Dental clinical evaluation: a review of the research

Patridge, MI; Ta, Mast

doi:10.1002/j.0022-0337.1978.42.6.tb01193.x

Cited by 6 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Not all calibration sessions are administered by the same faculty. Past research has shown mixed results (19) on the efficacy of training sessions in increasing reliability, with some supportive (4, 20) and others unsupportive (6–8). Therefore, it is unclear whether these differences in sessions can account for the grading differences observed.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Differences in clinical grading associated with instructor status

Park

Susarla

Howell

et al. 2009

Eur J Dental Education

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to determine whether the clinical evaluation of pre‐doctoral students is associated with instructor status. The hypothesis was that there would be no association between instructor status and clinical evaluation grades. Materials and methods: Retrospective analysis of pre‐doctoral clinical evaluations for class II amalgams, class III composites, and periodontal scaling and root planing was performed. The grade averages were based on a rank scale. Descriptive statistics were computed to summarise the predictor and outcome variables. Bivariate statistics were computed to evaluate any associations between the predictors and outcomes. Multiple linear regression models were computed to evaluate the simultaneous effects of multiple predictors on clinical evaluations. Results: The study sample consisted of 238 class II amalgams, 246 class III composites, and 675 scaling and root planings which occurred between August 2003 and June 2005. The procedure averages for these procedures were 1.8 ± 0.67, 1.8 ± 0.66 and 2.1 ± 0.56 respectively. The management averages were 2.0 ± 0.63, 1.5 ± 0.58 and 1.4 ± 0.54 respectively. In bivariate analyses, faculty status was associated with treatment averages for all three procedures. Conclusions: Faculty status was associated with treatment score for all three procedures evaluated. Full‐time faculty gave the best grades for restorative procedures. For periodontal procedures, part‐time faculty gave the best grades. More studies are warranted to elucidate the nature behind these differences.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Differences in clinical grading associated with instructor status

Park

Susarla

Howell

et al. 2009

Eur J Dental Education

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Intra‐ and Inter‐Examiner Variability in Evaluating Preclinical Pediatric Dentistry Operative Procedures

Sharaf

Abdelaziz

Meligy

2007

Journal of Dental Education

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Many investigators have reported attempts to develop reliable laboratory and clinic evaluation systems. However, few studies, regardless of level of success, have used an analytic procedure to identify those components of the evaluation system that, if reined further, could improve reliability. The purpose of this study was to compare intra-and inter-examiner variability in two evaluation methods: glance and grade (global), and checklist and criteria (analytical). Three faculty staff members with more than ten years of clinical and teaching experience evaluated operative procedures performed on plastic teeth representing the primary teeth by thirty dental students in pediatric dentistry preclinical laboratory sessions. The preparations were graded blindly by each of the three evaluators (A, B, and C) three times without magniication. The values were statistically analyzed using Wilcoxon signed rank test and Friedman test setting value of signiicance at 5 percent. The study revealed that, among the three examiners, the intra-examiner variability was nonsigniicant in most situations. On the other hand, there was statistically signiicant variability between evaluators (i.e., inter-examiner) for almost all preparations. Neither cutting off the scores nor using either evaluation method (glance and grade or criteria and checklist) caused an improvement in variability. The problem of inter-examiner reliability and variability still existed.

show abstract