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


     

J Dent Educ. 71(6): 785-796 2007
© 2007 American Dental Education Association
This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
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 Wright, E. F.
Right arrow Articles by Henzi, D.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Wright, E. F.
Right arrow Articles by Henzi, D.

Educational Methodologies

Preparation Course for Part I of the National Dental Boards: Lessons Learned

Edward F. Wright, D.D.S., M.S.; David Henzi, Ed.D.

Key words: dental education, national dental boards, board preparation course, teaching methods, curriculum, prospective study

Submitted for publication 11/07/06; accepted 03/15/07


   Abstract
Top
 Abstract
Review of evidence:...
 Methods
 Results
 Discussion
 Conclusion
 Appendix. nbde preparation...
 References
 
Student performance on national board examinations is the predominant litmus test for successful programs in health science education. Many different strategies have been used to increase passing rates among students. The objectives of this study were to investigate the influence of a voluntary eighteen-hour National Board Dental Examination Part I (NBDE Part I) preparation course on student performance on the NBDE Part I and to assess students’ perspectives on the preparation course. Students’ perspectives were obtained through a questionnaire and focus groups. There were significant associations between the students’ GPA and the overall examination score and between the course grades corresponding with each section and the section scores. Students attending sessions devoted to specific NBDE subject areas did not obtain significantly better scores for that subject area than nonattending students. Also, the students did not obtain significantly better overall scores for NBDE Part I than in previous years when a preparation course was not conducted. Students most frequently rated the Dental Deck’s NBDE Part I Cards as the most helpful study aid, followed by old NBDE Part I tests. The most frequent student rating for most of the presentations was "somewhat helpful," while the most frequent rating for resources placed on Blackboard such as tables and summary material was "helpful." Based upon the findings, we recommended discontinuation of the classroom presentation portion of the board preparation course.

The National Board Dental Examination was first administered in 1933 as an essay examination. Due to the time involved with scoring the essay examination, the test was modified to a multiple-choice examination in the early 1950s. The National Board Dental Examination’s purpose is to assist state boards in determining qualifications of dentists who seek licensure to practice in any state, district, or commonwealth of the United States. Currently, all fifty-three U.S. licensing jurisdictions recognize the results from the National Board Dental Examinations (Parts I and II). The licensing jurisdictions include all the fifty states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands.1,2

The National Board Dental Examination Part I (NBDE Part I) is eight hours in length. The focus of the examination is to assess students’ comprehension of the basic biomedical sciences knowledge dentists should possess before beginning clinical practice. It consists of four basic biomedical science sections: Anatomic Sciences (gross anatomy, histology, and developmental biology), Biochemistry-Physiology, Microbiology-Pathology, and Dental Anatomy and Occlusion. Each of the four sections consists of 100 questions.1,2

The American Dental Association (ADA) publishes the subject question distribution for each section. The ADA also releases old examinations, which are available in most dental school libraries, the American Dental Association Library, and for purchase from the American Student Dental Association. The ADA provides a free tutorial, enabling candidates who are tested primarily with paper and pen to become familiar with the mechanics of taking this examination using a computer.1–3

The minimum passing score for the NBDE Part I is 75. The examination score is obtained by multiplying a conversion scale with the number of correct answers selected by the candidate. The conversion scale is determined for each examination and enables the scores to be consistent from one examination to another.1

The percentage of candidates who fail the NBDE Part I varies considerably depending on whether the candidate attended an ADA-accredited or nonaccredited dental school and if the candidate previously failed the examination. In 2003, the percentages of individuals who failed the examination were the following: 9.5 percent for individuals from accredited dental schools and taking the examination for first time; 34.7 percent for individuals from accredited dental schools and repeating the examination; 56.1 percent for individuals from non-accredited dental schools and taking the examination for first time; and 71.7 percent for individuals from nonaccredited dental schools and repeating the examination.1 Non-ADA-accredited dental schools include most schools outside of the United States and Canada.

It is our experience that many dental school faculty perceive that students often do not demonstrate the desired motivation when preparing for this examination. The perception is that dental students tend to just "wing" the examination with the assumption that they can pass without much study time and thus are not interested in taking a preparatory review course.4


   Review of Evidence: Effectiveness of Board Preparation Courses
Top
 Abstract
 Review of evidence:...
Methods
 Results
 Discussion
 Conclusion
 Appendix. nbde preparation...
 References
 
Many health science programs have used some form of supplemental education to assist students in preparing for their standardized examinations. A review of the health science literature reveals that nursing schools have published most extensively on board preparation review courses. Due to the current shortage of nurses and increased difficulty passing their national examinations, nursing educators are attuned to developing programs that increase their pass rate.

Nursing schools throughout the country use a wide variety of techniques to prepare nursing students for their National Council Licensure Examination (NCLEX). The techniques include support groups with other nursing students, organized test plans, data-based item analysis approaches, and peer- advisor programs to help increase pass rates.5–9 Many nursing programs are located within undergraduate institutions, which generally have preexisting remediation programs. This infrastructure enables the NCLEX to be easily incorporated into the university’s existing undergraduate remediation programs. Many other nursing programs identify students who are at high risk for failure and provide them with in-depth written study plans as well as support until completion of the examination.10,11

In addition to the traditional review courses conducted in classrooms, nursing programs use websites and other computer-assisted online materials. This technology has been used to help students earn certification as medical surgical nurses, complete didactic coursework, and pass the NCLEX.12–14 Aside from technology issues and NCLEX support programs, one study evaluated which factors significantly influenced NCLEX passing rates. It found the number of hours a student studied before the examination directly affected his or her pass rate, while studying new course content material had a negative correlation with pass rates.15

Medical schools are similarly interested in their students passing Step 1 and Step 2 of the United States Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE) and have conducted courses to help students prepare for the examination. Studies have indicated that performance on this examination is mostly strongly associated with prior academic performance and not with the completion of a preparation course or use of a commercial study product.16–20

Other health professions educators have attempted to predict the performance on their national board examinations. Students at the Texas Chiropractic College were asked to complete the Learning and Study Strategies Inventory (LASSI). The LASSI is a ten-scale, eighty-item assessment of students’ awareness and use of learning and test-taking strategies, and it also asks students to assess test preparation methods, strategies for recognizing important course material, and time management. The focus of the LASSI is on behaviors, attitudes, and beliefs related to successful learning that can be altered through educational interventions. Pringle and Lee compared students’ GPAs and LASSI results with National Chiropractic Board of Examiners (NCBE) scores. Their findings revealed that there were moderately high correlations between the NCBE and each LASSI component, while there was low correlation between GPAs and NCBE scores. These authors recommended that the LASSI results be used to determine which students should attend an NCBE preparation course.21

Another attempt to predict performance was addressed with scores from the National Physical Therapy Examination (NPTE). Researchers were interested in whether the professional school GPA and the comprehensive examination scores correlated with NPTE performance. Findings revealed a significant correlation among GPA, comprehensive examination scores, and NPTE performance.22

The literature provides many examples of preparation courses or predictors for national examination success among nursing, medical, and allied health sciences examinations. Dental schools in the past have provided similar courses to their students, but there has been limited investigation of the outcomes of these preparation courses. One strategy that some schools use in their preparation courses is to require that all students pass a mock examination prior to challenging the licensure examination. Successful mock examination performance was found to be correlated with passing the written licensure examination.23,24 Psychiatry and urology residencies have also successfully used mock licensing examinations to prepare their students to pass specialty boards.25–28

A recent study specifically addressed the issue of evaluating aspects of the mock examination. The results indicated that no particular aspect of the mock examination had a significant effect on students’ performance on dental examination scores.29 Another study followed 410 dental school graduates to determine the characteristics of students prone to failing the written national examination and found there was a weak (not statistically significant) correlation between class rank and passing the examination.30

For the Dental Hygiene National Board Examination (DHNBE), Dadian et al. reported that mock examination performance prior to taking the examination predicted DHNBE success or failure for 75 percent of the students.31 These authors recommended the mock examination be used as an additional resource to indicate which students need further preparation for the examination. Similar studies in nursing by Wendt and Slimmer addressed the use of mock examinations and reported similar pass rate prediction.32 Dental hygiene programs have also specifically addressed performance on the DHNBE by developing preparation courses.33 One study compared the students’ DHNBE performance with GPAs and participation in an external preparation course and found the GPA to be a better predictor for DHNBE performance than participation in the preparation course.34 Other studies have also attempted to look at predictive variables for passing the DHNBE. After evaluating several variables, early course grade averages and mock DHNBE scores strongly correlated with DHNBE performance.35

There is an assumption that mandatory board preparation courses enhance students’ scores, but the evidence in support of this belief is limited to a small number of studies with inconsistent findings. The literature identifies many other variables that more strongly affect passing national examinations. One significant finding can be gleaned from the research: preparation courses, mock examinations, study groups, and other forms of additional assistance do not adversely affect students as they prepare for the examination. Several of the authors of the studies described in the preceding literature review recommended that students be given the latitude to decide which materials they find most effective for their particular learning style from among the wide variety of study aids available in most of the health professions.

In light of the relatively small amount of information available about the effectiveness of board preparation courses for dental students, this study was conducted to investigate the influence of a voluntary preparation course on student performance on the NBDE Part I and to assess students’ perspectives about the format and value of the preparation course.


   Methods
Top
 Abstract
 Review of evidence:...
 Methods
Results
 Discussion
 Conclusion
 Appendix. nbde preparation...
 References
 
This was a prospective study performed at the University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio (UTHSCSA). The research proposal was approved by the UTHSCSA Institutional Review Board. Four hours were scheduled for each of the four sections of the NBDE Part I to help eligible students prepare, for a total of sixteen hours of presentations. When the section covered two subjects, each subject was scheduled for a two-hour presentation. For example, within the review for the Microbiology-Pathology section, microbiology was scheduled as a two-hour review, and the pathology preparation review was scheduled for two hours. Additionally, a two-hour introductory session provided an overview of the NBDE Preparation Course, summarized logistical issues, answered student questions, and provided information on test-taking strategies by an educational specialist. Through campus emails, eligible students were notified about the NBDE Preparation Course, were strongly encouraged to attend, were advised that attendance would be taken, and were informed about the importance of doing well on this examination.

Directors of the courses in the dental school curriculum on each subject addressed on NBDE Part I were asked to provide preparation presentations in the subject areas they taught. Three of the course directors were unable to participate in the NBDE Preparation Course, so other faculty members who were familiar with the material participated. The instructors who provided the presentations placed their presentations and additional preparation material (summary charts, tables, PowerPoint presentations) on Blackboard, an online course management system. All eligible students could freely access the Blackboard material at their convenience. Therefore, students choosing not to attend the presentations could still obtain the material.

The students for whom the preparation course was designed had recently completed their sophomore year of dental school and, at the time of the preparation course in June, were participating in a four-week summer clinical experience, Monday through Thursday. The clinic was only open in the mornings (9:00 a.m. to 12:00 noon), and the students were free in the afternoon unless they volunteered to attend an oral surgery rotation or were performing remediation of a sophomore course. Two-hour presentations for the NBDE Preparation Course were provided in the afternoons (from 1:30 to 3:30 p.m.) during the students’ second, third, and fourth weeks of this summer clinic.

The school imposed a July 24, 2006, deadline by which every new junior was required to take the NBDE Part I. The deadline prevented procrastinating students from having examination preparation interfere with the beginning of the junior year curriculum, which is a busy and stressful time as students transition into the major component of the clinical curriculum. In accordance with this guideline, the vast majority of students who participated in the board preparation course scheduled their computer or written examination during the three and a half weeks that followed the preparation course and prior to the deadline; all students completed their examinations prior to July 24.

Immediately following the deadline, the entire junior class received a course evaluation survey (see the Appendix) to elicit their opinions about the NBDE Preparation Course. Two focus groups were conducted to allow students an opportunity to provide their perceptions about this course and the process of preparing for the NBDE Part I. One focus group consisted of students who attended many of the preparation presentations, and the other consisted of students who did not attend any of the preparation course presentations. All data regarding dental school GPAs, grades for courses covered by the examination, and NBDE Part I scores were obtained through the dean’s office.


   Results
Top
 Abstract
 Review of evidence:...
 Methods
 Results
Discussion
 Conclusion
 Appendix. nbde preparation...
 References
 
Forty-three of the eighty-seven eligible students attended at least one of the nine preparation course presentations. Attendance ranged from a low of seven to a high of twenty-eight, with a median attendance of 13.3 students across the nine sessions. The pass rate obtained for the examination was 97 percent for this class of sophomore students, while the pass rate for the previous five years ranged from 88 to 95 percent.

For this class of sophomore students, there were significant associations between the students’ GPA and their overall examination score (Spearman’s rho=.65) and between their GPA and each section score (Spearman’s rho for Anatomic Sciences, .60; Biochemistry-Physiology, .52; Microbiology-Pathology, .62; Dental Anatomy and Occlusion, .65). Significant associations were also observed between the course grades corresponding with the content of each NBDE section and the students’ section scores (Spearman’s rho for Anatomic Sciences, .56; Biochemistry-Physiology, .64; Microbiology-Pathology, .54; Dental Anatomy and Occlusion, .49). However, students who attended a subject area review in the preparation course did not obtain significantly better scores for that subject compared with nonattending students (unpaired Student’s t-test p-values for Anatomic Sciences, .49; Biochemistry-Physiology, .50; Microbiology-Pathology, .42; Dental Anatomy and Occlusion, .22).

The students did not obtain significantly better overall scores (the average of the four subject area scores) for the 2006 NBDE Part I than in previous years (F-test p=.17), in spite of the fact that there was a higher pass rate than in the previous five years. Students attending at least one preparation session did not have significantly better scores than students who attended none of the preparation sessions (unpaired Student’s t-test p=.70), and two of the students who failed the examination had attended a total of three preparation sessions.

Sixty-four students completed the student survey; key findings are presented in Tables 1Go, 2Go, and 3Go. The most frequent student rating for most of the presentations was "somewhat helpful," while the most frequent rating for the material placed on Blackboard was "helpful" (Table 1Go). There was a trend that students found review of old tests more helpful than review of handouts or material posted on Blackboard (Wilcoxon signed-ranks test p=.081).


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		Table 1. Helpfulness of NBDE Preparation Course
 

View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		Table 2. Estimated percent of old national board questions on examinations
 

View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		Table 3. Helpfulness of NBDE review material
 
Survey results showed students who indicated they were more concerned about passing the examination were not more likely to attend the preparation sessions or use material placed on Blackboard (chi-square test p=.50). Also, students more likely to apply for postdoctoral training were not more likely to attend the preparation sessions or use material placed on Blackboard (chi-square test p=.56).

In the survey, students chose whether attendance at future NBDE Preparation Courses should be required, not required, or were undecided; the percentages of students who chose each category were 5 percent (n=3), 73 percent (n=47), and 22 percent (n =14), respectively. Students also estimated the percent of old national board questions they recognized on their examination (Table 2Go). Students most frequently rated the Dental Deck’s NBDE Part I Cards as the most helpful study aid (n=43), followed by old NBDE Part I tests (n=22) (Table 3Go).

The last three questions on the survey asked students what was most helpful from the NBDE Preparation Course and how the course could be improved and requested additional comments. The students found the presentations most helpful when the instructor discussed the reason for the correct and incorrect answers to old NBDE Part I questions. They found the material placed on Blackboard most helpful when the instructor provided summary charts and tables.

Two focus groups were conducted within three weeks following the deadline for taking the NBDE Part I. One focus group consisted of students who attended many of the course presentations (participation focus group), and the other consisted of students who did not attend the preparation presentations (nonparticipation focus group).

Students in the participation focus group stated that the preparation presentations helped them focus on studying for the upcoming board examination, helped them worry less about this examination, and provided them with answers for questions they would have missed if they had not attended the course presentations. The students reinforced survey responses by stating that the presentations were most helpful when the instructor discussed the reasons for the correct and incorrect answers to old examination questions. The students complimented the instructors for placing their PowerPoint presentations and other course material on Blackboard. The students reported that reviewing old NBDE Part I questions was most helpful, but warned this could also give students a false sense of security regarding their level of preparation for the examination. Students felt that providing the preparation course in the afternoons following morning clinic was probably the best time for this review. But students in the focus group strongly felt attendance at the presentations should be voluntary, which is consistent with the survey responses.

Students in the participation focus group also felt they should not receive a dental school grade (that appeared on their transcript) that reflected their NBDE Part I performance (e.g., a higher grade is earned from a higher NBDE Part I score). They expressed the opinion that most of their classmates were worried about passing this examination, but not worried enough to study for a top grade. The students who were interested in going into postdoctoral training focused more attention on the examination, believing a high score would help them obtain acceptance into a postdoctoral program. These students perceived that most of their classmates actually were not particularly concerned with doing exceptionally well on this examination, just wanted to perform well enough to pass, and did not place any value on obtaining a high score.

Students in the nonparticipation focus group were no less worried about this examination or less likely to attend postdoctoral training than their classmates who did attend the preparation course. These students stated that most of their classmates did not attend the board preparation presentations because they wanted to concentrate on the summer clinic that was conducted in the mornings during the same weeks as the prep course and/or felt they studied better by themselves.

Many of the responses from students in the nonparticipation focus group were similar to those of the students who attended the preparation course. Nonparticipant students stated that they did not attend the preparation course because laboratory work from the morning clinic did not allow them to attend. Students also stated they did not attend because they do not learn well in a classroom setting or they had other activities scheduled for the afternoon in which they needed to participate. They similarly felt attendance at the presentations should be voluntary. However, some nonparticipants stated they reviewed preparation course material placed on Blackboard and found it beneficial.


   Discussion
Top
 Abstract
 Review of evidence:...
 Methods
 Results
 Discussion
Conclusion
 Appendix. nbde preparation...
 References
 
The goal of our NBDE Preparation Course was to assist our dental students in raising their NBDE Part I scores and increasing their probability of passing. The pass rate (97 percent) improved from the previous five years, which ranged from 88 to 95 percent, and the authors believe this increase was, at least in part, due to a greater emphasis placed on "doing well" on this examination than in previous years. This heightened emphasis was communicated to students in several ways. Through emails, students were reminded about this examination, informed about the importance of performing well on the examination, reminded about the new voluntary NBDE Preparation Course in which participation was strongly encouraged, and advised that attendance would be documented.

Through the student survey and focus groups, students informed us that some students learn more effectively by self-study rather than attending a preparation course, and they strongly oppose it being a mandatory attendance preparation course. This view was supported by the findings that 1) students attending at least one preparation session did not have significantly better scores than students who did not attend any of the preparation sessions; 2) students attending a preparation section subject area did not obtain significantly better scores for that subject compared with nonattending students; and 3) students most often rated the preparation course presentations as "somewhat helpful," while most often rated the summary tables and charts placed on Blackboard as "helpful" (Table 1Go).

Similar to studies with medical students,16–20 physical therapy students,22 and dental hygiene students,34 we found an association between the students’ GPAs and their national board performance. These studies suggest that students who fail this examination generally have lower GPAs and tend to be the academically weaker students. Medical and dental hygiene schools similarly found completion of a preparation course was not correlated with better examination performance.16–20,34


   Conclusion
Top
 Abstract
 Review of evidence:...
 Methods
 Results
 Discussion
 Conclusion
Appendix. nbde preparation...
 References
 
Based upon the findings reported in this article and the amount of work required to provide an NBDE Part I Preparation Course, we recommended the following to the administration at this particular dental school:

  1. Discontinue the classroom presentation portion of the NBDE Preparation Course.
  2. Maintain the study materials placed on the UTHSCSA course management system (Blackboard) and annually request the course directors teaching each NBDE Part I subject to review and update this resource material.
  3. Discuss the NBDE Part I with students about six months prior to the examination. This session should include the following topics:
  4. Emphasis on the importance of passing the examination on the first attempt, discussion of students who may be at greatest risk of failure, and assessment of the academic and personal hardships that failure may cause.
  5. Review of the materials students found most helpful (Table 3Go) and sources for obtaining these study materials.
  6. Present a recommended timeline for preparing for the examination.
  7. Send periodic emails to students related to the upcoming examination. These messages should include:
  8. Reminders about the importance of passing the examination on the first attempt.
  9. Reminders of how much progress they should have made on the board prep time-line.
  10. Reminders that students should use the free tutorial on the ADA website prior to taking the exam to practice the mechanics of taking the test on the computer.3

Our communication with faculty at other institutions indicates that many dental schools provide some form of NBDE Part I preparation. The results of our study suggest a preparation course may not be the most effective means for preparing dental students for their NBDE Part I. If the faculty of a dental school chooses to provide a preparation course, members should be cognizant that students surveyed in this study related that 1) the course helped them focus on studying for the upcoming board examination; 2) the most helpful presentation style was for the instructor to discuss reasons for the correct and incorrect answers to old NBDE Part I questions (but warn the students that they may develop a false sense of being well prepared for the examination); and 3) summary charts and tables were helpful in preparation for the examination.

Other dental schools may choose to target their at-risk students; this study and historical evidence at our dental school indicates that these students can be identified by their GPAs. The responsible faculty member may desire to counsel at-risk students about their susceptibility for failing and its repercussions, which may motivate these students to devote appropriate time to studying.

Some other dental schools may choose to motivate all of their students to prepare for this examination by requiring them to pass a mock NBDE Part I prior to allowing them to challenge the actual examination. This method has also been shown to predict which students will pass the written examinations.23,24,31,32

Our study demonstrates that attending a preparation course is not a magic bullet for preparing eligible students to pass the NBDE Part I, and some students appear to be able to effectively study on their own.


   APPENDIX. NBDE Preparation Course Evaluation Survey 2006 National Board Preparation Course
Top
 Abstract
 Review of evidence:...
 Methods
 Results
 Discussion
 Conclusion
 Appendix. nbde preparation...
References
 
Recently, some of you had an opportunity to participate in the Board Preparation Course offered by the University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio Dental School for Part I of the NBDE. The school is interested in identifying the strengths and weaknesses of the course and is asking for your assistance in this endeavor. The school would be very grateful if you would take a few minutes to complete this survey. The information you provide will be used to modify next year’s course. Thanks in advance for your time and consideration.

  1. How helpful were the board preparation lectures in preparing you for the examination?

    Not Helpful Somewhat Helpful Helpful Very Helpful Did Not Attend
    1 2 3 4 N/A


  2. How helpful was the material posted on Blackboard in preparing you for the examination?

    Not Helpful Somewhat Helpful Helpful Very Helpful Did Not Use
    1 2 3 4 N/A


  3. Please rate the helpfulness of each board preparation lecture or Blackboard material. Evaluate the classroom presentation (top line) and Blackboard material (bottom line) separately.

    Not Helpful Somewhat Helpful Helpful Very Helpful Did Not Attend/Use
    Test-Taking Strategies Lecture 1 2 3 4 N/A
    Test-Taking Strategies Blackboard Material 1 2 3 4 N/A
    Biochemistry Lecture 1 2 3 4 N/A
    Biochemistry Blackboard Material 1 2 3 4 N/A
    Histology Lecture 1 2 3 4 N/A
    Histology Blackboard Material 1 2 3 4 N/A
    General Pathology Lecture 1 2 3 4 N/A
    General Pathology Blackboard Material 1 2 3 4 N/A
    Physiology Lecture 1 2 3 4 N/A
    Physiology Blackboard Material 1 2 3 4 N/A
    Microbiology Lecture 1 2 3 4 N/A
    Microbiology Blackboard Material 1 2 3 4 N/A
    Gross Anatomy Lecture 1 2 3 4 N/A
    Gross Anatomy Blackboard Material 1 2 3 4 N/A
    Dental Anat. & Occ. Lecture 1 2 3 4 N/A
    Dental Anat. & Occ. Blackboard Material 1 2 3 4 N/A


  4. The faculty teaching the sessions used a variety of teaching techniques. Please rate how helpful you found each teaching technique. (If you did not attend the sessions, please skip question.)

    Not Helpful Somewhat Helpful Helpful Very Helpful
    A. Review of Old Tests 1 2 3 4
    B. Review of Subject 1 2 3 4
    C. Handouts or Material Posted on Blackboard 1 2 3 4
    D. Other__________ 1 2 3 4


  5. The following is a list of study methods students commonly use to prepare for their board examinations. Please indicate for each of the methods listed the amount of time you spent using that particular method to prepare for the examination by circling the appropriate percentage.

    Course Lectures 0% 01–20% 21–40% 41–60% 61–80% 81–100%
    Course Material Posted on Blackboard 0% 01–20% 21–40% 41–60% 61–80% 81–100%
    Class Notes and Books 0% 01–20% 21–40% 41–60% 61–80% 81–100%
    Old Tests 0% 01–20% 21–40% 41–60% 61–80% 81–100%
    Dental Deck Cards 0% 01–20% 21–40% 41–60% 61–80% 81–100%
    Kaplan Book 0% 01–20% 21–40% 41–60% 61–80% 81–100%
    Other 0% 01–20% 21–40% 41–60% 61–80% 81–100%
    (Please specify):_______________


  6. Of the study methods you used to prepare for your exam, indicate which method was the most helpful by placing a check in the space next to the method. (Check only one.)
    ___ Course Lectures ___ Review Course Material Posted on Blackboard
    ___ Class Notes and Books ___ Old Tests ___ Kaplan Book ___ Dental Deck Cards
    ___ Other (Specify): ____________________
  7. Of the study methods you used to prepare for your exam, indicate which method was the least helpful by placing a check in the space next to the method. (Check only one.)
    ___ Review Course Lectures ___ Review Course Material Posted on Blackboard
    ___ Class Notes and Books ___ Old Tests ___ Kaplan Book ___ Dental Deck Cards
    ___ Other (Specify): ____________________
  8. Approximately what percent of National Board questions came from old board examinations?
    ___ 0–5% ___ 5–10% ___ 10–15% ___ 15–20% ___ 20–25% ___ above 25%
  9. How did you take your examination?
    ___ by computer ___ on paper
  10. Between 0 and 10, please rate how concerned were you that you may fail the Part I examination?
    (not at all concerned) 0 - 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5 - 6 - 7 - 8 - 9 - 10 (extremely concerned)
  11. Between 0 and 10, please rate how likely are you to attend a postgraduate program?
    (I am certain I will not) 0 - 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5 - 6 - 7 - 8 - 9 - 10 (I am certain I will attend)
  12. Should this course be required for all students who do not attend the Oral Surgery rotation or remediation?
    ___ Yes ___ No ___ Undecided
  13. What, if anything, about the Board Preparation Course was helpful in preparing you for the actual board exam?
  14. In what ways, if any, could the Board Preparation Course be improved?
  15. Please feel free to make any additional comments here.

Thank you for completing this survey and your assistance with improving next year’s Board Preparation Course.


   Footnotes
 
Dr. Wright is Assistant Professor, Department of Restorative Dentistry, and Dr. Henzi is Educational Development Specialist, Division of Educational Research and Development, Department of Academic Informatics Services—both at the University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio. Direct correspondence and requests for reprints to Dr. Edward F. Wright, Department of Restorative Dentistry, University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio, Mail Code 7890, 7703 Floyd Curl Drive, San Antonio, TX 78229-3900; 210-567-3697 phone; 210-567-6354 fax; wrighte2{at}uthscsa.edu.


   REFERENCES
Top
 Abstract
 Review of evidence:...
 Methods
 Results
 Discussion
 Conclusion
 Appendix. nbde preparation...
 References
 

  1. Joint Commission on National Dental Examinations, American Dental Association. Technical report: the National Board Dental Examinations, 2004:1–83. At: www.ada.org/prof/ed/testing/natboard/technical_nbde_04_report.pdf. Accessed: July 2006.
  2. Joint Commission on National Dental Examinations, American Dental Association. National Board Dental Examinations 2006 Part I candidate guide, 2005:1–47. At: www.ada.org/prof/ed/testing/natboard/nbde_part01_candidate_guide.pdf. Accessed: July 2006.
  3. National Board Dental Exam, examination program part I, tutorial. At: www.ada.org/prof/ed/testing/natboard/part1_computerized.asp#tutorial. Accessed: July 2006.
  4. McCann AL, Schneiderman ED. Effectiveness of a national board review course for dental students. J Dent Educ 1989; 53(8):476–9.[Abstract]
  5. Mooney S, Tze N, Juneau MF. Practice makes perfect: preparing graduate nurses for professional licensure. J Nurs Staff Dev 2004; 20(4):170–6.
  6. Wendt A. The NCLEX-RN examination: charting the course of nursing practice. Nurse Educ 2003; 28(6):276–80.[Medline]
  7. Frith KH, Sewell JP, Clark DJ. Best practices in NCLEX-RN readiness preparation for baccalaureate student success. Comput Inform Nurs 2005; 23(6):322–9.[Medline]
  8. Donaldson SK. Enhancing student learning: RN CAT advisement program. College Advisement 2001:1–22.
  9. McQueen L, Shelton P, Zimmerman L. A collective community approach to preparing nursing students for the NCLEX RN examination. J Assoc Black Nurs Faculty 2004; 15(3):55–8.
  10. Morton AM. Improving NCLEX scores with structured learning assistance. Nurse Educ 2006; 31(4):163–5.[Medline]
  11. Wray K, Whitehead T, Setter R, Treas L. Use of NCLEX preparation strategies in a hospital orientation program for graduate nurses. Nurs Adm Q 2006; 30(2):162–77.[Medline]
  12. Karvonen CA, Sayre C, Wyant SE. Building a medical-surgical certification review course: a blueprint for success. J Nurs Staff Dev 2004; 20(5):213–8.
  13. Rossignol M, Scollin P. Piloting use of computerized practice tests. Comput Nurs 2001; 19(5):206–12.[Medline]
  14. Riner ME, Mueller C, Ihrke B, Smolen RA, Wilson M, Richardson V, et al. Computerized NCLEX-RN and NCLEX-PN preparation programs: comparative review, 1997. Comput Nurs 1997; 15(5):255–67.[Medline]
  15. Beeman PB, Waterhouse JK. Post-graduation factors predicting NCLEX-RN success. Nurse Educ 2003; 28(6):257–60.[Medline]
  16. Hoffman K, Hosokawa M, Blake R Jr, Headrick L, Johnson G. Problem-based learning outcomes: ten years of experience at the University of Missouri-Columbia School of Medicine. Acad Med 2006; 81(7):617–25.[Medline]
  17. Zhang C. Student USMLE step one preparation and performance. Paper presented at the 2002 Annual Meeting of American Education Research Association, New Orleans, April 3, 2002.
  18. Compton S, Schwartz L, Henderson W, Wyte C. Study month or vacation? Preparing for USMLE Step 2. Acad Med 2002; 77(7):733.[Medline]
  19. Werner LS, Bull BS. The effect of three commercial coaching courses on step one USMLE performance. Med Educ 2003; 37(6):527–31.[Medline]
  20. Marin-Campos Y, Mendoza-Morales L, Navarro-Hernandez JA. Students’ assessment of problems in a problem-based learning pharmacology course. Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract 2004; 9(4):299–307.[Medline]
  21. Pringle RK, Lee J. The use of learning and study strategies inventory (LASSI) as a predictor for success or failure on part I of the national board of chiropractic examiners test. J Manipulative Physiol Ther 1998; 21(3):164–6.[Medline]
  22. Kosmahl EM. Factors related to physical license examination scores. J Phys Ther Educ 2005; 19(2):52–6.
  23. Stewart CM, Bates RE Jr, Smith GE. Does performance on school-administered mock boards predict performance on a dental licensure exam? J Dent Educ 2004; 68(4):426–32.[Abstract]
  24. Stewart CM, Vertucci FJ, Bates RE. Improving performance on the endodontic section of the Florida dental licensure examination. J Dent Educ 2004; 68(8):829–33.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  25. Kissela B, Harris S, Kleindorfer D, Lindsell C, Pascuzzi R, Woo D, et al. The use of standardized patients for mock oral board exams in neurology: a pilot study. BMC Med Educ 2006; 25;6:22.
  26. Crockford D, Holt-Seitz A, Adams B. Preparing psychiatry residents for the certification exam: a survey of residency and exam experiences. Can J Psychiatr 2004; 49(10):690–5.[Medline]
  27. MacNeily AE, Baverstock RJ, Cole G, Morales A. Quantitative assessment of a new preparatory tool for board certification in urology. BJU Int 2004; 93(4):558–61.[Medline]
  28. Thadani RA, Swanson DB, Galbraith RM. A preliminary analysis of different approaches to preparing for the USMLE step 1. Acad Med 2000; 75(10 Suppl):S40–2.[Medline]
  29. Jessee SA. An evaluation of clinical mock boards and their influence on the success rate on qualifying boards. J Dent Educ 2002; 66(11):1260–8.[Abstract]
  30. Casada JP, Cailleteau JG, Seals ML. Predicting performance on a dental board licensure examination. J Dent Educ 1996; 60(9):775–7.[Medline]
  31. Dadian T, Guerink K, Olney C, Littlefield J. The effectiveness of a mock board experience in coaching students for the Dental Hygiene National Board Examination. J Dent Educ 2002; 66(5):643–8.[Abstract]
  32. Wendt A, Slimmer LK. Questions and answers on preparing for the NCLEX. Imprint 1996; 43(1):15–8.[Medline]
  33. Gladstone R, Stefanou L, Westphal C. A three-year study on the relationship of an internal board review course and dental hygiene student performance on the National Board Dental Hygiene Examination. J Dent Hyg 2006; 80(1):24.
  34. DeWald JP, Gutmann ME, Solomon ES. Effect of grade point average and enrollment in a dental hygiene national board review course on student performance on the national board examination. J Dent Educ 2004; 68(1):77–80.[Abstract]
  35. Edenfield SM, Hansen JR. Relationships among dental hygiene course grades, a mock board dental hygiene examination, and the National Board Dental Hygiene Examination. J Dent Hyg 2000; 74(2):124–9.[Medline]




This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
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 Wright, E. F.
Right arrow Articles by Henzi, D.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Wright, E. F.
Right arrow Articles by Henzi, D.

HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS