An empirical study on the quality analysis of professional doctoral dissertation and management of proposal defense and midterm evaluation in clinical medicine
10.3760/cma.j.cn116021-20240605-01977
- VernacularTitle:临床医学专业博士研究生学位论文质量分析与开题和中期管理的实证研究
- Author:
Xiaowen CHEN
1
;
Xin PING
;
Jie YAN
Author Information
1. 北京大学第一医院人力资源处，北京 100034
- Publication Type:Journal Article
- Keywords:
Clinical medicine;
Professional doctoral student;
Dissertation;
Teaching management
- From:
Chinese Journal of Medical Education Research
2025;24(3):402-406
- CountryChina
- Language:Chinese
-
Abstract:
Objective:To analyze the quality of professional doctoral dissertations in clinical medicine and conduct an empirical study on key stages of proposal defense and midterm evaluation in the dissertation process management, and explore effective ways to improve the quality of doctoral dissertations.Methods:The study included 168 evaluation reports from 56 clinical medicine professional doctoral students at a university-affiliated hospital in the academic years of 2023 and 2024. A Spearman correlation analysis was used to assess the correlation between evaluation item scores and the overall evaluation score. Ordinal logistic regression was employed to identify factors influencing the evaluation item scores, and multiple linear stepwise regression was used to investigate factors affecting the overall evaluation score. Additionally, a self-designed questionnaire was distributed to the survey participants.Results:Among the evaluation items, "dissertation innovation" had the lowest excellence rate (15.48%). The item "basic theory and specialized knowledge" showed the strongest correlation with the overall evaluation score. After controlling for personal characteristics, a higher score on proposal defense was associated with a higher overall evaluation score ( β=0.50, P<0.001). For every 1-point increase in the proposal defense score, the "dissertation innovation" score increased by 1.25 points (odds ratio [ OR]=1.25, P=0.020), and the "dissertation content" score increased by 1.26 points ( OR=1.25, P=0.004). Regarding the evaluation of the proposal defense and mid-term progress (necessity of the research, attention from the supervisor, impact on the dissertation), some professional doctoral students and supervisors did not give sufficient attention. Conclusions:We should emphasize the proposal defense of professional doctoral dissertations, strengthen the cultivation of innovation ability, enhance the mastery of professional theories, and promote the establishment of positive relationships between students and supervisors, which contribute to improving the quality of doctoral dissertations.
