Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
Fotohi P, Yaghoubi M, Amani N, Shafiayan M, Azami G, Moradii D. Investigation The Effectiveness of Clinical Evaluation of Internship and Internship of Bachelor of Anesthesiology Students from
The Perspective of Professors and Students. Iranian Journal of Medical Education 2026; 26 :89-97
URL: http://ijme.mui.ac.ir/article-1-5901-en.html
URL: http://ijme.mui.ac.ir/article-1-5901-en.html
Student Research Committee, Ahvaz Jundishapur University of Medical Sciences, Ahvaz, Iran. , danial.moradii.1402@gmail.com
Abstract: (12 Views)
Introduction: Clinical assessment is one of the main pillars of medical education, which plays a fundamental role in assessing students' knowledge, skills, and professional competence in a real-world setting. In clinical disciplines such as anesthesia, where there is direct interaction with patients and the medical team, the correct evaluation of clinical skills is doubly important. The participation of professors and students in the evaluation process, while identifying the strengths and weaknesses of the current structure, can provide solutions to improve the quality of clinical education. The aim of this study was to investigate the educational effectiveness of clinical assessment in the internship and training courses of undergraduate anesthesia students from the perspectives of professors and students.
Methods: A descriptive-cross-sectional study was conducted in the academic year 2024 - 2025 using a census method with a sample size of 75 undergraduate anesthesia students and 15 professors of the Department of Anesthesiology at Kurdistan University of Medical Sciences. The data collection tool was a 10-question questionnaire for professors and 8-question questionnaire for students on a Likert scale, taken from other studies and having validity and reliability, which was distributed in person. The evaluation methods used included logbook, Direct Observation of Practical Skills (DOPS) and Objective Structured Clinical Examination (OSCE). Data analysis was performed using SPSS version 22 software and descriptive statistics, T-test and correlation coefficient were used to examine the relationship between demographic variables and clinical evaluation.
Results: 94.6% of students and 93.7% of professors completed the questionnaire. The mean and standard deviation of the ages of students and professors were 22.3±1.98 and 33.71±7.48, respectively. The mean GPA of students was 53.1±1.15 and 2.52 percent were female and 6.40 percent were in their 3rd semester. 3.64 percent of professors were male and 7.85 percent were non-faculty with an average teaching experience of 49.3±5.07 years. The mean score of clinical evaluation effectiveness from the perspective of professors was 4.1±0.6 and from the perspective of students was 3.27±0.72. The results indicated the effectiveness of the evaluation methods from the perspective of both groups, although students expressed a lower score than the professors. The professors believed that the combined clinical evaluation method can evaluate the scientific, professional, and functional skills of students and is not influenced by the opinions of instructors. Most students believed that the existing evaluation system measures most of the scientific knowledge of individuals and is not complete for evaluation alone. No significant relationship was found between the demographic variables of students (age, gender, GPA, academic semester) and their views on the effectiveness of evaluation. (P > 0.001)
Conclusion: The results of the study showed that combined and structured clinical evaluation methods are effective from the perspectives of professors and students, but the difference in the evaluation of the two groups reveals the need for continuous review and improvement of evaluation tools and processes. The most important limitation of the study was the relatively small number of participants. Also, data collection was self-reported. It is necessary to continuously and systematically review clinical evaluation methods in medical education departments with the participation of stakeholders. It is suggested that future research should use qualitative methods such as in-depth interviews or focus groups, examine the impact of environmental factors and the organization and teaching styles of professors.
Methods: A descriptive-cross-sectional study was conducted in the academic year 2024 - 2025 using a census method with a sample size of 75 undergraduate anesthesia students and 15 professors of the Department of Anesthesiology at Kurdistan University of Medical Sciences. The data collection tool was a 10-question questionnaire for professors and 8-question questionnaire for students on a Likert scale, taken from other studies and having validity and reliability, which was distributed in person. The evaluation methods used included logbook, Direct Observation of Practical Skills (DOPS) and Objective Structured Clinical Examination (OSCE). Data analysis was performed using SPSS version 22 software and descriptive statistics, T-test and correlation coefficient were used to examine the relationship between demographic variables and clinical evaluation.
Results: 94.6% of students and 93.7% of professors completed the questionnaire. The mean and standard deviation of the ages of students and professors were 22.3±1.98 and 33.71±7.48, respectively. The mean GPA of students was 53.1±1.15 and 2.52 percent were female and 6.40 percent were in their 3rd semester. 3.64 percent of professors were male and 7.85 percent were non-faculty with an average teaching experience of 49.3±5.07 years. The mean score of clinical evaluation effectiveness from the perspective of professors was 4.1±0.6 and from the perspective of students was 3.27±0.72. The results indicated the effectiveness of the evaluation methods from the perspective of both groups, although students expressed a lower score than the professors. The professors believed that the combined clinical evaluation method can evaluate the scientific, professional, and functional skills of students and is not influenced by the opinions of instructors. Most students believed that the existing evaluation system measures most of the scientific knowledge of individuals and is not complete for evaluation alone. No significant relationship was found between the demographic variables of students (age, gender, GPA, academic semester) and their views on the effectiveness of evaluation. (P > 0.001)
Conclusion: The results of the study showed that combined and structured clinical evaluation methods are effective from the perspectives of professors and students, but the difference in the evaluation of the two groups reveals the need for continuous review and improvement of evaluation tools and processes. The most important limitation of the study was the relatively small number of participants. Also, data collection was self-reported. It is necessary to continuously and systematically review clinical evaluation methods in medical education departments with the participation of stakeholders. It is suggested that future research should use qualitative methods such as in-depth interviews or focus groups, examine the impact of environmental factors and the organization and teaching styles of professors.
Type of Study: Original research article |
Subject:
Clinical Skills Evaluation
Received: 2025/09/26 | Accepted: 2026/02/25 | Published: 2026/04/30 | ePublished: 2026/04/30
Received: 2025/09/26 | Accepted: 2026/02/25 | Published: 2026/04/30 | ePublished: 2026/04/30
Send email to the article author
| Rights and permissions | |
 |
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License. |
