Document Type : Original Article
Authors
Department of Medical Records Education and Health Information Management, Health Management and Economics Research Centre, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, Iran
Abstract
Background: Sensitivity of teaching and learning processes in universities emphasizes
the necessity of assessment of the quality of education which improves the efficiency and
effectiveness of the country. This study was conducted with an aim to review and develop the
evaluation criteria of health information technology course at Master of Science level in Tehran,
Shahid Beheshti, Isfahan, Shiraz, and Kashan medical universities in 2012 by using CIPP model.
Materials and Methods: This was an applied and descriptive research with statistical population
of faculty members (23), students (97), directorates (5), and library staff (5), with a total of
130 people, and sampling was done as a census. In order to collect data, four questionnaires
were used based on Likert scale with scores ranging from 1 to 5. Questionnaires’ validity was
confirmed by consulting with health information technology and educational evaluation experts,
and questionnaires’ reliability of directorates, faculty, students, and library staff was tested using
the Cronbach’s alpha coefficient formula, which gave r = 0.74, r = 0.93, r = 0.98, and r = 0.80,
respectively. SPSS software for data analysis and both descriptive and inferential statistics
containing mean, frequency percentage, standard deviation, Pearson correlation, and Spearman
correlation were used. Results: With studies from various sources, commentary of experts, and
based on the CIPP evaluation model, 139 indicators were determined and then evaluated, which
were associated with this course based on the three factors of context, input, and process in the
areas of human resources professional, academic services, students, directors, faculty, curriculum,
budget, facilities, teaching–learning activities, and scientific research activities of students and
faculty, and the activities of the library staff. Conclusion: This study showed that in total, the
health information technology course at the Master of Science level is relatively good, but trying
to improve and correct it in some areas and continuing the evaluation process seems necessary.
Keywords
- Weber L. Justification and methods of university evaluation:
A European perspective. California: Sage Press 2003.
2. Bazargan A. Internal evaluation to quality assurance in higher
education: The case of medical education in Iran. J Med Educ
2001;1:23‑7.
3. Firdaus A. Measuring Service Quality in Higher Education: Three
instruments compared. Int J Rescard Method Educ 2006;29:71‑89.
4. Kome P. Evaluation of course, students and teachers in UNSCO.
Higher education in Africa: Trends and challenges for the 21 century.
Dakar: UNSCO Regional Office; 1992. p. 147‑80.
5. Entezari Y. Provide a model for harmonization of higher education
in the development of knowledge‑based employment system,
the fifth development plan, economic, social and cultural Islamic
Republic of Iran Quarterly journal of Research and Planning in Higher
Education, Special 5th Development Plan, Department of Science
and Technology Quarterly journal of Research and Planning in
Higher Education 2009;15:53‑66.
6. Houston D. Rethinking quality and improvement in higher education.
Qual Assur Educ 2008;16:61‑79.
7. Ng PT. The phases and paradoxes of educational quality assurance:
The case of the Singapore education system. Qual Assur Educ
2008;16:112‑25.
8. Shrestha D. Managing higher education institutions. Adm Manage
Rev 2010;5:21‑32.
9. Wolf RM. Evaluation in education: Foundations of competency
assessment and program review. 3rd ed. New York: Praeger
Publishers; 1990.
10. Mohammadi R. Necessity for external evaluation. Res Eval J
2002;3:4‑5.
11. Mahmoudi Z. Evaluation of Master’s Degree Program of Medical
Records from View Point of Graduates. Tehran, Iran: Tehran
University, School of Psychology and Educational Sciences; 2004.
12. Mohammadzadeh Z. Developing indicators of training programs
graduate courses (MSc ‑ PhD) based on input patterns, processes
and outputs of the Department of Health. Isfahan, Iran: Isfahan
University of Medical Sciences, Research Assistant Medical
Education Research Center; 2003.
13. Kaufman R, Guerra I, Platt WA. Practical evaluation for educatores.
California, Crowin Press, Thousand Oaks, California: A Sage
Publications Company; 2006. P. 54‑72.
14. Yarmohammadian MH, Kalbasi A. Internal Evaluation of Departments
in the School of Management and Medical Information, Isfahan
University of Medical Sciences. Iran J Med Educ 2006;6:25‑34.
15. Hoveida R, Siadat S. Eshaghian M. A comparison of study and
faculty members’ viewpoints about the application of TQM indices at
the University of Isfahan studies in educations. Isfahan, Iran: Isfahan
University, School of Psychology and Educational Sciences; 2004.
16. Marieta O. Quality check‑up report. Marietta, United States:
Washington state community College; 2004.
17. Bazargan A. Introduction to assessing quality in higher medical
education. Qual Higher Educ 1999;5:61‑8.
18. Stufflebeam D. Evaluation Checklists Project. Jun 2007. Available
from: http://www.wmich.edu/evalctr/checklists [Last accessed on
2010 Nov 25].
19. Courier university management. Educational Journal of University
Management. Ministry of Health and Medical Education, Department
of Education and Academic Affairs. Tehran: Secretariat of Council
planning in Medical Sciences; 2001. Sheikhi MH, Oveyssi N,
Heidari MR, Iqbal AA. Review process of evaluating dental school
departments. Green Journal, Journal of Medical Education Forum,
Special Issue Proceedings of National Congress of Medical
Education 2009;6:111‑20.
20. Halacher M. Making a Difference with Health Information J AHIMA
2000;71:92‑3.
21. Ball M. New Roles, New Responsibilities. J AHIMA 1999;70:22‑6.
22. Dixon LC. An International Curriculum for the Health Information
Management/Health Record Administration Professional Workforce.
Melbourne, Australia: Mall Press; 2005.
23. AHIMA. Curriculum model associated degree education in health
information management framework for HIM Education. 2010.
Available from: http://www.AHIMA.org [Last accessed on 2011
Apr 14].
24. Ministry of Health, Treatment, and Medical Education. General
specifications of programs and courses of Masters Degree in health information technology. Assistant Education and University Affairs.
Tehran: High Council Planning Medical Sciences; 2010.
25. Chapman DD. Building an evaluation plan for fully online
degree programs. Online J Distance Learn Adm 2006;6:67‑75.
Available from: http://www.westga.edu/~distance/ojdla/spring91/
chapman91.htm [Last accessed on 2011 Sep 11].
26. Ghadipasha A. Evaluation of bachelor degree of mathematics course
in the state universities of Tehran based on CIPP model. Tehran,
Iran: Tehran University; 2003.
27. Jamshidian S. Teaching evaluation of Ambulatory pediatrics
in Isfahan medical sciences university based on CIPP model.
Isfahan, Iran: Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Educational
Development Center; 2008.
28. Well KR, Furgason J, Marx DS. Research and evaluation needs for
distance education: A delphi study. Online J Distance Learn Adm
2000;3:59‑67.
29. Fatma M. A systems approach to program evaluation model for
quality in higher education. J Qual Assur Educ 2006;14:37‑53.
30. Hall MA, Daly BJ, Madigan LA. Use of anecdotal notes by clinical
nursing faculty: A descriptive study. J Nurs Educ 2010;49:156‑60.
31. Zandvanyan Naeni A. Comprehensive evaluation of teaching
training institutions in Khuzestan based on CIPP model. Journal
of Psychology and Educational Sciences, Ahvaz Shahid Chamran
University 2006;3:137‑62.
32. Skurka M. Health Information Management Education in USA:
Curriculum and Competencies in Conjunction with the 21st Century.
Proceedings of the 13th International Health Records Congress in
Conjunction with the 21st Conference of HIMAA; 2000 Oct 2‑6;
Melbourn, Australia; 2000.
33. Bazrafshan A. Evaluation inputs of education program in MSc of
medical Library and information sciences based on the cipp model
in Iran’s University of Medical Sciences in 2010. Tehran, Iran:
Tehran University of Medical Sciences, School of management and
information Sciences; 2010.
34. Akhlaghi F, Yarmohammadian M H, Khoshgam M, Mohebbi N.
Evaluating the Quality of Educational Programs in Higher Education
Using the CIPP Model. Health Managet Inf J 2010;8:621‑9.
35. Westbrook JI, Callen J, Lewis M. A glimpse into the future: A survey
of the expectations and ambitions of Australian health information
management students. Top Health Inf Manage 1997;18:77‑86.
36. Pakdaman A, Soleimani Shayesteh Y, Kharazi fard MJ, Kabosi R.
Evaluation achievement of training objectives of Periodontics and
Oral Health training groups of Tehran University from view point
of dental students based on CIPP evaluation model. Dent J Tehran
Univ Med Sci 2011;24:20‑5.
37. Yarmohammadian MH, Kalbasi A. Internal evaluation of departments
in the school of management and medical information, Isfahan
University of Medical Sciences. Iran J Med Educ 2006;6:125‑34.
38. Yarmohammadian MH, Mozaffary M, Saghaeiannejad ES. Evaluation
of quality of education in higher education based on Academic
Quality Improvement Program (AQIP) Model. Procedia ‑ Soc Behav
Sci 2011;15:2917‑22.
39. Lagrosen S, Seyyed‑Hashemi R, Leitner M. Examination of the
dimensions of quality in higher education. Qual Assur Educ
2004;12:61‑9.
40. The board of regent of the University of Wisconsin system. Clinical
investigator preparatory program. 2005. Available from: http://www.
medicine.wisc.edu/mainweb/[Last accessed on 2010 Jul 05].
)