[Analysis of evaluation process of research projects submitted to the Fondo de Investigación Sanitaria, Spain].

Autor:	Prieto Carles C; Fondo de Investigación Sanitaria.FIS. Instituto Salud Carlos III. Madrid., Gómez-Gerique J, Gutiérrez Millet V, Veiga de Cabo J, Sanz Martul E, Mendoza Hernández JL
Jazyk:	Spanish; Castilian
Zdroj:	Medicina clinica [Med Clin (Barc)] 2000 Oct 07; Vol. 115 (11), pp. 418-22.
DOI:	10.1016/s0025-7753(00)71577-6
Abstrakt:	Background: At the present time it seems very clear that research improvement is both an unquestionable fact and the right way to develop technological innovation, services and patents. However, such improvement and corresponding finances needs to be done under fine and rigorous evaluation process as an assessment tool under which all the research projects applying to a public or private call for proposals should be submitted to assure a coherence point according to the investment to be made. At this end, the main target of this work has been focused to analysis and study the evaluation process traditionally made by Fondo de Investigación Sanitaria (FIS) as well as to propose most adequate modifications. Material and Method: A sample of 431 research projects corresponding to year 1998 proposal was analysed. The evaluation from FIS and ANEP (National Evaluation and Prospective Agency) was evaluated and scored (evaluation quality) in its main contents by 3 independent evaluators, the showed results submitted to a comparative frame between these agencies at indoor (FIS) and outdoor (FIS/ANEP) level. Results: FIS evaluation had 20 commissions or areas of knowledge. The analysis indoor (FIS) clearly showed that evaluation quality was correlated to the assigned commission (F = 3.71; p < 0.001) and to the time last of the researched proposal (F = 3.42; p < 0.05) but no related to the evaluator. On the other hand, the quality of ANEP evaluation showed a correlated dependency of the three mentioned facts. In all terms, the ANEP evaluation was better than FIS for the three years time projects, but in did not show significant differences in one or two years time projects. In all cases, the evaluation with final results as negative (financing denied) showed an average quality higher than positive evaluation. Conclusions: The obtained results advice about the convenience of making some changes in the evaluative structure and to review the sort of FIS technical commissions focusing an improvement of the evaluation process.
Databáze:	MEDLINE
Externí odkaz:	Zobrazit plný text záznamu