Evaluation of ‘Internship Induction Programme’: an application of Kirkpatrick’s model

  • Dr Choudhari SG Department of Community Medicine, Jawaharlal Nehru Medical College, DMIMS (Deemed University), Wardha (MS), India
  • Dr Rawekar AT Department of Assessment & Evaluation- School of Health Professional Education & Research, DMIMSU, Wardha (MS), India
  • Dr Bhagat VM Assistant Director, CLT&RI, Ministry of Health & Family welfare, Chengalpattu, Chennai (TN), India
  • Dr Mudey AB Department of Community Medicine, Jawaharlal Nehru Medical College, DMIMS (Deemed University), Wardha (MS), India
DOI: https://doi.org/10.17511/ijmrr.2015.i9.192
Keywords: Internship, Kirkpatrick, Induction, Programme Evaluation

Abstract

Introduction: Often, interns remain unaware of what is expected of them during internship period and work without a clear aim. Induction is a very important process but in reality in many of the medical colleges, internship induction programme is limited to mere ‘Hippocratic Oath taking ceremony’ for the interns. In this context the present study conducted with the objectives - To evaluate interns ‘Gain in learning’ through Internship Induction Program (IIP), to assess the perception of interns regarding benefits to them through IIP, to assess perception of faculty members, administrators involved in IIP regarding benefits to interns and to beneficiaries (patients) in hospital/community and to take the feedback from interns, faculties involved, about the newly launched module for IIP.

Methods: Study participants were the Interns undergoing IIP(n1=166) and the faculty from varied disciplines who participated in IIP(n2=20). Study tool were the Pre & post test questionnaire for interns and feedback proforma with regard to IIP & newly launched ‘IIP Module’, both for interns and faculties. Evaluation has done as per the guidelines of Kirkpatrick’s model of programme evaluation where in first two levels of evaluation were considered.

Results: Response rate was 100%. Mean Pre-test and post test scores were 6.92±2.55 and 15.03±2.92 respectively (p value<0.05). Absolute learning gain=40.55%, Learning effectiveness score=117%, Class average normalized gain=61%, Effect size=2.95. In feedback analysis for most of the parameters, the rating average was to the right side of the neutral indicating a positive feedback.

Conclusion: Programme Evaluation of IIP with Kirkpatrick’s model revealed it to be successful in achieving its objective of improving knowledge and attitude of interns.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

1. Salient features of Regulations on Graduate Medical Education, 1997. Medical Council of India, 1997. Available at http://www.mciindia.org/know/rules/ rules_mbbs.htm (accessed on 7 April 2008).

2. Chaturvedi S, Aggarwal OP. Training interns in population-based research: learners' feedback from 13 consecutive batches from a medical school in India. Med Educ. 2001 Jun;35(6):585-9.

3. Deshpande CK. Medical education in India. J Postgrad Med. 1982;28(4):181-3.

4. Starting and Maintaining A Quality Internship Program. Second edition. Michael True, Director, Internship Cneter Messiah College, Grantham, PA 17027. mtrue@messiaah.edu

5. Guideline to Providing a Good Induction: National Internship scheme. Job Bridge.

6. Winfrey, E.C. (1999). Kirkpatrick's Four Levels of Evaluation. In B. Hoffman (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Educational Technology. Retrieved March 24, 2005, from http://coe.sdsu.edu/eet/Articles/k4levels/start.htm

7. Samuel Ball. Evaluating Educational Programs. ETS R&D Scientific and Policy Contributions Series. ETS SPC–11-01.April 2011.

8. Kirkpatrick D. Revisiting Kirkpatrick’s four-level model. Training and Development 1996; 50:54-59.

9. R R Hake, Interactive-engagement versus traditional methods: A six-thousand-student survey of mechanics test data for introductory physics courses. American
journal of Physics 1998, 66:64.

10. Coe, R., (2002). It’s the Effect Size, Stupid. What effect size is and why it is important presentation to the Annual Conference of the British Educational Research Association, England 2002. Retrieved November 2011 from http://www.leeds.ac.uk/educol/documents/00002182.htm

11. Hannon FB. A national medical education needs assessment of interns and the development of an intern education and training programme. Med Educ. 2000
Apr;34(4):275-84.

12. Goel A, Venkat R, Kumar A, Adkoli BV, Sood R. Structured internship orientation programme for undergraduate students: easy transition to clinical work. Natl Med J India. 2010 May-Jun;23(3):160-2.

13. Colt, Henri G.; Davoudi, Mohsen; Murgu, Septimiu;& Zamanian Rohani, Nazanin. (2011). Measuring learning gain during a one-day introductory bronchoscopy course. Surgical Endoscopy: And Other Interventional Techniques Official Journal of the Society of American Gastrointestinal and Endoscopic Surgeons (SAGES) and European Association for Endoscopic Surgery (EAES), 25(1), pp 207-216. doi: 10.1007/s00464-010-1161-4. Retrieved from: http://escholarship.org/uc/item/5p0726sh

14. Rangan S, Uplekar M. Community health awareness among recent medical graduates of Bombay. Natl Med J India. 1993 Mar-Apr;6(2):60-4.
CITATION
DOI: 10.17511/ijmrr.2015.i9.192
Published: 2015-10-31
How to Cite
1.
Choudhari S, Rawekar A, Bhagat V, Mudey A. Evaluation of ‘Internship Induction Programme’: an application of Kirkpatrick’s model. Int J Med Res Rev [Internet]. 2015Oct.31 [cited 2024Nov.22];3(9):1049-56. Available from: https://ijmrr.medresearch.in/index.php/ijmrr/article/view/363
Issue
Vol 3 No 9 (2015): OCTOBER
Section
Original Article