Sat, Jul 19, 2025
[Archive]
Volume 18, Issue 2 (2025)
JMED 2025, 18(2): 17-26 |
Back to browse issues page
Ethics code: IR.ZBMU.REC.1401.150
Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
Hedayati S, Hamedi-Shahraki S, Mohabati F. Integrating Student Feedback: A Comprehensive Approach to Quality Improvement in Medical Education Using EFQM. JMED 2025; 18 (2) :17-26
URL: http://edujournal.zums.ac.ir/article-1-2371-en.html
URL: http://edujournal.zums.ac.ir/article-1-2371-en.html
1- Assistant Professor of Healthcare Services Management Department of Healthcare Services Management, School of Health Zabol University of Medical Sciences
2- Associate Professor of Biostatistics Department of Public Health, School of Health Zabol University of Medical Sciences
3- Assistant Professor of Healthcare Services Management Department of Healthcare Services Management, School of Health Zabol University of Medical Sciences ,mohabatif@gmail.com
2- Associate Professor of Biostatistics Department of Public Health, School of Health Zabol University of Medical Sciences
3- Assistant Professor of Healthcare Services Management Department of Healthcare Services Management, School of Health Zabol University of Medical Sciences ,
Abstract: (222 Views)
Abstract
Background & Objective: Evaluating the quality of educational services from the perspective of students—the primary stakeholders—is essential for enhancing university performance. This study aimed to assess the quality of educational services based on the European Foundation for Quality Management (EFQM) excellence model.
Materials & Methods: This cross-sectional study was conducted from March to June 2023. The statistical population included all students of a medical sciences university, selected through stratified random sampling based on school affiliation. The data collection tool utilized was a standardized EFQM questionnaire developed by the five criteria of the EFQM model. The validity and reliability of the questionnaire were confirmed. Data were analyzed using descriptive and inferential statistics, including independent t-tests and ANOVA.
Results: Among 327 students, 58.4% were female. No significant differences were observed in the educational effectiveness components between male and female students. The comparison across schools indicated significant differences in the components of faculty, learning-teaching processes, student engagement, and leadership and management (p < 0.05). However, no significant difference was observed in the educational program component. Semester 6 or lower students reported significantly higher scores (p < 0.05) for the faculty, learning-teaching process, and student engagement components than those in higher semesters. The overall quality of educational services was rated as moderate (mean = 3.4 ± 0.7 on a 5-point scale; moderate range: 2.5-3.9).
Conclusion: The quality of educational services was perceived as moderate from the students’ perspective. To improve quality, it is recommended that university administrators focus on criteria with lower scores and implement targeted quality improvement programs.
Background & Objective: Evaluating the quality of educational services from the perspective of students—the primary stakeholders—is essential for enhancing university performance. This study aimed to assess the quality of educational services based on the European Foundation for Quality Management (EFQM) excellence model.
Materials & Methods: This cross-sectional study was conducted from March to June 2023. The statistical population included all students of a medical sciences university, selected through stratified random sampling based on school affiliation. The data collection tool utilized was a standardized EFQM questionnaire developed by the five criteria of the EFQM model. The validity and reliability of the questionnaire were confirmed. Data were analyzed using descriptive and inferential statistics, including independent t-tests and ANOVA.
Results: Among 327 students, 58.4% were female. No significant differences were observed in the educational effectiveness components between male and female students. The comparison across schools indicated significant differences in the components of faculty, learning-teaching processes, student engagement, and leadership and management (p < 0.05). However, no significant difference was observed in the educational program component. Semester 6 or lower students reported significantly higher scores (p < 0.05) for the faculty, learning-teaching process, and student engagement components than those in higher semesters. The overall quality of educational services was rated as moderate (mean = 3.4 ± 0.7 on a 5-point scale; moderate range: 2.5-3.9).
Conclusion: The quality of educational services was perceived as moderate from the students’ perspective. To improve quality, it is recommended that university administrators focus on criteria with lower scores and implement targeted quality improvement programs.
Article Type : Orginal Research |
Subject:
Medical Education
Received: 2024/12/27 | Accepted: 2025/04/20 | Published: 2025/07/13
Received: 2024/12/27 | Accepted: 2025/04/20 | Published: 2025/07/13
References
1. Chien WC. Internationalization of quality assurance and the international quality of higher education in Taiwan. Higher Education Evaluation and Development. 2023;17(2):113-128. [DOI]
2. Alach Z. Performance measurement and accountability in higher education: the puzzle of qualification completions. Tertiary Education and Management. 2016;22(1):36-48. [DOI]
3. Depoo L, Urbancová H, Smolová H. Factors of quality assessment in higher education and its impact on business students' development and interest in university education. Journal on Efficiency and Responsibility in Education and Science. 2022;15(2):63-71. [DOI]
4. Tackett S, Wright S, Lubin R, Li J, Pan H. International study of medical school learning environments and their relationship with student well-being and empathy. Medical Education. 2017;51(3):280-289. [DOI]
5. Guraya SY, Barr H. The effectiveness of interprofessional education in healthcare: a systematic review and meta-analysis. The Kaohsiung Journal of Medical Sciences. 2018;34(3):160-165. [DOI]
6. Teeroovengadum V, Nunkoo R, Gronroos C, Kamalanabhan TJ, Seebaluck AK. Higher education service quality, student satisfaction and loyalty: validating the HESQUAL scale and testing an improved structural model. Quality assurance in education. 2019;27(4):427-45 [DOI]
7. Alves H, Raposo M. Conceptual model of student satisfaction in higher education. Total Quality Management. 2007;18:571-588. [DOI]
8. Tofighi Sh, Sadeghifar J, Hamouzadeh P, Afshari S, Foruzanfar F, Taghavi Shahri SM. Quality of educational services from the viewpoints of students SERVQUAL model. Education Strategies in Medical Sciences. 2011;4(1):21-6. [DOI]
9. Latif F, Latif I, Sahibzada U, Ullah M. In search of quality: measuring higher education service quality (HiEduQual).Total Quality Management &Business Excellence. 2017;30:1-24. [DOI]
10. Shahin A, Reza P. Integration of EFQM and ultimate six sigma: a proposed model. International Business Research. 2024;4:176-176. [DOI]
11. Ghalavandi H, Beheshtirad R, Ghale’ei A. Investigating the quality of educational services in the university of Urmia through SERVQUAL Model. Management and Development Process. 2012;25(3):49-66 [DOI]
12. Frenk J, Chen L, Bhutta ZA, et al. Health professionals for a new century: transforming education to strengthen health systems in an interdependent world. Lancet. 2010;376(9756):1923-1958. [DOI]
13. Mohabati F, Arefi M, Hedayati SP. Revamping field practicum: insights for future health services management professionals. BMC Medical Education. 2025;25(1):81 [DOI]
14. Mohammadi A, Vakili M. Measuring students' satisfaction of educational services quality and relationship with services quality in Zanjan university of medical sciences. Journal of Medical Education Development. 2010;2(3):48-59. [DOI]
15. Ghavimi MA, Rahbar M, Faraji Kelvanagh A, Ghoreishizadeh A, Ghanizadeh M. Evaluation of the quality of educational services of Tabriz university of medical sciences based on SERVQUAL model. World Journal of Dentistry. 2017;8:114-118 [DOI]
16. Ghorbani R, Abbasian H, Arasteh H, Zeinabadi H. Evaluation of effectiveness of education in Imam Ali military university based on the European foundation for quality management model (EFQM) (focusing on 5 enablers). Military Science and Tactics. 2021;17(57):161-189 [DOI]
17. Wiese LK, Love T, Goodman R. Responding to a simulated disaster in the virtual or live classroom: is there a difference in BSN student learning? Nurse Education in Practice. 2021;55:103170. [DOI]
18. Kohanová D, Hrbková Ž, Žiaková K. Teamwork among nursing staff: a cross-sectional study. Central European Journal of Nursing and Midwifery. 2024;15:1031-1041 [DOI]
19. Enayati Novinfar A, Uosefi M, Siyami L, Javaheri Daneshmand M. Evaluation of the quality of education services of Payam Noor university of Hamedan based on the SERVQUAL model. Quarterly Journal of Research and Planning in Higher Education. 2023;17(3):135-151 [DOI]
20. Khoo S, Ha H, McGregor S. Service quality and student/customer satisfaction in the private tertiary education sector in Singapore. International Journal of Educational Management. 2017;31:430-444. [DOI]
21. Kebriaei A, Roudbari M. Quality gap in educational services at Zahedan university of medical sciences: students viewpoints about current and optimal condition. Iranian Journal of Medical Education. 2005;5(1):53-61. [DOI]
22. Aghamirzayi T, Salehi Omran E, Rahimpour Kami B. Effective factors on student evaluation of faculty members performance. Education Strategies in Medical Sciences. 2014;7(1):57-62. [DOI]
23. El Ansari W, Stock C. Is the health and wellbeing of university students associated with their academic performance? Cross sectional findings from the United Kingdom. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2010;7(2):509-527. [DOI]
24. Wiers-Jenssen J, Stensaker Br. Student satisfaction: towards an empirical deconstruction of the concept. Quality in Higher Education. 2002;8:183–195. [DOI]
25. Butt BZ, Ur Rehman K. A study examining the students satisfaction in higher education. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences. 2010;2(2):5446-50 [DOI]
26. Odukoya J, Bowale E, Okunlola S. Formulation and implementation of educational policies in Nigeria. African Educational Research Journal. 2018;6 (1):1-4. [DOI]
27. Liu Z, Xie Y, Sun Z, Liu D, Yin H, Shi L. Factors associated with academic burnout and its prevalence among university students: a cross-sectional study. BMC Medical Education. 2023;23(1):317. [DOI]
28. Zhao Y. The Impact of college students' academic stress on student satisfaction from a typological perspective: a latent profile analysis based on academic self-efficacy and positive coping strategies for stress. Behavioral Sciences. 2024;14(4):311. [DOI]
29. Gholizadeh M, Valizadeh F, Khodayari-Zarnaq R, Janati A, Mousazadeh Y. The quality assessment of educational services based on perception and expectations of students in Tabriz university of medical sciences. Future of Medical Education Journal. 2020;10(4):8-14. z [DOI]
30. de Moraes CD, de Lima Montebello MI, Zaccaria RB, Cremonezi GO. Identification of students' expectations regarding higher education in the new social context: a meta-analytic study. Revista Brasileira de Marketing. 2019;18(3):222-45. [DOI]
31. Mgaiwa SJ. Job satisfaction among university academics: do academic rank and age make a difference? Cogent Education. 2023;10(2):2230395. [DOI]
32. Kim S, Kim DJ. Structural relationship of key factors for student satisfaction and achievement in asynchronous online learning. Sustainability. 2021;13:6734. [DOI]
33. De-Juan-Vigaray MD, Ledesma-Chaves P, González-Gascón E, Gil-Cordero E. Student satisfaction: examining capacity development and environmental factors in higher education institutions. Heliyon. 2024;10(17):e36699. [DOI]
34. Thanh Thuy D. The effect of service quality on student loyalty and student satisfaction: an empirical study of universities in Vietnam. Journal of Asian Finance Economics and Business. 2021;8 (8):0251-258 [DOI]
35. Abdollahzadeh G, Sharifzadeh MS, Damalas C. Motivations for adopting biological control among Iranian rice farmers. Crop Protection. 2016;80:42-50 [DOI]
36. Rossi F, Sengupta A. Implementing strategic changes in universities’ knowledge exchange profiles: the role and nature of managerial interventions. Journal of Business Research. 2022;144:874-887. [DOI]
37. Bryman A. Effective leadership in higher education: a literature review. Studies in Higher Education. 2007;32(6):693-710 [DOI]
38. Spendlove M. Competencies for effective leadership in higher education. International Journal of Educational Management. 2007;21(5):407-417. [DOI]
39. Bolden R, Gosling J, O’Brien A, et al. Academic leadership: changing conceptions, identities and experiences in UK higher education. Summary report for the leadership foundation for higher education, London: Leadership Foundation for Higher Education. 2012. [DOI]
40. Tajvar M, Ahmadizadeh E, Sajadi HS, Shaqura II. Challenges facing international students at Iranian universities: a cross-sectional survey. BMC Medical Education. 2024;24(1):210. [DOI]
Send email to the article author
| Rights and permissions | |
 |
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License. |
