Category Weighting = Foundation Financial Soundness (40%) + Foundation–University Financial Soundness (20%) + Sustainability (40%)
| Foundation Evaluation Model | Indicator Name | Weight | Evaluation Details by Indicator |
|---|---|---|---|
| 100% | Total | 100% | The method for calculating evaluation scores is defined separately |
| Foundation Financial Soundness (40%) | Foundation Fund Settlement and Asset Size | 5% | Relative evaluation of fund settlement results and asset size of university foundations |
| Foundation Transfer Contribution Ratio | 10% | Degree to which the foundation fulfills its financial responsibility to the university | |
| Revenue-Generating Basic Asset Securing Ratio | 5% | Securing ratio and profitability of revenue-generating basic assets held by the foundation | |
| Foundation Share of University Operating Expenses | 3% | Relative evaluation score of the proportion of operating expenses borne by the foundation | |
| Statutory Contribution Fulfillment Ratio | 12% | Relative evaluation of the foundation’s share of the four major statutory contributions | |
| Status of Foundation Reserves | 5% | Total amount and breakdown of reserves held by the foundation | |
| Foundation–University Financial Soundness (20%) | Tuition Dependence Ratio OR Personnel Cost Ratio | 10% | Use the higher score between tuition dependence ratio and personnel cost expenditure ratio |
| Debt Ratio (Relative Evaluation Based on Reserves) | 5% | Assessment of financial stability based on the total debt ratio of the foundation and university | |
| Current-Year Donation Status of Foundation and University | 5% | Relative evaluation of the total amount of current-year donations (general, designated, research) | |
| Sustainability (40%) | Foundation Board Composition and Operation Indicators | 10% | Adequacy and rationality of board composition and decision-making processes |
| Foundation Committee / Subsidiary Operation Indicators | 3% | Evaluation of the structure and operation of various committees and subsidiaries of the foundation | |
| Total Score and Ranking in the INUE University Evaluation | 12% | Linkage to university evaluation results, a core requirement for foundation sustainability | |
| Rationality of Foundation’s University Personnel Management | 5% | Foundation management score for faculty and staff appointments, assignments, and promotions | |
| Presidential Election Method and Term | 10% | Evaluation of presidential selection method (appointment / indirect / direct election) and term (2 / 3 / 4 years) |
After collecting big data, six criteria are applied for verification: completeness (whether any information is missing), consistency (absence of contradictions), accuracy (alignment with actual figures), uniqueness (no duplication), validity (meaningfulness of the data), and timeliness (use of up-to-date data). In addition, to check for outliers that are excessively large or small, statistical measures such as the interquartile range (IQR), Z-scores, skewness (distribution asymmetry), and kurtosis (distribution peakedness) are used to further verify data reliability. Using Cronbach’s α and McDonald’s ω, the consistency and reliability of the detailed indicators are validated. All three domains—Financial Soundness (I), Financial Soundness (II), and Sustainability—adequately reflect their original evaluation purposes and enable the derivation of highly reliable evaluation results.
