Table 2.
Post-training participants’ feedback on the research training.
| Questions | Responses | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Agree n (%) | Disagree n (%) | Neutral n (%) | |
| Training content as a whole was? | |||
| Relevant | 45 (70.3) | 3 (4.7) | 16 (25.0) |
| Comprehensive | 46 (71.9) | 2 (3.1) | 16 (25.0) |
| Easy to understand | 47 (73.4) | 1 (1.6) | 16 (25.0) |
| The training content on Fundamentals of Research was? | |||
| Relevant | 59 (92.2) | 0 (0.0) | 5 (7.8) |
| Comprehensive | 58 (90.6) | 0 (0.0) | 6 (9.4) |
| Easy to understand | 58 (90.6) | 1 (1.6) | 5 (7.8) |
| The training content on Writing for Publication and Grants Writing was? | |||
| Relevant | 47 (73.4) | 1 (1.6) | 16 (25.0) |
| Comprehensive | 48 (75.0) | 0 (0.0) | 16 (25.0) |
| Easy to understand | 45 (70.3) | 2 (3.1) | 17 (26.6) |
| The training Handouts? | |||
| Supported presentation materials | 58 (90.6) | 1 (1.6) | 5 (7.8) |
| Provided useful additional information | 53 (82.8) | 5 (7.8) | 6 (9.4) |
| Were clear and well organized | 49 (76.6) | 10 (15.6) | 5 (7.8) |
| The training was? | |||
| Well-paced | 56 (87.5) | 3 (4.7) | 5 (7.8) |
| A good mix between listening and activities | 56 (87.5) | 3 (4.7) | 5 (7.8) |
| Breaks were sufficient | 48 (75.0) | 11 (17.2) | 5 (7.8) |
| Facilitators were? | |||
| Knowledgeable | 59 (92.2) | 0 (0.0) | 5 (7.8) |
| Well prepared | 59 (92.2) | 0 (0.0) | 5 (7.8) |
| Responsive to participant questions | 59 (92.2) | 0 (0.0) | 5 (7.8) |
| The activities were useful learning experiences | 48 (75.0) | 0 (0.0) | 16 (25.0) |