1. Performance of two different digital evaluation systems used for assessing pre-clinical dental students’ prosthodontic technical skills
- Author
-
Derek R. Blanchette, Steven A. Aquilino, David G. Gratton, and So Ran Kwon
- Subjects
Adult ,Male ,medicine.medical_specialty ,Educational measurement ,020205 medical informatics ,medicine.medical_treatment ,education ,Dentistry ,02 engineering and technology ,Dental education ,Prosthodontics ,Education ,Young Adult ,03 medical and health sciences ,0302 clinical medicine ,Internal medicine ,0202 electrical engineering, electronic engineering, information engineering ,medicine ,Humans ,Medical physics ,Technical skills ,Education, Dental ,General Dentistry ,Curriculum ,business.industry ,Significant difference ,030206 dentistry ,Maxillary right central incisor ,Technical performance ,Endocrinology ,Female ,Clinical Competence ,Educational Measurement ,business - Abstract
Introduction Proper integration of newly emerging digital assessment tools is a central issue in dental education in an effort to provide more accurate and objective feedback to students. The study examined how the outcomes of students’ tooth preparation were correlated when evaluated using traditional faculty assessment and two types of digital assessment approaches. Specifically, incorporation of the Romexis Compare 2.0 (Compare) and Sirona prepCheck 1.1 (prepCheck) systems was evaluated. Additionally, satisfaction of students based on the type of software was evaluated through a survey. Material and Methods Students in a second-year pre-clinical prosthodontics course were allocated to either Compare (n = 42) or prepCheck (n = 37) systems. All students received conventional instruction and used their assigned digital system as an additional evaluation tool to aid in assessing their work. Examinations assessed crown preparations of the maxillary right central incisor (#8) and the mandibular left first molar (#19). All submissions were graded by faculty, Compare and prepCheck. Results Technical scores did not differ between student groups for any of the assessment approaches. Compare and prepCheck had modest, statistically significant correlations with faculty scores with a minimum correlation of 0.3944 (P = 0.0011) and strong, statistically significant correlations with each other with a minimum correlation of 0.8203 (P
- Published
- 2016
- Full Text
- View/download PDF