Internal evaluation department of speech therapy, Tehran University of Medical Sciences

  • Zahra Soleymani Mail Department of Speech therapy, School of Rehabilitation, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Iran
  • Azar Mehri Department of Speech therapy, School of Rehabilitation, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Iran
  • Fereshteh Farzianpour Department of Health Management and Economic, School of Public Health, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Iran
  • Ahmad Reza Khatoonabadi Department of Speech therapy, School of Rehabilitation, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Iran
  • Mohammad Rahim Shahbodaghi Department of Speech therapy, School of Rehabilitation, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Iran
  • Seyyedeh Maryam Khoddami Department of Speech therapy, School of Rehabilitation, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Iran
  • Hooshang Dadgar Department of Speech therapy, School of Rehabilitation, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Iran
  • Maryam Taghizade Ghe Department of Speech therapy, School of Rehabilitation, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Iran
  • Mahdiye Karimi Department of Speech therapy, School of Rehabilitation, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Iran
Keywords:
Department of speech therapy, internal evaluation, Tehran University of Medical Sciences

Abstract

Background and Aim: Internal evaluation is an important part of organization monitoring. One of the Ministry of Health’s policies is to encourage educational departments to conduct internal evaluations. The aim of internal evaluation of department of speech therapy was appraising its education, research and treatment qualities and determining its strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats (SWOTs) to identify the ways of overcoming weakness and threats.
Methods: This descriptive cross-sectional study was conducted in 10 phases to evaluate 10 factors. Participants were undergraduate, graduate, and postgraduate students, academic staff, director of the department along with the patients. The internal evaluation software for educational and research centers released by Center of Medical Education Studies and Development was modified and utilized. Data was analyzed by calculating mean of means.
Results: Mean of means from highest to lowest scores were respectively as follows: the quality of diagnosis, treatment and dealing with patients 4.15 out of 5; as well as the quality of academic staff 3.5 were in the range of desirable category; qualities of management and organizational structure 3.34, graduate students 3.21, teaching and learning processes 3.1, missions and goals 3.09, instructional methods and curriculum models 2.99, educational and research equipments 2.9, students 2.76 and research 2.67 were within the range of rather desirable category. Total score was 3.17 (63.4%) which was within the range of rather desirable category.
Conclusion: The department of speech therapy was in rather desirable state before merger. That result was appropriate according to the department’s conditions and supplies.

References

1. McGinn NF, Borden AM. Framing questions, constructing answers: linking research with education policy for developing countries. Cambridge MA: Harvard Kennedy School. 1995.
2. Shahbazi R, Sedaghat K. Internal Evaluation In Academic Libraries: Case Study. Library And Information Science. 2008;10(4):111-28.
3. Barazandeh Tehrani M, Souri E, Farzianpour F, Shafiei A, Shamsa SF, Sadat Ebrahimi SE, et al. Internal evaluation in the department of education, Faculty of Chemical Medicine, Tehran University of Medical Sciences. Journal of Research in Educational Systems. 2007;1(1):57-68. Persian.
4. Teichler U. Comparative higher education: potentials and limits. Higher Education. 1996;32(4):431-65.
5. Sanders WL, Horn SP. Research Findings from the Tennessee Value-Added Assessment System (TVAAS) Database: Implications for Educational Evaluation and Research. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education. 1998;12(3):247-56.
6. Yarmohammadian MH, Kalbasi A. Internal Evaluation of Departments in the School of Management and Medical Informatics, Isfahan University of Medical Science. Iranian Journal of Medical Education. 2006;6(1):125-33. Persian.
7. Kanji GK, Malek A, Tambi BA. Total quality management in UK higher education institutions. Total Quality Management. 1999;10(1):129-53.
8. Ross JA. Cost-utility analysis in educational needs assessment. Eval Program Plann. 2008;31(4):356-67.
9. Arsovski Z. Approach to quality assurance in higher education. International Journal of Quality research. 2007;1(1):53-60.
10. Harden R, Crosby J, Davis MH, Howie PW, Struthers AD. Task-based learning: The answer to integration and problem-based learning in the clinical years. Med Educ. 2000;34(5):391-7.
11. Farzianpoor F, Bazargan A. Evaluation of clinical education departments of Tehran Hospitals. TUMJ. 1999;57(2):72-8. Persian.
12. Harvey L. An Assessment of Past and Current Approaches to Quality in Higher Education. Australian Journal of Education. 1998;42(3):237-55.
13. Sedaie M, Farzianpour F, Adel Ghahraman M, Mohammad Khani Gh, Fatahi J, Sarough Farahani S, et al. Internal evaluation of Audiology department, Faculty of Rehabilitation, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Iran. Audiol. 2007;16(1):1-9. Persian.
14. Sadollahi A, Bakhtiyari J, Kasbi F, Eftekhari Z, Salmani M, Jenabi MS, et al. Internal evaluation of speech therapy department of Semnan University of Medical Sciences. Koomesh. 2008;9(3):179-86. Persian.
Published
2017-07-31
How to Cite
1.
Soleymani Z, Mehri A, Farzianpour F, Khatoonabadi AR, Shahbodaghi MR, Khoddami SM, Dadgar H, Taghizade Ghe M, Karimi M. Internal evaluation department of speech therapy, Tehran University of Medical Sciences. Aud Vestib Res. 21(2):87-95.
Section
Research Article(s)