Psychomotor Skills of Domestic and Internationally Trained Dental Students in Pre‐Clinical Dental Education
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Evidence on the pre-clinical and clinical performance of internationally trained dental students compared with domestic students and competency standards is limited. The aim of this study was to compare, relatively and normatively, the psychomotor skills of domestic and internationally trained dental students who participated in the same pre-clinical, 9-week, fixed prosthodontics course. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Course grades were collected for a total of 224 domestic and 66 internationally trained dental students between 2014 and 2020. Descriptive statistics, t-tests and chi-square tests were used to describe and compare the two groups. RESULTS: At the start of the course, slightly developed or underdeveloped psychomotor skills were observed in 47.8% of domestic students and 34.8% of internationally trained dental students; however, at the end of the course, 78.1% of domestic students and 69.7% of internationally trained dental students had developed or very developed psychomotor skills. Internationally trained dental students had significantly higher psychomotor skills at the start (p = 0.009), but not at the end (p = 0.285) of the course compared to their domestic counterparts. The improvement in psychomotor skills observed in domestic students was significantly greater than that of internationally trained dental students (p = 0.003). At the start of the course, 85.7% of domestic students and 75.5% of internationally trained dental students exhibited training needs. Training needs decreased at the end of the course in both groups but remained sizable. CONCLUSIONS: While internationally trained dental students outperformed domestic students at baseline, no significant differences were observed between the two groups by the end of the course. Both groups exhibited training needs at both time points, underscoring the necessity for continued scaffolded support.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".