A Comparison of Common and 360-Degree Evaluation Methods in terms of Clinical Skills of Surgical Technology Students in Kerman University of Medical Sciences, Iran, in 2013

AUTHORS

Somaeih Mousavi 1 , Sakineh Sabzevari 2 , * , Hossein Safizadeh 3

AUTHORS INFORMATION

1 M.Sc. Student in Medical Education, Medical Education and Development Center, Kerman University of Medical Sciences, Kerman, Iran, Iran

2 Ph.D. in Nursing Education, Assistant Professor, Physiology Research Center, Institute of Neuropharmacology, Kerman University of Medical Sciences, Kerman, Iran, Iran

3 Specialist in Community Medicine, Associate Professor, Department of Community Medicine, School of Medicine, Kerman University of Medical Sciences, Kerman, Iran, Iran

ARTICLE INFORMATION

Strides in Development of Medical Education: 12 (S1); e59578
Published Online: March 28, 2015
Article Type: Research Article
Received: August 07, 2017
Accepted: February 17, 2015

Crossmark

CHEKING

READ FULL TEXT
Abstract

Background & Objective: The use of an integrated and approved method in clinical evaluation is of great importance. The aim of this research was the comparison of the 360-degree and common evaluation methods in clinical skills evaluation of undergraduate surgical technology students in Kerman University of Medical Sciences, Iran, during the operating room technical training course.

Methods: This single group interventional study was performed on 4th semester students in surgical technology at Kerman University of Medical Sciences in the operating room of Shahid Bahonar Hospital of Kerman. The data collection tool consisted of a questionnaire which was completed by 24 students and 2 lecturers.. Data were analyzed using SPSS software and paired and independent t-tests.

Results: Findings showed that mean age of students was 21.20 ± 0.56 years and most of them were females. Mean and standard deviation of total score of the common and 360-degree evaluation methods were 17.66 ± 0.86 and 17.88 ± 0.88, respectively. There was no significant differences between the mean scores of these methods (P = 0.001). Students had relative satisfaction with the 360-degree evaluation method (score = 6.12 ± 64.77) and relative dissatisfaction with the common evaluation method (score = 38.11 ± 08.49). There was a significant difference between students satisfaction with these two methods (P < 0.001). Lecturers had relative dissatisfaction with the common evaluation method (score = 47.51 ± 6.64) and complete satisfaction with the 360-degree evaluation method (score = 85.98 ± 9.84).

Conclusion: The students’ 360-degree evaluation score was similar to that obtained through their evaluation by lecturers. Considering students’ relative satisfaction and lecturers’ total satisfaction with the 360-degree method, in comparison to their relative dissatisfaction with the common method, it seems that using this method can be effective in the modification of their dissatisfaction with the current clinical evaluation method.

Keywords

Common evaluation 360-degree evaluation Student evaluation Operating room

© 2015, Strides in Development of Medical Education. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) which permits copy and redistribute the material just in noncommercial usages, provided the original work is properly cited.
Fulltext

 

Full text is available in pdf

 

 

References
  • 1. Reference is available in pdf
  • COMMENTS

    LEAVE A COMMENT HERE: