Educational Research in Medical Sciences
Volume:3 Issue: 1, Jun 2014

The scientific output of a researcher includes academic publications, creditability of these publications and number of citations. Universities and institutions evaluating the research activities have always taken into account the academic status and ranking of the researchers. Selection and application of an appropriate method to assess the academic activities have also been a concern for scientometrics centers. In the past, criteria such as number of publications, total number of citations and average number of citation were taken into consideration. In the past decade, a physicist named Hirsch (2005) introduced an index known as hirsch (h index) to evaluate scientific output (1).The h index determines both the academic productions of the researchers and the scientific impact of the productions by a number; the larger is the number, the higher is the scientific impact. The h index is used to compare the researchers in the same subject area, aiming to diff­erentiate highly cited researchers from least-cited scholars. Numerous advantages have been introduced for this index, including simple calculation, quantitative and qualitative evaluation of the scientific outputs, disregarding most-cited and least-cited papers, and differentiating prominent researchers from the others. However, the disadvantages of this index, some of which are being mentioned as advantages, include neglecting the total number of publications, neglecting the academic life of a researcher, dependence on the research area (inapplicability to compare the researchers in different subject areas), ignoring multi-authorship and dependence on the duration of scientific activity (2).On the other hand, h index computation for young researchers is also not possible due to their short scientific activities. Moreover, despite the termination of the scientific life of a researcher and failure to present new publications, their previous publications may be cited. In addition, it is believed that in a scientific domain, more cited articles are in a higher scientific rank, while there are articles that are analyzed and reviewed by researchers due to presenting a contradictory subject, and are frequently cited in spite of their inappropriate scientific value, although these citations are not indicative of their higher quality.The impact factor of journals can also make the comparison and ranking of researchers problematic. It is burdensome to compare two researchers with equal h index but different impact factor of journals in which they have published their papers. However, it should be noted that there are differences between two researchers with similar h index in terms of scientific life, number of publications, total number of citations and impact factor of journals in which their articles have been published. Further, the authors of an article do not have the same role and collaboration in publishing the paper. Imagine a researcher with 100 articles and h=15 has been the corresponding author only in 5 articles, but coauthor in the rest of articles. It seems that scientific index for the corresponding author of each article is more important than allocating similar credits to all authors.Nowadays, h index is extensively used to measure the scientific status of researchers, journals, departments and universities. In some academic centers, however, it is incorrectly used to compare the researchers in different majors. Since the introduction of this index, various variants have been prompted upon it; thereby, pre­senting different variations such as a, g, m and r indices (3). Although, h index apparently differentiates the prominent researchers from those who have merely published many papers, it cannot reveal a perfect view of the scientific output of a researcher. Application of a scientometric criterion alone cannot determine the precise and valid scientific rank of the researchers. Thus, a proper combination of criteria seems necessary.Furthermore, given the failure to register all scientific publications of a researcher in databases like Scopus and Web of Science, it is more logical to use other websites such as Google Scholar. Based on the abovementioned discussion and to thoroughly compare the scientific output of researchers, it seems that features like number of publications, total number of citations, scientific life of the researcher (the gap between the first and last publication), h index, Hirsch core (part of the articles by a researcher that determine h index) and journal impact factor are essential to be taken into account as one index. It is also necessary to eliminate self-citation and to consider multi-authorship and amount of participation in scientific publications.

Ambulatory education is an integral part of medical education. The present study was carried out to evaluate the quality of ambulatory education from the viewpoint of clinical medical students at Kermanshah University of Medical Sciences. In this descriptive cross-sectional study, the study sample included medical apprentices and interns of Kermanshah University of Medical Sciences that were selected through census sampling technique in the academic year 2012-2013. The instrument for data collection was a researcher-made questionnaire with acceptable validity and reliability. The obtained data were analyzed by SPSS-16 software using descriptive statistics. 65 (50%) apprentices and 75 (65%) interns participated in the study and 1588 questionnaires were completed via self-administered technique. The mean of the teachers’ quality of ambulatory education at Kermanshah University of Medical Sciences was 22.6±5.2 and the mean for the clinics’ quality of physical environment was 19±5.13, indicating favorable and semi-favorable status, respectively. Qualitative evaluation of ambulatory education from the viewpoint of apprentices and interns showed a significant difference with more satisfaction from the part of the interns (p<0.001). The findings revealed that the teachers’ quality of ambulatory education at Kermanshah University of Medical Sciences was favorable, but the physical condition of the clinics indicated a semi-favorable status.

Critical thinking skill is an essential factor for success in today’s rapidly developing world. The present study was carried out to compare the association between critical thinking disposition and academic achievement in preclinical and clinical medical students. This study was descriptive-correlational in which the sample included 259 medical students at Kermanshah University of Medical Sciences selected through stratified random sampling. The standard critical thinking disposition inventory with validity of 0.8 and the students’ report card grades as criterion for academic achievement were used to collect the data. Data were analyzed by SPSS 16 software using descriptive statistics, t-test, and Kolmogrov-Smirnov and correlation coefficient tests. The mean of critical thinking disposition in the preclinical stage was 209.08±26.24 indicating a significant correlation with academic achievement (P=0.003, r=-2.64). In the clinical stage, however, the mean of critical thinking disposition was 214.07±28.15 which showed no significant correlation with academic achievement. Moreover, the mean of critical thinking disposition and its components in preclinical and clinical stages revealed not significant correlation and merely curiosity component showed a significant correlation (P=0.04). The results of the present study showed no correlation between critical thinking disposition and academic achievement in the clinical stage; however, this correlation was negatively significant in the preclinical stage.

Outcome expectation is considered as a basic and significant variable in education. It is a cognitive-motivational component that takes the individual into account as an active and sensible decision-maker. The present study was conducted to determine the correlation of outcome expectations with academic performance of Kermanshah students of nursing and midwifery. In this descriptive cross-sectional study, the study sample included 218 nursing and midwifery students that were selected through convenient random sampling. The instrument for data collection was the questionnaire of “outcome expectations of career decision-making and discovery targets”, which comprised of 13 questions in three domains of future orientation, job satisfaction and personal expectations. The questionnaires were coded after being completed and the obtained data were fed into SPSS-16 software and analyzed by descriptive statistics, t-test, Kolmogrov-Smirnov, ANOVA and Mann-Whitney tests. The findings indicated no statistically significant difference between place of living (dormitory or home) and outcome expectations along with its domains (39.4% and 60-6%). However, a significant correlation was reported between major, gender, admittance year and academic performance of the students (p<0.05). Moreover, this correlation was significant between future orientation and personal expectations, but not in the case of job satisfaction (p>0.05). The findings of this study indicated a positively significant relationship between students’ academic performance and outcome expectations along with its domains.

The aim of this qualitative study was to determine the most important medical errors made by gynecology residents.This study used a Delphi technique in three rounds. First, a list of common errors was prepared using a questionnaire, then the most important errors were prioritized and finally, the managerial and training procedures were determined for errors.In this study, 45 common errors were detected. The most common errors were inadequate surgical homeostasis, excessive use of magnesium sulfate, managerial error of post-operative infections; undiagnosed pulmonary embolism and incorrect prescription of heparin. Specialists and residents stated that designing an instructional guideline was the best method to manage all kinds of errors.Different regulatory and training procedures should be applied to prevent and control errors. An effective method for professional practitioners is designing instructional guidelines. In this study, an instructional manual was developed for the most frequent errors observed in obstetrics and gynecology.

Teachers are responsible for teaching the students, and improving the teaching quality plays an essential role in the efficiency of the student and teacher. The present study was a descriptive cross-sectional study with a total research sample of 220 people that investigated the characteristics of the capable teacher from the viewpoint of the students at faculty of health, Guilan University of Medical Sciences using census method. The instrument for data collection was a 24-item questionnaire. The validity of the questionnaire was determined through content validity and its reliability was calculated by Cronbach’s alpha (r=0.87). The collected data were analyzed by SPSS software using descriptive statistics. The most important characteristics of capable teachers from the viewpoint of the students included dominance over the course (90.5%), interest in teaching (78.9%), eloquent presentation (77.3%), accepting criticism (75.5%) and flexibility (71.4%), respectively. It is necessary to take these characteristics into consideration while hiring the faculty members and to hold empowerment workshops.

Libraries play a pivotal role in the sustainable development of the country. The aim of the present study was to investigate the quality of educational services provided by library of medical faculty of Kermanshah according to the library standards. In this descriptive cross-sectional study, 309 library members were studied through Libqual questionnaire. Data were analyzed by descriptive statistics. The library could meet the expectations of its members in 67% of cases (positive adequate value). In terms of access to information, the maximum and minimum means were reported for printable or electronic journals (7.62%) and electronic resources and websites (5.55%), respectively. With regard to personal control, the maximum and minimum means belonged to easy-access instruments (6.15%) and modern equipment (5.63%), respectively. For location, however, appropriate space acquired the maximum mean (6.59%). Based on the obtained findings, Kermanshah library of medical faculty (LMF) has not been able to fulfill the maximum expectations of its members.

The aim of this study was to compare three approaches of medical parasitological course. This cross sectional study carried out in 94 medical and pharmacy students. Lecturer based learning, problem based learning, and combined approaches were used for teaching the parasitological course. Kappa and SPSS16 were used to analysis. 82.9% of students were interested in lecturer based learning, 64.9% problem based learning and 91.5% combined approach. 96.8% of the students preferred that the final examination to be taken as multiple choice and 62.8% case history. 97.9% of them indicated that lecturer’s behavior affects on learning outcome and 67% did not believe impact of paper on teaching and learning of parasitological course. Students were interested in using log book in practical laboratory (P<0.005). Combined approach should be initiated and directed toward harmonization of the curriculum for enhancing of learning.

Dear Editor Morning report is an educational process in which participants try to solve a diagnostic problem by discussing the patients (1). In spite of this fact that morning report is one of the most practical, clinical, and educational methods in the world, there is no special paradigm for it (2). Thus, it is necessary to assess it for students’ educational planning.Because there was no reference about the compatibility between the diagnosis reported in morning reports and educational curriculum, all the recorded information about the patients in morning reports between 2006 and 2010 was selected as research population. All of the information was recorded in information sheets. Then, the compatibility between diagnosis presented in morning report and educational curriculum of pediatrics department was assessed. Data were analyzed by SPSS software (version 16) using chi-square, independent t-test and, analysis of variance (ANOVA).Findings showed that most of the cases were recorded in 2007 (29% of all cases). Fewest cases were recorded in 2008. 57.3% of all patients were male. 72.4% were compatible with educational curriculum and 27.6% were not included in educational curriculum. Most reported diseases were toxicity, seizures, fever seizures, and icterus, respectively.In this study, the compatibility of patients and educational curriculum (72.4) was compatible with the findings of the study conducted by Durning et al. (2003) in which they compared the content of morning reports with principles of standard guidelines and showed that they were in line with each other (3). Further, the findings of this study indicated that the compatibility of patients and educational curriculum has decreased during the recent years. Spickard et al. (2000) in a research titled “Outpatient Morning Report: A New Conference for Internal Medicine Residency Programs” showed that residents choose morning report topics in most cases (73%) while just 20% of medical students share the topic selection (4). The results of Spickard’s study are compatible with the findings of the present study indicating the morning reports are being more specialized.Most reported diseases in the current study were toxicities, seizures, and icterus, respectively, while the results of Westman’s study entitled “Factors Influencing Morning Report Case Presentations” showed that most reported cases were cardiac (20.3%), infectious (13.2%), gastro-intestinal (11.5%), lung (11%), hematologic (10.1%), and general medicine (6.2%) diseases (5). Because in the current study only the pediatrics wards were assessed, differences are reasonable. In the end, since 51 cases in morning reports were not compatible with educational curriculum, we suggest more studies be conducted to analyze whether to add theoretical curriculum to the educational program or not.

Multiple-choice tests are the most common type of tests used to evaluate medical education. These tests have long been used in the written format for specialized boards and residency promotion tests in Iran and Kermanshah University of Medical Sciences (KUMS), as well (1). Multiple-choice tests are being analyzed using quanti­tative method (test level, difficulty level and discrim­ination level) and qualitative method (percentage of items free from structural problems and taxonomy of cognitive domain) (2).The most common method of analyzing structural problems of multiple-choice items is using Millman table which determines the construct validity of each item. Disregarding the testing principles by test makers can cause difficulty or ease of items, which directly affects the validity and difficulty and discrimination levels (3). This descriptive cross-sectional study was conducted in 2014 with an attempt to analyze the structural problems of 300 questions in two residency promotion tests (A & B test) at neurology department, KUMS. Data were obtained using the quantitative results of the test analysis software for special secretariat of promotion tests of ministry of health and medical education and report of the center for study and development of medical education at KUMS.The findings of the study indicated that 90% of the questions were free from structural problems in both tests. The validity of the whole test of neurology B, mean of difficulty index and mean of discrimination index were 0.92, 0.82 and 0.2, respectively; in the case of neurology A test, however, these indices were 0.91, 0.74 and 0.22, respectively. The percentages of taxonomies I and II for neurology B and neurology A were 55.5% and 49.5%, respectively. Most structural problems of neurology B were incongruity of distracters (34%), editing errors (26.5%) and double negative (14%), respectively. In neurology A, however, most structural problems included non-determination of negative adverb in the stem (40%), incongruity of distracters (34%) and editing errors (14%). In comparison with the results of Shakournia et al. (2009), the structural problems in both studies were the same (3). The construction principles of multiple-choice questions are important to be seriously taken into account. Various studies have shown that the cognitive domain of the items is enhanced by improving the principles of test construction based on construct validity table (4). An important point found in the findings of this study was the difference of taxonomy level, difficulty level and structural errors in both tests, so that neurology B had been significantly constructed easier than neurology A; however, no difference was observed in quantitative indices. This confirms the necessity of continual qualitative assessment of residency promotion test items; especially construct validity based on structural construct validity table (5) in order to enhance their quality.