-
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.
Notes
Knowledge, pearl, summary or comment to share?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.
.