# Key Quality Factors in Digital Competence Assessment: A Validation Study from Teachers' Perspective
## 3 Results  
### The Quality Criteria of the Competence Assessment Model  
The CRISS CAM achieves positive assessment in all the QC, as in a 1-5 scale all the means are greater than 3. In order to facilitate reading the results, three sets of QC can be addressed (Figure 1): set 1 includes meaningfulness (M = 3.69; SD = 0.872) and authenticity (M = 3.64; SD = 0.713), as well as comparability (M = 3.51; SD = 0.823), which are the QC that achieved better results. Set 2 are QC with a mean of around 3.3: educational consequences (M = 3.34; SD = 0.850), reproducibility of decisions (M = 3.32; SD = 0.736) and fairness (M = 3.32; SD = 0.677). Finally, set 3 clusters cognitive complexity (M = 3.29; SD = 0.773), transparency (M = 3.22; SD = 0.848) and cost efficiency (M = 3.11; SD = 0.899). The three \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l l l l l} \hline \hline  & & & n & \% \\ \hline \multirow{8}{*}{Demographic profile} & & Spain & 151 & 36.0 \\  & & Italy & 96 & 22.9 \\  & & Croatia & 65 & 15.5 \\  & & Greece & 60 & 14.3 \\  & & Romania & 26 & 6.2 \\  & & Sweden & 22 & 5.2 \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{Gender} & & Female & 281 & 66.9 \\  & & Male & 139 & 33.1 \\ \hline \multirow{8}{*}{Age} & & 25–29 & 25 & 6.0 \\  & & 30–39 & 119 & 28.3 \\ \cline{1-1}  & & 40–49 & 162 & 38.6 \\ \cline{1-1}  & & 50–59 & 107 & 25.5 \\ \cline{1-1}  & & Over 60 & 7 & 1.7 \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{Academic profile} & & Primary & 92 & 21.9 \\ \cline{1-1}  & & Secondary & 328 & 78.1 \\ \cline{1-1} \cline{2-5}  & & Mean & St. Dev \\ \cline{1-1}  & & Students total & 101.19 & 97.300 \\ \cline{1-1}  & & Students CRISS & 30.76 & 60.456 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 3: Teacher sample characteristics. QC included in set 1 are to be considered as the strengths of the CAM. Table 2 provides the descriptive statistics for each indicator of the aforementioned QC. The correlation analysis between the different items included in the nine QCs revealed that some of them were more correlated with the indicators of other QCs than with those of their own set. Thus considering the overall results, the scores of the indicators belonging to the same QC showed a low correlation. Teachers evaluating authenticity considered that the components of the DC (knowledge, skills and attitudes) are integrated into the scenarios (M = 3.82; SD = 0.748). However, they reported that activities are not fully related to situations familiar to the students (M = 3.46; SD = 0.947). In relation to educational consequences, teachers considered that the CAM provides activities that help students to stay engaged in the learning process (M = 3.69; SD = 0.850). However, the result of this indicator contrasts with the scores on the platform's capability to extend capacity for assessment (M = 3.33; SD = 1.028), improve student engagement (M = 3.24; SD = 1.067), and be used for other assessments (M = 3.04; SD = 1.178). Reproducibility of decisions has a high score for the application of different assessment instruments (M = 3.62; SD = 0.795) and the assessment on different occasions (M = 3.59; SD = 0.807). However, the capability of the platform to support more suitable decisions to boost students' progress (M = 3.04; SD = 1.001) and to track it, obtain a lower score (M = 3.02; SD = 1.005). The score achieved on fairness is mainly linked to the high rating of the activities in relation to the coherence with what is being assessed (M = 3.54; SD = 0.832), how it allows students to advance according to their capability (M = 3.47; SD = 0.885), and the assessment instruments ensuring unbiased results (M = 3.45; SD = 0.822). However, teachers state that the platform is not more efficient than other platforms in identifying underperforming students (M = 2.83; SD = 1.021).