JDE
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

J Dent Educ. 71(2): 235-241 2007
© 2007 American Dental Education Association
This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Milani, J. E.
Right arrow Articles by Chambers, D. W.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Milani, J. E.
Right arrow Articles by Chambers, D. W.

Critical Issues in Dental Education

Comments as Part of a Clinical Competency Rating System

James E. Milani, D.D.S.; Howard H. Chi, D.M.D., M.A.; David W. Chambers, Ed.M., M.B.A., Ph.D.

Key words: clinical evaluation, faculty comments, ratings systems, professionalism, clinical dental education

Submitted for publication 07/07/06; accepted 10/13/06

The nature of comments faculty members make about students’ clinical performance and the relationship between comments and numerical scores given at the same time have not been studied in dental education. We developed a coding system for comments volunteered by faculty members to supplement the numerical ratings given as part of an established clinical competency evaluation system. Twenty-two hundred coded comments and their matched numerical ratings from more than 100 faculty members were compared for two classes of 146 and 157 students for four quarters. Thirty-seven percent of comments focused on dental performance, 43 percent on patient interactions, and 20 percent on relationships with faculty members or the clinic system. Forty-eight percent of comments were positive in tone. Where multiple comments were available for the same student in a quarter, 33 percent of them were confirmed by other faculty members; 9 percent were contradicted. Significant bidirectional associations were observed between comments (positive or negative) and numerical ratings in the area of patient interactions. For technical procedures and for interactions with faculty and the clinic, including professional demeanor, significant unidirectional associations predominated. The findings suggest that faculty members assume that students are skilled in these areas and tend to comment when their expectations are not fulfilled.






HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 2007 by the American Dental Education Association.