Ethics code: IR.IUMS.REC.1401.141
1- Instructor, Department of Operating Room, School of Allied Medical Sciences, Iran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran
2- Instructor, Department of Operating Room, School of Paramedical Sciences, Guilan University of Medical Sciences, Rasht, Iran ,hanieh_mousavi@gums.ac.ir
3- Assistant Professor, Department of Operating Room, School of Allied Medical Sciences, Iran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran
4- Instructor, Department of Anesthesia, School of Paramedical Sciences, Guilan University of Medical Sciences, Rasht, Iran
2- Instructor, Department of Operating Room, School of Paramedical Sciences, Guilan University of Medical Sciences, Rasht, Iran ,
3- Assistant Professor, Department of Operating Room, School of Allied Medical Sciences, Iran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran
4- Instructor, Department of Anesthesia, School of Paramedical Sciences, Guilan University of Medical Sciences, Rasht, Iran
Abstract: (36 Views)
Background and Aim: Observing the principles of professional ethics by university faculty members guarantees the improvement of student ethics and the moral situation of the entire university environment. A 360-degree evaluation is a method in which individuals are assessed from multiple perspectives, including peers, supervisors, subordinates, and self-assessment. Therefore, the results of this type of evaluation are more objective, reliable, and valid. This study was conducted to evaluate the professional ethics of faculty members of operating room departments of the Universities of Medical Sciences in Tehran using a 360-degree feedback model.
Materials and Methods: This descriptive-analytical cross-sectional study was conducted in the universities of Medical Sciences in Tehran between 2021 and 2022. The faculty members of the operating room groups of each university were evaluated by four groups of evaluators (themselves, senior managers, colleagues, and students of the operating room group) based on researcher-made questionnaires of professional ethics. In the community of faculty members, superior managers, and peers, the size of the community was equal to the sample. In the student community, the stratified sampling method was used according to the volume to determine the required samples from the student population in each university, and the sample size of 195 students was determined. The face and content validity of the questionnaires were confirmed by a group of expert professors (11 people). To estimate the reliability of the questionnaires, Cronbach’s alpha coefficient was used, which was for the self-evaluator questionnaire (0.87), superior managers (0.92), peers (0.88), and students (0.95). Data normality was assessed using the Kolmogorov–Smirnov test. Independent t-test, Mann–Whitney U test, and Kruskal–Wallis test were used for group comparisons, while Pearson’s correlation coefficient was used to examine relationships between variables. Finally, the data analysis was performed using SPSS software. For all tests, a significance level of P<0.05 was considered.
Results: The overall mean professional ethics score of faculty members from the perspective of the four evaluator groups was 4.06±0.58, indicating a desirable level of professional ethics. Self-evaluation yielded the highest mean score across all dimensions (4.79±0.17), whereas student evaluations produced the lowest mean score (3.77±0.56). Professional ethics scores were significantly associated with the gender of self-evaluators (P<0.05). So that female faculty members rated themselves better than male ones. Furthermore, a significant difference was observed between male and female students regarding their perceptions of faculty members’ adherence to professional ethics (P<0.05). So that male students rated the faculty members’ adherence to professional ethics better.
Conclusion: Considering the diversity of evaluators’ perspectives, modern and practical evaluation approaches such as 360-degree feedback are valuable tools for assessing adherence to professional ethics to determine the status of professional ethics from various stakeholder perspectives. These methods can help faculty members identify areas for improvement and enhance their professional performance.
Materials and Methods: This descriptive-analytical cross-sectional study was conducted in the universities of Medical Sciences in Tehran between 2021 and 2022. The faculty members of the operating room groups of each university were evaluated by four groups of evaluators (themselves, senior managers, colleagues, and students of the operating room group) based on researcher-made questionnaires of professional ethics. In the community of faculty members, superior managers, and peers, the size of the community was equal to the sample. In the student community, the stratified sampling method was used according to the volume to determine the required samples from the student population in each university, and the sample size of 195 students was determined. The face and content validity of the questionnaires were confirmed by a group of expert professors (11 people). To estimate the reliability of the questionnaires, Cronbach’s alpha coefficient was used, which was for the self-evaluator questionnaire (0.87), superior managers (0.92), peers (0.88), and students (0.95). Data normality was assessed using the Kolmogorov–Smirnov test. Independent t-test, Mann–Whitney U test, and Kruskal–Wallis test were used for group comparisons, while Pearson’s correlation coefficient was used to examine relationships between variables. Finally, the data analysis was performed using SPSS software. For all tests, a significance level of P<0.05 was considered.
Results: The overall mean professional ethics score of faculty members from the perspective of the four evaluator groups was 4.06±0.58, indicating a desirable level of professional ethics. Self-evaluation yielded the highest mean score across all dimensions (4.79±0.17), whereas student evaluations produced the lowest mean score (3.77±0.56). Professional ethics scores were significantly associated with the gender of self-evaluators (P<0.05). So that female faculty members rated themselves better than male ones. Furthermore, a significant difference was observed between male and female students regarding their perceptions of faculty members’ adherence to professional ethics (P<0.05). So that male students rated the faculty members’ adherence to professional ethics better.
Conclusion: Considering the diversity of evaluators’ perspectives, modern and practical evaluation approaches such as 360-degree feedback are valuable tools for assessing adherence to professional ethics to determine the status of professional ethics from various stakeholder perspectives. These methods can help faculty members identify areas for improvement and enhance their professional performance.
Keywords: 360-Degree Feedback, Feedback, Performance Evaluation, Professional Ethics, Faculty Members
Type of Study: Original Research |
Subject:
Surgery Room
Send email to the article author
| Rights and permissions | |
 |
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License. |
