Comparative Evaluation of Thesis Structure in Two Point Time of 2006-2010 and 2011-2015, School of Medical, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Iran

Document Type : Original Article (s)

Authors

1 Vice-Chancellery for Research and Technology, School of Medicine, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, Iran

2 Internal Management, School of Medicine, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, Iran

Abstract

Background: The present study aimed to compare the quality changes of medical students’ thesis before and after implementation of new thesis regulations.Methods: In a cross-sectional study, 100 theses that were written during 2006-2010 and 100 theses from 2011 till 2015 were selected and the quality and quantity of them were assessed based on the university regulations. All data were collected using special questionnaire and then were analyzed using SPSS software.Findings: Type of study, inclusion and exclusion criteria, sample size and adjustment of tables and figures with text content were the most completed parts during the both periods. In contrast, results and discussions were the most incomplete ones during 2006-2010; these parts had improved significantly during the period 2011-2016.Conclusion: According to the present study, the medical students’ theses had no acceptable quality and were not adjusted with new university regulations. They had poor quality in content and were not up-to-date; however, we saw some improvements since 2011-2016 in different aspects of thesis. Still, it is necessary to qualify the studies by precise assessment and introducing better consultation to students, especially in scientific and statistics fields.

Keywords

References

  1. Higginson I, Corner J. Postgraduate research training: the PhD and MD thesis. Palliat Med 1996; 10(2): 113-8.
  2. Gitanjali B, Raveendran R. Teaching research methodology to postgraduates: is dissertation the only method? Natl Med J India 1998; 11(1): 23-5.
  3. Harris PR. The development of international standards: exploring the ISO/ IFLA Relationship. IFLA Journal 1991; 17(4): 358-65.
  4. Khaki G. Research method with approach to writing thesis. 1st ed. Tehran, Iran: Baztab Publications; 2003.
  5. Mathew A, Murthy NS. A step towards quality medical research. Natl Med J India 1998; 11(6): 283-6.
  6. Hoiseth A. Unacceptable quality in certain sectors of medical research. Tidsskr Nor Laegeforen 1997; 117(4): 531-5. [In Norwegian].
  7. Dewey M. Students' evaluation of research during medical studies: medical dissertation in Germany. Med Educ 2003; 37(3): 278.
  8. Nili MR, Nasr AR, Akbary N. A Study of guidance quality of supervisors on dissertations of postgraduate students. Daneshvar Raftar 2007; 14(24): 111-22. [In Persian].
  9. Horton EG, Hawkins M. A content analysis of intervention research in social work doctoral dissertations. J Evid Based Soc Work 2010; 7(5): 377-86.
  10. Khademi A, Tavangar A, Hossein Pour K. Quality of dissertations of Isfahan Faculty of Dentistry during 2005-2009. J Isfahan Dent Sch 2012; 7(5): 785-91. [In Persian].
  11. Mozaffari Khosravi H, Ehrampoosh M, Aghili H, Javadianzadeh F, Rahimdel T. An evaluation of graduates' theses at Shahid Sadoughi University of Medical Sciences in Yazd. J Med Educ Dev 2008; 2(2): 27-35. [In Persian].
  12. Alishri GH, Fakhre Jahani F, Rokhsarizadeh H, Miri SM, Hollisaz MT, Hosseini SM. Evaluation of medical alumni dissertations of one of the medical sciences universities in principles of writing. J Mil Med 2010; 12(2): 75-9. [In Persian].
  13. Camps D, Recuero Y, Samar ME, Avila RE. Bibliometric analysis of doctorate thesis on the health sciences area: first part, odontology. Rev Fac Cien Med Univ Nac Cordoba 2005; 62(3): 53-6. [In Spanish].
  14. Shekofteh M, Akbari F. Content analysis of dissertations herbal pharmacy in the years 1998-2006 and to determine the thesis into a paper. J Med Plants 2016; 1(29): 140-6. [In Persian].
Journal of Isfahan Medical School
Volume 34, Issue 404 - Serial Number 404
September and October 2016
Pages 1268-1274

Files

History

  • Receive Date: 22 August 2016
  • Revise Date: 05 May 2024
  • Accept Date: 06 April 2022

Share

How to cite

Statistics