Comparison between student rating, faculty self‑rating and evaluation of faculty members by heads of respective academic departments in the school of medicine in Birjand University of Medical Sciences in Iran

University teachers are one of the main pillars of university and the quality of their performance must continuously and systematically be evaluated. This evaluation can be carried out in various ways. The aim of the present study was to survey and to compare the evaluation of faculty members in the medical school in Birjand University of Medical Sciences by three different sources: Student rating, self‑assessment, and evaluation by head of related department.

This descriptive analytical cross‑sectional study was conducted in the academic year 2009‑2010. Sampling was drawn from all students studying basic science and clinical training in the first and the second semesters. All heads of departments in basic science and clinical training and their faculty members took part in this study. Means of data collection were four different questionnaires designed in the education development center (EDC) and their validity and reliability had been verified by the center. These questionnaires were based on student rating, self‑assessment, and evaluation of faculty members by heads of clinical and basic sciences academic departments. After the questionnaires were filled out, the obtained data was analyzed by 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.

In the present study, 2417 students completed the questionnaires regarding 63 faculty members, 87 faculty members completed the self‑assessment form, and for 60 faculty members, 48 members in clinical and 12 members in basic science, the questionnaires were completed by heads of respective departments. Mean and standard deviation of student evaluation, self‑assessment, and teachers evaluation 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 and self‑assessment was significant (P = 0.02). In comparing between managers scores with students evaluation, no significant difference was observed (P = 0.68). Comparison between self‑assessment and teachers scores by managers showed a significant difference (P = 0.04). Mean scores of faculty members in clinical training and in basic science were 3.23 ± 0.73 and 3.31 ± 0.69 on the part of students, respectively; thus, the difference was significant (P = 0.004).

Since, the present study was inconsistent with similar previously carried out investigations, the observed difference among the three procedures was statically significant; hence, it can be suggested that student’s scores of teachers evaluation, previously used as the only one of evaluation source is not enough and other sources such as assessment by the respective department heads, dean of faculty, and self‑assessment must also be taken into consideration. This collection can definitely yield a more favorable evaluation of faculty members and feedback can be more acceptable to them and it will be more effective in improving their education.