Comparison of Instructors’ and Students’ Satisfaction with Traditional and Logbook Evaluation Methods in Internship of Public Health

Bibi NarjesMoasheri; Mohammad Reza Miri; Gholamreza Sharifzadeh

doi:10.18502/htaa.v6i1.11129

Bibi NarjesMoasheri Department of Public Health, School of Health, Social Determinants of Health Research Center, Birjand University of Medical Sciences, Birjand, Iran.
Mohammad Reza Miri Department of Health Promotion and Education, School of Health, Social Determinants of Health Research Center, Birjand University of Medical Sciences, Birjand, Iran.
Gholamreza Sharifzadeh Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, School of Health, Social Determinants of Health Research Center, Birjand University of Medical Sciences, Birjand, Iran.

DOI: https://doi.org/10.18502/htaa.v6i1.11129

Keywords: Instructor; Student; Satisfaction; Logbook; Training of Public Health

Abstract

Background: Student evaluation is one of the most critical factors in learning. Instructors and students’ satisfaction with the evaluation method leads to better learning.

Objectives: The present study was conducted to compare the satisfaction of instructors and students in the field of public health with the two methods of traditional evaluation and evaluation using the clinical skills registration book (logbook) method.

Methods: In this study, 20 public health students and 12 instructors were evaluated in two consecutive semesters of internship. Initially, the evaluation was done in the traditional way in the first semester, and in the next semester, the evaluation method was performed with a logbook. At the end of the semester, students and instructors’ satisfaction was measured using a questionnaire. Data were coded and analyzed by SPSS version 19 software using paired t-test at a significance level of α = 5%.

Results: The mean age of students was 21.9 ± 0.6 years, and the mean age of instructors was 39.6 ± 8.4 years. The results showed that the mean total score of students’ satisfaction with the traditional evaluation method was 29.6 ± 6.9, and that of the logbook evaluation method was 30.3 ± 5.6. There was no significant difference between the mean scores of students’ satisfaction with the traditional and logbook evaluation methods (P = 0.6). The results also revealed that the instructors’ satisfaction was significantly more with the logbook evaluation method than with the traditional evaluation method (P = 0.01). Instructors also showed greater satisfaction with the logbook evaluation method than students (P = 0.02).

Conclusions: According to the views of students and instructors, continuous monitoring and review of logbook content should be given. Furthermore, the logbook and traditional methods can complement each other to meet the needs of students and instructors.