Do admissions data and NBDE Part I scores predict clinical performance among dental students?
(33/131)
The purpose of this study was to evaluate possible associations between a variety of measures used to evaluate didactic knowledge and clinical performance within a predoctoral dental program. In this study, clinical performance was assessed by clinical productivity and clinical proficiency across four different competency areas: operative dentistry, major restorative dentistry, fixed prosthodontics, and removable prosthodontics. Predental and preclinical predictors were undergraduate GPAs (overall and science), DAT subtest scores (including the Perceptual Ability Test, PAT), and performance on subtests of Part I of the National Board Dental Examination. The sample consisted of eighty-four students at the Harvard School of Dental Medicine who graduated during the period 2002-04. Associations between predictors and outcomes were first evaluated individually. Any associations that were near statistically significant (p=0.15) were then included in a multiple linear regression model. The criterion for statistical significance in the multiple linear regression model was p=0.05. While a number of measures were associated in bivariate analyses, few predictors were statistically significantly associated with clinical outcomes in the multiple regression analyses. Those predictors that were associated with clinical outcomes were also not consistently associated with the different outcomes studied. These data indicate that, within this study population, there is little to no uniform association between preclinical didactic performance and measurements of clinical productivity and clinical proficiency. It is possible that the overlap in skill sets required for success in the predental/preclinical and clinical areas is minimal. (+info)
Teaching implant dentistry in the predoctoral curriculum: a report from the ADEA Implant Workshop's survey of deans.
(34/131)
In 2004, a survey of the deans of U.S. and Canadian dental schools was conducted to determine the implant dentistry curriculum structure and the extent of incorporating implant dentistry clinical treatment into predoctoral programs. The questionnaire was mailed to the deans of the fifty-six dental schools in advance of the ADEA Implant Workshop conference held in Arizona in November 2004. Out of the fifty-six, thirty-nine responded, yielding a response rate of 70 percent. Thirty-eight schools (97 percent) reported that their students received didactic instruction in dental implants, while one school (3 percent) said that its students did not. Thirty schools (86 percent) reported that their students received clinical experience, while five schools (14 percent) reported that theirs did not. Four schools (10 percent) did not respond to this question. Fifty-one percent of the students actually receive the clinical experience in restoring implants, with the range of 5-100 percent. Of those schools that provide clinical experience in restoring implants, four schools (13 percent) reported that it is a requirement for them, while twenty-eight schools (88 percent) reported that it is not a requirement for them. Three schools (9 percent) did not respond. The fee for implants is 45 percent higher than a crown or a denture, with a range of 0-100 percent. Twenty-nine schools (85 percent) indicated that they did receive free components from implant companies, while five schools (15 percent) did not. The conclusions of this report are as follows: 1) most schools have advanced dental education programs; 2) single-tooth implant restorations are performed at the predoctoral level in most schools; 3) implant-retained overdenture prostheses are performed at the predoctoral level in most schools; 4) there is no predoctoral clinical competency requirement for surgical implant placement in all schools that responded to the survey; 5) there is no predoctoral clinical competency requirement for implant prosthodontics in most schools that responded to the survey; 6) prosthodontic specialty faculty are often responsible for teaching implant prosthodontics at the predoctoral level; 7) periodontics and oral and maxillofacial faculty are commonly responsible for teaching implant surgery at the predoctoral level; 8) support from implant companies is common for dental schools, with most providing for implant components at discounted costs; and 9) there is a lack of adequately trained faculty in implant dentistry, which is a significant challenge in providing predoctoral students with clinical experience with dental implants. (+info)
History of the MRCGP examination.
(35/131)
The first examination was held in 1965 when five candidates opted to apply for membership by examination rather than by assessment by the Board of Censors. By 1968 the examination had become the only method of entry. Techniques became the responsibility of an increasingly professional group of examiners who met regularly to ensure continuous development. Expansion of vocational training led to a new definition of aims in 1978. The number of candidates, each year is now about 2000 and over 15,000 have become members by examination over the past 25 years. (+info)
The use of statistical techniques.
(36/131)
The statistical techniques used to increase the reliability and validity of the examination are described. Results of generalizability and reliability analyses indicate that the effect of the questions asked is a significant one in determining candidates' scores. There is a need to increase the number of questions in the MEQ, oral examination, and any future means of assessment. Factor analysis supports the idea that a significant proportion of marks on the MCQ and oral examination are gained by recall of knowledge whereas MEQ and PTQ scores are affected more by problem-solving ability and 'case specificity'. (+info)
Multiple choice question (MCQ) paper.
(37/131)
This paper offers a defence of the MCQ paper, with an account of the ways in which the examiners try to ensure its reliability and validity in testing the knowledge base of MRCGP candidates. The MCQ group tries to ensure that the knowledge tested is that appropriate to a well trained and well informed young general practitioner. (+info)
Traditionally the modified essay question (MEQ) paper has attempted to test problem solving and decision making based on an on-going family saga using seven or eight questions to be answered in 90 minutes. Candidates' scripts are double marked by two College examiners. This format imposes constraints on the range of questions asked and results in contrived scenarios. It is possible to be 'coached' for this and double marking is expensive in examiner time. Recent studies show that validity and reliability are improved by increasing the number and range of questions in a 'surgery type' paper. Single marking has been instituted and the MEQ paper will in future consist of 10 or more questions to be answered in 2 hours. Examiners' marking performance is monitored by senior examiners. Technical and statistical considerations are discussed, as are implications for candidates and course organizers. (+info)
Demise of the essay question.
(39/131)
Psychometric studies of the essay paper in 1988 showed this instrument to have unacceptably low levels of reliability and generalizability. Furthermore, factor analysis showed that the paper's perceived functions could not be supported statistically. It was decided to discontinue the paper and introduce a replacement which would reflect the line of development envisaged by the College in the 1990s. (+info)
Critical reading question (CRQ) paper.
(40/131)
Doctors who are familiar with medical publications and can read them critically should be better able to draw useful conclusions from the result of medical research and integrate them into their clinical practice. A large part of a general practitioner's work involves responding to written material generated by, or addressed to, the practice. These areas are tested by this new paper. (+info)