IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jmathe/v10y2022i9p1426-d800900.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A Hybrid Analytic Hierarchy Process and Likert Scale Approach for the Quality Assessment of Medical Education Programs

Author

Listed:
  • Alfonso Maria Ponsiglione

    (Department of Electrical Engineering and Information Technology, University of Naples “Federico II”, 80125 Naples, Italy)

  • Francesco Amato

    (Department of Electrical Engineering and Information Technology, University of Naples “Federico II”, 80125 Naples, Italy
    Interdepartmental Center for Research in Healthcare Management and Innovation in Healthcare (CIRMIS), University of Naples “Federico II”, 80125 Naples, Italy)

  • Santolo Cozzolino

    (U.O.C. Formazione, Ricerca e Cooperazione Internazionale, National Hospital A.O.R.N. “A. Cardarelli”, 80131 Naples, Italy)

  • Giuseppe Russo

    (National Hospital A.O.R.N. “A. Cardarelli”, 80131 Naples, Italy)

  • Maria Romano

    (Department of Electrical Engineering and Information Technology, University of Naples “Federico II”, 80125 Naples, Italy
    These authors contributed equally to the work.)

  • Giovanni Improta

    (Interdepartmental Center for Research in Healthcare Management and Innovation in Healthcare (CIRMIS), University of Naples “Federico II”, 80125 Naples, Italy
    Department of Public Health, School of Medicine and Surgery, University of Naples “Federico II”, 80125 Naples, Italy
    These authors contributed equally to the work.)

Abstract

The quality assessment of training courses is of utmost importance in the medical education field to improve the quality of the training. This work proposes a hybrid multicriteria decision-making approach based on two methodologies, a Likert scale (LS) and the analytic hierarchy process (AHP), for the quality assessment of medical education programs. On one hand, the qualitative LS method was adopted to estimate the degree of consensus on specific topics; on the other hand, the quantitative AHP technique was employed to prioritize parameters involved in complex decision-making problems. The approach was validated in a real scenario for evaluating healthcare training activities carried out at the Centre of Biotechnology of the National Hospital A.O.R.N. “A. Cardarelli” of Naples (Italy). The rational combination of the two methodologies proved to be a promising decision-making tool for decision makers to identify those aspects of a medical education program characterized by a lower user satisfaction degree (revealed by the LS) and a higher priority degree (revealed by the AHP), potentially suggesting strategies to increase the quality of the service provided and to reduce the waste of resources. The results show how this hybrid approach can provide decision makers with helpful information to select the most important characteristics of the delivered education program and to possibly improve the weakest ones, thus enhancing the whole quality of the training courses.

Suggested Citation

  • Alfonso Maria Ponsiglione & Francesco Amato & Santolo Cozzolino & Giuseppe Russo & Maria Romano & Giovanni Improta, 2022. "A Hybrid Analytic Hierarchy Process and Likert Scale Approach for the Quality Assessment of Medical Education Programs," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 10(9), pages 1-20, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jmathe:v:10:y:2022:i:9:p:1426-:d:800900
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2227-7390/10/9/1426/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2227-7390/10/9/1426/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Theo Dijkstra, 2013. "On the extraction of weights from pairwise comparison matrices," Central European Journal of Operations Research, Springer;Slovak Society for Operations Research;Hungarian Operational Research Society;Czech Society for Operations Research;Österr. Gesellschaft für Operations Research (ÖGOR);Slovenian Society Informatika - Section for Operational Research;Croatian Operational Research Society, vol. 21(1), pages 103-123, January.
    2. Sindhu, Sonal & Nehra, Vijay & Luthra, Sunil, 2017. "Investigation of feasibility study of solar farms deployment using hybrid AHP-TOPSIS analysis: Case study of India," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 73(C), pages 496-511.
    3. Wang, Ying-Ming & Luo, Ying & Hua, Zhongsheng, 2008. "On the extent analysis method for fuzzy AHP and its applications," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 186(2), pages 735-747, April.
    4. Chia-Nan Wang & Jui-Chung Kao & Yen-Hui Wang & Van Thanh Nguyen & Viet Tinh Nguyen & Syed Tam Husain, 2021. "A Multicriteria Decision-Making Model for the Selection of Suitable Renewable Energy Sources," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 9(12), pages 1-17, June.
    5. Saaty, Thomas L., 2003. "Decision-making with the AHP: Why is the principal eigenvector necessary," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 145(1), pages 85-91, February.
    6. Xi Lu & Jiaqing Lu & Xinzheng Yang & Xumei Chen, 2022. "Assessment of Urban Mobility via a Pressure-State-Response (PSR) Model with the IVIF-AHP and FCE Methods: A Case Study of Beijing, China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(5), pages 1-23, March.
    7. Vaidya, Omkarprasad S. & Kumar, Sushil, 2006. "Analytic hierarchy process: An overview of applications," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 169(1), pages 1-29, February.
    8. Irina Canco & Drita Kruja & Tiberiu Iancu, 2021. "AHP, a Reliable Method for Quality Decision Making: A Case Study in Business," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(24), pages 1-14, December.
    9. Giovanni Improta & Giuseppe Converso & Teresa Murino & Mosè Gallo & Antonietta Perrone & Maria Romano, 2019. "Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) in Dynamic Configuration as a Tool for Health Technology Assessment (HTA): The Case of Biosensing Optoelectronics in Oncology," International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making (IJITDM), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 18(05), pages 1533-1550, September.
    10. Fernando ALMEIDA & Pedro SILVA & Joao LEITE, 2017. "Proposal Of A Carsharing System To Improve Urban Mobility," Theoretical and Empirical Researches in Urban Management, Research Centre in Public Administration and Public Services, Bucharest, Romania, vol. 12(3), pages 32-44, April.
    11. Heo, Eunnyeong & Kim, Jinsoo & Boo, Kyung-Jin, 2010. "Analysis of the assessment factors for renewable energy dissemination program evaluation using fuzzy AHP," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 14(8), pages 2214-2220, October.
    12. Chang, Da-Yong, 1996. "Applications of the extent analysis method on fuzzy AHP," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 95(3), pages 649-655, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Mashur Mashur & Muhammad Roil Bilad & Kholik Kholik & Muhammad Munawaroh & Quentin Cheok & Nurul Huda & Rovina Kobun, 2022. "The Sustainability and Development Strategy of a Cattle Feed Bank: A Case Study," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(13), pages 1-14, June.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. BumChoong Kim & Juhan Kim & Jinsoo Kim, 2019. "Evaluation Model for Investment in Solar Photovoltaic Power Generation Using Fuzzy Analytic Hierarchy Process," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(10), pages 1-23, May.
    2. Grošelj, Petra & Hodges, Donald G. & Zadnik Stirn, Lidija, 2016. "Participatory and multi-criteria analysis for forest (ecosystem) management: A case study of Pohorje, Slovenia," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 71(C), pages 80-86.
    3. Paweł Karczmarek & Witold Pedrycz & Adam Kiersztyn, 2021. "Fuzzy Analytic Hierarchy Process in a Graphical Approach," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 30(2), pages 463-481, April.
    4. Shapiro, Arnold F. & Koissi, Marie-Claire, 2017. "Fuzzy logic modifications of the Analytic Hierarchy Process," Insurance: Mathematics and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 75(C), pages 189-202.
    5. Garbuzova-Schlifter, Maria & Madlener, Reinhard, 2016. "AHP-based risk analysis of energy performance contracting projects in Russia," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 97(C), pages 559-581.
    6. Kim, Juhan & Lee, Jungbae & Kim, BumChoong & Kim, Jinsoo, 2019. "Raw material criticality assessment with weighted indicators: An application of fuzzy analytic hierarchy process," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 60(C), pages 225-233.
    7. Sajid Ali & Sang-Moon Lee & Choon-Man Jang, 2017. "Determination of the Most Optimal On-Shore Wind Farm Site Location Using a GIS-MCDM Methodology: Evaluating the Case of South Korea," Energies, MDPI, vol. 10(12), pages 1-22, December.
    8. Madjid Tavana & Mariya Sodenkamp & Leena Suhl, 2010. "A soft multi-criteria decision analysis model with application to the European Union enlargement," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 181(1), pages 393-421, December.
    9. Wang, Xiaojun & Chan, Hing Kai & Li, Dong, 2015. "A case study of an integrated fuzzy methodology for green product development," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 241(1), pages 212-223.
    10. Wang, Ying-Ming & Luo, Ying & Hua, Zhongsheng, 2008. "On the extent analysis method for fuzzy AHP and its applications," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 186(2), pages 735-747, April.
    11. Nitidetch Koohathongsumrit & Pongchanun Luangpaiboon, 2022. "An integrated FAHP–ZODP approach for strategic marketing information system project selection," Managerial and Decision Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 43(6), pages 1792-1809, September.
    12. Deng, Yanfei & Xu, Jiuping & Liu, Ying & Mancl, Karen, 2014. "Biogas as a sustainable energy source in China: Regional development strategy application and decision making," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 35(C), pages 294-303.
    13. Ricardo Echeverri Mart nez & Eduardo Caicedo Bravo & Wilfredo Alfonso Morales & Juan David Garcia-Racines, 2020. "A Bi-level Multi-objective Optimization Model for the Planning, Design and Operation of Smart Grid Projects. Case Study: An Islanded Microgrid," International Journal of Energy Economics and Policy, Econjournals, vol. 10(4), pages 325-341.
    14. Caprioli, Caterina & Bottero, Marta, 2021. "Addressing complex challenges in transformations and planning: A fuzzy spatial multicriteria analysis for identifying suitable locations for urban infrastructures," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 102(C).
    15. Ruchi Mishra & Rajesh Kr Singh & Venkatesh Mani, 2023. "A hybrid multi criteria decision-making framework to facilitate omnichannel adoption in logistics: an empirical case study," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 326(2), pages 685-719, July.
    16. Pınar Kaya Samut, 2017. "Integrated FANP-f-MIGP model for supplier selection in the renewable energy sector," Journal of Business Economics and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 18(3), pages 427-450, May.
    17. Andrzej Pacana & Dominika Siwiec & Jacek Pacana, 2023. "Fuzzy Method to Improve Products and Processes Considering the Approach of Sustainable Development (FQE-SD Method)," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(13), pages 1-22, June.
    18. Hsin-Chieh Wu & Toly Chen & Chin-Hau Huang, 2020. "A Piecewise Linear FGM Approach for Efficient and Accurate FAHP Analysis: Smart Backpack Design as an Example," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 8(8), pages 1-18, August.
    19. Nehal Elshaboury & Tarek Attia & Mohamed Marzouk, 2020. "Comparison of Several Aggregation Techniques for Deriving Analytic Network Process Weights," Water Resources Management: An International Journal, Published for the European Water Resources Association (EWRA), Springer;European Water Resources Association (EWRA), vol. 34(15), pages 4901-4919, December.
    20. Weiliang Qiao & Yu Liu & Xiaoxue Ma & Yang Liu, 2020. "Human Factors Analysis for Maritime Accidents Based on a Dynamic Fuzzy Bayesian Network," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 40(5), pages 957-980, May.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jmathe:v:10:y:2022:i:9:p:1426-:d:800900. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.