|
This report presents the results of Participants’ evaluation of the
First International JNC conference that was conducted on 25th- 27th of
April 2006. The evaluation consisted of three general parts including;
1- Evaluation of the conference preparation.
2- Overall evaluation of presentations.
3- Evaluation of conference facilities.
The form requested the participants to respond to a likert scale ranged
from not satisfied at all (1) to highly satisfied (5). In addition, the
participants were also asked to comment on: Overall impression about the
conference and additional comments. (Attached is a copy of evaluation
form).
The evaluation form was distributed at the end of the 3rd day. The number
of conference registrants were (850) participants, while the number of
respondents were (297). Only (157) out of (297) respondents commented on
the first item which the overall impression, and (88) out of (297) gave
additional comments.
Descriptive statistical analysis (mean, Std. Deviation, frequency and
percentages) revealed that participants were “somewhat satisfied” in
certain items and “neither satisfied nor dissatisfied” in others. The
lowest mean was (3.6) for exhibition, social activities and coffee break,
while the highest mean (4.3) was for the sound clarity of the auditorium
facilities.
The analysis of overall evaluation of conference preparation(the first
general part) showed that, participants were “somewhat satisfied” in
registration label and information material (mean 4.0), while they
were “neither satisfied nor dissatisfied” for the other eight sub
items (mean ranges between 3.6-3.9), tables (3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13)
described the analysis in details. Results
also revealed that the participants were “somewhat satisfied” in all
sub items related to second and third general part of the evaluation form.
Mean ranges from (4.0) for quality of papers to (4.3) for the auditorium
sound clarity. While the participants were “neither satisfied nor
dissatisfied” for the sub item related to time allocation for each
presentation (mean 3.7). Table (14) represents the mean for each subtitle
of the overall evaluation of presentations and conference facilities, and
tables(15,16,17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24), represent the detailed results
related to these sub items.
For the purpose of analysis to the respondent comments, the analyst analyzed
the participants’ impression about the conference using a likert scale
ranged from “1” not satisfied at all to “5” highly satisfied.
Results showed that the overall impression of the conference were
“somewhat not satisfied” (mean 2.1, respond rate 157 out of 297), tables
(27 and 28).
Furthermore, the other comments analyzed as qualitative data, then as
quantitative data using frequency and percentage analysis. Analysis revealed
thirteen comments commented by (88 out of 297) participants (table 26).
Frequency and percentages were used to analyze each comment. The frequency
ranged from (1) for invitations of all participants to all social
activities, and offering water between sessions to a highest frequency (27)
for more preparations and organizations for the conference. Other high
frequencies were: (14) was related to poor quality of papers, (13) for
inadequate time allocation for presentation, (10) for availability of
facilities e.g. parking and pray place. Other comments were; lack of
participation of nursing association (frequency 6), the need for the hand
outs of the presentations and plenary sessions (frequency 4), other
specialties to be included e.g. pediatrics, gynecology and quality assurance
(frequency 3).
|
