Investigating the Evaluators’ Correspondence Rate (Learners, Colleagues, Authorities) Regarding the Quality of Promoted Professors’ Educational Activities in the Medical Science University

Background: Every year a number of Iran’s faculty members in Medical science universities got promoted to a higher scientific rank with respect to their history of administrative and scientific services and research and educational activities. One of the faculty promotion criteria is assessing the quality of their educational activities which encompass four areas (training, professional and social ethics, and class management). In Medical Science University, Professor’s assessments will be performed by students, colleagues, head of the department, hospital educational assistant as well as self-assessment. This study has the aim of examining the corresponding rate of evaluators’ opinions regarding the assessed quality of promoted professors’ educational activities in the Medical Science University from the year1390 to 1394. Methods: In this cross-sectional study, 160 promoted faculty members from fundamental and clinical group, from the year 1390 to 1394, were chosen as a case study. However, since there were a limited number of professors, the whole society was considered as a sample by the census. The data collection was based on some questionnaires that their validity and stability were confirmed by the Minister of Health and Medical education and were adjusted based on a Likert Scale (from very good to very bad).These questionnaires were filled by learners, heads of departments, colleagues, hospital, educational assistant as well as self-assessment. Then the given scores were separated elicited through medical science assessment expert and the information was analyzed by SPSS (11.5) software with a statistical test of the correlation coefficient. Results: investigating the correlation coefficient of students’ colleagues, head of the department, hospital and university educational assistant opinions regarding the assessment of promoting faculty members show that their ideas display no meaningful correspondence and agreement in the area of education (P=0. 07). In other assessment areas, there is a meaningful correspondence of evaluators’ opinions. Conclusions: our findings reflect that there is a meaningful correspondence of evaluators’ opinions except in the area of education. We can refer to evaluators’ lack of, accurate understanding of the professors’ teaching styles as one of the main reasons of such in correspondence.