The growing trend among universities to promote systems of programme and course evaluation entails more responsibility for faculties and departments. These systems require resources to ensure that they are not only valid and reliable but also effective and sustainable. The design of rubric-based assessment systems may provide a solution, but there is a gap in the research on curriculum evaluation concerning their use and validation. We examine the content aspect of validity in a rubric-based assessment system for course syllabuses using a mixed method that combines an analysis of the agreement among 23 experts with a phenomenographic study. With data gathered through a questionnaire linked to the Delphi technique, content validity indexes were calculated and the experts' different perspectives were identified. The content validity indexes (greater than .80) met the standards set out in literature, and the qualitative study of the experts' feedback showed three different perspectives on the system's use. Beyond providing evidence of the system's content validity, the study highlights the extent to which it is important to give appropriate consideration to experts' – and by extension final users' – experience in order to ensure the successful implementation of rubric-based assessment systems.

大学之间日益增长的促进课程和课程评估系统的趋势要求对院系和部门承担更多责任。这些系统需要资源以确保它们不仅有效且可靠，而且有效且可持续。基于专栏的评估系统的设计可能提供解决方案，但是在课程评估方面，关于其使用和验证的研究存在空白。我们使用结合了23位专家之间的共识分析和现象学研究的混合方法，在基于课程大纲的评估体系中检查了有效性的内容方面。通过与Delphi技术链接的问卷收集的数据，计算出内容有效性指标，并确定了专家的不同观点。内容有效性指标（大于.80）符合文献中规定的标准，对专家反馈的定性研究显示了对系统使用的三种不同看法。除了提供系统内容有效性的证据外，该研究还强调了在适当程度上考虑专家的经验以及扩展最终用户的经验以确保成功实施基于评估标准的评估系统的重要性。