A structured instrument for domain expert validation of the Immersion Ontology — grounded in social science research methods and designed for iterative construct validation.
⏱
Time required
45–75 minutes
📊
Items
6 components × 4 dimensions + relationships
🔬
Validation type
Content validity + construct clarity
🔒
Data handling
De-identified; UNT IRB compliant
What is Thetis?
Thetis is a multi-round expert validation instrument operationalizing content validity and construct validity procedures for ontology evaluation in information science and cognitive psychology research. It guides you through rating each of the six Immersion Ontology components across four validity dimensions: definitional adequacy, boundary clarity, completeness, and practical utility. You will also evaluate inter-component relationships.
The instrument follows procedures aligned with content validity ratio (CVR) methods (Lawshe, 1975), ontology evaluation frameworks (Gruber, 1993; Noy & McGuinness, 2001), and expert panel approaches established in learning technologies and human-computer interaction research.
1.
Read the full definition of each component carefully before rating. Definitions are drawn from the Immersion Ontology manuscript and reflect BFO-grounded Aristotelian genus-differentia formulations.
2.
Rate each component on four dimensions using the 1–7 scale. Use notes fields for any qualifications, suggested revisions, or evidence from your domain experience.
3.
After rating all six components, evaluate the six key inter-component relationship claims on their logical necessity and empirical plausibility.
4.
Complete the instrument usability section. Your candid feedback directly informs revision of Thetis and the Immersion Ontology validation procedure.
5.
Download both the CSV data file and the HTML report, then use the email button to submit to the research team.
Score interpretation guide
1 – 2
Does not meet criterion — major revision needed
3 – 5
Partially meets criterion — moderate revision or clarification needed
6 – 7
Meets or exceeds criterion — minor or no revision needed
Step 1 of 5
Consent & Expert Profile
Your domain background is central to the validity of this evaluation. All responses are de-identified in analysis unless you explicitly consent to attribution.
About you
Purpose
This study validates the Immersion Ontology, a formal BFO-grounded specification of immersion's domain entities, processes, and relationships (Warren et al., in review). Expert panel methods are used to establish content validity, construct clarity, and boundary adequacy across the ontology's six components.
What you will do
You will rate each of the six Immersion Ontology components on four validity dimensions using a 1–7 scale, evaluate key inter-component relationship claims, and provide qualitative notes where appropriate.
Time commitment
Approximately 45–75 minutes. You may save your progress at any point and return later using the load function.
Confidentiality
Data will be stored in secure, password-protected systems or university-approved storage. Reports will use de-identified summaries unless you explicitly consent to attribution. Records will be retained for at least three years beyond the close of the research.
Voluntary participation
Participation is entirely voluntary. You may withdraw at any time without penalty and may skip any item that makes you uncomfortable.
Contact
Principal Investigator: Dr. Scott J. Warren, scott.warren@unt.edu, 940-369-7489. IRB questions: UNT Office of Research Integrity and Compliance, 940-565-4643, untirb@unt.edu.
Please read and agree to the consent statement to continue.
Please enter your first and last name and select your primary domain expertise.
Step 2 of 5
Component Ratings
Rate each of the six Immersion Ontology components across four validity dimensions. Expand each component to read its full definition before scoring. All ratings use a 1–7 scale.
0
Components rated
0
Dimensions rated
—
Overall avg / 7
Step 3 of 5
Relationship Validity
The Immersion Ontology specifies formal relationships between components. Evaluate each claim on two dimensions: logical necessity (must this relationship hold by definition?) and empirical plausibility (does evidence from your domain support this claim?).
Step 4 of 5 — Thetis Research
Instrument Feedback
This section is about Thetis itself — not the Immersion Ontology you evaluated. Critical and candid feedback is more valuable than positive feedback for improving this instrument.
Time and effort
Validity dimensions
Components and relationships
Instrument experience
Step 5 of 5
Review & Submit
Review your evaluation summary below. Download both files and email them to the research team. Both files are required for analysis.
Download your files
📄
Download CSV
Structured data for analysis
📋
Download HTML Report
Formatted evaluation summary
Send both downloaded files to scott.warren@unt.edu. The button below pre-fills the subject and body.