Comparison of midwifery students’ satisfaction with direct observation of procedural skills and current methods in evaluation of procedural skills in Mashhad Nursing and Midwifery School

BACKGROUND: The clinical evaluation, as one of the most important elements in medical education, must measure students’ competencies and abilities. The implementation of any assessment tool is basically dependent on the acceptance of students. This study tried to assess midwifery students’ satisfaction with Direct Observation of Procedural Skills (DOPS) and current clinical evaluation methods. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This quasi-experimental study was conducted in the university hospitals affiliated to Mashhad University of Medical Sciences. The subjects comprised 67 undergraduate midwifery students selected by convenience sampling and allocated to control and intervention groups according to the training transposition. Current method was performed in the control group, and DOPS was conducted in the intervention group. The applied tools included DOPS rating scales, logbook, and satisfaction questionnaires with clinical evaluation methods. Validity and reliability of these tools were approved. At the end of training, students’ satisfaction with the evaluation methods was assessed by the mentioned tools. The data were analyzed by descriptive and analytical statistics. RESULTS: Satisfaction mean scores of midwifery students with DOPS and current methods were 76.7 ± 12.9 and 62.6 ± 14.7 (out of 100), respectively. DOPS students’ satisfaction mean score was significantly higher than the score obtained in current method (P < 0.000). The most satisfactory domains in the current method were “consistence with learning objectives” (71.2 ± 14.9) and “objectiveness” in DOPS (87.9 ± 15.0). In contrast, the least satisfactory domains in the current method were “interested in applying the method” (57.8 ± 26.5) and “number of assessments for each skill” (58.8 ± 25.9) in DOPS method. CONCLUSIONS: This study showed that DOPS method is associated with greater students’ satisfaction. Since the students’ satisfaction with the current method was also acceptable, we recommend combining this new clinical evaluation method with the current method, which covers its weaknesses, to promote the students’ satisfaction with clinical evaluation methods in a perfect manner.