Evaluating a research methodology workshop among postgraduate students using Kirkpatrick’s model

Author:

Debata Ipsita1,Nayak Smrutiranjan1,Ahmed Sakir2,Behera Basanta Kumar1,Padhee Sourav3

Affiliation:

1. Department of Community Medicine, Kalinga Institute of Medical Sciences, Kushabhadra Campus, Bhubaneswar, Odisha, India

2. Department of Clinical Immunology and Rheumatology, Kalinga Institute of Medical Sciences, Kushabhadra Campus, Bhubaneswar, Odisha, India

3. Biostatistician, Research and Development Department, Kalinga Institute of Medical Sciences, Kushabhadra Campus, Bhubaneswar, Odisha, India

Abstract

BACKGROUND: In this era of evidence-based medicine, only systematic research can help in providing judicious and precise healthcare to individual patients based on updated knowledge and skills. However, many medical professionals do not feel competent and confident enough to conduct research. One of the reasons could be the lack of a research-based curriculum in undergraduate courses. The National Medical Council has also stressed the need for formal training in research methodology for healthcare professionals. The research methodology workshops help to familiarize the participants with basic, clinical, and translational research required to impart optimum patient care. The objective of our study was to evaluate a research methodology workshop conducted for postgraduate students by assessing the participant’s knowledge, feedback, and expected impact using Kirkpatrick’s evaluation model. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A quasi-experimental, single-group study was conducted among 132 first-year postgraduate students. The four levels of Kirkpatrick’s model were applied for evaluation. Feedback forms, scores of the pretest and posttest, quality of the research proposal drafted by the postgraduates for their thesis, and finally successful submission of the research proposal were the components used to evaluate the four levels of outcome of Kirkpatrick’s model. STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Data collected were compiled and tabulated into MS Excel. Proportions were calculated for categorical variables and mean and standard deviation (SD) for scores. A comparison of means between pre- and postworkshop scores was made with paired t-test. A value of P < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. Statistical analysis was done using IBM SPSS Statistics version 20.0 software. RESULTS: Out of 132 participants, 29% (38) were males and 71% (94) were females. The mean ± SD pretest and posttest scores at a 95% confidence interval were 10.55 ± 2.537 and 12.43 ± 2.484, respectively. The difference was found to be statistically significant by paired sample t-test (P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Participant feedback is vital for improving research methodology workshops. The workshop met the overall requirements of the participants. There was a significant improvement in the knowledge of participants after the workshop completion.

Publisher

Medknow

Reference21 articles.

1. Evidence-based medicine: What it is and what it isn’t;Sackett;BMJ,1996

2. How to practice evidence-based medicine;Swanson;Plastic Reconst Surg,2010

3. Clinical research methodology;Gandhi;Indian J Phar Edu Res,2011

4. Changes in medical education: The beliefs of medical students;Rosenthal;Med Educ,1998

5. Attitudes and practices of postgraduate medical trainees towards research––a snapshot from Faisalabad;Aslam;J Pak Med Assoc,2004

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3