Home About us Editorial board Ahead of print Current issue Search Archives Submit article Instructions Subscribe Contacts Login 
  • Users Online: 121
  • Home
  • Print this page
  • Email this page


 
   Table of Contents      
SHORT COMMUNICATION
Year : 2020  |  Volume : 25  |  Issue : 4  |  Page : 356-358

Designing and executing a checklist for evaluating midwifery students' practical skills


1 Department of Midwifery, Mother and Child Care Research Center, School of Nursing and Midwifery, Hamadan University of Medical Sciences, Hamadan, Iran
2 PhD Student of Biostatistics, Department of Biostatistics, School of Public Health, Hamadan University of Medical Sciences, Hamadan, Iran

Date of Submission01-Nov-2019
Date of Decision09-Nov-2019
Date of Acceptance12-May-2020
Date of Web Publication17-Jun-2020

Correspondence Address:
Mrs. Arezoo Shayan
Department of Midwifery, Mother and Child Care Research Center, School of Nursing and Midwifery, Hamadan University of Medical Sciences, Hamadan
Iran
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/ijnmr.IJNMR_255_19

Rights and Permissions
  Abstract 


Background: This study aimed to design and execute a reliable checklist for evaluating midwifery students' clinical skills. Materials and Methods: In this cross-sectional study, 8 checklists were designed and validated for midwifery procedures. The students' performances were compared using this method and two other evaluation methods. Results: The face and content validity of all questions were approved (content validity ratio and content validity index >0.80, inter-rater reliability >0.50, and Cronbach's alpha >0.70). The rate of the students' satisfaction was 19%, 14%, and 76% with the nonchecklist method, the general checklist, and the designed checklist, respectively. Furthermore, both students (F2,60= 107.07, p < 0.004) and evaluators (F2,9 =152.23, p < 0.001) gained significantly higher attitude scores towards the new checklist compared to the two other methods. Conclusions: The designed checklist was quite reliable and valid for evaluating the midwifery students' clinical skills.

Keywords: Checklist, clinical competence, educational measurement, midwifery, students


How to cite this article:
Refaei M, Ahmadini H, Masoumi SZ, Shayan A. Designing and executing a checklist for evaluating midwifery students' practical skills. Iranian J Nursing Midwifery Res 2020;25:356-8

How to cite this URL:
Refaei M, Ahmadini H, Masoumi SZ, Shayan A. Designing and executing a checklist for evaluating midwifery students' practical skills. Iranian J Nursing Midwifery Res [serial online] 2020 [cited 2020 Jul 7];25:356-8. Available from: http://www.ijnmrjournal.net/text.asp?2020/25/4/356/287028




  Introduction Top


Midwives play an essential role in reducing maternal and infant morbidity and mortality and enhancing access to high-quality care. Midwifery education plays a vital role in the development of competent midwives.[1] Evaluation is a way to measure students' learning.[2] The educational assessment aims to guarantee the promotion of the quality of educational programs.[3]

The most popular evaluation techniques include checklists and rating scales. The checklist method is a systematic way of reporting observer judgments. In the global rating system, a student's clinical performance is evaluated as a general scoring scale. Although the worldwide rating method is the most common evaluation method, using a checklist is better to judge the learners' performances.[4] Using an appropriate and reliable evaluation checklist is one of the main components of student evaluation tests. This study aims to design and execute a checklist for evaluating midwifery students' practical skills.


  Materials and Methods Top


This cross-sectional study was conducted at Hamadan University of Medical Sciences in 2018. The study population consisted of 21 undergraduate midwifery students at the end of the first semester who were selected via the census method. The inclusion criteria of the study were having passed the theoretical and practical courses of “The Principles and Techniques of Nursing and Midwifery”. The exclusion criterion was not taking part in the practical examination. The participants' demographic data were obtained using a demographic questionnaire.

At first, checklists were designed for 8 applied procedures in midwifery (serum therapy, catheterization, drawing up and injecting drugs, controlling vital signs, oxygen therapy, baby care principles, wearing protective equipment, and perineal prep and drape before vaginal delivery) based on the educational goals of “The Principles and Techniques of Nursing and Midwifery”. To assess the quantitative face validity of the checklist, the impact score was computed for each item. In case the impact score was above 1.5, the subject was considered to be appropriate for further analyses. The quantitative content validity of the checklist was assessed using the Content Validity Ratio (CVR) and Content Validity Index (CVI). The items with the CVR score of more than 0.80 were accepted.[5] The acceptable threshold for CVI has been considered to be 0.79. To determine the reliability of the checklists, the inter-rater reliability method was used. The correlation coefficient was found to be >0.50 and Cronbach's alpha >0.70.

In the next step, four stations were designed. The students were collected in a class before the examination. Therein, a code was assigned to each student. Accordingly, the students were entered into the four stations. In each station, the students were requested to perform one of two procedures randomly within 5 minutes. At each station, the evaluator assessed the student using 3 methods (the designed checklist, the general checklist, and without any checklists). The general checklist contained 12 general questions about dealing with the patient, patient privacy, proper communication with the patient, giving medication, injections, dressing, sterile tips, vital signs, writing a report, familiarity with operating room equipment, interacting with colleagues, and interacting with other wards of the hospital, which were not specific for a procedure. In the nonchecklist method, only the student's overall performance was assessed. All analyses were done using the Statistical Package For the Social Sciences (SPSS) 18 software (version 18, SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA).

Ethical considerations

This study was approved by the Ethics Committee of Hamadan University of Medical Sciences (IR.UMSHA.REC.1397.27). The purpose of the study was explained to the students and their written informed consents were obtained.


  Results Top


The mean (SD) age of the students was 18.90 (1.04) years. All students were single, and none of them was employed. The results revealed a significant difference among the students' performance scores in the three methods (p = 0.004). The highest and lowest mean (SD) scores were related to the designed checklist 16.60 (1.60) and the nonchecklist method 14.96 (1.75), respectively [Table 1]. Tukey's post hoc test revealed a significant difference between the students' mean scores in the nonchecklist method and the designed checklist (p = 0.003).
Table 1: Comparisons of the students' mean scores in the three evaluation methods

Click here to view


The rate of the students' satisfaction was 19%, 14%, and 76% with the nonchecklist method, the general checklist, and the designed checklist, respectively. Additionally, the four evaluators were completely satisfied with the designed checklist.

The results indicated a significant difference among the students' mean scores of attitude in the three methods (p < 0.005). Moreover, the evaluators' mean (SD) score of attitude towards the designed checklist was significantly higher compared to the two other methods 28.25 (1.25), p < 0.001 [Table 2].
Table 2: Comparison of the students' and evaluators' mean scores of attitude in the three methods

Click here to view



  Discussion Top


In this study, up-to-date references were used to prepare the checklists. Rowan (2016) has referred to the necessity to consider accurate values and principles for designing an evaluation method so that it would measure what it has been intended to measure.[6] Using a standard checklist is one of the criteria for the quality of the objective structured clinical examination.[7] Mansourian et al. (2017) reported that the content validity of the checklist for evaluating dental students was 0.8 and its reliability coefficient was 0.9.[4]

In this study, the students gained higher scores in the designed checklist, while the lowest scores were related to the nonchecklist method. In Mansourian's research, the total mean score was 89.9 for the checklist method and 86.2 for the non-checklist method.[4] Moreover, both students and evaluators were satisfied with and had a positive attitude towards the designed checklist. However, Mansourian et al. reported no significant difference between the two methods of evaluation (using and not using a checklist) regarding the students' and evaluators' satisfaction. Yet, the students were more satisfied with the checklist method.[4] Arfaie (2018) also explained that from the students' perspective, their awareness of the goals and procedures of the clinical evaluation was the main priority associated with this process.[8]

This study findings indicated that the designed checklist increased the quality of assessment. According to McGill et al. (2015), evaluation methods based on judgment do not have excellent reliability and validity. Therefore, the validity and reliability of evaluation methods can be enhanced using standard instruments.[9] One of the limitations of this study was its small sample size.


  Conclusion Top


The designed checklist was sufficiently reliable and valid for evaluating the midwifery students' clinical skills. Furthermore, both students and evaluators were satisfied with and had a positive attitude towards the designed checklist.

Acknowledgments

This proposal was approved by the Research Council of Hamadan University of Medical Sciences (code: 970204448). Hereby, the authors thank the Research Vice-chancellor of Hamadan University of Medical Sciences, academic members, and the students for their cooperation.

Financial support and sponsorship

Research Council of Hamadan University of Medical Sciences

Conflicts of interest

Nothing to declare.



 
  References Top

1.
Bharj KK, Luyben A, Avery MD, Johnson PG, Barger MK, Bick D. An agenda for midwifery education: Advancing the state of the world' s midwifery. Midwifery 2016;33:3-6.  Back to cited text no. 1
    
2.
Malakooti N, Bahadoran P, Ehsanpoor S. Assessment of the midwifery students' clinical competency before internship program in the field based on the objective structured clinical examination. Iran J Nurs Midwifery Res 2018;23:31-5.  Back to cited text no. 2
    
3.
Adib-Hajbaghery M, Yazdani M. Effects of OSCE on learning, satisfaction and test anxiety of nursing students: A review study. Iran J Med Educ 2018;18:70-83.  Back to cited text no. 3
    
4.
Mansourian A, Shirazian S, Jalili M, Vatanpour M, Arabi LPM. Checklist development for assessing the dental students' clinical skills in oral and maxillofacial medicine course and comparison with global rating. J Dent Med Tehran Univ Med Sci 2017;29:169-76.  Back to cited text no. 4
    
5.
Hajizadeh E, Asghary M. Methods and Statistical Analysis by Looking at the Research Method in Biotechnology and Health Sciences. 1st ed. Tehran: Iranian Students Booking Agency; 2015.  Back to cited text no. 5
    
6.
Rowan L. Phil race: Making learning happen: A guide for post-compulsory education. N Z J Educ Stud 2016;51:133-5.  Back to cited text no. 6
    
7.
Criscione-Schreiber LG, Sloane RJ, Hawley J, Jonas BL, O'Rourke KS, Bolster MB. Expert panel consensus on assessment checklists for a rheumatology objective structured clinical examination. Arthritis Care Res 2015;67:898-904.  Back to cited text no. 7
    
8.
Arfaie K. Priorities of clinical education evaluation from nursing and midwifery students' perspective. Iran J Nurs 2012;25:71-7.  Back to cited text no. 8
    
9.
McGill DA, van der Vleuten CPM, Clarke MJ. Construct validation of judgement-based assessments of medical trainees' competency in the workplace using a “Kanesian” approach to validation. BMC Med Educ 2015;15:237.  Back to cited text no. 9
    



 
 
    Tables

  [Table 1], [Table 2]



 

Top
 
 
  Search
 
    Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
    Access Statistics
    Email Alert *
    Add to My List *
* Registration required (free)  

 
  In this article
Abstract
Introduction
Materials and Me...
Results
Discussion
Conclusion
References
Article Tables

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed51    
    Printed2    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded27    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal