MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W6963950878 · doi:10.22038/jmds.2025.26186

Evaluating Communication Skills in Dental Students: Correlation Between Self-Assessment, Patient Perspectives, and Evaluator Rating

2025· article· en· W6963950878 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueDOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicPatient-Provider Communication in Healthcare
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsChecklistCommunication skillsLikert scaleRating scaleCorrelationInterpersonal communicationSpearman's rank correlation coefficientSocial skillsPearson product-moment correlation coefficient

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Effective communication is a vital skill in the dental profession and plays an important role in patient interactions. This study aimed to assess the self-evaluation of clinical communication skills by dental students at Mashhad University of Medical Sciences and to compare it with the perspectives of patients and an evaluator.Methods and Materials: This descriptive cross-sectional study was conducted at Mashhad Dental School and included final-year undergraduate dental students. To evaluate communication skills, the Calgary-Cambridge Observation Guide checklist was used, consisting of 71 items across six domains. Each item was rated by the student, the patient, and the evaluator using a three-point Likert scale (Yes, To some extent, No). Total scores ranged from 71 to 213, and communication skills were categorized into three levels: poor (71–118.33), moderate (118.34–165.66), and good (>165.67). Statistical analyses were conducted using the Shapiro-Wilk test, one-way ANOVA, and Spearman correlation test. (α = 0.05)Results: The mean scores of students (157.8 ± 19.3), patients (147.3 ± 29.2), and the evaluator (122.7 ± 20.3) showed statistically significant differences. A significant correlation was found between the students’ self-assessments and patients’ evaluations (P < 0.001, r = 0.59) as well as between the students and the evaluator (P = 0.006, r = 0.41). The correlation between student and evaluator scores was observed in the domains of interpersonal skills at the beginning of the session (r = 0.57), information gathering (r = 0.40), and explanation and planning (r = 0.46).Conclusion: Students generally rated their communication skills at a moderate level. Patients had a more favorable view compared to the evaluator, and students rated themselves higher than both groups. These results highlight the need to senhance communication skills training in the undergraduate dental curriculum.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.014
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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.023

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.014
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.411
GPT teacher head0.683
Teacher spread0.271 · 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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals)→Same topicPatient-Provider Communication in Healthcare→French-language works237,207→