Table 2.

Process evaluation: methods and results

Method	Details of the method	Main results
1. Student evaluation questionnaire	An online, 40-item questionnaire on a 5-point Likert scale (ranging from 1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree) was completed by students at the end of each interdisciplinary block regarding the quality of the blocks. A total of 1004 questionnaires were completed for 10 blocks. Mean response rate for each block was 63 %	Most students agreed or strongly agreed that: - Block material was appropriate (77.7 %) - Block content was related to and consistent with each other (77.4 %) - Integrated content contributed significantly to their learning (73.6 %) - Interdisciplinary questions were suitable (72.4 %) More students disagreed or strongly disagreed that: - Enough time was allotted for subjects (56.9 %) - Block instructors used techniques like questioning to make sessions interactive (47.7 %)
2. Student and faculty focus groups	To identify strengths and shortcomings of the implemented revised programme, 15 focus group sessions were conducted during December 2011 to December 2014 (12 sessions with students and three sessions with basic science faculty). Each session lasted 30–90 min which were audiotaped and transcribed	Strengths: - Integration of basic science subjects - Case-based discussion sessions Shortcomings: - Insufficient coordination among the block teachers - Low quality of some team-based learning sessions - Low quality of some exam questions - Disturbing the faculty schedule - Uncertainty about the success of the programme (at the early stage)
3. Individuals interviews with administrator Review the programme documents	To identify the extent to which the revised programme was implemented as planned, interviews were conducted with six reform committee chairs. Course syllabi and exam questions were reviewed as well	Holding lectures and practical sessions as planned - E-learning session considerably less than planned - Gradual decline of the exams quality