KHPLEI
Search
- Page Path
- HOME > Search
Research articles
- Evaluation of an infectious‑disease response training program for primary‑care physicians using Kirkpatrick’s four levels and the Context, Input, Process, and Product model: a mixed‑methods study
- Kyung Hee Chun, Jin Seo Lee, Sun Young Jeong, Young Soon Park
- J Educ Eval Health Prof. 2025;22:40. Published online December 31, 2025
- DOI: https://doi.org/10.3352/jeehp.2025.22.40 [Epub ahead of print]
- 345 View
- 86 Download
-
Abstract
PDF - Purpose
This study systematically evaluated the effectiveness of a training program to enhance infectious disease response capabilities among primary care physicians. Employing a mixed-methods design, the evaluation utilized Kirkpatrick’s four-level model and the Context, Input, Process, and Product (CIPP) framework to assess the program and propose improvements.
Methods
The study targeted a 2022 national infectious disease training program for primary care physicians (N=1,718). We analyzed quantitative pre- and post-training data from 100 randomly selected participants and qualitative data from in-depth interviews with 10 participants. Validated tools, developed by psychometrics and content experts, were used to measure satisfaction (Kirkpatrick Level 1), learning achievement (Level 2), practical application (Level 3), and organizational contribution (Level 4).
Results
Overall training satisfaction was high (3.96±0.72). Learning achievement (Level 2) showed statistically significant improvements from pre-training to post-training assessments (F = 12.922, p < 0.001). Practical application (Level 3; 3.19±0.86) and organizational contribution (Level 4; 3.47±0.70) scores indicated motivation to apply learning and institutional readiness for response strategies.
Conclusion
This study confirmed that the training effectively enhanced individual competency and organizational response capacity across all four Kirkpatrick levels. The integrated application of Kirkpatrick and CIPP models provided a robust framework for assessing learning transfer and guiding program improvement. These findings underscore the need for continued efforts to develop diverse training programs, conduct systematic evaluations, and disseminate successful outcomes to the wider healthcare community.
-
Is it possible to introduce an interview to the Korean Medical Licensing Examination to assess professional attributes?: a survey-based observational study
-
Seung-Joo Na
, HyeRin Roh, Kyung Hee Chun, Kyung Hye Park, Do-Hwan Kim - J Educ Eval Health Prof. 2022;19:10. Published online May 10, 2022
- DOI: https://doi.org/10.3352/jeehp.2022.19.10
- 5,315 View
- 305 Download
-
Abstract
PDF
Supplementary Material - Purpose
This study aimsed to gather opinions from medical educators on the possibility of introducing an interview to the Korean Medical Licensing Examination (KMLE) to assess professional attributes. Specifically following topics were dealt with: the appropriate timing and tool to assess unprofessional conduct; ; the possiblity of prevention of unprofessional conduct by introducing an interview to the KMLE; and the possibility of implementation of an interview to the KMLE.
Methods
A cross-sectional study approach based on a survey questionnaire was adopted. We analyzed 104 pieces of news about doctors’ unprofessional conduct to determine the deficient professional attributes. We derived 24 items of unprofessional conduct and developed the questionnaire and surveyed 250 members of the Korean Society of Medical Education 2 times. Descriptive statistics, cross-tabulation analysis, and Fisher’s exact test were applied to the responses. The answers to the open-ended questions were analyzed using conventional content analysis.
Results
In the survey, 49 members (19.6%) responded. Out of 49, 24 (49.5%) responded in the 2nd survey. To assess unprofessional conduct, there was no dominant timing among basic medical education (BME), KMLE, and continuing professional development (CPD). There was no overwhelming assessment tool among written examination, objective structured clinical examination, practice observation, and interview. Response rates of “impossible” (49.0%) and “possible” (42.9%) suggested an interview of the KMLE prevented unprofessional conduct. In terms of implementation, “impossible” (50.0%) was selected more often than “possible” (33.3%).
Conclusion
Professional attributes should be assessed by various tools over the period from BME to CPD. Hence, it may be impossible to introduce an interview to assess professional attributes to the KMLE, and a system is needed such as self-regulation by the professional body rather than licensing examination.
First
Prev
