Research on academic performance of "double first-class" medical universities based on CIPP model

Zhong Hua; Shan Lianhui; An Xinying

doi:10.3760/cma.j.cn116021-20211103-01370

您当前的位置：

首页 >

文章列表页 >

Research on academic performance of "double first-class" medical universities based on CIPP model

Educational Research | 更新时间：2023-09-01

- Research on academic performance of "double first-class" medical universities based on CIPP model
- Chinese Journal of Medical Education Research Vol. 22, Issue 8, Pages: 1132-1137(2023)
- 作者机构：
  
  中国医学科学院医学信息研究所，北京 100020
- 作者简介：
  
  Zhong Hua, Email: zhong.hua@imicams.ac.cn
- 基金信息：
  
  National Education Science Planning Key Project of the Ministry of Education(DLA200362)
- DOI：10.3760/cma.j.cn116021-20211103-01370
  CLC： R19
- Published：20 August 2023，
  
  Received：03 November 2021，
扫描看全文
钟华, 单连慧, 安新颖. 基于CIPP模型的“双一流”医学高校学术表现分析研究[J]. 中华医学教育探索杂志, 2023, 22(8): 1132-1137.

Zhong Hua, Shan Lianhui, An Xinying. Research on academic performance of "double first-class" medical universities based on CIPP model. [J]. Chinese Journal of Medical Education Research 22(8):1132-1137(2023)
钟华, 单连慧, 安新颖. 基于CIPP模型的“双一流”医学高校学术表现分析研究[J]. 中华医学教育探索杂志, 2023, 22(8): 1132-1137. DOI： 10.3760/cma.j.cn116021-20211103-01370.

Zhong Hua, Shan Lianhui, An Xinying. Research on academic performance of "double first-class" medical universities based on CIPP model. [J]. Chinese Journal of Medical Education Research 22(8):1132-1137(2023) DOI： 10.3760/cma.j.cn116021-20211103-01370.

摘要

目的

构建并优化医学院校学术表现评价体系和流程，为双一流医学高校建设提供参考和支持。

方法

基于CIPP模型[背景评价（context evaluation）、输入评价（input evaluation）、过程评价（process evaluation）、成果评价（product evaluation）]开展“双一流”高校学术表现分析的评价方法研究，从反映学术研究活动过程的背景、输入、过程、成果4个要素构建医学高校学术表现评价模型，确立评价流程，并选取10所双一流院校开展实证研究。

结果

利用熵权法和专家打分法得到综合权重，通过TOPSIS（technique for order preference by similarity to an ideal solution）方法计算出各评价对象与最优方案的相对接近度，得到各高校学术表现水平的综合测算值。

结论

基于CIPP模型并利用熵权-TOPSIS方法构建高校学术表现评价体系，是对高校学术评价的有效探讨和拓展性研究，可为具有医学特色的学术表现分析提供参考。

Abstract

Objective

To build and optimize the academic performance evaluation system and process of medical colleges

and to provide reference and support for the construction of "double first-class" medical colleges.

Methods

Based on CIPP model (context

evaluation

input evaluation

process evaluation and product evaluation)

this paper studied the evaluation method of "double first-class" university academic performance analysis

constructed the evaluation model of medical colleges academic performance from four elements of reflecting the background

input

process and results of academic research activities

established the evaluation process

and selected 10 universities for empirical research.

Results

The comprehensive weight was obtained by entropy weight method and expert scoring method. The relative proximity between each evaluation object and the optimal scheme was calculated by technique for order preference by similarity to an ideal solution (TOPSIS) method

and the comprehensive calculation value of academic performance level of each university was obtained.

Conclusion

The construction of academic performance evaluation system of universities based on CIPP model and entropy weight TOPSIS method is an effective discussion and expanding research on academic evaluation of colleges

and can provide references for the analysis of academic performance with medical characteristics.

关键词

双一流高校CIPP模型学术表现科技评价

Keywords

"Double first-class" universityCIPP modelAcademic performanceScience and technology evaluation

references

叶继元. 近年来国内外学术评价的难点、对策与走向[J]. 教育科学文摘， 2019（3）： 1-2.

教育部学位与研究生教育发展中心. 全国第四轮学科评估结果[EB/OL].（2017-12-28） [2021-03-15]. http://www.cdgdc.edu.cn/xwyyjsjyxx/xkpgjg/http://www.cdgdc.edu.cn/xwyyjsjyxx/xkpgjg/.

高耀. 优化学术评价体系激励更多创新创造[N]. 中国教育报，（2020-03-03）[2021-03-15]. http://www.jyb.cn/rmtzgjyb/202003/t20200303_302363.htmlhttp://www.jyb.cn/rmtzgjyb/202003/t20200303_302363.html.

计划基础研究共性重大问题战略研究组. 有关基础研究绩效评价的一些问题[J]. 中国基础科学， 2004， 6（3）： 3-8. DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1009-2412.2004.03.001http://dx.doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1009-2412.2004.03.001.

Fitzpatrick JL, Sanders JR, Worthen BR . Program evaluation: alternative approaches and practical guidelines [M]. Allyn and Bacon, 2004.

Guerra-López I. Performance evaluation: proven approaches for improving program and organizational performance [M]. Jossey-Bass, 2008: 9-11.

Madaus GF, Scriven M, Stufflebeam DL. Evaluation models: viewpoints on educational and human services evaluation [M]. 北京：北京大学出版社， 2007（9）： 16-21.

赵芷萱，虞锜琦，冯国臣. 基于CIPP模型的一级学科建设效能考核指标体系[J]. 科技与创新， 2020（14）： 6-9. DOI: 10.15913/j.cnki.kjycx.2020.14.002http://dx.doi.org/10.15913/j.cnki.kjycx.2020.14.002.

章穗，张梅，迟国泰. 基于熵权法的科学技术评价模型及其实证研究[J]. 管理学报， 2010， 7（1）： 34-42. DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1672-884X.2010.01.007http://dx.doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1672-884X.2010.01.007.

程启月. 评测指标权重确定的结构熵权法[J]. 系统工程理论与实践， 2010， 30（7）： 1225-1228.

林莉，冯爱芬，丁真真，等. 基于熵权法-TOPSIS模型的智慧城市评价研究[J]. 农村经济与科技， 2018， 29（18）： 186-187. DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1007-7103.2018.18.117http://dx.doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1007-7103.2018.18.117.

Hwang CL, Yoon KP. Multiple attribute decision making. Methods and applications. A state-of- the-art survey [M]. European journal of operational research, 1981: 25-30.

中国医学科学院医学信息研究所. 中国医学院校科技量值[EB/OL]. （2021-10-31）[2021-11-03]. http://top100.imicams.ac.cn/http://top100.imicams.ac.cn/.

Views

下载量

CSCD

Alert me when the article has been cited

提交

Tools

Publicity Resources

No data

Related Author

No data

Related Institution

No data

⁰