Document Type : Original Article
Authors
1 M.Sc. Student in Medical Education, Medical Education and Development Center, Kerman University of Medical Sciences, Kerman, Iran
2 Ph.D. in Nursing Education, Assistant Professor Physiology Research Center, Institute of Neuropharmacology, Kerman University of Medical Sciences, Kerman, Iran
3 Specialist in Community Medicine, Associate Professor, Department of Community Medicine, School of Medicine, Kerman University of Medical Sciences, Kerman, Iran
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
)