Proposal by Stuffelbeam, founder of CIPP Model |
Stufflebeam and Shinkfield [7] (1985) |
Criteria |
Define institution situation; learner identification and demand inspection; search for demand satisfaction opportunity; problem diagnosis and determination of objective appropriacy |
System capability, solution program strategy, design procedure of strategy execution, budget, schedule check |
Flaw check or prediction of procedures in progress or the execution process; information provision for preplanned sequential decisions; report and judgment of events and activities regarding the execution |
Collection of technology/judgment regarding achievements; linkage with information on the objective, situation, input, process; value and advantage analysis |
Material collection method |
Utilization of systems analysis, survey study, literature survey, public hearings, interviews, diagnostic assessment, Delphi technique |
Available human and material resources, resolution strategy, design procedure, possibility and economic analysis, literature survey, pilot program survey, advocacy groups, pilot attempt |
procedural disorder identification and accidental disorder awareness, detailed information acquisition for scheduled decision-making, describe the actual process, continuous interaction with the program operation staff, and observation or their activities |
Operational definition and measurement of the performance standards and collection of the judgments by the interested parties, qualitative/quantitative analysis |
Purpose |
Necessary for decision-making regarding education objective and purpose when education begins (provide standard of change plans, performance judgment): use in the decision-making for education planning |
Necessary for support resource, resolution strategy, and design procedure selection (provide the basis for change activity composition, execution process judgment basis): use in the decision-making for education structuralization |
Necessary for program planning, procedure, and improvement; necessary for actual situation basis provision in performance analysis: use in the decision-making for education execution |
Operational definition and measurement of the performance standard; collection of judgments by interested parties regarding the performance; qualitative/quantitative analysis: use in the decision-making for recycling |
Institution |
Jung and Moon [26] (2013) |
Criteria |
Service demand and situation, service objective domain |
Budget, human resource management, facility and resource environment, service operation and content |
Service activity, service satisfaction, service evaluation |
Service application, service performance |
School |
Shin et al. [19] (2018) |
Criteria |
Demand analysis, objective setting |
Execution plan (human resource, procedure, support system, etc.), performance detail |
Program activity, program management and evaluation |
Program performance (achievement, satisfaction, effectiveness) |
Nursing |
Kim and Son [27] (2017) |
Criteria |
Intention and necessity |
contents of hospital introduction, senior nurses’ working experience |
Composition and facilitation |
Usefulness of the program, feeling involvement through activities, global satisfaction |
Material collection method |
Questionnaire |
Questionnaire |
Questionnaire |
Questionnaire |
Medical health professions |
Ashghali-Farahani et al. [14] (2018) |
Criteria |
Inappropriate infrastructure; unknown duties |
Biomedical approach; incomprehensive curriculum; lack of professional NICU nursing mentors; inappropriate admission process of NICU students; lack of NICU skill labs |
More emphasize on theoretical education; the overlap of credits with each other and the inconsistency among the mentor; ineffective assessment |
Preferring routine work instead of professional job; tendency to leave the job; clitical incompetency of graduates; dissatisfaction of graduates |
Material collection method |
Semi-structured interview; open question |
Target of evaluation |
NICU student, NICU graduate nurse, neonatologist, faculty member, nurse |
Neyazi et al. [10] (2016) |
Criteria |
Goals, organization and management area |
Interest and understanding of students towards field and labor market; faculty members; research and educational spaces and equipment |
Student research activity; educational courses and programs, teaching and learning process; student progress evaluation; evaluated factors for graduates |
Efficiency of research and educational programs, teaching and learning process to increase knowledge and job performance of graduates |
Material collection method |
Researcher-made questionnaires inspired from the CIPP model and internal evaluation literatures |
Target of evaluation |
Students, graduates |
Al-Khathami [11] (2012) |
Criteria |
Achievement of program goals; barriers to achieve goals, objectives, and needs |
Alternative procedural design for: contents, academic sessions, hospital sessions, half day release sessions |
Process involved in to learning activities; trainers; theoretical sessions; clinical sessions |
Overall impression about the program; barriers to achieve goals, objectives, and needs; assessment tools; enjoyment; satisfaction |
Material collection method |
Questionnaire (quantitative, qualitative) |
Target of evaluation |
Trainee |
Yarmohammadian and Mohebbi [15] (2015) |
Criteria |
Human specialists and scientific services for needs of the local community |
Head of department, faculty, |
Activities of group manager, students, administrators |
- |
students, curriculum, funding, training facilities |
of library; scientific research and teaching–learning activities of faculty |
Material collection method |
Questionnaire |
Target of evaluation |
Directorates, faculty members, students, and library staff |
Neyazi et al. [12] (2016) |
Criteria |
Goals, management, and organization area |
Facility and spaces |
Educational courses and programs, learning and teaching process; administration and financial; program evaluation |
Graduates |
Material collection method |
Questionnaire |
Target of evaluation |
Department head, faculty members, and library staff |
Rooholamini et al. [9] (2017) |
Criteria |
Perceptions of learning; perceptions of teachers; academic self-perceptions; perceptions of the environment; social self-perceptions |
Content of curriculum |
The process of learning; process of teaching |
Students’ performance; the process of teaching and learning |
Material collection method |
Review of current evidence on integration; consultation with experts; Modified Dundee Ready Education Environment Measure (DREEM) |
A researcher made questionnaire |
1: researcher–made questionnaires for evaluating the quality of each integrated course; 2: researcher–made questionnaires for evaluating the quality of early clinical exposure |
1: learner centered integrated basic science, portfolios; 2: brainstorming (students); 3: semi-structured interview (professors of basic sciences) |
Target of evaluation |
Students, faculty and administrators |
Faculties and curriculum committee |
First and second year medical students |
First and second year medical students; professors of basic sciences |
Lee et al. [8] (2019) |
Criteria |
Goals, necessity or needs |
Available input resources (human and material resources); educational strategy |
Implementation according to plan; evaluation of the program by students |
Goal achievement; satisfaction of the curriculum |
Material collection method |
Questionnaire, FGI, meeting minutes, syllabus, curriculum |
Questionnaire, FGI, meeting minutes, time table |
Questionnaire, FGI, meeting minutes, syllabus |
Questionnaire, FGI, meeting minutes, grades |
Target of evaluation |
Students, faculty |