Document Type : Original Article
Authors
1 Department of Reproductive Health and Midwifery, School of Nursing and Midwifery, Member of Nursing and Midwifery Care Research Center, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran
2 Clinical Education Research Center, Shiraz University of Medical Sciences, Shiraz, Iran
3 Department of Reproductive Health and Midwifery, Faculty of Nursing and Midwifery, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Evaluation is one of the most important tools for determining the quality of any
educational program, which can lead to reformation, revision, or termination of programs. Quality
in higher education requires assessment and judgment of goals and strategies, executive policies,
operational processes, products, and outcomes. The Context, Input, Process, and Product (CIPP)
model is a comprehensive perspective that attempts to provide information in order to make the
best decisions related to CIPP. Due to the importance of this topic, the present study examined the
application of the CIPP model in the evaluation of medical education programs through a systematic
review.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this systematic review, Persian databases including ISC, SID, Mag
Iran, CivilicaL, and Noormags and English databases including PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus,
ProQuest Dissertations, Embase, CINAHL, ERIC, and Google Scholar were searched using relevant
keywords, such as evaluation, program evaluations, outcome and process assessment, educational
assessment, and educational measurements. The search was done with no time limits and 41
papers were obtained until May 22, 2020. This systematic review was performed by following the
data extraction steps and assessing the quality of the studies and findings. Critical Appraisal Skills
Programs and Mixed‑Methods Appraisal Tool checklists were used to check the quality of the papers.
RESULTS: This systematic review was conducted on 41 studies, 40 of which were research papers
and one was a review paper. From the perspective of the CIPP model of evaluation, most papers
showed quite a good level of evaluation of educational programs although some studies reported
poor levels of evaluation. Moreover, factors such as modern teaching methods, faculty members,
financial credits, educational content, facilities and equipment, managerial and supervisory process,
graduates’ skills, produced knowledge, and teaching and learning activities were reported as the
factors that could influence the evaluation of educational programs.
CONCLUSION: Due to the important role of evaluation in improvement of the quality of educational
programs, policymakers in education should pay special attention to the evaluation of educational
programs and removal of their barriers and problems. To promote the quality of educational
programs, policymakers and officials are recommended to make use of the CIPP model of evaluation
as a systemic approach that can be used to evaluate all stages of an educational program from
development to implementation.
Keywords
external evaluation on upgrading the quality of higher education
system: Babol University of Medical Sciences case. IRPHE. 2017;
22:99‑111.
2. Pazargadi M, Azadi Ahmadabadi G. Quality and Quality
Assessment in Universities and Higher Education Institutions.
Tehran: Boshra Publishers; 2008. p. 45‑9.
3. Leverenz L. Allied Health Education Program Accreditation‑what
does it mean?. Available from: http://www.medical‑colleges.
net/alliedhealth.htm.[ Last accessed on 2014 May 19]
4. Thawabieh AM. Students evaluation of faculty. Int Educ Stud
2017;10 :35‑43.
5. Amini R, Vanaki Z, Emamzadeh Ghassemi H. The validity
and reliability of an evaluation tool for nursing management
practicum. Iran J Med Educ 2005;5:23‑31.
6. Stufflebeam DL, Zhang G. The CIPP Evaluation Model: How to
Evaluate for Improvement and Accountability. 1st ed. New York:
Guilford Publications; 2017.
7. Saif AA. Educational Measurement, Assessment and Evaluation
. 7th ed. Tehran: Dowran Publisher; 2017.
8. Frye AW, Hemmer PA. Program evaluation models and related
theories: AMEE guide no. 67. Med Teach 2012;34:288‑99.
9. Gandomkar R, Mirzazadeh A. Cipp Evaluation model.
Supporting planners and implementers of educational programs.
Developmental steps in medical education. J Med Educ Dev Dev
Center 2014;11:401‑2.
10. CASP Checklists‑Critical Appraisal Skills Programme. Available
from: https://casp‑uk.net/casp‑tools‑checklists. [Last accessed
on 23 Oct 2020].
11. Bahri N, Latifnejad Roudsari R. A Critical Appraisal of Research
Evidence on Iranian Women’s Attitude towards Menopause.
IJOGI 2016; 18 :1‑11.
12. Hong Q N, Fabregues S, Bartlett G. et al. The Mixed Methods
Appraisal Tool(MMAT) version2018 for information professionals
and researchers. Education for Information 2018; 34: 285‑291.
13. Hong Q, Gonzalez‑Reyes A, Pluye P. Improving the usefulness
of a tool for appraising the quality of qualitative, quantitative
and mixed methods studies, the Mixed Methods Appraisal
Tool (MMAT). J Eval Clin Pract 2018; 24: 459‑67.
14. Habib Zadeh S, Far YM. Internal evaluation of Midwifery in
Islamic Azad University of Mahabad. Eur J Exp Biol 2012; 2:
1175‑80.
15. Ehsanpour S. Achieving minimum learning requirements from the
viewpoints of midwifery students in Isfahan School of Nursing
and Midwifery. Iran J Med Educ 2006;6:17‑24. .
16. AbdiShahshahania M, Ehsanpourb S, Yamanic N, Kohand S,
Hamidfare B. The Evaluation of Reproductive Health PhD
Program in Iran: A CIPP Model Approach 2015;197:88‑97.
17. AbdiShahshahani M, Ehsanpour S, Yamani N, Kohan S. The
evaluation of reproductive health PhD program in Iran: The input
indicators analysis. Iran J Nurs Midwifery Res 2014;19:620‑8.
18. Kool B, Michelle R. Is the delivery of a quality improvement
education programme in obstetrics and gynaecology for final
year medical students feasible and still effective in a shortened
time frame? BMC Med Educ 2017;17:2‑9.
19. Mohebbi N, Akhlaghib F, Hossein Yarmohammadian M,
Khoshgamd M. Application of CIPP model for evaluating the
medical records education course at master of science level at
Iranian medicalsciences universities. Procedia Soc Behav Sci
2011;15:3286‑90.
20. Maqbool Ali , Soyeon Caren Han , Hafiz Syed Muhammad Bilal,
Sungyoung Lee , Matthew Jee Yun Kang , Byeong Ho Kang , et al.
iCBLS: An interactive case‑based learning system for medical
education. Int J Med Inform 2018;109:55‑69.21. So Young Lee , Seung Hee Lee , Jwa Seop Shin.Evaluation of
medical humanities course in college of medicine using the
context, input, process, and product evaluation model. J Korean
Med Sci 2019;34:1‑16.
22. Phattharayuttawat S, Chantra Y, Chaiyasit W. An evaluation of
the curriculum of a graduate programme in Clinical Psychology.
South East Asian J Med Educ 2009;3:14‑9.
23. Bazrafshan A, Haghdoost AA, Rezaei H, Beigzadeh A.
A practical framework for evaluating health services
management educational program: The application of the
mixed‑method sequential explanatory design. Res Dev Med
Educ 2015;4:47‑54.
24. Powell B , Conrad E . Utilizing the CIPP model as a means to
develop an integrated service‑learning component in a university
health course. J Health Educ Teach 2015;6:21‑32.
25. Mirzazadeh A, Gandomkar R, Mortaz Hejri S, Hassanzadeh G,
Emadi Koochak H, Golestani A. Undergraduate medical
education programme renewal: A longitudinal context, input,
process and product evaluation study. Perspect Med Educ
2016;5:15‑23.
26. YarmohammadianMH, Mohebbi N. Review evaluation indicators
of health information technology course of master’s degree in
medical sciences universities’ based on CIPP Model. J Edu Health
Promot 2015;4:1‑8.
27. Rooholamini A, Amini M, Bazrafkan L, Dehghani MR,
Esmaeilzadeh Z, Nabeiei P, et al. Program evaluation of an
integrated basic science medical curriculum in Shiraz Medical
School, using CIPP evaluation model. J Adv Med Educ Prof
2017;5:148‑54.
28. Adham A, Diala AH. The transition to blended learning in a school
of nursing at a developing country: An evaluation. J Educ Tech
2014;11:16‑21.
29. Kim MJ, Lee H, Kim HK, Ahn YH, Kim E, Yun SN, et al. Quality
of faculty, students, curriculum and resources for nursing
doctoral education in Korea: A focus group study. Int J Nurs Stud
2010;47:295‑306.
30. Lippe M, Carter P. Using the CIPP model to assess nursing
education program qualityand merit1. Teach Learn Nurs
2017;3:1‑5.
31. Ashghali‑Farahani M, Ghaffari F, Hoseini SS. Neonatal intensive
care nursing curriculum challenges based on context, input,
process, and product evaluation model: A qualitative study. Iran
J Nurs Midwifery Res 2018;23:111‑8.
32. Souto RQ, Pereira Linhares FM, De Melo Canêjo MI, Solange F,
Tourinho V, Cavalcanti Cordeiro R et al. Teaching‑learning
methodologies from the perspective of nursing students. Rev
Rene 2018;19:3408.
33. Neyazi N, Arab PM, Farzianpour F, Mahmoudi Majdabadi M.
Evaluation of selected faculties at Tehran University of Medical
Sciences using CIPP model in students and graduates point of
view. Eval Program Plann 2016;59:88‑93.
34. Nagata S, Gregg MF, Miki Y, Arimoto A, Murashima S,
Kim MJ. Evaluation of doctoral nursing education in Japan by
students, graduates, and faculty: A comparative study based
on a cross‑sectional questionnaire survey. Nurse Educ Today
2012;32:361‑7.
35. So young Lee, Jwa‑Seop Shin, and Seung‑Hee Lee .How to execute
Context, Input, Process, and Product evaluation model in medical
health education. J Educ Eval Health Prof 2019;16 (40):1‑8.
36. Akhlaghi F, Yarmohammadian MH, Khoshgam M, Mohebbi N.
Evaluating the Quality of Educational Programs in Higher
Education Using the CIPP Model. Health Inform Manage
2011;8:629.
37. Okhovati M, YazdiFeyzabadi V, Beigzadeh A, Shokoohi M,
Mehrolhassani M. Evaluating the program of bachelor degree
in health services management at kerman university of medical
sciences, Iran, Using the CIPP model (Context, Input, Process,
Product). Strid Dev Med Educ 2014;11:101‑13.
38. Yazdani N, Moradi M. Evaluation of the quality of undergraduate
nursing education program in Ahvaz based on CIPP evaluation
model. Sadra Med Sci J 2017;5:159‑72.
39. Tabari M, Nourali Z, Khafri S, Gharekhani S, Jahanian I.
Evaluation of educational programs of pediatrics, orthodontics
and restorative departments of babol dental schools from the
perspective of the students based on the CIPP model. Caspian J
Dent Res 2016;5:8‑16.
40. Pakdaman A, Soleimani Shayesteh Y, Kharazi fard MJ, Kabosi R.
Evaluation of the achievement of educational objectives of the
Community Oral Health and Periodontics Departments using the
CIPP model of evaluation Students’ perspective. J Dent Tehran
Univ Med Sci 2011;24:20‑2.
41. Tabari M, Nourali Z, Jahanian I , Khafri S. Evaluation of
educationalprograms in endodontics, periodontics and oral &
maxillofacial surgery departments of babol dental school from
students’ perspective based on CIPP model. Caspian J Dent Res
2018;7:8‑15.
42. Jannati A, Gholami M, Narimani M, Gholizadeh M, Kabiri N.
Evaluating educational program of bachelor of sciences in health
services management using CIPP model in Tabriz. Depict Health
2017;8:104‑10.
43. MakaremA, MovahedT, SarabadaniJ, ShakerM, Asadian LalimT,
Neda Eslam . Evaluation of educational status of oral health
and community dentistry department at Mashhad dental
school using CIPP evaluation model in 2013. Mash Dent Sch
2015;38:347‑62.
44. Alimohammadi T, Rezaeian M, Bakhshi H, VaziriNejad R. The
Evaluation of the Medical School Faculty of Rafsanjan University
of Medical Sciences Based on the CIPP Model in 2010. J Rafsanjan
Univ Med Sci 2013;12:205‑18.
45. Hemati Z, Irajpour A, Allahbakhshian M, Varzeshnejad M,
AbdiShahshahaniM. . Evaluating the neonatal intensive care
nursing MSc program based on CIPP model in Isfahan university
of medical sciences. Iran J Med Educ 2018;18:324‑32.
46. Tezakori Z, Mazaheri E, Namnebat M, Torabizadeh K, Fathi S,
Ebrahimibil F. The evaluation of PhD nursing in Iran (Using the
CIPP Evaluation Model). J Faculty Nurs Midwifery 2010;12:44‑51.
47. Saberian M, Asgari M, Asadi AA, Nobahar M, Atashnafas E,
Ghods AA, et al. The pattern for internal evaluation of nursing
school. J Med Semnan Med Sci Univ Special Med Educ
2003;5:59‑68.
48. Esfeden ZB, Dashtgard A, Ebadinejad Z. Evaluation of the
realization of clinical nursing students’ learning objectives using
CIPP evaluation model. Iran J Nurs Res 2020;14:66‑73.
49. Mahram B, Vahidi M, Areshtanab N. Achievement of educational
goals from the perspectives of undergraduate nursing students
and head nurses. J Nurs Educ 2012;1:29‑35.
50. Owlia Z, MotahariNejad H. Comprehensive evaluation of
the anatomy department of the Shahid Sadoughi University
of Medical Sciences, Yazd, based on CIPP model.The second
international conference on innovation and research in educational
sciences, management and psychology. 2018:1‑6. Available from:
https://www.civilica.com/Paper‑HPCONF02‑HPCONF02_192.
html. [Last accessed on 23 Oct 2020].
51. Mohebbi N, Yarmohammadian M. Develop evaluation indicators
of health information technology course at master’s degree
in selected medical sciences universities. Health Inf Manage
2013;10:570.
52. Mazloomy Mahmoudabad SS, Moradi L. Evaluation of Externship
curriculum for public health Course in Yazd University of
Medical Sciences using CIPP model. J Educ Strategies Med Sci
2018;11:27‑36.
53. Shayan S, Mohammadzadeh Z, Entezari MH, Falahati M.
Designing the internal evaluation indicators of educational
planning in postgraduate program (input, process, outcome domains) in public health faculty. Isfahan. Iran J Med Educ
2010;10:994‑1005.
54. Siswadi Y, Houghty GS, Agustina T. Implementation of the
CIPP evaluation model in Indonesian nursing schools. J Ners
2019:14:126‑31.
55. Danaei SM, Mazareie E, Hosseininezhad S, Nili M. Evaluating
the clinical quality of departments as viewed by juniors
and seniors of Shiraz dental school. J Edu Health Promot
2015;4:75:1‑7.
56. Fitzpatrick JL, Sanders JR, Worthen BR. Program Evaluation:
Alternative Approaches and Practical Guidelines. 4th ed.
Washington: Pearson Publishers; 2011.
)