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


     

J Dent Educ. 71(4): 540-544 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 Sharaf, A. A.
Right arrow Articles by El Meligy, O. A.S.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Sharaf, A. A.
Right arrow Articles by El Meligy, O. A.S.

Educational Methodologies

Intra- and Inter-Examiner Variability in Evaluating Preclinical Pediatric Dentistry Operative Procedures

Aly A. Sharaf, B.D.S., M.Sc., Ph.D.; Amr M. AbdelAziz, B.D.S., M.Sc., Ph.D.; Omar A.S. El Meligy, B.D.S., M.Sc., Ph.D.

Key words: variability, preclinical operative procedures, evaluation methods

Submitted for publication 09/11/06; accepted 11/29/06

Many investigators have reported attempts to develop reliable laboratory and clinic evaluation systems. However, few studies, regardless of level of success, have used an analytic procedure to identify those components of the evaluation system that, if refined further, could improve reliability. The purpose of this study was to compare intra- and inter-examiner variability in two evaluation methods: glance and grade (global), and checklist and criteria (analytical). Three faculty staff members with more than ten years of clinical and teaching experience evaluated operative procedures performed on plastic teeth representing the primary teeth by thirty dental students in pediatric dentistry preclinical laboratory sessions. The preparations were graded blindly by each of the three evaluators (A, B, and C) three times without magnification. The values were statistically analyzed using Wilcoxon signed rank test and Friedman test setting value of significance at 5 percent. The study revealed that, among the three examiners, the intra-examiner variability was nonsignificant in most situations. On the other hand, there was statistically significant variability between evaluators (i.e., inter-examiner) for almost all preparations. Neither cutting off the scores nor using either evaluation method (glance and grade or criteria and checklist) caused an improvement in variability. The problem of inter-examiner reliability and variability still existed.






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