J Dent Educ. 68(8): 829-833 2004
© 2004 American Dental Education Association
Critical Issues in Dental Education |
Improving Performance on the Endodontic Section of the Florida Dental Licensure Examination
Carol M. Stewart, D.D.S., M.S.;
Frank J. Vertucci, D.M.D.;
Robert E. Bates, D.D.S., M.S.
Key words: dental licensure examinations, endodontic criteria, mock board examination
Submitted for publication 02/17/04;
accepted 06/02/04
In an attempt to improve performance of University of Florida College of Dentistry (UFCD) graduates on the endodontic section of the Florida Dental Licensure Examination, a retrospective analysis was conducted for classes graduating between 1996 and 2003 to assess potential relationships between passing and failing performance and three factors with potential impact on "first attempt" pass rates. The three factors were clinical endodontic experience, performance on the senior mock board examination, and dialogue with representatives of the licensure examination, which resulted in modification of the endodontic section of the licensure exam. Using ANOVA, we found no differences in performance on the endodontic section of the senior mock board exam between graduates who passed the endodontic section of the dental licensure exam and those who failed this section. Furthermore, no differences were found in the mean number of clinical endodontic experiences (number of teeth treated) between graduates who passed the endodontic section of the licensure exam and those who failed. However, in 2003 following dialogue between representatives of the Florida Board of Dentistry and endodontic faculty from the two dental schools in Florida, a significant difference in senior mock board endodontic scores (p>0.05) and a significant difference in performance on the endodontic section of the licensure exam scores (p>0.005) was observed for the 2003 graduates when compared to the 2002 graduates. The mean mock board scores and the mean state board endodontic section scores were higher for the 2003 graduates. In addition, the UFCD failure rate on the endodontic section of the state board exam dropped from 34 percent in 2002 to 6 percent in 2003. The primary factors believed responsible for these improvements were a direct result of dialogue between dental school faculty and state board representatives. They include a greater appreciation by the UFCD faculty for the performance criteria used by the Board of Dentistry to evaluate procedures and a change by the board in the tooth selection criteria for the endodontic experience. The options in tooth-type used in the board exams increased from a two-rooted maxillary premolar to any anterior or premolar tooth. In conclusion, this report supports the positive benefits from ongoing discussions between dental school faculty and representatives of the state licensure board.
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
|
|
 
E. F. Wright and D. Henzi
Preparation Course for Part I of the National Dental Boards: Lessons Learned
J Dent Educ.,
June 1, 2007;
71(6):
785 - 796.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
D. Hammond, C. W. Buckendahl, R. R. Ranney, and R. Hambleton
Do portfolio assessments have a place in dental licensure?
J Am Dent Assoc,
January 1, 2006;
137(1):
30 - 41.
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
D. C. Page
PREPARING FOR THE EXAM
J Am Dent Assoc,
December 1, 2004;
135(12):
1661 - 1661.
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
R. R. Ranney, J. C. Gunsolley, and M. Wood
Authors' response
J Am Dent Assoc,
December 1, 2004;
135(12):
1661 - 1662.
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
Copyright © 2004 by the American Dental Education Association.
