:

(1)

(2)

(3)

where η represents endogenous latent variables, ξ represents exogenous latent variables, and ζ represents random term vectors. y and x are both observable variables, and ε and δare random vectors.

2.2. Maximum Likelihood Estimation Method

Maximum likelihood estimation (MLE) is the most commonly used means in structural equation modeling [17].

2.2.1. Discrete Type

If the population X is discrete, its probability distribution is listed as

(4)

where θ is an unknown parameter. The joint assignment law of (X₁, X₂, ⋯, X_n) is

[18]. The probability of the observed value is

(5)

Then L(θ) is the likelihood function of the sample.

2.2.2. Continuous Type

If the population X is continuous, its probability density function is

(6)

where θ is the unknown parameter. Assuming that a group of observations of (X₁, X₂, ⋯, X_n) is (x₁, x₂, ⋯, x_n) [19], the function is

(7)

is called the maximum likelihood estimator of θ.

2.3. Covariance Matrix

A structural equation model is a statistical method to analyze the relationship between variables based on the covariance matrix of variables [20].

2.3.1. Concept

Let

be an n-dimensional causal variable, the matrix.

(8)

where C is the covariance matrix of an n-dimensional random variable X, which is denoted as D(X).

(9)

2.3.2. Properties

There are three properties of the covariance matrix:

(10)

2.3.3. Application

Because

(11)

The introduction matrix is

(12)

and the covariance matrix of (X₁, X₂) is

(13)

then

(14)

Because

(15)

then the probability density of (X₁, X₂) is

(16)

2.4. Evaluation of Teachers’ Teaching Quality

2.4.1. The Purpose of Teacher Teaching Quality Evaluation

The purpose of the teachers’ teaching quality estimate is to test the results of teachers’ “teaching” and students’ “learning” [21].

2.4.2. Principles of Teacher Teaching Quality Evaluation

The principles of teachers’ teaching quality estimate include objectivity, systematicness, measurability, and orientation [22], as shown in Table 1.

1. Estimate principles of teachers’ teaching quality.

Principle	Content
Objectivity principle	The teaching quality estimate is aimed at measuring, analyzing, and evaluating the effectiveness of teachers’ teaching work. Its evaluation standards, evaluation methods, and attitudes of evaluation subjects must be objective to ensure the authenticity of evaluation results.
Systemic principle	Teachers’ teaching quality is influenced by many factors such as teaching attitude, teaching methods, and teaching means. For the sake of reflecting the real teaching effect, teachers’ teaching quality evaluation must comprehensively consider various influencing factors and adopt qualitative and quantitative methods to comprehensively evaluate.
Testability principle	Evaluation indicators must be measurable, so that the evaluation subject can quickly and accurately make judgments according to the evaluation indicators.
Guiding principle	The evaluation results should be inspiring and guiding and should point out the future direction for the evaluators.

2.4.3. Evaluation Methods of Teaching Quality

The evaluation methods of teaching quality mainly include qualitative evaluation and quantitative evaluation: qualitative evaluation refers to the value judgment of the evaluated person, which is to draw a qualitative conclusion according to the specific performance of the evaluation subject to the evaluated person in all aspects. Quantitative evaluation means that the value judgment of the evaluator is the use of mathematical methods to evaluate the specific performance of the evaluator in various aspects to draw a conclusion.

2.5. Ideological and Political Education

Ideological politics education is mainly to integrate ideological politics education into the classroom and explain its basic theory, ideological values, and spiritual pursuit that contemporary youth should have. As the successors of the Party and the country, we should have correct political thoughts and walk on the correct ideological politics road.

In a sense, ideological politics education is to improve our ideological pursuit, enrich our spiritual thoughts, let us have correct life values, and make powerful contributions to the party and the country.

3. Model Building

3.1. The Modeling Procedure of Structural Equation Model

The modeling steps of the structural equation model are divided into modeling, model recognition, fitting, evaluation, and modification [23], as shown in Table 2.

2. Modeling steps of structural equation model.

Step	Content
Model building	To establish the model, we must first fully understand the development of research content and establish the model on the basis of the correct theory. It should be fully aware of the various relationships between emerging variables and identify potential variables and observed variables and their relationships.
Model identification	Model identification is to judge whether the structural equation model can run and fit successfully after introducing data. There are three types of recognition: unrecognized, just recognized, and overrecognized.
Model fit	Model fitting is to import the collected data into the Amos software for parameter estimation. Firstly, the measurement model is estimated and tested by confirmatory factor molecules, and then the structural model is estimated and tested by path analysis.
Model evaluation	Model evaluation refers to judging whether the index value of the output results meets the preset fitness standard of the model after the establishment of the structural equation model, including the absolute adaptation criteria and relative adaptation criteria of the model.
Model correction	After model fitting, if the fitting index reflects that the model fitting is not good, it needs to be adjusted by model modification. Model revision should be cautious. It is necessary to add or delete variables according to the fitting index and adjust the path or parameters to achieve the best fitting degree.

Among them, the number of parameters to be solved in model identification t should satisfy

(17)

p + q is the number of observed variables.

The evaluation procedure of the structural equation model is shown in Figure 1.

Details are in the caption following the image — Open in figure viewer PowerPoint

3.2. Construction of Teacher Teaching Quality Evaluation System

The appraisal system of teachers’ teaching quality mainly consists of teachers’ self-appraisal, students’ appraisal, peer appraisal, supervision appraisal, and leadership appraisal [24], as shown in Table 3.

3. Teachers’ teaching quality appraisal system.

System	Appraisal content and method
Teacher self-assessment	Teachers evaluate teaching from three respects: before, during, and after class.
Student evaluation	Students can evaluate teachers’ teaching quality from three aspects: classroom performance, classroom teaching, and curriculum effectiveness.
Peer review	Peer teachers evaluate teachers’ teaching quality from three aspects: teaching design, teaching implementation, and teaching reform by checking the teaching plan, listening to lectures, and participating in teaching and research activities.
Supervisory evaluation	Teaching supervision evaluates teachers’ teaching quality from four aspects: teaching approach, teaching substance, teaching means and methods, and teaching effect by means of patrolling and listening to classes.
Leadership evaluation	Leaders evaluate teachers’ teaching quality from three aspects: teaching preparation, teaching process, and teaching and educating people through teaching plan inspection and lectures.

The evaluation system of teachers’ teaching quality is shown in Figure 2.

3.3. Evaluation Index of Teaching Quality

According to the analytic hierarchy process, a five-dimensional analysis model of the teaching quality of ideological politics teachers in universities is constructed, and the Tertiary Index is established. The Primary Index includes teacher self-appraisal, student appraisal, peer appraisal, supervisory appraisal, and leadership appraisal; the Secondary Index includes 16 before, during, and after class; the Tertiary Index includes 50 such as “seriously correcting homework, patiently tutoring, and answering questions” and “conscientious attitude and decent behavior.”

By comparing the importance of the Secondary Index to the Primary Index and the importance of the Tertiary Index to the indicators, the weights of the Secondary Index and the Tertiary Index can be obtained. The index system is shown in Table 4.

4. Teaching quality appraisal indicators.

Main target	Primary index	Secondary index	Tertiary index
Teacher’s teaching quality	Teacher self-assessment	Before class	Dedicated, hardworking, and passionate about teaching
		Before class	Well prepared before class
		In class	The teaching content is rich and informative
			Introduce cases and link theory with practice
			Explain the regulations clearly, highlighting the important and difficult points
			Integrate the ideological politics elements of the course
			Can effectively adjust the classroom atmosphere
			Students acquire knowledge and skills
		After class	Carefully correct homework, patiently guide, and answer questions
		After class	Diagnose and improve classroom teaching actively
	Student evaluation	Classroom performance	Serious attitude and good manners
			Full of energy, strong affinity
			The language is vivid and stimulates students’ curiosity
		Classroom teaching	Rich teaching resources
			Advanced teaching methods and flexible methods
			Linking theory with practice, appropriate cases
			Respect for students, harmonious relationship between teachers and students
			Be able to answer questions for students carefully and patiently
		Classroom effectiveness	Mastered the basic knowledge and basic skills
		Classroom effectiveness	Broadened horizons
	Peer review	Instructional design	Teaching goals are clearly defined
			Accurately grasp the key points and difficulties of teaching
			Appropriate use of teaching methods and means
			Attach importance to the cultivation of students’ innovative practical ability
		Teaching implementation	Rigorous and serious academic attitude
			Lectures are refined, vivid, and accurate
			Emphasis on teacher-student communication, active atmosphere
			Students acquire knowledge and skills
		Teaching reform	Actively carry out research on teaching reform
		Teaching reform	Continuously improve teaching and improve quality
	Supervisory evaluation	Teaching attitude	Prepare carefully and prepare well
		Teaching attitude	Full of energy and passion
		Teaching content	Proficient in content and a large amount of information
			Difficulties are highlighted, and the structure is clear
			The explanation is refined and vivid
			The organic integration of “ideological politics education” and teaching
		Teaching methods and means	Advanced methods and flexible teaching methods
		Teaching methods and means	The relationship between teachers and students is harmonious, and the atmosphere is active
		Teaching effect	A high degree of achievement of teaching objectives
		Teaching effect	Arouse students’ curiosity
	Leadership evaluation	Teaching preparation	Careful preparation of lessons, full of content
		Teaching preparation	Rich teaching resources such as videos and courseware
		Teaching process	Rigorous attitude, dignified appearance
			Full of energy, strong affinity
			Accurate lectures, highlighting important and difficult points
			Regulation cleaning, explain in simple language
			Flexible teaching methods and advanced methods
		Teaching and educating people	Students acquire basic knowledge and skills
			Reflect “Lide Shuren”
			Students’ interest is nurtured and stimulated

3.4. AHP

AHP is a qualitative evaluation means [25]. The procedure of the AHP is divided into the construction of the evaluation index model, the construction of the judgment matrix, the determination of index weight, and the consistency test.

The calculation process of AHP is as follows:

(18)

The sum of each row vector of a matrix is

(19)

The normalized matrix is

(20)

In the consistency check, the largest eigenroot λ_max is computed as follows:

(21)

where (AW)_i represents the first i element of vector AW.

The one-time indicator CI is calculated as follows:

(22)

The consistency ratio CR is

(23)

4. Experimental Analysis

4.1. Model Checking

In order to see the test results of this model more intuitively, this experiment will select traditional evaluation models, deep learning models, and big data models for comparative analysis. We will randomly select 100 ideological and political students from a university, 10 people will form a group, and a total of 10 groups will be tested. The test sample is students’ evaluation of the teaching quality of ideological politics teachers.

4.1.1. Accuracy Comparison

First of all, the accuracy of the model will be tested so as to test the correctness of the model when evaluating the teaching quality of ideological politics teachers in the university. It is shown in Figure 3.

From Figure 3, we can see that the model constructed in the text has the highest evaluation precision, with an average evaluation precision of 98.49%. Compared to the other three models, this model is 4.25% higher than the big data model, 8.12% higher than the deep learning model, and 12.97% higher than the traditional evaluation model. Therefore, this model has higher accuracy and superiority.

4.1.2. Accuracy Comparison

Accuracy means that the error of the test result is within the specified range. By comparing the accuracy of the four models, we can know the superiority of the model. It is shown in Figure 4.

It can be seen from Figure 4 that the structural equation model has the highest accuracy, with an average accuracy rate of 98.31%. Compared with the other three models, it is 3.64% higher than the big data model, 8.8% higher than the deep learning model, and 16.73% higher than the traditional evaluation model.

4.1.3. Comparison of Recall Rates

Recall refers to the rate of correct predictions in a sample. The recall comparing results of the four models are shown in Figure 5.

It can be seen from Figure 5 that the recall rate of the structural equation model is the highest, the highest value is 99.6%, and the average recall rate is 98.28%. Compared with the other three models, it is 4.73% higher than the big data model, 10.12% higher than the deep learning model, and 18.22% higher than the traditional evaluation model, so this model is better.

4.1.4. Test Time Comparison

The four models were tested 10 times, and the time spent on their tests was recorded. The results showed that the structural equation model took the least time, with an average test time of 9.4 ms, which was much lower than the test time of the other three models. It is shown in Figure 6.

According to the results, we conclude that the structural equation model test takes the least time, which can greatly reduce the research time of teaching quality estimate and improve the work efficiency.

4.2. Indicator Weights

For the evaluation research of political science teachers’ teaching quality in universities, it is necessary to determine the weight coefficient of each index, so as to be more accurate in the evaluation of teaching quality.

4.2.1. Primary Indicators

For the general goal of teaching quality ideological politics teachers in universities, we need to construct a comparison matrix C by comparing five first-level indicators:

(24)

The weight coefficients of five first-level indicators can be obtained by calculation.

The specific weights of the first-level indicators are shown in Figure 7.

4.2.2. Secondary Indicators

The specific weights of the secondary indicators are shown in Figure 8.

From Figure 7, we can see that the weight of teacher self-evaluation is the lowest, and the weight of student evaluation is the highest, accounting for 0.625. The weight of each indicator is different, which means that each indicator has different standards and focuses on the evaluation of ideological politics and teachers’ teaching quality. Some indicators are important, and some indicators are relatively unimportant and are only used as a reference. According to Figure 8, we can know that the weights of class, teaching implementation, and teaching and educating people are all above 0.5, and the rest are between 0.2 and 0.4.

4.3. Evaluation of Teaching Quality

This experiment will evaluate an ideological politics teacher in a university. The experiment will use the model designed in this article to estimate the teaching quality of ideological politics teachers in universities according to the indicators mentioned above. Taking the secondary index as the evaluation standard, the results are shown in Figure 9.

According to the results in Figure 9, the scores of each evaluation index are above 90, the highest score is 99, and the average score is 94.5. This model test can effectively reflect teachers’ teaching problems, and teachers can find out their own teaching deficiencies in time and then make corrections.

4.4. Model Evaluation

For the sake of proving the practicability of the model, we asked the reviewers mentioned in the first-level index to score the model, with a total score of 5 points, and the average score above 4.5 indicates that the model has a high recognition among teaching system personnel. The scoring situation is shown in Figure 10.

As can be seen from Figure 10, the scores of each reviewer are above 4.5, the highest score is 4.9, and the average score is 4.7, indicating that the model meets the standard.

5. Conclusion

The new era gives us college students more responsibilities, and ideological politics education is one of the ways to perfect our ideological height. The traditional evaluation model has a certain lag, so this paper designs a new model to improve this problem. The evaluation model of teaching quality of ideological politics teachers in high school based on the structural equation model designed in this paper improves the correctness, precision, and recall on the basis of the traditional evaluation model and shortens the test time. It helps reviewers improve their work efficiency and is of great significance in the research of evaluating teaching quality.

The findings of the article show that

(1) The comparison results of the four models show that the evaluation results of the model constructed in this paper have the highest accuracy, accuracy, and recall rate, with an average accuracy of 98.49%, an average accuracy of 98.31%, and an average recall rate of 98.28%

(2) After testing, the structural equation model takes the least time, with an average test time of 9.4 ms, which is far lower than the test time of the other three models

(3) In the first-level indicators, the weight of teachers’ self-evaluation is the lowest, and the weight of students’ evaluation is the highest, accounting for 0.625. The weights of the middle class, teaching implementation, and teaching and educating people in the secondary indicators are all above 0.5, and most of the rest are between 0.2 and 0.4

(4) For the formal estimate of teachers’ teaching quality, results show that the scores of the test subjects are above 90 points, the highest score is 99, and the average score is 94.5, which meets the test standard

(5) Finally, the model is evaluated, and it is concluded that each score is above 4.5, the highest score is 4.9, and the average score is 4.7, indicating that the model meets the standards and is highly recognized in people’s hearts

Although the method studied in this article has obvious advantages, it still has certain limitations. The method is limited to the appraisal of the teaching quality of ideological politics teachers, and the research scope is small. The limitations and uncertainties of the model studied in this paper need to be further improved in the following experiments to increase its universality and make the entire evaluation system more complete.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declared that they have no conflicts of interest regarding this work.

Acknowledgments

This work was supported by the 2021 Philosophy and Social Science Program of Hainan Province (Ideological and Political Project): Research on the Way of Hainan Red Culture Integrating into Ideological and Political Course in Hainan Universities, China (Grant No. hnsz2021-40).

Open Research

Data Availability

The experimental data used to support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding authors upon request.

References

1 Chen J. S., Partial least squares approach to structural equation modeling for tourism research Advances in Hospitality and leisure, 2012, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, https://doi.org/10.1108/S1745-3542(2012)8:43-61.
10.1108/S1745-3542(2012)8
Google Scholar
2 Jr D., A primer on partial least squares structural equation modeling, Long Range Planning. (2013) 46, no. 1-2, 184–185, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lrp.2013.01.002.
10.1016/j.lrp.2013.01.002
Google Scholar
3 Gefen D., Straub D. W., and Boudreau M., Structural equation modeling and regression: guidelines for research practice, Communications of the Association for Information Systems. (2000) 4, no. 7, https://doi.org/10.17705/1CAIS.00407.
10.17705/1CAIS.00407
Google Scholar
4 Maccallum R. C. and Austin J. T., Applications of structural equation modeling in psychological research, Annual Review of Psychology. (2000) 51, no. 1, 201–226, https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.51.1.201, 2-s2.0-0033658169.
10.1146/annurev.psych.51.1.201
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
5 Chin W. W., Issues and opinion on structural equation modeling, MIS Quarterly. (1998) 22, no. 1.
Web of Science® Google Scholar
6 Weston R. and Gore P. A., A brief guide to structural equation modeling, The Counseling Psychologist. (2006) 34, no. 5, 719–751, https://doi.org/10.1177/0011000006286345, 2-s2.0-33747037790.
10.1177/0011000006286345
Web of Science® Google Scholar
7 Allison D. P., Missing data techniques for structural equation modeling, Journal of Abnormal Psychology. (2003) 112, no. 4, 545–557, https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-843X.112.4.545, 2-s2.0-0345475379.
10.1037/0021-843X.112.4.545
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
8 Chau P., Reexamining a model for evaluating information center success using a structural equation modeling approach, Decision Sciences. (1997) 28, no. 2, 309–334, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5915.1997.tb01313.x, 2-s2.0-0031520748.
10.1111/j.1540-5915.1997.tb01313.x
Web of Science® Google Scholar
9 Guo X. J., Evaluation based on fuzzy clustering in teaching quality of teacher, Microcomputer Information. (2010) 26, no. 3, 33–34.
Google Scholar
10 Bandalos D. L., The effects of item parceling on goodness-of-fit and parameter estimate bias in structural equation modeling, Structural Equation Modeling A Multidisciplinary Journal. (2002) 9, no. 1, 78–102, https://doi.org/10.1207/S15328007SEM0901_5, 2-s2.0-0012375194.
10.1207/S15328007SEM0901_5
Web of Science® Google Scholar
11 Steiger J. H., Understanding the limitations of global fit assessment in structural equation modeling, Personality & Individual Differences. (2007) 42, no. 5, 893–898, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2006.09.017, 2-s2.0-33846817445.
10.1016/j.paid.2006.09.017
Web of Science® Google Scholar
12 Scott C., Hillhouse J., and Turrisi R., Evaluating a Theoretical Model of Indoor Tanning Using Structural Equation Modeling, Public Health Reports. (2014) 129, no. 1, 107–110.
10.1177/003335491412900117
PubMed Google Scholar
13 Koufteros X. A., Testing a model of pull production: a paradigm for manufacturing research using structural equation modeling, Journal of Operations Management. (1999) 17, no. 4, 467–488, https://doi.org/10.1016/S0272-6963(99)00002-9, 2-s2.0-0032651291.
10.1016/S0272-6963(99)00002-9
Google Scholar
14 Tabri N. and Elliott C. M., Principles and practice of structural equation modeling, Canadian Graduate Journal of Sociology and Criminology. (2012) 1, no. 1, 59–60, https://doi.org/10.15353/cgjsc.v1i1.3787.
10.15353/cgjsc.v1i1.3787
Google Scholar
15 Hox J. J., An introduction to structural equation modeling, Computers in Human Behavior. (2011) 27, no. 1, 63–68.
Google Scholar
16 Shah R. and Goldstein S. M., Use of structural equation modeling in operations management research: looking back and forward, Journal of Operations Management. (2006) 24, no. 2, 148–169, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jom.2005.05.001, 2-s2.0-29144466517.
10.1016/j.jom.2005.05.001
Web of Science® Google Scholar
17 Quintana S. M. and Maxwell S. E., Implications of recent developments in structural equation modeling for counseling psychology, The Counseling Psychologist. (1999) 27, no. 4, 485–527, https://doi.org/10.1177/0011000099274002, 2-s2.0-0033238686.
10.1177/0011000099274002
Web of Science® Google Scholar
18 Kenny D. A. and Mccoach D. B., Effect of the number of variables on measures of fit in structural equation modeling, Structural Equation Modeling A Multidisciplinary Journal. (2003) 10, no. 3, 333–351, https://doi.org/10.1207/S15328007SEM1003_1, 2-s2.0-33947414695.
10.1207/S15328007SEM1003_1
Web of Science® Google Scholar
19 Urbach N. and Ahlemann F., Structural equation modeling in information systems research using partial least squares, Journal of Information Technology Theory and Application. (2010) 11, no. 2, 5–40.
Google Scholar
20 Cheung W. L. and Chan W., Meta-analytic structural equation modeling: a two-stage approach, Psychological Methods. (2005) 10, no. 1, 40–64, https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.10.1.40, 2-s2.0-17444424576, 15810868.
10.1037/1082-989X.10.1.40
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
21 Yoon Y., Gursoy D., and Chen J. S., Validating a tourism development theory with structural equation modeling, Tourism Management. (2001) 22, no. 4, 363–372, https://doi.org/10.1016/S0261-5177(00)00062-5, 2-s2.0-0035009522.
10.1016/S0261-5177(00)00062-5
Web of Science® Google Scholar
22 Hoyle R. H., Introduction to the special section: structural equation modeling in clinical research, Journal of Consulting & Clinical Psychology. (1994) 62, no. 3, 427–428, https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-006X.62.3.427, 2-s2.0-0028307469, 8063969.
10.1037/0022-006X.62.3.427
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
23 Verdam M., Oort F. J., and Sprangers M., Using structural equation modeling to detect response shifts and true change in discrete variables: an application to the items of the SF-36, Quality of Life Research. (2016) 25, no. 6, 1361–1383, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-015-1195-0, 2-s2.0-84951783113, 26694962.
10.1007/s11136-015-1195-0
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
24 Martens M. P., The use of structural equation modeling in counseling psychology research, The Counseling Psychologist. (2005) 33, no. 3, 269–298, https://doi.org/10.1177/0011000004272260, 2-s2.0-18744362214.
10.1177/0011000004272260
Web of Science® Google Scholar
25 Hildreth L. A., Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (3rd edition), The American Statistician. (2012) 66, no. 1.
Google Scholar

Citing Literature

All articles

[Retracted] Research on Teaching Quality Evaluation of Ideological Politics Teachers in Colleges and Universities Based on a Structural Equation Model

Retraction(s) for this article

Retracted: Research on Teaching Quality Evaluation of Ideological Politics Teachers in Colleges and Universities Based on a Structural Equation Model

Abstract

1. Introduction

2. Theoretical Basis

2.1. Structural Equation Model

2.1.1. Introduction to Structural Equation Modeling

2.1.2. Structural Equation Model Expression

2.2. Maximum Likelihood Estimation Method

2.2.1. Discrete Type

2.2.2. Continuous Type

2.3. Covariance Matrix

2.3.1. Concept

2.3.2. Properties

2.3.3. Application

2.4. Evaluation of Teachers’ Teaching Quality

2.4.1. The Purpose of Teacher Teaching Quality Evaluation

2.4.2. Principles of Teacher Teaching Quality Evaluation

2.4.3. Evaluation Methods of Teaching Quality

2.5. Ideological and Political Education

3. Model Building

3.1. The Modeling Procedure of Structural Equation Model

3.2. Construction of Teacher Teaching Quality Evaluation System

3.3. Evaluation Index of Teaching Quality

3.4. AHP

4. Experimental Analysis

4.1. Model Checking

4.1.1. Accuracy Comparison

4.1.2. Accuracy Comparison

4.1.3. Comparison of Recall Rates

4.1.4. Test Time Comparison

4.2. Indicator Weights

4.2.1. Primary Indicators

4.2.2. Secondary Indicators

4.3. Evaluation of Teaching Quality

4.4. Model Evaluation

5. Conclusion

Conflicts of Interest

Acknowledgments

Open Research

Data Availability

References

Citing Literature

Figures

References

Related

Information