The Journal of Contemporary Dental Practice

Register      Login

SEARCH WITHIN CONTENT

FIND ARTICLE

Volume / Issue

Online First

Archive
Related articles

VOLUME 16 , ISSUE 1 ( January, 2015 ) > List of Articles

RESEARCH ARTICLE

Students’ Self-assessment: A Learning Tool and Its Comparison with the Faculty Assessments

Syed Rashid Habib, Haneef Sherfudhin

Citation Information : Habib SR, Sherfudhin H. Students’ Self-assessment: A Learning Tool and Its Comparison with the Faculty Assessments. J Contemp Dent Pract 2015; 16 (1):48-53.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10024-1634

Published Online: 01-01-2015

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2015; Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) Ltd.


Abstract

Objective

This study compared the student's self-grades versus the examiners grades, inter examiner grades and grades of anterior with posterior teeth in a preclinical prosthodontic course.

Methods

75 students and 2 examiners participated in the study. The students prepared one anterior (upper central incisor) and one posterior (lower first molar) teeth for full veneer crowns in allocated time of 2 hours and 30 minutes. After the preparations, the students self-graded their preparations based on criteria-based evaluation forms. The examiners also completed the grading for the prepared teeth. All the grades were recorded, comparisons were made using SPSS version 21 and results tabulated.

Results

The means of grades (8.32) by the students themselves were found to be higher compared to the examiners grades (7.3) for the anterior as well as posterior teeth. Comparison of the grades for the anterior/posterior teeth and the overall grades showed a statistically significant difference (p = 0.000). A moderate correlation (0.399) and a strong correlation (0.601) were found between the grades of the faculty and the students for the anterior and posterior teeth respectively. The overall grading for the anterior and posterior teeth by the two faculty members showed no statistically significant difference (p = 0.053) and a very strong correlation (0.784). The results of the test showed a significant difference (p = 0.001) between the overall grading for anterior and posterior teeth.

Conclusion

Students tended to grade their teeth preparations higher compared to the examiner grades, inter examiner variation in the grades existed and the grades of the anterior teeth were higher compared to the posterior teeth.

How to cite this article

Habib SR, Sherfudhin H. Students’ Self-assessment: A Learning Tool and Its Comparison with the Faculty Assessments. J Contemp Dent Pract 2015;16(1):48-53.


PDF Share
  1. Assessing dental students' competence: best practice recommendations in the performance assessment literature and investigation of current practices in predoctoral dental education. J Dent Educ 2008 Dec;72(12):1405-1435.
  2. Defining and assessing professional competence. JAMA. 2002 Jan 9;287(2):226-235.
  3. Commentary: Assessment is an educational tool. Acad Med 2009 May;84(5):548-550.
  4. Defining competence: a methodological review. In:Neufeld VR, Norman GR, eds. Assessing Clinical Competence. New York, NY: Springer; 1985. p. 15-35.
  5. Dental students' ability to evaluate themselves in fixed prosthodontics. J Dent Educ 2010 Nov;74(11):1237-1242.
  6. A practical evaluation system for preclinical restorative dentistry. J Dent Educ 1982;46(12):693-696.
  7. Dental students' self-assessment of preclinical examinations. J Dent Educ 2008 Mar;72(3):265-277.
  8. Issues in dental curriculum development and change. J Dent Educ 1995;59(1):97-147.
  9. Oral health care in the 21st century: implications for dental and medical education. Acad Med 2001;77(12):1181-1206.
  10. The case for change in dental education. J Dent Educ 2006;70(9):921-924.
  11. Changes in educational methodologies in predoctoral dental education: Finding the perfect intersection. J Dent Educ 2012;76(1):118-141.
  12. E4D compare software: an alternative to faculty grading in dental education. J Dent Educ 2013 Feb;77(2):168-175.
  13. Reliability of practical tests in operative dentistry. Br Dent J 1968;125(5):194-197.
  14. The effects of training and criterion models on inter-judge reliability. J Dent Educ 1972;36(4):19-22.
  15. Rubrics 101: a primer for rubric development in dental education. J Dent Educ 2011;75(9):1163-1175.
  16. Authentic tasks and rubrics: going beyond traditional assessments in college teaching, College Teaching 2002;50:34-39.
  17. Student selfassessment in dental hygiene education: a cornerstone of critical thinking and problem-solving. J Dent Educ 2011;75(8):1061-1072.
  18. Evolution of clinical reasoning in dental education. J Dent Educ. 2011 Mar;75(3):321-328.
  19. Student self-evaluation in preclinical restorative dentistry. J Dent Educ 1982 Apr;46(4):221-226.
  20. Medical students’ self-assessment of performance: results from three meta-analyses. Patient Educ Couns 2011 Jul;84(1):3-9.
  21. Medical students’ clinical self-assessments: comparisons with external measures of performance and the students’ selfassessments of overall performance and effort. Acad Med 1993;68(4):285-294.
  22. Self-evaluation in undergraduate medical education: a longitudinal perspective. J Med Educ 1985;60(1):21-28.
  23. Fundamentals of Fixed Prosthodontics 3rd ed. Chicago, Quintessence; 1997. p. 119-154.
  24. Contemporary fixed prosthodontics 4th ed. St Louis: Mosby Elsevier; 2006.
  25. A review of the validity and accuracy of selfassessments in health professions training. Acad Med 1991;66(12):762-769.
  26. Measurement of total occlusal convergence of 3 different tooth preparations in 4 different planes by dental students. J Prosthet Dent 2014 Aug;112(2):285-292.
  27. A comparison of two methods for evaluating primary Class II cavity preparations. J Dent Educ 1980;44(9):537-542.
  28. An investigation into the use of a structured clinical operative test for the grading of a clinical skill. Eur J Dent Educ 2001;5:31-37.
  29. Medical student self-assessment of performance on an obstetrics and gynecology clerkship. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2003;188(4):1078-1082.
  30. Self-evaluation in undergraduate medical education: a longitudinal perspective. J Med Educ 1985;60(1):21-28.
  31. Unskilled and unaware of it: how difficulties in recognizing one's own incompetence lead to inflated self-gradings. J Pers Soc Psychol 1999;77:1121-1134.
  32. An analysis of the reliability of a laboratory evaluation system. J Dent Educ 1982;46(8):489-494.
  33. E4D compare software: an alternative to faculty grading in dental education. J Dent Educ 2013 Feb;77(2):168-175.
  34. Measurement of total occlusal convergence of 3 different tooth preparations in 4 different planes by dental students. J Prosthet Dent 2014 Aug;112(2):285-292.
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.