Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39893451›Full record

ArticleBMC medical education2025

Using the CIPP Model to elicit perceptions of health professions faculty and students about virtual learning.

Sakineh Gerayllo, Mohammadali Vakili, Leila Jouybari, Zahra Moghadam, Ali Jafari, Alireza Heidari

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medical education, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Sakineh GeraylloDepartment of Health, Faculty of Health, Health Education and Health Promoion, Golestan University of Medical Sciences, Gorgan, Iran.
Mohammadali VakiliHealth Management and Social Development Research Center, Department of Biostatistics and Epidemiology, Faculty of Health, Golestan University of Medical Sciences, Gorgan, Iran.
Leila JouybariFaculty of Nursing and Midwifery, Golestan University of Medical Sciences, Gorgan, Iran.
Zahra MoghadamEducational Technology, Educational Development Center, Golestan University of Medical Sciences, Gorgan, Iran.
Ali JafariStudent Research Committee, Department of Community Nutrition, Faculty of Nutrition Sciences and Food Technology, National Nutrition and Food Technology Research Institute, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.
Alireza HeidariHealth Management and Social Development Research Center, Golestan University of Medical Sciences, Gorgan, Iran. alirezaheidari7@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9262-7967

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe outbreak of the Coronavirus epidemic has caused a huge crisis initiating fundamental changes in education since this crisis has turned face-to-face education into virtual training. This questionnaire-based study employed the comprehensive CIPP Model (Context, Input, Process, Product) to obtain the perspectives of both faculty members and students from six different faculties at one university in Iran concerning implementation of virtual learning in during COVID 19. METHODOLOGY: The participants in this cross-sectional study were 522 students and 38 members of the faculty in six different faculties who were selected via stratified random sampling. The research tool was a validated and reliable researcher-made questionnaire developed based on the context, input, process, and product (CIPP) evaluation model. The survey included a scale for each of the four CIPP components, with scales comprised of 9 to 12 questions. The data were analyzed through SPSS 23 using descriptive and inferential (Mann-Whitney, Kruskal-Wallis, and Spearman correlation) methods.

resultsThe scale items for each of the CIPP components that elicited the highest levels of agreement by both professors and students were as follows based on a five point scale where higher scores indicated higher levels of respondent agreement: Context: Topics presented in the virtual training are determined according to the course plan (3.63), and virtual education reduces the teacher's control over class (3.56); Input: Designated hours are suitable for virtual learning classes (3.29); Process: Professors have less commitment and responsibility in providing virtual courses (3.48); and Product: Student participation in virtual classes is low (3.78), and virtual learning saves time (3.67)." For both students and faculty, the mean scores for the context, input, process, and product scales all averaged near the mid-point of the scale, 3.00. No significant difference was observed between professors and students except for the input construct. Students responded significantly differently according to their age and educational level on the product construct, and significantly differently according to their faculty and marital status on each of the CIPP constructs.

conclusionThis study has highlighted various issues related to virtual education, and the opinions of professors and students regarding changes to the online educational program should be strategically considered. The present findings can facilitate decision-making and policy-making at the macro level, enabling officials to plan appropriately, take professional measures, and decide whether to continue, cease, or revise educational goals, inputs, processes, and products.

Indexed as

COVID-19Education, DistanceFaculty, MedicalHealth OccupationsStudents, MedicalAdultCross-Sectional StudiesFemaleHumansIranMaleSARS-CoV-2Surveys and QuestionnairesYoung AdultCIPP modelCovid-19Distance learningEvaluationVirtual education

Identifiers

PMID39893451
PMCPMC11786557

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.