Journals / Journal of Health Sciences and Medicine / 2026 / Volume: 9 Issue: 4

Context-input-process-product (CIPP)-based program evaluation of an oral and maxillofacial radiology course: a three-year curriculum analysis

Sinem Coşkun Albayrak(LOKMAN HEKİM ÜNİVERSİTESİ)0000-0003-4772-6047
Esra Yıldırım Manav(LOKMAN HEKİM ÜNİVERSİTESİ)0000-0001-8073-1222
Özlem Coşkun(GAZİ ÜNİVERSİTESİ, TIP FAKÜLTESİ)0000-0001-8716-1584
Pages
—
Publication Date
2026-07-20
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

The findings highlight the value of theory-informed curriculum governance in competency-based dental education.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Aims: This study aimed to conduct a structured three-year program evaluation of an oral and maxillofacial radiology course using the context-input-process-product (CIPP) model within a constructive alignment framework.
📊
Key Findings & Data:The evaluation examined national curriculum alignment, instructional design, assessment practices, and longitudinal student performance.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:The findings highlight the value of theory-informed curriculum governance in competency-based dental education.
🔬Design:Modeling & Simulation
📍Scope:2022-2023 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Curriculum · constructive alignment · dental education

Abstract

Aims: This study aimed to conduct a structured three-year program evaluation of an oral and maxillofacial radiology course using the context-input-process-product (CIPP) model within a constructive alignment framework. The evaluation examined national curriculum alignment, instructional design, assessment practices, and longitudinal student performance. Methods: A retrospective institutional program evaluation was conducted across the 2022-2023, 2023-2024, and 2024-2025 academic years. Document analysis included National Core Curriculum in Predoctoral Dental Education (NCCPDE)-2024 national core curriculum standards, course information packages, learning outcomes, accreditation reports, examination questions, blueprint analyses, examination results, and student feedback reports. Curriculum alignment was quantified using structured mapping matrices. Final examinations (40 multiple-choice items; passing threshold ≥60) were analyzed using blueprint-based content and Bloom’s revised taxonomy. Descriptive and comparative statistical analyses were performed. Results: Coverage analysis demonstrated that the course addressed 72.8% of NCCPDE-defined core conditions and 35.2% of core signs and symptoms. All course learning outcomes were aligned with at least one national competency component. Blueprint analysis revealed a structured progression from foundational knowledge in period 3 to applied diagnostic reasoning in period 4. Artificial Intelligence (AI)-supported instructional integration was gradually reflected in assessment items (5.0%-10.0%). Across three academic years, pass rates remained high (95.9%-100%), and no statistically significant decline in mean final scores was observed (p>0.05). Conclusion: A CIPP-based, policy-aligned evaluation demonstrated that national curriculum integration, blueprint-informed assessment design, and AI-supported instructional innovation can be implemented without compromising student performance. The findings highlight the value of theory-informed curriculum governance in competency-based dental education.

🔖

Cite This Article

Albayrak, S. C., Manav, E. Y., Coşkun, Ö. (2026). Context-input-process-product (CIPP)-based program evaluation of an oral and maxillofacial radiology course: a three-year curriculum analysis. Journal of Health Sciences and Medicine, Volume: 9 Issue: 4. https://doi.org/10.32322/jhsm.1922250

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (19)

  1. Norcini J, Burch V. Workplace-based assessment as an educational tool: AMEE Guide No. 31. Med Teach. 2007;29(9):855-871. doi:10.1080/01421590701775453
  2. Nyhsen CM, Lawson C, Higginson J. Radiology teaching for junior doctors: their expectations, preferences and suggestions for improvement. Insights Imaging. 2011;2(3):261-266. doi:10.1007/s13244-010-0052-5
  3. Norman GR, Coblentz CL, Brooks LR, Babcook CJ. Expertise in visual diagnosis: a review of the literature. Acad Med. 1992;67(10 Suppl):S78- S83. doi:10.1097/00001888-199210000-00045
  4. Kim IH, Singer SR, Hong DJ, Mupparapu M. Fundamentals of radiographic ınterpretation for the dentist. Dent Clin North Am. 2021; 65(3):409-425. doi:10.1016/j.cden.2021.02.001
  5. Akaltan KF. Diş hekimliği eğitiminde güncelleme: eğitim ve öğrenim yöntemleri. Selcuk Dent J. 2019;6(5):1-20. doi:10.15311/selcukdentj.552022
  6. Tonni I, Gadbury-Amyot CC, Govaerts M, et al. ADEA-ADEE Shaping the future of dental education III: assessment in competency-based dental education: ways forward. J Dent Edu. 2020;84(1):97-104. doi:10.1002/jdd.12024
  7. Mahzari M, AlNahedh T, Ahmed AA, Al Rumyyan A, Shaban S, Magzoub ME. Practical guide to undergraduate medical curriculum alignment and mapping. Adv Med Educ Pract. 2023(18);14:1001-1012. doi:10.2147/AMEP.S424815
  8. Turkish Dental Education Council. National Core Curriculum for Undergraduate Dental Education (NCCPDE 2024). Ankara: TDEK; 2024.
  9. Ocak I. Diş hekimliği fakültelerinin mezuniyet öncesi diş hekimliği ulusal çekirdek eğitim programına uyum süreci. Selcuk Dent J. 2025;12(4):50-53. doi:10.15311/ selcukdentj.1531173
  10. Frye AW, Hemmer PA. Program evaluation models and related theories: AMEE guide no. 67. Med Teach. 2012;34(5):e288-e299. doi:10.3109/0142159X.2012.668637
  11. Toosi M, Modarres M, Amini M, Geranmayeh M. Context, input, process, and product evaluation model in medical education: a systematic review. J Edu Health Promot. 2021;10(1):199. doi:10.4103/jehp.jehp_1115_20
  12. Bilan N, Negahdari R, Hazrati H, Foroughi Moghaddam S. Examining the quality of the competency-based evaluation program for dentistry based on the CIPP model: a mixed-method study. J Dent Res Dent Clin Dent Prospects. 2021;15(3):203-209. doi:10.34172/joddd.2021.034
  13. Lee SY, Shin JS, Lee SH. How to execute context, input, process, and product evaluation model in medical health education. J Educ Eval Health Prof. 2019;16:40. doi:10.3352/jeehp.2019.16.40
  14. Babadi F, Esfandiari M, Cheraghi M. Evaluating the dentistry program in Iran using the context, input, process, and product (CIPP) model: a comprehensive analysis. Front Med (Lausanne). 2024;11:1394395. doi:10.3389/fmed.2024.1394395
  15. Kidd JB, McMahon AD, Sherriff A, et al. Evaluation of a national complex oral health improvement programme: a population data linkage cohort study in Scotland. BMJ Open. 2020;10(11):e038116. doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2020-038116
  16. Badran SA, Al-Sa’don S, Al-Harbi A. Applying the Kirkpatrick model to evaluate dental students’ experience of learning. Eur J Dent Educ. 2022;26(4):756-766. doi:10.1111/eje.12758
  17. Banasr FH, Finkelman MD, Dragan IF, Ramesh A, Mehta NR, Correa LP. Evaluating a dental sleep apnea mini-residency program using the Kirkpatrick model. J Dent Educ. 2023;87(7):974-986. doi:10.1002/jdd. 13212
  18. Patel J, Bear N, Long R, Naoum S, Slack-Smith L, Kruger E. The Kimberley Dental Team: a process evaluation of a volunteer dental programme. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol. 2023;51:1241-1249. doi: 10.1111/cdoe.12885
  19. Wang L, Liu H, Wang L, et al. Evaluating an oral health programme for the prevention of dental decay among school-aged children in China: protocol for a mixed-methods study based on the RE-AIM framework. BMJ Open. 2022;12(9):e061601. doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2022-061601