Strides in Development of Medical Education

Document Type : Original Article


1 PhD of Library and Information Sciences, Medical Information Research Center, Institute for Futures Studies in Health, Kerman University of Medical Sciences, Kerman, Iran.

2 PhD Candidate in Health Policy, Department of Health Management and Economics, School of Public Health, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran

3 PhD Candidate in Medical Education, Research Center for Health Services Management, Institute for Futures Studies in Health, Kerman University of Medical Sciences, Kerman, Iran

4 M.Sc. in Epidemiology, Research Center for Modeling in Health, Institute for Futures Studies in Health, Kerman University of Medical Sciences, Kerman, Iran

5 PhD of Health Care Management, Research Center for Modeling in Health, Institute for Futures Studies in Health, Kerman University of Medical Sciences, Kerman, Iran


  Background & Objective: Evaluation is necessary to ensure the quality of education in any educational system Any educational program needs to be evaluated critically before any modification and revision This study was conducted to evaluate the program of Bachelor Degree in Health Services Management at Kerman University of Medical Sciences Iran by applying the CIPP model of evaluation (Context Input Process Product)   Methods: In this crosssectional descriptive study 10 faculty members 64 students and 90 alumni participated Three valid and reliable questionnaires were completed regarding four dimensions and nine domains of CIPP model In order to analyze the data ManWhitney Pearson correlation and descriptive statistic tests were applied   Results: The whole scores for the context input process and product were 234 297 368 and 255 respectively Faculty members significantly gave a higher total score for context in comparison to alumni (P < 005) nevertheless there was not any significant difference between these both groups regarding the product total score In addition there was not any significant difference between faculty members and students in input and process scores A significant correlation was observed for different dimensions of the CIIP model (P < 005) Totally health care management program was evaluated as a partially accepted program   Conclusion: CIPP evaluation model can show the advantages and disadvantages of an educational program therefore decision and policy makers can come to a point whether to stop review or continue a program


  1. Maroufi Y, Kiamanesh AR, Mehrmohammadi M. Teaching assessment in higher education: an investigation of current approaches. Journal of curriculum studies 2007; 2(5): 81-112. [In Persian]
  2. Sanai Nasab H, Dellavari AR, Ghanjal A. Employment status of health-treatment services management alumni. J Mil Med 2010; 11(4): 203-8. [In Persian]
  3. Yarmohammadian M, Kalbasi A. Internal Evaluation of Departments in the School of Management and Medical Informatics, Isfahan University of Medical Science. Iran J Med Educ 2006; 6 (1):125-34. [In Persian]
  4. Green ME, Ellis CL, Frémont P, Batty H. Faculty evaluation in departments of family medicine: Do our Universities measure up? Med Educ 1998; 32(6):597–606.
  5. Worthern BR, Sanders JR, Fitzpatrick JL. Program evaluation-Alternative approaches and practical guidelines. 2th ed. New York: Longman Inc; 1997.
  6. Hakan K, Seval F. CIPP evaluation model scale: development, reliability and validity. Procedia Soc Behav Sci 2011; 15: 592-9.
  7. Seif AA. Methods of educational measurement and evaluation 18th ed. Tehran: Dowran; 2006. [In Persian]
  8. Tazakori Z, Namnabat M, Torabizadeh K. Evaluation of the doctoral Nursing degree in Iran: Application of CIPP model. Iran J Health Care 2010; 12(2): 44-51. [In Persian]
  9. Hall MA, Daly BJ, Madigan EA. Use of anecdotal notes by clinical nursing faculty: a descriptive study. Journal Nurs Educ 2010; 49(3): 156-9.
  10. Al-Khathami A. Evaluation of Saudi Family Medicine Training Program: The application of CIPP evaluation format. Med Teach 2012; 34(s1): s81-s9.
  11. Torabi A. Introduction to health care management curricula. Tehran; Tehran University; 2003; 1-24. [In Persian]
  12. Akhlaghi F, Yarmohammadian MH, Khoshgam M, Mohebbi N. Evaluating the Quality of Educational Programs in Higher Education Using the CIPP Model. Health Inf Manage 2011; 8(5): 621-9. [In Persian]
  13. Shadfar H, Liaghatdar M, Sharif M. Investigating Conformity Scope of Educational Planning and Administration Curriculum with Students Needs. J Res Plann High Educ 2012; 17 (4):123-46. [In Persian]
  14. Semyari H, Kamani GR, Zaviyeh D. Evaluation of the achievement of educational objectives of the periodontics and restorative departments in Shahed and Tehran colleges. J Babol Univ Med Sci 2003; 3(19): 25-9. [In Persian]
  15. Fathi Vajargah K, Jamali Tazehkand M, Zamanaimanesh H, Youzbashi A. The obstacles to curriculum change in higher education: Viewpoints of faculty members of Shahid Beheshti University and Shahid Beheshti Medical University. Iran J Med Educ 2012; 11(7): 768-78. [In Persian]
  16. Salmanzadeh H, Khoshkam M. Awareness and satisfaction of students of health services management about their course: Iran University of Medical Sciences. J Health Adm 1999; 2 (4):74-83. [In Persian]
  17. Tabibi SJ, Hajavi A, Ranandeklanksh L. Comparative Study of the Curriculum in Master Degree of Medical Records (Health Information Management) in Several Selected Countries: and Modeling for Iran. J Health Adm 2001; 4(10):5-18. [In Persian]
  18. Keshtkar V. The survey of the instruction trend and graduates employment of health services administration major between 1989 and 1995, Msc thesis, Tehran: University of Iran, 1997. [In Persian]
  19. Bharvad AJ. Curriculum Evaluation. Int Res J 2010; 1(12): 72-4.
  20. Nikkhah M, Sharif M, Nasr AR, Talebi H. A feasibility of the post-graduate curriculum, based on the CIPP-model. Biennial Journal of Management and Planning in Educational Systems 2012; 4(7): 100-32. [In Persian]
  21. Stufflebeam DL. The CIPP Model for Evaluation. Presented Conference of the at the Oregon Annual Program Evaluators Network. Portland: Oregon; 2003.