华东师范大学学报(教育科学版)

华东师范大学学报(教育科学版) ›› 2026, Vol. 44 ›› Issue (10): 74-87.doi: 10.16382/j.cnki.1000-5560.2026.10.006

• 教育评价学 • 上一篇    下一篇

综合素质评价何以有效推进？——基于DEMATEL-ISM模型的影响因素与路径分析

刘志军1,2, 杨孟娜1   

  1. 1. 河南大学教育学部，开封 475004
    2. 河南大学教育考试与评价研究院，开封 475004
  • 接受日期:2026-06-02 出版日期:2026-10-01 发布日期:2026-09-28
  • 基金资助:
    2025年全国教育科学规划重点课题“教育评价学研究”（ASA250023）。

How to Effectively Advance Comprehensive Quality Evaluation: An Analysis of Influencing Factors and Pathways Based on the DEMATEL-ISM Model

Zhijun Liu1,2, Mengna Yang1   

  1. 1. The Faculty of Education, Henan University, Kaifeng 475004, China
    2. Institute of Educational Examination and Evaluation, Henan University, Kaifeng 475004, China
  • Accepted:2026-06-02 Online:2026-10-01 Published:2026-09-28

RichHTML

20

PDF

35

摘要：

基于文献编码与德尔菲法，立足新制度主义理论框架，发现影响综合素质评价推进的3类共20个因素，运用DEMATEL-ISM模型，定量分析各因素的影响地位和影响强度，通过识别关键因素，明确因素间的关联逻辑和作用路径。研究发现，存在两类四条影响综合素质评价推进的因素作用路径，其中评价方法的适应性和评价工具的适切性在综合素质评价推进中发挥根源性作用，诚信文化发挥直接作用，其余因素为过程性作用。研究提出，未来的综合素质评价要激活根源性因素，提升评价方法适应性和工具的适切性；调控过程性因素，转换评价制度和评价主体的发展路向；关注直接性因素，重塑诚信文化之于评价实践的新定位；厘清关键性因素，确定综合素质评价的实践难点和推进方向。

关键词: 综合素质评价, 新制度主义, 推进路径, DEMATEL-ISM

Abstract:

Based on literature coding and the Delphi method, and grounded in neo-institutional theory, this study identifies 20 factors across three categories that affect the implementation of comprehensive quality evaluation. Using the DEMATEL-ISM model, it quantitatively analyzes the influence status and strength of these factors, identifies key factors, and clarifies their interrelationships and pathways of influence. The findings reveal two types of pathways comprising four distinct routes through which these factors operate. The adaptability of evaluation methods and the appropriateness of evaluation tools play foundational roles, while integrity culture plays a direct role, with the remaining factors serving as mediating factors. Based on these findings, the study proposes that future efforts should focus on activating foundational factors by enhancing the adaptability of evaluation methods and tools, regulating mediating factors by transforming evaluation systems and the development direction of evaluators, emphasizing direct factors by redefining the role of integrity culture in evaluation practices, and clarifying key factors to identify practical challenges and directions for advancing comprehensive quality evaluation.

Key words: comprehensive quality evaluation, new institutionalism, advancement pathways, DEMATEL-ISM