Search results for: evaluated statistically

Authors: Murat Arıbaş, Uğur Özcan

Abstract:

Due to the increasing number of universities and academics, the fund of the universities for research activities and grants/supports given by government institutions have increased number and quality of academic research projects. Although every academic research project has a specific purpose and importance, limited resources (money, time, manpower etc.) require choosing the best ones from all (Amiri, 2010). It is a pretty hard process to compare and determine which project is better such that the projects serve different purposes. In addition, the evaluation process has become complicated since there are more than one evaluator and multiple criteria for the evaluation (Dodangeh, Mojahed and Yusuff, 2009). Mehrez and Sinuany-Stern (1983) determined project selection problem as a Multi Criteria Decision Making (MCDM) problem. If a decision problem involves multiple criteria and objectives, it is called as a Multi Attribute Decision Making problem (Ömürbek & Kınay, 2013). There are many MCDM methods in the literature for the solution of such problems. These methods are AHP (Analytic Hierarchy Process), ANP (Analytic Network Process), TOPSIS (Technique for Order Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution), PROMETHEE (Preference Ranking Organization Method for Enrichment Evaluation), UTADIS (Utilities Additives Discriminantes), ELECTRE (Elimination et Choix Traduisant la Realite), MAUT (Multiattribute Utility Theory), GRA (Grey Relational Analysis) etc. Teach method has some advantages compared with others (Ömürbek, Blacksmith & Akalın, 2013). Hence, to decide which MCDM method will be used for solution of the problem, factors like the nature of the problem, types of choices, measurement scales, type of uncertainty, dependency among the attributes, expectations of decision maker, and quantity and quality of the data should be considered (Tavana & Hatami-Marbini, 2011). By this study, it is aimed to develop a systematic decision process for the grant support applications that are expected to be evaluated according to their scientific adequacy by multiple evaluators under certain criteria. In this context, project evaluation process applied by The Scientific and Technological Research Council of Turkey (TÜBİTAK) the leading institutions in our country, was investigated. Firstly in the study, criteria that will be used on the project evaluation were decided. The main criteria were selected among TÜBİTAK evaluation criteria. These criteria were originality of project, methodology, project management/team and research opportunities and extensive impact of project. Moreover, for each main criteria, 2-4 sub criteria were defined, hence it was decided to evaluate projects over 13 sub-criterion in total. Due to superiority of determination criteria weights AHP method and provided opportunity ranking great number of alternatives TOPSIS method, they are used together. AHP method, developed by Saaty (1977), is based on selection by pairwise comparisons. Because of its simple structure and being easy to understand, AHP is the very popular method in the literature for determining criteria weights in MCDM problems. Besides, the TOPSIS method developed by Hwang and Yoon (1981) as a MCDM technique is an alternative to ELECTRE method and it is used in many areas. In the method, distance from each decision point to ideal and to negative ideal solution point was calculated by using Euclidian Distance Approach. In the study, main criteria and sub-criteria were compared on their own merits by using questionnaires that were developed based on an importance scale by four relative groups of people (i.e. TUBITAK specialists, TUBITAK managers, academics and individuals from business world ) After these pairwise comparisons, weight of the each main criteria and sub-criteria were calculated by using AHP method. Then these calculated criteria’ weights used as an input in TOPSİS method, a sample consisting 200 projects were ranked on their own merits. This new system supported to opportunity to get views of the people that take part of project process including preparation, evaluation and implementation on the evaluation of academic research projects. Moreover, instead of using four main criteria in equal weight to evaluate projects, by using weighted 13 sub-criteria and decision point’s distance from the ideal solution, systematic decision making process was developed. By this evaluation process, new approach was created to determine importance of academic research projects.

Keywords: Academic projects, Ahp method, Research projects evaluation, Topsis method.

Procedia PDF Downloads 577

Authors: S. M. A. Ismail, M. I. Ibrahim, H. Masdar, F. M. Effendi, M. F. Suhaimi, A. Suun

Abstract:

Introduction: It is generally known that the rehabilitation process is as important as the reconstruction surgery. Several literature has focused on how early the rehabilitation modalities can be initiated after the surgery to ensure a safe return of patients to sports or at least regaining the pre-injury level of function following an ACL reconstruction. Objectives: The main objective is to study and evaluate the outcome of early balance exercises and agility training in sports rehabilitation for patients post ACL reconstruction. To compare between early balance exercises and agility training as intervention and control. (material or non-material). All of them were recruited for material exercise (balance exercises and agility training with strengthening) and strengthening only rehabilitation protocol (non-material). Followed the prospective intervention trial. Materials and Methods: Post-operative ACL reconstruction patients performed in Selayang and Sg Buloh Hospitals from 2012 to 2014 were selected for this study. They were taken from Malaysian Knee Ligament Registry (MKLR) and all patients had single bundle reconstruction with autograft hamstring tendon (semitendinosus and gracilis). ACL injury from any type of sports were included. Subjects performed various type of physical activity for rehabilitation in every 18 week for a different type of rehab activity. All subject attended all 18 sessions of rehabilitation exercises and evaluation was done during the first, 9th and 18th session. Evaluation format were based on clinical assessment (anterior drawer, Lachmann, pivot shift, laxity with rolimeter, the end point and thigh circumference) and scoring (Lysholm Knee scoring and Tegner Activity Level scale). Rehabilitation protocol initiated from 24 week after the surgery. Evaluation format were based on clinical assessment (anterior drawer, Lachmann, pivot shift, laxity with rolimeter, the end point and thigh circumference) and scoring (Lysholm Knee scoring and Tegner Activity Level scale). Results and Discussion: 100 patients were selected of which 94 patients are male and 6 female. Age range is 18 to 54 year with the average of 28 years old for included 100 patients. All patients are evaluated after 24 week after the surgery. 50 of them were recruited for material exercise (balance exercises and agility training with strengthening) and 50 for strengthening only rehabilitation protocol (non-material). Demographically showed 85% suffering sports injury mainly from futsal and football. 39 % of them have abnormal BMI (26 – 38) and involving of the left knee. 100% of patient had the basic radiographic x-ray of knee and 98% had MRI. All patients had negative anterior drawer’s, Lachman test and Pivot shift test during the post ACL reconstruction after the complete rehabilitation. There was 95 subject sustained grade I injury, 5 of grade II and 0 of grade III with 90% of them had soft end-point. Overall they scored badly on presentation with 53% of Lysholm score (poor) and Tegner activity score level 3/10. After completing 9 weeks of exercises, of material group 90% had grade I laxity, 75% with firm end-point, Lysholm score 71% (fair) and Tegner activity level 5/10 comparing non-material group who had 62% of grade I laxity , 54% of firm end-point, Lyhslom score 62 % (poor) and Tegner activity level 4/10. After completed 18 weeks of exercises, of material group maintained 90% grade I laxity with 100 % with firm end-point, Lysholm score increase 91% (excellent) and Tegner activity level 7/10 comparing non-material group who had 69% of grade I laxity but maintained 54% of firm end-point, Lysholm score 76% (fair) and Tegner activity level 5/10. These showed the improvement were achieved fast on material group who have achieved satisfactory level after 9th cycle of exercises 75% (15/20) comparing non-material group who only achieved 54% (7/13) after completed 18th session. Most of them were grade I. These concepts are consolidated into our approach to prepare patients for return to play including field testing and maintenance training. Conclusions: The basic approach in ACL rehabilitation is to ensure return to sports at post-operative 6 month. Grade I and II laxity has favourable and early satisfactory outcome base on clinical assessment and Lysholm and Tegner scoring point. Reduction of laxity grading indicates satisfactory outcome. Firm end-point showed the adequacy of rehabilitation before starting previous sports game. Material exercise (balance exercises and agility training with strengthening) were beneficial and reliable in order to achieve favourable and early satisfactory outcome comparing strengthening only (non-material).We have identified that rehabilitation protocol varies between different patients. Therefore future post ACL reconstruction rehabilitation guidelines should look into focusing on rehabilitation techniques instead of time.

Keywords: post anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction, single bundle, hamstring tendon, sports rehabilitation, balance exercises, agility balance

Procedia PDF Downloads 239