Skip to main content

Table 2 Numbers and examples of comments provided for standards by areas and validity criteria * Some comments in this area pointed to two criteria

From: Developing and validating a national set of standards for undergraduate medical education using the WFME framework: the experience of an accreditation system in Iran

Areas

comments (n)

Comments (examples)

 

Clarity

Relevance

Optimization

Evaluability

Basic or QI?

Unrelated

Total

 

1. Mission and Objectives

41

4

4

3

-

1

53

- It is better to mention ‘health problems’ instead of the phrase 'transnational aspects of health’. (clarity, QI1-1-2)

- Given the difference in mission statements of universities, this standard can be contrary to the goals of universities. (relevance, QI1-1-2)

- Standards of this area should be formulated based on the local characteristics of each university. (optimization, area)

- Standard has been written in a general statement and it is not evaluable. (evaluability, B1-1-3)

2. Instructional Program

104

2

25

12

20

2

159*

- Religion, creed and race should be considered in the definition of educational justice. (clarity, B2-1-3)

- There is no need for complementary and alternative medicine for the general practitioner. (relevance, B2-2-3)

- This standard is applicable if the geographical and demographic conditions and facilities of the region allow. (optimization, B2-4-3)

- How is the occurrence of competency-based education measured? (evaluability, B2-1-2)

3. Assessment of Students

27

-

8

3

5

-

40*

- The purpose of the summative assessment should be explained in detail. (clarity, B3-1-4)

- Usually, the conditions for using various assessment methods are not provided. (optimization, B3-1-3)Provision of requirements and conditions for improving student learning is ambiguous and cannot be evaluated. (evaluability, OI3-1-3)

4. Students

58

-

19

3

4

6

89*

- It is necessary to prepare a printed and electronic handbook for students and provide it to newcomers. (clarity, B4-1-3)

- The standard is not applicable since the admission process is centralized. (optimization, QI4-1-1)The type of students’ characteristics that are going to be surveyed studied by should be specified; Based on that, its evaluability can be determined. (evaluability, B4-1-1)

5. Academic Staff/Faculty

57

1

13

5

2

1

77*

- Delete the word ' selection’. (clarity, QI5-1-1)

- It is mostly at the disposal of the medical school. (relevance, B5-1-1)

- Considering the cultural characteristics of universities, it cannot be implemented everywhere (optimization, B5-2-4)It is difficult to measure the two verbs, familiarity and paying enough attention. (evaluability, B5-2-6)

6. Educational Resources

80

2

10

5

10

1

101*

- Does the ‘covered population’ refer to the needs of students or the needs of society? (clarity, QI6-2-1)

- This standard is the mission of the university, not the medical school. (relevance, QI6-2-1)

- Medical schools must be independent in terms of financial resources so that this standard can be implemented (optimization, B6-4-2)Two items "adequate number and variety of patients" and "supervision of clinical training" cannot be evaluated. (evaluability, B6-2-1)

7. Program Evaluation

50

2

2

-

3

-

57

- It is better to change the order of B7-1-1 and B7-1-2. (clarity, B7-1-1)

- This standard is useless as long as student admission is concentrated. (relevance, B7-2-2)

- In order to fulfill this standard, specialized counseling centers must be located in the medical school (optimization, B7-2-2)

8. Governance and Administration

40

-

2

2

5

1

48*

- It is better to change the order of B7-1-1 and B7-1-2. (clarity, B7-1-1)

- Due to the different missions of our university, this standard has limited implementation (optimization, B8-5-1)It is difficult to measure this standard. (evaluability, B8-5-1)

Set of standards (overall)

8

-

2

1

1

1

9*

- The accountability of medical school to the community has less been emphasized in these standards and is reduced to the participation of stakeholders. (clarity)

- Expectations from medical schools are set at the level of the university president and in some cases at the level of the ministry. (optimization)

- The standards are developed as global statement and do not include numerical or quantitative indicators that stabilize them. (evaluability)

Total

465

11

85

34

49

13

633*

-

* Some comments in this area pointed to two criteria.