Abstract
BACKGROUND: There is a global interest for deploying faculty members' activities evaluation systems, however implementing a fair and reliable system is a challenging issue. In this study, the authors devised a model for evaluation of faculty members' activities with regard to their viewpoints and meta-evaluation standards. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The reliability of the current faculty members' activities metrics system was investigated in Medical School of Tehran University of Medical Sciences in 2014. Then authors conducted semi-structured interviews regarding meta-evaluation standards and designed a questionnaire based on interviews' results which were delivered to faculty members. Finally, they extracted the components of the model regarding interviews' content analysis and questionnaire's factor analysis and finalized them in a focus group session with experts. RESULTS: Reliability of the current system was 0.99 (P < 0.05). The final model had six dimensions (mission alignment, accuracy, explicit, satisfaction, appropriateness, and constructiveness) derived from factor analysis of the questionnaire and nine factors (consensus, self-reporting, web-based system, evaluation period, minimum expectancies, analysis intervals, verifiers, flexibility, and decision making) obtained via qualitative content analysis of the interviews. CONCLUSION: In this study, the authors presented a model for faculty members' activities evaluation based on meta-evaluation of the existing system. The model covered conceptual and executive aspects. Faculty members' viewpoints were the core component of this model, so it would be acceptable in a medical school to use the model for evaluating their activities.