· Web viewChapter IV Results The research hypotheses formulated following Phase I were as...
Transcript of · Web viewChapter IV Results The research hypotheses formulated following Phase I were as...
Chapter IV
Results
The research hypotheses formulated following Phase I
were as follows:
I. Medical Education Units are more effective when
they were established with the following
circumstances:
a. the initiative to establish the MEU came from the
medical school’s elite (the Dean, associate deans,
or key faculty);
b. the groundwork was laid in the medical school;
c. the early MEU activities were based on the needs
of the medical school; and
d. a contract with the medical school was
established.
II. Medical Education Units were more effective when
the Director possesses the following characteristics:
a. Doctorate degree in education or psychology;
b. full-professor academic rank in medical
education (or similar disciplines);
c. tenured academic rank;
d. full-time as MEU Director;
120
e. greater percentage of time on the job as MEU
Director spent for direct involvement in internal
MEU activities;
f. high degree of external consultation demand (at
the international level, by other universities in the
country, by other agencies in the country, and by
other schools in the university);
g. report directly only to the Dean of the medical
school;
h. working approach as change agent only; and
i. a generalist in education, a specialist in an area in
education, practical understanding of the
instructional process, practical understanding of
the applicability of educational research,
influential through formal channels, influential
through informal channels, and a facilitator in
interpersonal relations as professional strengths.
III. Medical Education Units are more effective
when they possess the following characteristics:
a. official name contains the term research;
b. have more MEU personnel (total personnel,
total professionals, total technicians, total
secretarials, full-time professionals, full-time
technicians, full-time secretarials, and total
121
c. have more full-time key professional staff
members with doctorate degree in education
or psychology;
d. academic department/division status;
e. strategically located;
f. geographical location next to the other
departments in the medical school; and
g. more allocation of resources for internal
activities.
IV. Medical Education Units are more effective
when they function in medical schools with the
following characteristics:
a. relatively new;
b. run by committees; and
c. do not have other units engaging in similar
activities.
To test these hypotheses the data collected during
Phase 2 were cross-partitioned. For this purpose the
responses on the ration scales were dichotomized as follows:
- Responses to Question No. 8 into: (1) greater
percentage for direct involvement in internal MEU
activities; and (2) greater percentage for other
activities.
- Responses to Questions No. 15, 16, 25, 21 (journal
articles), 26, and 27 into (1) greater than median;
122
and (2) less than median.
- Responses to Question No. 28 into: (1) less than
median; and (2) greater than median.
- Responses to Question No.20 into: (1) routine
university funds; and (2) other.
- Responses to Question No. 21 (books and
newsletters) into (1) yes; and (2) no.
To avoid expected frequencies of less than one (Siegel,
1956, p. 110), the categories of the ordinal scales were
combined to form dichotomies:
- Categories of responses to Question No. 9 (external
consultations at the international level) into: (1) once
a year or more and less than once a year; and (2) not
at all.
- Categories of responses to Question No. 9 (external
consultation demands by other universities in the
country, by other agencies in the country, and by
other schools in the university) into: (1) once a year
or more; and (2) less than once a year and not at all,
- Categories of responses to Questions No. 22 – 24
into: (1) effective; and (2) somewhat effective –
ineffective.
With all the data arranged in dichotomies it was
possible to cross-partition the 40 determinants and 10 criteria
into 400 two-dimensional tables.
123
OE Determinant (Independent Variable)
Total
OE Criterion (Dependent Variable)
A1B1 A2B1 B1
A1 B2 A2B2 B2
Total A1 A2 AB=N
Figure 3
(Two-dimensional table)
A1 = A1B1 + A1B2 = Number (percent) of responses with OE Determinant
A2 = A2B1 + A2B2 = Number (percent) of responses without OE Determinant
B1 = A1B1 + A2B1 = Number (percent) of responses with OE Criterion
B2 = A1B2 + A2B2 = Number (percent) of responses without OE Criterion
AB = N = Total number of usable responses.
The values of A1B1, A2B1, and B1 of all 400 tables are
reported in columns No. 1, 2, and 3, respectively, of Tables
1 – 40 (Appendix O).
124
The statistical significance of the cross-breaks was
calculated with the Fisher Exact Probability Test, to measure
“the probability of distributions among the four cells could be
as extreme as this one, or more extreme” (Guilford, 1973, p.
205; Siegel, 1956, p. 98), rather than with the Chi Square
Test, to measure “the departure of obtained frequencies from
the frequencies expected by chance” (Kerlinger, 1973, p.
168), because most of the expected frequencies were less than
five (Hays, 1963, p. 597; Siegel, 1956, p. 110). This
“probability” (p) was calculated by summing the probability
of the observed distribution with the probabilities of the more
extreme possible distributions. Each probability was
computed with the following formula:
p = ______A1 ! A2 ! B1 ! B2 !_______ AB ! A1B1 ! A1B2 ! A2B1 ! A2B2!
(Siegel, 1956, p. 97)
The magnitude of association between an OE
determinant and OE criterion was represented by the phi
correlation coefficient, which was calculated with the
following formula:
Ø = (A1B1)(A2B2) – (A2B1)(A1B2)√ (A1 X A2 X B1 X B2)__
(Guilford, 1973, p. 307)
According to Guilford (1973, pp. 307-308) “the formula for
the estimation of the standard error of phi involves such
laborious computations that it is impractical for general
125
Use ….” A test for the null hypotheses, fortunately, can
be made through phi’s relationship to chi square. If Χ2
is significant in a fourfold table, the corresponding Ø is
significant”. In this study the assumption was made that
a similar relationship exist between the statistical
significance of the distribution among the four cells of a
two-dimensional table and the statistical significance of
phi.
Both the p and Ø values of the 400 relationships were
calculated manually and are reported in columns No. 4 and 5 of
Tables 1 – 40 (Appendix O). p and Ø were also computed by
computer, and whenever applicable (in 30% of the cases) the
computer printed the corrected chi square (see Guilford, 1973,
pp. 204-205), and its significance value.
The p values of the corrected chi squares are higher
than those calculated with the Fisher’s formula, which is in
agreement with Walker and Lev’s observation (1955, p. 108):
“In small samples the usual computation of Χ2 gives too large
a value, leading to the rejection of hypotheses more often than
would the direct computation of probability by factorials.”
Significant Correlations
From the analysis of data the following significant
correlations between OE determinants and criteria were
calculated.
126
- “Groundwork laid” and “effective in following job
descriptions”: p = .09; Ø = .61 (see Table 3,
appendix O).
Explanation
p = p of observed distribution + p of more extreme
distributions.
More extreme distribution:
7 0 7
0 4 4
7 4 11
Observed distribution:
6 1 7
1 3 4
7 4 11
p = p of observed distribution
+ p of more extreme
p of more extreme distribution = 7 ! 4 ! 7 ! 4 ! 11 ! 7 ! 0 ! 0! 4 != .0030302
p of more observed distribution = 7 ! 4 ! 7 ! 4 ! 11 ! 7 ! 0 ! 0! 4 != .084848
Distribution
= .0878782
Ø = .61 is the strength of association
between the variables “groundwork laid” and “effective in
following job descriptions”:127
p = .09 also represents the statistical significance of Ø.
The following p and Ø values should be interpreted in
the same manner:
- “Tenured academic rank” and “promotion in
academic rank”: p = .004; Ø = .60 (Table 7).
- “Tenured academic rank” and “production of journal
articles (greater than median)”: p = .003; Ø = .52
(Table 7).
- “Tenured academic rank” and “effective in meeting
developmental objectives”: p = .07; Ø = .48
(Table 7).
- “Tenured academic rank” and “emphasis placed on
internal activities (greater than median)”: p = .05;
Ø = .36 (Table 7).
- “Tenured academic rank” and “emphasis placed on
external activities (greater than median)”: p = .05;
Ø = .36 (Table 7).
- “Full-time MEU Director” and “production of
newsletters”: p = .02; Ø = - .43 (Table 8).
- “Greater percentage of time on the job a MEU
Director was spent for direct involvement in internal
activities” and “greatest percentage of support from
routine university funds”: p = .01; Ø = .49 (Table 9).
128
- “Greater percentage of time on the job as MEU
Director was spent for direct involvement in internal
activities ” and “emphasis placed on external
activities (greater than median”: p = .08; Ø = - .33
(Table 9).
- “MEU Director was often in demand as external
consultant at the international level” and “emphasis
placed on external activities”: p = .03; Ø = .40
(Table 10).
- “MEU Director was often in demand as external
consultant by other agencies in the country” and
“production of newsletters”: p = .06; Ø = .33 (Table
12).
- “MEU Director was often in demand as external
consultant by other agencies in the country” and
“emphasis placed on external activities”: p = .08; Ø
= .33 (Table 12).
- “MEU Director reports directly only to the Dean of
the medical school” and “production of books”: p
= .04; Ø = - .36 (Table 14).
- “MEU Director’s working approach as change-
agent only” and “production of books”: p = .03; Ø
= .42 (Table 15).
- “MEU Director’s working approach as change-
agent only” and “effective in meeting developmental
objectives”: p = .07; Ø = .50 (Table 15).
129
- “MEU Director’s working approach as change-
agent only” and “effective in meeting performance
objectives”: p = .08; Ø = .65 (Table 15).
- “MEU Director’s professional strength – generalist
in education” and “production of newsletters”: p
= .09; Ø = - .31 (Table 16).
- “MEU Director’s professional strength – practical
understanding of the instructional process” and
“effective in meeting developmental objectives”: p =
.09; Ø = - .44 (Table 18).
- “MEU Director’s professional strength – influential
through formal channels” and “greatest percentage
of support from routine university funds”: p = .007;
Ø = .48 (Table 21).
- “MEU Director’s professional strength – influential
through formal channels” and “production of journal
articles (greater than median)”: p = .08; Ø = - .30
(Table 21).
- “MEU Director’s professional strength – influential
through informal channels” and “emphasis placed
on external activities (greater than median)”: p
= .02; Ø = .45 (Table 22).
- “MEU Director’s professional strength – facilitator
in interpersonal relations” and “greatest percentage
of support from routine university funds”: p = .003;
Ø = .55 (Table 23).
130
- “MEU Director’s professional strength – facilitator
in interpersonal relations” and “production of
newsletters”: p = .10; Ø = - .29 (Table 23).
- “MEU’s official name contains the term research”
and “production of journal articles (greater than
median)”: p = .08; Ø = .30 (Table 24).
- “MEU’s official name contains the term research”
and “emphasis placed on internal activities (greater
than median)”: p = .0002; Ø = .68 (Table 24).
- “MEU’s official name contains the term research”
and “emphasis placed on external activities (greater
than median)”: p = .004; Ø = .54 (Table 24).
- “Total MEU personnel (greater than median)” and
“production of books”: p = .06; Ø = .35 (Table 25).
- “Total MEU personnel (greater than median)” and
“production of journal articles (greater than
median)”: p = .04; Ø = .38 (Table 25).
- “Total MEU personnel (greater than median)” and
“emphasis placed on internal activities (greater than
median)”: p = .06; Ø = .36 (Table 25).
- “Total MEU technicians (greater than median)”
and “production of newsletters”: p = .03; Ø = .40
(Table 27).
131
- “Total MEU technicians (greater than median)” and
“effective in meeting performance objectives”: p
= .10; Ø = .60 (Table 27).
- “Full-time professionals (greater than median)” and
“greatest percentage of support from routine
university funds”: p = .09; Ø = - .32 (Table 29).
- “Full-time technicians (greater than median)” and
“MEU Director’s promotion in academic rank”: p
= .002; Ø = .66 (Table 30).
- “Full-time technicians (greater than median)” and
“production of journal articles (greater than
median)”: p = .04; Ø = .38 (Table 30).
- “Full-time technicians (greater than median)” and
“effective in meeting performance objectives”: p
= .10; Ø = .60 (Table 30).
- “Full-time secretarials (greater than median) ” and
“production of books”: p = .008; Ø = .48 (Table 31).
- “Total full-time personnel (greater than median)”
and “production of journal articles (greater than
median)”: p = .006; Ø = .50 (Table 32).
- “Total full-time personnel (greater than median” and
“effective in meeting developmental objectives”: p =
.04; Ø = .53 (Table 32).
- “Full-time key staff members with doctorate degree
in education or psychology (greater than median)”
132
and “production of journal articles (greater than
median”: p = .04; Ø = .38 (Table 33).
- “Full-time key staff members with doctorate
degree in education or psychology (greater than
median)” and “effective in meeting developmental
objecti”: p = .04; Ø = .55 (Table 33).
- “Full-time key staff members with doctorate
degree in education or psychology (greater than
median)” and “emphasis placed on internal
activities (greater than median)”: p = .10; Ø = .29
(Table 33).
“Academic department/division status” and
“production of journal articles (greater than
- median”: p = .03; Ø = .40 (Table 34).
- “Academic department/division status” and
“production of newsletters”: p = .09; Ø = - .32
(Table 34).
- “MEU is located next to the other departments in
the medical school” and “greatest percentage of
support from routine university funds”: p = .05; Ø
= - .36 (Table 36).
- “Age of medical school (less than median)” and
“production of books”: p = .06; Ø = .35 (Table 38).
- “Educational decision-making in the medical
school by committees” and “emphasis placed on
internal activities (greater than median)”: p = .06;
133
Ø = .35 (Table 39).
For questionnaire responses that were not included in
the statistical analysis see Appendix N.
134