MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2984383605 · doi:10.21815/jde.019.168

Preclinical Competency Testing in North American Dental Schools and Opinions About Possible Standardization

2019· article· en· W2984383605 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Eugenia P. Roberts, James A. Delapp, Greig Florento, Robert T. Kramer, Sheri Brownstein, Joshua Epstein

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Dental Education · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicInnovations in Medical Education
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStandardizationAccreditationMedicinePeriodontologyStandardized testMedical educationGraduation (instrument)Family medicineDental educationDentistryPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In the U.S., the Commission on Dental Accreditation (CODA) requires that dental schools use competency-based assessments and standardized levels of proficiency to ensure that students are prepared for patient care after graduation. No such comprehensive standardized preclinical testing is required in the CODA standards. The aim of this study was to determine the use of preclinical competency assessments for students transitioning from preclinical to clinical education in North American dental schools and respondents' perceptions of the need for standardization in preclinical testing. An electronic survey was sent to the academic deans of all 76 U.S. and Canadian dental schools in July 2018 asking if the school used competency exams to assess preclinical students prior to entering patient care and, if so, about the type of tests and disciplines tested, student remediation, and reasons for revisions. The survey also asked for the respondents' perspectives on potential preclinical assessment standardization. Respondents from 28 U.S. and two Canadian schools participated in the survey, for a 39.5% response rate. The majority (92.3%) of respondents said their school considered preclinical competency assessments to be good indicators of students' readiness for transitioning into patient care, yet 40.0% reported their schools had no comprehensive preclinical testing, and 13.8% had no preclinical testing in endodontics, periodontics, prosthetics, or restorative dentistry. Regarding type of comprehensive preclinical assessment used, 71.4% reported using typodont-based exams, 46.4% used written comprehensive exams, and 42.9% used objective structured clinical examinations (OSCEs); respondents could select all that applied on this item. Of the respondents whose schools had preclinical competency assessments, 72.4% had a review mechanism in place to evaluate its effectiveness. Overall, this study found that 60% of the participating schools had some form of preclinical testing, but there were no agreed-upon competencies to determine preclinical dental students' readiness for safe patient care in their clinical education.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.017
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.032
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.182
Threshold uncertainty score0.363

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0170.032
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0060.005
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.017
GPT teacher head0.375
Teacher spread0.358 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Dental EducationSame topicInnovations in Medical EducationFrench-language works237,207