Volume 16, Issue 2 (2024)
Res Med Edu 2024, 16(2): 33-43 |
Back to browse issues page
Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
Moharami N, Shakour M. Evaluation of Clinical Course Assessment of Medical Students in Virtual Education. Res Med Edu 2024; 16 (2) :33-43
URL: http://rme.gums.ac.ir/article-1-1364-en.html
URL: http://rme.gums.ac.ir/article-1-1364-en.html
School of Medicine, Arak University of Medical Sciences, Arak, Iran & Medicine School, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, Iran and Nursing & Midwifery Sciences Development Research Center, Islamic Azad University, Najafabad Branch, Iran , ms.shakour@gmail.com
Abstract: (598 Views)
Introduction: One of the important daunting challenges preseted to clinical education is the process of students’ evaluation, which is debatable holding virtual education and the accurate assessment of this process improves clinical evaluation. The present study aimed aim of this study was to assesse the virtual evaluation process of clinical medical students during COVID-19 pandemic.
Methods: This meta-evaluation study was conducted to assess the evaluation process of students using Kirkpatrick's model level 1& 2. A total of 120 clinical medical students were selected from among the students of Arak hospitals by simple random sampling in 2021. The data collection tools incluyded two researcher-made questionnaires (questionnaire related to face-to-face and non-face-to-face evaluation). The validity of the checklist was confirmed by faculty members of Arak University of Medical Sciences with the help of content validity index and content validity ratio. Data were analysed using SPSS software (version 16). In order to compare the variables between the studied populations, by establishing the assumption of normality, parametric tests, such as analysis of variance and independent t, were used. A significance level of .5 was considered.
Results: Comparing the mean scores of three groups of internal medicine trainees before COVID-19 pandemic and two groups during the pandemic demostrated that themean scores decreased significantly during COVID-19 (P=0.02). In the virtual evaluation, students answered the whole 14 questions. 78.8% of students assessed this evaluation method as very unfair. A large percentage of students (63.7) did not consider the score they obtained as an expression of their clinical ability. According to the opinion of the majority, it was very easy to access the site; nonetheles, the results were presented with a delay. In the face-to-face evaluation, students answered seven questions. A large percentage of students did not consider the questions to be in accordance with the education. Both methods had negligible effects on improving motivation and the students believed that they would have gotten a better grade if they used the other method.
Conclusion: The face-to-face and virtual evaluation of clinical students had defects, such as problems with the system and grading, inability to motivate and the assessment of clinical ability and incompatibility of questions with education, requiring further investigations and finding interactive and combined methods.
Methods: This meta-evaluation study was conducted to assess the evaluation process of students using Kirkpatrick's model level 1& 2. A total of 120 clinical medical students were selected from among the students of Arak hospitals by simple random sampling in 2021. The data collection tools incluyded two researcher-made questionnaires (questionnaire related to face-to-face and non-face-to-face evaluation). The validity of the checklist was confirmed by faculty members of Arak University of Medical Sciences with the help of content validity index and content validity ratio. Data were analysed using SPSS software (version 16). In order to compare the variables between the studied populations, by establishing the assumption of normality, parametric tests, such as analysis of variance and independent t, were used. A significance level of .5 was considered.
Results: Comparing the mean scores of three groups of internal medicine trainees before COVID-19 pandemic and two groups during the pandemic demostrated that themean scores decreased significantly during COVID-19 (P=0.02). In the virtual evaluation, students answered the whole 14 questions. 78.8% of students assessed this evaluation method as very unfair. A large percentage of students (63.7) did not consider the score they obtained as an expression of their clinical ability. According to the opinion of the majority, it was very easy to access the site; nonetheles, the results were presented with a delay. In the face-to-face evaluation, students answered seven questions. A large percentage of students did not consider the questions to be in accordance with the education. Both methods had negligible effects on improving motivation and the students believed that they would have gotten a better grade if they used the other method.
Conclusion: The face-to-face and virtual evaluation of clinical students had defects, such as problems with the system and grading, inability to motivate and the assessment of clinical ability and incompatibility of questions with education, requiring further investigations and finding interactive and combined methods.
Type of Study: Research |
Subject:
Educational technology, e-Learning,Virtual Education
References
1. Bashardoust N, Ghadiri D, Haghani S, Bagheri S, Mirfarhadi N. [ Effective criterion on theoretical and practical Teaching from Guilan Dental Students' Viewpoint]. Research in Medical Education 2020;12 (2): 31-8. [Persian] [DOI:10.29252/rme.12.2.31]
2. Birch E, de Wolf M. A novel approach to medical school examinations during the COVID-19 pandemic. Med Educ Online 2020; 25 (1): 1785680. [DOI:10.1080/10872981.2020.1785680]
3. Kelly S. The Exemplary Clinical Instructor: A Qualitative Case Study. Journal of Physical Therapy Education 2007;21:63. [DOI:10.1097/00001416-200701000-00009]
4. Bokaie M, Salimi T. [A new method for clinical assessment of medical students: Computer Adaptive Test (CAT)]. Journal of Medical Education Development 2012;7(3):93-5. [Persian]
5. Imanipour M, Jalili M. [Nursing students clinical evaluation in students and teachers views]. Iranian Journal of Nursing Research 2012; 7(25): 17-26. [Persian]
6. Esmaeili M, Valiee S, Parsa-yekta Z, Ebadi A. [Translation and Psychometric Evaluation of Clinical Performance Assessment Scale among Nursing Students]. Strides in Development of Medical Education. 2013;10 (2): 288-97. [Persian]
7. Stollar F, Cerutti B, Aujesky S, Nendaz M, Galetto-Lacour A. "Evaluation of a best practice approach to assess undergraduate clinical skills in Paediatrics". BMC Med Educ 2020; 20: 46. [DOI:10.1186/s12909-020-1954-7]
8. Mohammadi S, Tolyat M, Roshanzadeh M. [Clinical Evaluation Tool for Operating Room Students: Development and Measurement of Reliability and Validity]. Iranian Journal of Medical Education 2015;15: 98-110. [Persian]
9. Oermann MH, Gaberson KB, De Gagne JC. Evaluation and testing in nursing education. Springer Publishing Company; 2024. [DOI:10.1891/9780826139177]
10. Tahernezhad K, Javidan F. [Advanced Assessment of Medical Students Clinical Performance: Challenges Methods and Approaches] . Strides in Development of Medical Education 2008; 5(1):58-70. [Persian]
11. Benksim A, Elkhoudri N, Addi RA, Baali A, Cherkaoui M. Difference between Primary and Secondary Infertility in Morocco: Frequencies and Associated Factors. Int J Fertil Steril 2018;12 (2):142-6.
12. Mohammadi M, Salimi G, Naseri Jahromi R, Maaref P, Mirqafari F, Saidi M, Taheri F. [Requirements for online exams in the medical education system during the Covid-19 epidemic: A conceptual framework] Educational Development of Judishapur 2021;12 (3):751-67. [Persian]
13. Yardley S, Dornan T. Kirkpatrick's levels and education 'evidence'. Med Educ 2012;46(1): 97-106. [DOI:10.1111/j.1365-2923.2011.04076.x]
14. Rajeev P, Madan MS, Jayarajan K. Revisiting Kirkpatrick's model - an evaluation of an academic training course. Current Science 2009; 96 (2): 272-6.
15. Hajizadeh A, Azizi G, Keyhan G. [Analyzing the opportunities and challenges of e-learning in the Corona era: An approach to the development of e-learning in the post-Corona.] Research in Teaching 2021; 9 (1): 204-174. [Persian]
16. Adel Mashhadsari F, Ataei GR. [The Effect of Web- Based Education on Final Course Grades of physics in Radiology students]. Res Med Edu 2013; 5 (1) :61-66. [Persian] [DOI:10.18869/acadpub.rme.5.1.61]
17. O'Neill E, Humphreys H. Surveillance of hospital water and primary prevention of nosocomial legionellosis: what is the evidence?. J Hosp Infect 2005;59 (4): 273-9. [DOI:10.1016/j.jhin.2004.09.031]
18. Ganji arjenaki B. [Surveying The Quality of Electronic Tests in The Student Satisfaction] Bimonthly of Education Strategies in Medical Sciences 2017;10 (3): 180-8. [Persian]
19. Jafari E, Homayooni Bakhshayesh N, Alamolhoda J. [The lived experiences of students from educational justice in virtual education]. Technology of Education Journal (TEJ) 2021; 15 (2): 222-38. [Persian]
20. Otarkhani A, Delavari V. [Students' assessment of electronic education systems]. Business Management Perspective 2012; 10(43):58-73 [Persian]
21. Mohsenabadi M, Karami S. [Impact of COVID-19 pandemic on assessment of medical students: a student's perspective]. Research in Medical Education 2021;13 (2):1-3. [Persian] [DOI:10.52547/rme.13.2.1]
22. Sefidi F, Rajabizadeh Mirak Abad S, Anhari Y, Ramezani M. [Investigation into the satisfaction and quality level of online tests from the point of view of Qazvin dental students]. Iranian Journal of Medical Education 2022; 22 (0):133-9.[Persian]
Send email to the article author
| Rights and permissions | |
 |
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License. |
