Evaluation of an Innovation in a Traditional Medical School

Cleave-Hogg, Doreen; Byrne, P N

doi:10.1177/016327878801100207

Cited by 6 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 7 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…If results are unpalatable they will be rejected on the grounds of subjectivity of method. Cleave‐Hogg & Byrne (1988) stress the importance of establishing the credibility of data collected by an ethnographic approach when evaluating an innovation in a traditional medical school. Both the ‘hard‐science’ and anthropological approaches (Heilman 1980) are valid, and contribute to the total picture (Miller 1984).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Experiences with a method for obtaining feedback on a medical curriculum undergoing change

Craig

Bandaranayake

1993

Medical Education

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Successful innovation and change in the way medical students are prepared are notoriously difficult. The relationship between the administrative structures of the medical school and its teaching hospitals, other responsibilities of its teachers and administrators, and the intricacies of the curriculum as a system of interrelated components, mean that any real change has wide repercussions. An opportunity for evaluation of a curriculum undergoing change was presented at the University of New South Wales, when the Faculty of Medicine introduced a new 6-year medical curriculum in 1988. The change was made to address a number of problems experienced with the old 5-year curriculum. The Course Evaluation Committee was in a unique position to conduct an ongoing evaluation of the new curriculum, year by year, as it was being introduced. A method for obtaining feedback from both staff and students on a medical curriculum undergoing change, is described. While some sample results are presented, the paper concentrates on the advantages and disadvantages of, and our experiences with, this method. Advantages include the specificity and timing of the information collected, and the high response rate. One disadvantage was the repeated use of the same cohort of students. Some staff still perceived the evaluation process as a threat, or were sceptical about the value and validity of student feedback. Whether staff acknowledged ownership of the new curriculum also affected the use of feedback.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Experiences with a method for obtaining feedback on a medical curriculum undergoing change

Craig

Bandaranayake

1993

Medical Education

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…However, we have obtained only eighteen metaevaluations that are relevant to this paper in the sense of being (1) evaluations of single evaluations conducted for the formative or summative purposes identified in the PgES and (2) identified specifically by the author as a metaevaluation or metaevaluative audit. The sample does not include metaevaluations conducted to develop an evaluation approach (see, for example, Brandon, 1998;Cleave-Hogg & Byrne, 1988;Curran, 2000;Hanssen, Lawrenz, & Dunet, 2008;Rebelloso, Fernández-Ramírez, Cantón, & Pozo, 2002) on the grounds that they are serving a research and development purpose that goes beyond the PgES intent. We also excluded the metaevaluation articles developed specifically for publication in the American Journal of Evaluation's Metaevaluation Section (see Datta, 1999;Grasso, 1999;Sanders, 1999;Stake & Davis, 1999) because these were solicited primarily for educational and illustrative purposes.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Metaevaluation in Practice

Cooksy¹,

Caracelli²

2009

J Multidiscip Eval

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper examines the practice of metaevaluation as indicated by the Metaevaluation standard of the Program Evaluation Standards, as the evaluation of a specific evaluation to inform stakeholders about the evaluation's strengths and weaknesses. The findings from an analysis of eighteen metaevaluations, including a description of the data sources and methods used to come to conclusions about the evaluation and the criteria of quality employed, are reported. A diverse set of practices were identified, ranging from the use of emergent criteria in a narrative review of information about an evaluation to the structured application of the Program Evaluation Standards using a checklist. The paper concludes that the evaluation field does not have a common understanding of metaevaluation practice.

show abstract

“…This situation is also reflected in the field of medical education. For example, while Cleave-Hogg and Byrne 15 and Curran 16 developed new evaluation models, Ruhe and Boudreau 17 made a metric according to the 2011 Program Evaluation Standards. Ruhe and Boudreau 17 stated in their study that these standards can be used in medical education.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Metaevaluation of a Faculty of Medicine Undergraduate Medical Education Program

Gayef,

Ilgaz,

Karlıkaya

2024

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Metaevaluation is a systematic review of an evaluation for the purpose of determining the quality of the processes and findings of the evaluation. This research aims to make use of a metaevaluation process to assess and identify strengths and potential weaknesses associated with the Faculty of Medicine Curriculum Evaluation. Stufflebeams1 Program Evaluations Metaevaluation Checklist was used in the study. The Checklist consist of the attributes which are utility, feasibility, propriety, accuracy and evaluation accountability. A total of 30 standards quality distributions were determined as excellent (10%), very good (20%), good (23.33%), fair (36.67%), and poor (10%). The results were also analyzed in terms of attributes and utility, feasibility and accuracy standards are at a “good “level, but that the propriety and evaluation accountability are not at a sufficient level. Evaluation accountability is at very low level, which is poor. It can be said that the percentage of ratings of the standards rated as “good” and above was 53.33%. In medical education, education programs should be evaluated effectively and continuously as well as systematically. The overall findings in the metaevaluation of the undergraduate medical education program showed that the evaluation is successful in many ways. Key Words: Metaevaluation, Faculty, Medicine, Undergraduate, Medical Education

show abstract

Evaluation of an Innovation in a Traditional Medical School

Cited by 6 publications

References 7 publications

Experiences with a method for obtaining feedback on a medical curriculum undergoing change

Experiences with a method for obtaining feedback on a medical curriculum undergoing change

Metaevaluation in Practice

The Metaevaluation of a Faculty of Medicine Undergraduate Medical Education Program

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About