Document is current

Article History

Received: 28 November 2025

Accepted: 2 April 2026

First Online: 20 April 2026

Competing interests

: The authors declare no competing interests.

: In this study, ethics approval was not obtained/applicable, because under Taiwan’s Ministry of Education (MOE) research ethics regulations, which outline conditions for exemption from review (免除審查) , Institutional Review Board (IRB) oversight applies only to studies involving intervention, manipulation, collection of personal or sensitive data, or potential physical, psychological, or privacy-related risk to participants. Research limited to the collection of non-sensitive professional opinions from adult experts, without intervention or risk, falls outside the scope of IRB-governed human-subjects research. This Delphi study involved only expert judgments on an academic evaluation rubric. No personal, medical, behavioural, or sensitive data were collected. Although participant identities were known internally for coordination purposes, all responses were handled confidentially and are reported only in aggregated form. Accordingly, ethics approval was not applicable and was not sought, and no approval number applies. All procedures complied with relevant national and institutional regulations for minimal-risk, non-interventional expert-consultation research.

: All expert participants received the informed-consent document before any Delphi questionnaires were administered. Participants reviewed the study information and confirmed their willingness to participate prior to completing the first-round questionnaire. Signed informed-consent forms were subsequently returned to the research team via email or mail between 2024/10/15 and 2025/3/11 , documenting their agreement. The consent form informed participants about: • the purpose of the research (development and validation of a CALP × Revised Bloom’s evaluation rubric), • the voluntary nature of participation, • the three-round Delphi procedure and expected time commitment, • the absence of risk, • the confidentiality and secure storage of their responses (coded and stored for five years before destruction), • the assurance that their identities would not appear in any publications, and • the scope of data use (analysis and publication of aggregated expert feedback). All participants were adult experts, and no minors or vulnerable individuals were involved.