|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||
| NAACLS News | ||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
National Accrediting
773.714.8880
info@naacls.org |
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||
| Archives |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Volume 92 - Special Edition
|
|
|
Evaluation of Participant Reactions to Stakeholder Meeting
|
At the conclusion of the March 1, 2006 meeting participants were asked to
evaluate the meeting against eight (8) categorical variables and three (3)
qualitative measures using open-ended questions. The following results were
obtained.
Sample. The sample was a convenience sample, which cannot be considered
random or representative of the population.
Methods. A written questionnaire was administered to participants at the
conclusion of the meeting. The questionnaire was anonymous and the first 8 items
used Likert scales to measure participant satisfaction. The first six items
were:
- scheduling and format;
- printed materials;
- audiovisual materials;
- presenters;
- meeting your objectives; and
- general overall rating.
The last three (3) items were analyzed using NUDIST®. The questions for these three items were:
- What additional materials would have been useful to review prior to the meeting?
- What additional areas do you wish had been covered?
- What areas were either not helpful or, perhaps, confusing?
The data were also analyzed for homogeneity of variances and the only variable to achieve significance was variable 7. In addition, the data were examined for robustness of equality of means and in this test variables 3, 4, 5, and 6 achieved significance.
The remaining three variables showed a typology consisting of two categories. The first theme may best be described as "needing more information." The second theme to evolve is best described as "curriculum issues."
Conclusions. Analysis of the first six variables indicate that participants were highly satisfied with the structure of the meeting that included:
- scheduling and formatting;
- printed materials;
- audio-visual materials;
- presenters;
- meeting participant objectives; and
- an overall satisfaction.
The questions regarding the expression of individual and other viewpoints achieved a mean of 4.75 and 4.66 respectively (on a scale of 1-5) showing that participants felt viewpoints were solicited and expressed openly. The qualitative questions did not contain any material related to these two questions, which further support the high means.
While there were a number of comments received in response to the qualitative questions, the vast majority fell into the two thematic statements identified by NUDIST®. Given the topic of the conference it seems natural that participants would want additional information on accreditation and curriculum issues. It may be that the conference served to update the field as to what has been considered in developing a clinical doctorate however, it is also apparent that this process is not being conducted in isolation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||
|
||||
|
|
||||
 |
A Clinical Doctorate for the Laboratory | |||
|
|
Process and Outcomes of the NAACLS Graduate Task Force | |||
|
|
The Concept of the Clinical Doctorate in Clinical Laboratory Science:
Role, Responsibilities and Education |
|||
|
|
||||
|
||||
|
|
||||
|
|
A Pathologist's Perspective
The Doctorate in Clinical Laboratory Sciences: The Time Has Come by Larry H. Bernstein, MD |
|||
|
|
A Pathologist's Perspective
The Clinical Doctorate: A Boon to Pathologists by Linda B. Piller, MD, MPH |
|||
|
|
Evaluation of Participant Reactions to Stakeholder Meeting | |||
|
|
||||
|
||||
|
|
||||
|
|
Background to Development of the Clinical Doctorate Initiative | |||
|
|
FAQs | |||
|
|
Next Steps in Development of Standards | |||
|
|
Planning for the March 1, 2006 Stakeholder Meeting | |||
|
|
Process Employed at the March 1, 2006 Stakeholder Meeting | |||
|
|
|
Copyright © 2008 National Accrediting Agency for Clinical Laboratory Sciences. All rights reserved. Comments or suggestions to the site editor. |
|