Comparison of Medical Students' Peer Evaluation and Teaching Staff Evaluation of Community Health Projects: Perceptions and Experiences.

Abstract

Background: Public health education increasingly emphasizes experiential learning and community engagement. Peer review complements traditional staff evaluation, enhancing learning outcomes and refining teaching strategies. This study aims to investigate the perceptions and experiences of medical students with peer evaluation of community health projects. Staff evaluation for the same projects will be used for comparison.

Methods: A cross-sectional survey study involving medical students from the epidemiology and community health course at the College of Medicine, Imam Mohammad Ibn Saud Islamic University (IMSIU). Students assessed their peers' community health projects using a self-administered questionnaire. Staff evaluations were also compared. Data was analyzed by IBM SPSS 29.

Results: The study included 187 participants, primarily medical students (98.3%), who evaluated 20 community health projects. Three teaching staff members also rated the same projects. Medical students ranked effort expended (4.34), topic importance (4.26), and apparent participation (4.26) in descending order of value. The Staff evaluated the topic's relevance as the highest (4.43), but they rated the tools as lower (3.9). Medical students ranked tools sufficiency significantly higher, with a mean of (4.16 vs 3.90) than Staff (p <0.05). Both groups evaluated the project's level of innovation and the clarity of its target audience in a comparable manner. The analysis of the Full Project Level indicated no substantial disparity between medical students and Staff, as evidenced by the p-value of 0.920.

Conclusion: This study validates that peer evaluation of student projects is equally practical as evaluation conducted by faculty members. Consequently, allocating resources toward enhancing peer students' learning and evaluation capabilities is justifiable.