Comparison of different experts' opinions about pharmaceutical specialists' credentials for military superior technical position
doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1006-0111.2013.04.022
- Received Date: 2012-07-09
- Rev Recd Date: 2012-11-14
-
Key words:
- professional rank /
- pharmaceutics /
- superior technical position /
- credentials /
- opinions
Abstract: Objective To compare different experts' opinions about pharmaceutical specialists'credentials for military superior technical position. Methods Delphi method was taken to organize two rounds of specialist consultations, the final opinions of specialists with different professional ranks were compared on the index weights. Results In comparison of opinions about six first-level indicators (W=0.906, P=0.107), the specialists agreed that pharmaceutical work and professional knowledge were the most important. For the second-level indicators like professional knowledge, pharmaceutical work and teaching, the opinions were also consistent (W=1, P=0.092; W=1, P=0.157; W=1, P=0.135). For the second-level indicators like ideology and mortality, scientific research and the third-level indicators like quantity of pharmaceutical work, quality of pharmaceutical work and teaching achievements, the opinions were different(W=0.75, P=0.223; W=0.75, P=0.223; W=0.75, P=0.223;W=0.1, P=0.896; W=0, P=1). Conclusion The experts with different professional ranks had different opinions, especially on the aspects of quality of pharmaceutical work and teaching achievements. Those with medium professional titles focused more on shorter term indicators, while those with senior ones focused more on longer term indicators. These suggestions should be appropriately analyzed to build scientific pharmaceutical specialists' credentials for military superior technical position.
Citation: | LU Juan, HUANG Wei-can, WANG Yue. Comparison of different experts' opinions about pharmaceutical specialists' credentials for military superior technical position[J]. Journal of Pharmaceutical Practice and Service, 2013, 31(4): 314-317. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1006-0111.2013.04.022 |