فهرست نشریات علمی دسترسی آزاد ایران

Introduction: University teachers are one of the main pillars of university and the quality of theirperformance must continuously and systematically be evaluated. This evaluation can be carriedout in various ways. The aim of the present study was to survey and to compare the evaluationof faculty members in the medical school in Birjand University of Medical Sciences by threedifferent sources: Student rating, self‑assessment, and evaluation by head of related department.Materials and Methods: This descriptive analytical cross‑sectional study was conducted in theacademic year 2009‑2010. Sampling was drawn from all students studying basic science andclinical training in the first and the second semesters. All heads of departments in basic scienceand clinical training and their faculty members took part in this study. Means of data collectionwere four different questionnaires designed in the education development center (EDC) and theirvalidity and reliability had been verified by the center. These questionnaires were based on studentrating, self‑assessment, and evaluation of faculty members by heads of clinical and basic sciencesacademic departments. After the questionnaires were filled out, the obtained data was analyzedby Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) software (version 13), independent t‑test,and Pearson’s correlation coefficient at the significant level of  = 0.05. Results: In the presentstudy, 2417 students completed the questionnaires regarding 63 faculty members, 87 facultymembers completed the self‑assessment form, and for 60 faculty members, 48 members in clinicaland 12 members in basic science, the questionnaires were completed by heads of respectivedepartments. Mean and standard deviation of student evaluation, self‑assessment, and teachersevaluation by heads of departments were 3.23 ± 0.38, 3.51 ± 0.33, and 3.60 ± 0.32, respectively,and the difference between student rating andself‑assessment was significant (P = 0.02). Incomparing between managers scores withstudents evaluation, no significant differencewas observed (P = 0.68). Comparisonbetween self‑assessment and teachersscores by managers showed a significantdifference (P = 0.04). Mean scores of facultymembers in clinical training and in basicscience were 3.23 ± 0.73 and 3.31 ± 0.69on the part of students, respectively; thus,the difference was significant (P = 0.004).Conclusion: Since, the present study wasinconsistent with similar previously carried out investigations, the observed difference amongthe three procedures was statically significant; hence, it can be suggested that student’s scoresof teachers evaluation, previously used as the only one of evaluation source is not enough andother sources such as assessment by the respective department heads, dean of faculty, andself‑assessment must also be taken into consideration. This collection can definitely yield a morefavorable evaluation of faculty members and feedback can be more acceptable to them and itwill be more effective in improving their education.