ReviewJournal of educational evaluation for health professions2019
How to execute Context, Input, Process, and Product evaluation model in medical health education.
Review in Journal of educational evaluation for health professions, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
12 citing papers in PubMed.
- Approaches to the Evaluation of Competency-Based Health Professions Education Implementation from Around the Globe.Perspectives on medical education · 2026Article
- A satisfaction-focused CIPP evaluation of Mongolia's undergraduate occupational therapy program: a cross-sectional study.Korean journal of medical education · 2025Article
- Educational and research utility of the registrar clinical encounters in training (ReCEnT) project: an exploration of mechanisms using the context, input, process and product (CIPP) framework.Family medicine and community health · 2025Article
- Article
- Enhancing Health Policy Administration in LMICs: Dr. LJW Fellowship Program Insights (2021-2023).Annals of global health · 2025Article
- Effectiveness of Peer-Assisted Learning in health professional education: a scoping review of systematic reviews.BMC medical education · 2024Article
- Article
- Self-care educational guide for mothers with gestational diabetes mellitus: A systematic review on identifying self-care domains, approaches, and their effectiveness.Belitung nursing journal · 2023Review
- Exploring Perceptions of Competency-Based Medical Education in Undergraduate Medical Students and Faculty: A Program Evaluation.Advances in medical education and practice · 2023Article
- A structured mentorship program for medical college faculty on health research.Medical journal, Armed Forces India · 2021Article
- Context, Input, Process, and Product Evaluation Model in medical education: A systematic review.Journal of education and health promotion · 2021Review
- Change of accreditation standards of medical schools by the Korean Institute of Medical Education and Evaluation from 2000 to 2019.Journal of educational evaluation for health professions · 2020Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Improvements to education are necessary in order to keep up with the education requirements of today. The Context, Input, Process, and Product (CIPP) evaluation model was created for the decision-making towards education improvement, so this model is appropriate in this regard. However, application of this model in the actual context of medical health education is considered difficult in the education environment. Thus, in this study, literature survey of previous studies was investigated to examine the execution procedure of how the CIPP model can be actually applied. For the execution procedure utilizing the CIPP model, the criteria and indicators were determined from analysis results and material was collected after setting the material collection method. Afterwards, the collected material was analyzed for each CIPP element, and finally, the relationship of each CIPP element was analyzed for the final improvement decision-making. In this study, these steps were followed and the methods employed in previous studies were organized. Particularly, the process of determining the criteria and indicators was important and required a significant effort. Literature survey was carried out to analyze the most widely used criteria through content analysis and obtained a total of 12 criteria. Additional emphasis is necessary in the importance of the criteria selection for the actual application of the CIPP model. Also, a diverse range of information can be obtained through qualitative as well as quantitative methods. Above all, since the CIPP evaluation model execution result becomes the basis for the execution of further improved evaluations, the first attempt of performing without hesitation is essential.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.