Comparison between professors' evaluation scores by students using the Likert scale and numerical scale in the Rehabilitation School at Semnan University of Medical Sciences

authors:

avatar Banafshe Mansuri ORCID , avatar Fatemeh Ehsani ORCID , * , avatar Seyed Abolfazl Tohidast ORCID

Koomesh: Vol.25, issue 4; 495-502
published online: December 02, 2023
article type: Research Article
received: April 02, 2023
accepted: August 02, 2023

how to cite: Mansuri B, Ehsani F, Tohidast S A. Comparison between professors' evaluation scores by students using the Likert scale and numerical scale in the Rehabilitation School at Semnan University of Medical Sciences. koomesh. 2023;25(4):e152848. 

Abstract

Introduction: Despite observing the high accuracy of evaluation with a numerical scale in the previous studies, students at Semnan University of Medical Sciences should evaluate the professors' education performance with the Likert scale in each item of the questionnaire. This issue can reduce the accuracy of professors' evaluations in the university and professors do not have proper feedback from the evaluation of their courses. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to compare the evaluation scores of professors by students using a Likert scale and a numerical scale in the Faculty members of Rehabilitation in Semnan University of Medical Sciences. Materials and Methods: In this study, 130 students were allocated to two groups of qualitative and quantitative assessment ways (n=65 in each group). The methods of evaluation included current methods (scoring based on the Likert scale) and the new numerical scoring method. Then, the obtained data from the students' evaluation was entered into SPSS software to conduct statistical analysis. Results: The findings indicated that the mean score of all evaluation questions using the numerical method was higher as compared to the qualitative method using the Likert scale. These differences between the two methods were statistically significant in the six questions and also higher in the quantitative assessment group (p < 0.05). These six questions include the adequacy of the sessions allocated to the course, the simplicity and comprehensibility of the content presented, attention to the previous knowledge of the student in preparing the content, the appropriateness of the sequence of the content presented to achieve the educational goals, the power of conveying the concept in the content presented and providing the content file of the materials presented in the class. Conclusion: The results of the present study showed that the current method of evaluating the professors of Semnan University of Medical Sciences, which is done qualitatively and through the Likert scale, can have problems. Therefore, decision-makers and educational administrators of Semnan University of Medical Sciences and other universities can use the results of this study to make positive changes to improve the process of evaluating professors by students.

References

  • 1.

    Hosseini F, Karimi F. Reliability and validity of academic staffs' evaluation questionnaire. Iran Quart Educ Strat 2013; 5: 223-229.

  • 2.

    Delavar A. Some points about evaluation of universities academic staffs. Allameh Tabatabaei Univ J 1997; 5: 70-78. (Persian).

  • 3.

    Boyle P. Australian National University Student Evaluation of Teaching-ANUSET: A Guide for Academic Staff: Australian National University; 1996.

  • 4.

    Beheshti Rad R, Ghalavandi H, Ghale'ei A. Faculty members performance evaluation by nursing students Urmia University of Medical Sciences. Educ Strat Med Sci 2014; 6: 223-228.

  • 5.

    Chambel MJ, Curral L. Stress in academic life: work characteristics as predictors of student wellbeing and performance. Appl Psychol 2005; 54: 135-147.##https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-0597.2005.00200.x.

  • 6.

    Eslami K, Salahshouri A, Arjmand R, Fakhri A, Akhtardanesh N, Fouladi Dehaghi B, et al. Designing and validating a questionnaire for evaluation the quality of virtual teaching of professors in Navid system. Educ Dev Judishapur 2020; 11: 572-583. (Persian).

  • 7.

    Shores JH, Clerfield M, Alexander J. An index of students' satisfaction with instruction. Acad Med 2000; 75: S106-S108.

  • 8.

    Saif A. Educational psychology: Psychology of learning and instruction. Tehran: Samt Publication; 2005.

  • 9.

    Bahrami M, Dehdashti A, Karami M. Evaluation of academic advisors' performance perceived by students: A study at health faculty of Semnan University of Medical Sciences. Koomesh 1397; 20: 561-567. (Persian).

  • 10.

    Adams JV. Student evaluations: The ratings game. Inquiry 1997; 1: 10-16.

  • 11.

    Mofateh R, Orakifar N, Moradi N. Comparing fourth-year students' perspectives of the performance of clinical instructors in different departments of Ahvaz School of Rehabilitation Sciences. Educ Dev Judishapur 2021; 12: 195-204. (Persian).

  • 12.

    Sepehrara AR, Talepasand S, Rahimpoor H. Alignment review of teacher evaluation scores according to courses difficulty level. Educ Measur 2012; 2: 6.

  • 13.

    DeShields OW, Kara A, Kaynak E. Determinants of business student satisfaction and retention in higher education: applying Herzberg's twofactor theory. Int J Educ Manag 2005; 19: 128-139.##https://doi.org/10.1108/09513540510582426.

  • 14.

    Akbari M, Moeintaghavi A, Ghanbari H, Bageri M, Otoufi A. A Comparison of the Students' and Teachers' Viewpoints about the Characteristics of a Good Teacher in Dentistry. J Mashhad Dental School 2014; 38: 281-290. (Persian).

  • 15.

    Jamshidi S, Baghaei F, Abdolsamadi H, Faradmal J, Soltanian A, Ahmadiani E. Evaluation of academic Staffs' viewpoint about their assessment by students in hamadan university of medical sciences (2011-2012). Res Med Educ 2013; 5: 39-45.##https://doi.org/10.18869/acadpub.rme.5.2.39.

  • 16.

    Jafari H, Vahidshahi K, Kosaryan M, Mahmoodi M. Comparison between the results of academic staff self assessment and those made by the students, Faculty of Medicine, Mazandaran University of Medical Sciences, 2006. J Mazandaran Univ Med Sci 2007; 17: 67-74. (Persian).

  • 17.

    Ziaee M, Miri M, Haji-Abadi M, Azarkar G, Eshbak P. Academic staff and students' impressions on academic evaluation of students in Birjand University of Medical Sciences and Health Services. J Birjand Univ Med Sci 2006; 13: 9-15. (Persian).

  • 18.

    Hoorsan H, Hoorsan R, Roshandel S, Nekavand M. Early-semester student evaluation of faculty members teaching and its effect on results of end-of-semester faculty members evaluation. Iran J Med Educ 2018; 18: 225-233.

  • 19.

    Seldin P. Successful faculty evaluation programs. A practical guide to improve faculty performance and promotion/tenure decisions. Crugers, NY: Coventry Press 1980.

  • 20.

    Centra JA. Reflective faculty evaluation: enhancing teaching and determining faculty effectiveness. San Francisco Jossey Bass 1993.

  • 21.

    Izadisabet F, Salmani M, Safaei Z, Gharibi F. Development and psychometric features of a questionnaire to evaluate the educational performance of faculty members in medical universities. Koomesh 2022; 24: 661-673. (Persian).

  • 22.

    Krosnick JA, Fabrigar LR. Designing rating scales for effective measurement in surveys. Surv Measur Proc Quality 1997: 141-64.##https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118490013.ch6.

  • 23.

    Tohidast SA, Mansuri B, Dabirmoghadam P, Choubineh M, Bagheri R, Ebadi A, Azimi H. Development and preliminary validation of a pain scale specific to patients with voice disorders: the voice-related pain scale (VRPS). J Voice 2022; 36: 876. e1-e7.

  • 24.

    Castarlenas E, Jensen MP, von Baeyer CL, Mir J. Psychometric properties of the numerical rating scale to assess self-reported pain intensity in children and adolescents. Clin J Pain 2017; 33: 376-383.

  • 25.

    Heo CY, Kim B, Park K, Back RM. A comparison of Best-Worst Scaling and Likert Scale methods on peer-to-peer accommodation attributes. J Busi Res 2022; 148: 368-377.##https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2022.04.064.

  • 26.

    Cohen SH, Neira L, editors. Measuring preference for product benefits across countries: overcoming scale usage bias with maximum difference scaling. ESOMAR 2003 Latin America Conference, Punta del Este, Uruguay; 2003.

  • 27.

    Cohen SH, Markowitz P, editors. Renewing market segmentation: Some new tools to correct old problems. ESOMAR 2002 Congress Proceedings; 2002: ESOMAR Amsterdam, The Netherlands.

  • 28.

    Joshi A, Kale S, Chandel S, Pal DK. Likert scale: Explored and explained. Br J Appl Sci Technol 2015; 7: 396-403.##https://doi.org/10.9734/BJAST/2015/14975.

  • 29.

    Theofanidis D, Fountouki A. Limitations anddelimitations in the research process. Perioperative Nursing, 2018;7(3):155-63.

  • 30.

    Willits FK, Theodori GL, Luloff A. Another look at Likert scales. J Rural Soc Sci 2016; 31: 6.