• J Dent Educ · Nov 2015

    Comparative Study

    Agreement Among Dental Students, Peer Assessors, and Tutor in Assessing Students' Competence in Preclinical Skills.

    • Jennifer I Foley, Gillian L Richardson, and Joyce Drummie.
    • Dr. Foley is Senior Clinical Lecturer/Honorary Consultant in Pediatric Dentistry, University of Edinburgh Dental Institute; Ms. Richardson is Consultant/Honorary Senior Lecturer in Pediatric Dentistry, University of Glasgow Dental Hospital; and Ms. Drummie is Clinical Teaching Fellow in Pediatric/Restorative Dentistry, University of Aberdeen Dental School and Hospital. jfoley10@exseed.ed.ac.uk.
    • J Dent Educ. 2015 Nov 1; 79 (11): 1320-4.

    AbstractThe aim of this study was to determine the level of agreement regarding assessments of competence among dental students, their student peers, and their clinical skills tutors in a preclinical skills program. In 2012-13 at the University of Edinburgh, second-year dental students learned to perform the following seven cavity preparations/restorations on primary and permanent Frasaco teeth: single-surface adhesive occlusal cavity; single-surface adhesive interproximal cavity; single-surface adhesive labial cavity; multi-surface adhesive cavity; multi-surface amalgam cavity; pre-formed metal crown preparation; and composite resin buildup of a fractured maxillary central incisor tooth. Each student, a randomly allocated student peer, and the clinical skills tutor used standardized descriptors to assign a competency grade to all the students' preparations/restorations. The grades were analyzed by chi-square analysis. Data were available for all 59 second-year students in the program. The results showed that both the students and their peers overestimated the students' competence compared to the tutor at the following levels: single-surface adhesive occlusal cavity (χ(2)=10.63, p=0.005); single-surface adhesive interproximal cavity (χ(2)=11.40, p=0.003); single-surface labial cavity (χ(2)=23.70, p=0.001); multi-surface adhesive cavity (χ(2)=12.56, p=0.002); multi-surface amalgam cavity (χ(2)=38.85, p=0.001); pre-formed metal crown preparation (χ(2)=40.41, p=0.001); and composite resin buildup (χ(2)=57.31, p=0.001). As expected, the lowest levels of agreement occurred on the most complicated procedures. These findings support the need for additional ways to help students better self-assess their work.

      Pubmed     Full text   Copy Citation     Plaintext  

      Add institutional full text...

    Notes

     
    Knowledge, pearl, summary or comment to share?
    300 characters remaining
    help        
    You can also include formatting, links, images and footnotes in your notes
    • Simple formatting can be added to notes, such as *italics*, _underline_ or **bold**.
    • Superscript can be denoted by <sup>text</sup> and subscript <sub>text</sub>.
    • Numbered or bulleted lists can be created using either numbered lines 1. 2. 3., hyphens - or asterisks *.
    • Links can be included with: [my link to pubmed](http://pubmed.com)
    • Images can be included with: ![alt text](https://bestmedicaljournal.com/study_graph.jpg "Image Title Text")
    • For footnotes use [^1](This is a footnote.) inline.
    • Or use an inline reference [^1] to refer to a longer footnote elseweher in the document [^1]: This is a long footnote..

    hide…