Chapter IV

Results

The research hypotheses formulated following Phase I

were as follows:

I. Medical Education Units are more effective when

they were established with the following

circumstances:

a. the initiative to establish the MEU came from the

medical school’s elite (the Dean, associate deans,

or key faculty);

b. the groundwork was laid in the medical school;

c. the early MEU activities were based on the needs

of the medical school; and

d. a contract with the medical school was

established.

II. Medical Education Units were more effective when

the Director possesses the following characteristics:

a. Doctorate degree in education or psychology;

b. full-professor academic rank in medical

education (or similar disciplines);

c. tenured academic rank;

d. full-time as MEU Director;

120

e. greater percentage of time on the job as MEU

Director spent for direct involvement in internal

MEU activities;

f. high degree of external consultation demand (at

the international level, by other universities in the

country, by other agencies in the country, and by

other schools in the university);

g. report directly only to the Dean of the medical

school;

h. working approach as change agent only; and

i. a generalist in education, a specialist in an area in

education, practical understanding of the

instructional process, practical understanding of

the applicability of educational research,

influential through formal channels, influential

through informal channels, and a facilitator in

interpersonal relations as professional strengths.

III. Medical Education Units are more effective

when they possess the following characteristics:

a. official name contains the term research;

b. have more MEU personnel (total personnel,

total professionals, total technicians, total

secretarials, full-time professionals, full-time

technicians, full-time secretarials, and total

121

c. have more full-time key professional staff

members with doctorate degree in education

or psychology;

d. academic department/division status;

e. strategically located;

f. geographical location next to the other

departments in the medical school; and

g. more allocation of resources for internal

activities.

IV. Medical Education Units are more effective

when they function in medical schools with the

following characteristics:

a. relatively new;

b. run by committees; and

c. do not have other units engaging in similar

activities.

To test these hypotheses the data collected during

Phase 2 were cross-partitioned. For this purpose the

responses on the ration scales were dichotomized as follows:

- Responses to Question No. 8 into: (1) greater

percentage for direct involvement in internal MEU

activities; and (2) greater percentage for other

activities.

- Responses to Questions No. 15, 16, 25, 21 (journal

articles), 26, and 27 into (1) greater than median;

122

and (2) less than median.

- Responses to Question No. 28 into: (1) less than

median; and (2) greater than median.

- Responses to Question No.20 into: (1) routine

university funds; and (2) other.

- Responses to Question No. 21 (books and

newsletters) into (1) yes; and (2) no.

To avoid expected frequencies of less than one (Siegel,

1956, p. 110), the categories of the ordinal scales were

combined to form dichotomies:

- Categories of responses to Question No. 9 (external

consultations at the international level) into: (1) once

a year or more and less than once a year; and (2) not

at all.

- Categories of responses to Question No. 9 (external

consultation demands by other universities in the

country, by other agencies in the country, and by

other schools in the university) into: (1) once a year

or more; and (2) less than once a year and not at all,

- Categories of responses to Questions No. 22 – 24

into: (1) effective; and (2) somewhat effective –

ineffective.

With all the data arranged in dichotomies it was

possible to cross-partition the 40 determinants and 10 criteria

into 400 two-dimensional tables.

123

OE Determinant (Independent Variable)

Total

OE Criterion (Dependent Variable)

A1B1 A2B1 B1

A1 B2 A2B2 B2

Total A1 A2 AB=N

Figure 3

(Two-dimensional table)

A1 = A1B1 + A1B2 = Number (percent) of responses with OE Determinant

A2 = A2B1 + A2B2 = Number (percent) of responses without OE Determinant

B1 = A1B1 + A2B1 = Number (percent) of responses with OE Criterion

B2 = A1B2 + A2B2 = Number (percent) of responses without OE Criterion

AB = N = Total number of usable responses.

The values of A1B1, A2B1, and B1 of all 400 tables are

reported in columns No. 1, 2, and 3, respectively, of Tables

1 – 40 (Appendix O).

124

The statistical significance of the cross-breaks was

calculated with the Fisher Exact Probability Test, to measure

“the probability of distributions among the four cells could be

as extreme as this one, or more extreme” (Guilford, 1973, p.

205; Siegel, 1956, p. 98), rather than with the Chi Square

Test, to measure “the departure of obtained frequencies from

the frequencies expected by chance” (Kerlinger, 1973, p.

168), because most of the expected frequencies were less than

five (Hays, 1963, p. 597; Siegel, 1956, p. 110). This

“probability” (p) was calculated by summing the probability

of the observed distribution with the probabilities of the more

extreme possible distributions. Each probability was

computed with the following formula:

p = ______A1 ! A2 ! B1 ! B2 !_______ AB ! A1B1 ! A1B2 ! A2B1 ! A2B2!

(Siegel, 1956, p. 97)

The magnitude of association between an OE

determinant and OE criterion was represented by the phi

correlation coefficient, which was calculated with the

following formula:

Ø = (A1B1)(A2B2) – (A2B1)(A1B2)√ (A1 X A2 X B1 X B2)__

(Guilford, 1973, p. 307)

According to Guilford (1973, pp. 307-308) “the formula for

the estimation of the standard error of phi involves such

laborious computations that it is impractical for general

125

Use ….” A test for the null hypotheses, fortunately, can

be made through phi’s relationship to chi square. If Χ2

is significant in a fourfold table, the corresponding Ø is

significant”. In this study the assumption was made that

a similar relationship exist between the statistical

significance of the distribution among the four cells of a

two-dimensional table and the statistical significance of

phi.

Both the p and Ø values of the 400 relationships were

calculated manually and are reported in columns No. 4 and 5 of

Tables 1 – 40 (Appendix O). p and Ø were also computed by

computer, and whenever applicable (in 30% of the cases) the

computer printed the corrected chi square (see Guilford, 1973,

pp. 204-205), and its significance value.

The p values of the corrected chi squares are higher

than those calculated with the Fisher’s formula, which is in

agreement with Walker and Lev’s observation (1955, p. 108):

“In small samples the usual computation of Χ2 gives too large

a value, leading to the rejection of hypotheses more often than

would the direct computation of probability by factorials.”

Significant Correlations

From the analysis of data the following significant

correlations between OE determinants and criteria were

calculated.

126

- “Groundwork laid” and “effective in following job

descriptions”: p = .09; Ø = .61 (see Table 3,

appendix O).

Explanation

p = p of observed distribution + p of more extreme

distributions.

More extreme distribution:

7 0 7

0 4 4

7 4 11

Observed distribution:

6 1 7

1 3 4

7 4 11

p = p of observed distribution

+ p of more extreme

p of more extreme distribution = 7 ! 4 ! 7 ! 4 ! 11 ! 7 ! 0 ! 0! 4 != .0030302

p of more observed distribution = 7 ! 4 ! 7 ! 4 ! 11 ! 7 ! 0 ! 0! 4 != .084848

Distribution

= .0878782

Ø = .61 is the strength of association

between the variables “groundwork laid” and “effective in

following job descriptions”:127

p = .09 also represents the statistical significance of Ø.

The following p and Ø values should be interpreted in

the same manner:

- “Tenured academic rank” and “promotion in

academic rank”: p = .004; Ø = .60 (Table 7).

- “Tenured academic rank” and “production of journal

articles (greater than median)”: p = .003; Ø = .52

(Table 7).

- “Tenured academic rank” and “effective in meeting

developmental objectives”: p = .07; Ø = .48

(Table 7).

- “Tenured academic rank” and “emphasis placed on

internal activities (greater than median)”: p = .05;

Ø = .36 (Table 7).

- “Tenured academic rank” and “emphasis placed on

external activities (greater than median)”: p = .05;

Ø = .36 (Table 7).

- “Full-time MEU Director” and “production of

newsletters”: p = .02; Ø = - .43 (Table 8).

- “Greater percentage of time on the job a MEU

Director was spent for direct involvement in internal

activities” and “greatest percentage of support from

routine university funds”: p = .01; Ø = .49 (Table 9).

128

- “Greater percentage of time on the job as MEU

Director was spent for direct involvement in internal

activities ” and “emphasis placed on external

activities (greater than median”: p = .08; Ø = - .33

(Table 9).

- “MEU Director was often in demand as external

consultant at the international level” and “emphasis

placed on external activities”: p = .03; Ø = .40

(Table 10).

- “MEU Director was often in demand as external

consultant by other agencies in the country” and

“production of newsletters”: p = .06; Ø = .33 (Table

12).

- “MEU Director was often in demand as external

consultant by other agencies in the country” and

“emphasis placed on external activities”: p = .08; Ø

= .33 (Table 12).

- “MEU Director reports directly only to the Dean of

the medical school” and “production of books”: p

= .04; Ø = - .36 (Table 14).

- “MEU Director’s working approach as change-

agent only” and “production of books”: p = .03; Ø

= .42 (Table 15).

- “MEU Director’s working approach as change-

agent only” and “effective in meeting developmental

objectives”: p = .07; Ø = .50 (Table 15).

129

- “MEU Director’s working approach as change-

agent only” and “effective in meeting performance

objectives”: p = .08; Ø = .65 (Table 15).

- “MEU Director’s professional strength – generalist

in education” and “production of newsletters”: p

= .09; Ø = - .31 (Table 16).

- “MEU Director’s professional strength – practical

understanding of the instructional process” and

“effective in meeting developmental objectives”: p =

.09; Ø = - .44 (Table 18).

- “MEU Director’s professional strength – influential

through formal channels” and “greatest percentage

of support from routine university funds”: p = .007;

Ø = .48 (Table 21).

- “MEU Director’s professional strength – influential

through formal channels” and “production of journal

articles (greater than median)”: p = .08; Ø = - .30

(Table 21).

- “MEU Director’s professional strength – influential

through informal channels” and “emphasis placed

on external activities (greater than median)”: p

= .02; Ø = .45 (Table 22).

- “MEU Director’s professional strength – facilitator

in interpersonal relations” and “greatest percentage

of support from routine university funds”: p = .003;

Ø = .55 (Table 23).

130

- “MEU Director’s professional strength – facilitator

in interpersonal relations” and “production of

newsletters”: p = .10; Ø = - .29 (Table 23).

- “MEU’s official name contains the term research”

and “production of journal articles (greater than

median)”: p = .08; Ø = .30 (Table 24).

- “MEU’s official name contains the term research”

and “emphasis placed on internal activities (greater

than median)”: p = .0002; Ø = .68 (Table 24).

- “MEU’s official name contains the term research”

and “emphasis placed on external activities (greater

than median)”: p = .004; Ø = .54 (Table 24).

- “Total MEU personnel (greater than median)” and

“production of books”: p = .06; Ø = .35 (Table 25).

- “Total MEU personnel (greater than median)” and

“production of journal articles (greater than

median)”: p = .04; Ø = .38 (Table 25).

- “Total MEU personnel (greater than median)” and

“emphasis placed on internal activities (greater than

median)”: p = .06; Ø = .36 (Table 25).

- “Total MEU technicians (greater than median)”

and “production of newsletters”: p = .03; Ø = .40

(Table 27).

131

- “Total MEU technicians (greater than median)” and

“effective in meeting performance objectives”: p

= .10; Ø = .60 (Table 27).

- “Full-time professionals (greater than median)” and

“greatest percentage of support from routine

university funds”: p = .09; Ø = - .32 (Table 29).

- “Full-time technicians (greater than median)” and

“MEU Director’s promotion in academic rank”: p

= .002; Ø = .66 (Table 30).

- “Full-time technicians (greater than median)” and

“production of journal articles (greater than

median)”: p = .04; Ø = .38 (Table 30).

- “Full-time technicians (greater than median)” and

“effective in meeting performance objectives”: p

= .10; Ø = .60 (Table 30).

- “Full-time secretarials (greater than median) ” and

“production of books”: p = .008; Ø = .48 (Table 31).

- “Total full-time personnel (greater than median)”

and “production of journal articles (greater than

median)”: p = .006; Ø = .50 (Table 32).

- “Total full-time personnel (greater than median” and

“effective in meeting developmental objectives”: p =

.04; Ø = .53 (Table 32).

- “Full-time key staff members with doctorate degree

in education or psychology (greater than median)”

132

and “production of journal articles (greater than

median”: p = .04; Ø = .38 (Table 33).

- “Full-time key staff members with doctorate

degree in education or psychology (greater than

median)” and “effective in meeting developmental

objecti”: p = .04; Ø = .55 (Table 33).

- “Full-time key staff members with doctorate

degree in education or psychology (greater than

median)” and “emphasis placed on internal

activities (greater than median)”: p = .10; Ø = .29

(Table 33).

“Academic department/division status” and

“production of journal articles (greater than

- median”: p = .03; Ø = .40 (Table 34).

- “Academic department/division status” and

“production of newsletters”: p = .09; Ø = - .32

(Table 34).

- “MEU is located next to the other departments in

the medical school” and “greatest percentage of

support from routine university funds”: p = .05; Ø

= - .36 (Table 36).

- “Age of medical school (less than median)” and

“production of books”: p = .06; Ø = .35 (Table 38).

- “Educational decision-making in the medical

school by committees” and “emphasis placed on

internal activities (greater than median)”: p = .06;

133

Ø = .35 (Table 39).

For questionnaire responses that were not included in

the statistical analysis see Appendix N.

134