Measuring final-year dental students’ ability to remove teeth independently using independence ratios
Article Sidebar
Main Article Content
Abstract
Background. Universities are obliged to ensure that dental graduates possess the necessary skills to render safe and effective treatment. Empirical evidence regarding the development of safe and effective independent practice at undergraduate level is unfortunately lacking.
Objectives. To measure final-year students’ abilities to correctly perform exodontia (tooth removal/extraction) skills independently, based on the applied postgraduate progressive independence theory.
Methods. Fourteen clinical teachers systematically assessed 13 263 tooth extractions completed by final-year dental students (2014 - 2016). An independence ratio (extractions performed without assistance/total number of extractions) was used as the key performance indicator to provide feedback on the ability to complete procedures independently over time. A customised index was used for controlling the level of difficulty.
Results. Final-year students (n=146) achieved independence ratios ranging between 90% and 94% (standard deviation 3.3%) by the end of their clinical training. Logical gradients of increased independence were illustrated with time, as well as variable performance among students. The level of difficulty index scores remained similar within cohorts per year of study. Acceptable assessment differences existed between clinical teachers, which could largely be explained by complex operational circumstances.
Conclusions. As far as we are aware, this is the first study that quantified progressive independence in exodontia for undergraduate students. The measure was sensitive enough to show logical independence gradients and variance among students. Final-year students demonstrated that they could remove >8/10 teeth independently by the time of their graduation. The measure shows promise as a proxy of competence for skills that are often practised. It is recommended that factors that influence these measurements be examined in more detail.
Downloads
Article Details
Issue
Section
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
The AJHPE is published under an Attribution-Non Commercial International Creative Commons Attribution (CC-BY-NC 4.0) License. Under this license, authors agree to make articles available to users, without permission or fees, for any lawful, non-commercial purpose. Users may read, copy, or re-use published content as long as the author and original place of publication are properly cited.
Exceptions to this license model is allowed for UKRI and research funded by organisations requiring that research be published open-access without embargo, under a CC-BY licence. As per the journals archiving policy, authors are permitted to self-archive the author-accepted manuscript (AAM) in a repository.
How to Cite
References
Lockyer J, Carraccio C, Chan M-K, et al. Core principles of assessment in competency-based medical education. Med Teach 2017;39(6):609-616. https://doi.org/10.1080/0142159X.2017.1315082
Moore U, Durham J. Invited commentary: Issues with assessing competence in undergraduate dental education. Eur J Dent Educ 2011;15(1):53-57. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0579.2010.00634.x
Durham JA, Moore UJ, Corbett IP, Thomson PJ. Assessing competency in dentoalveolar surgery: A 3-year study of cumulative experience in the undergraduate curriculum. Eur J Dent Educ 2007;11(4):200-207. https://doi. org/10.1111/j.1600-0579.2007.00455.x
Sadler DR. Interpretations of criteria-based assessment and grading in higher education. Assess Eval High Educ 2005;30(2):175-194. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 0260293042000264262
Wagaarachchi PT, Graham WJ,Penney G, et al. Holding up a mirror: Changing obstetric practice through criterion- based clinical audit in developing countries. Int J Gynecol Obstet 2001;74(2):119-130. https://doi.org/10.1016/ S0020-7292(01)00427-1
Norcini J, Burch V. Workplace-based assessment as an educational tool. AMEE Guide No. 31. Med Teach 2009;29(9-10):855-871. https://doi.org/10.1080/014215907017 75453
Doyle JD, Webber EM, Sidhu RS. A universal global rating scale for the evaluation of technical skills in the operating room. Am J Surg 2007;193(5):551-555. https://doi.org /10.1016/j.amjsurg.2007.02.003
Hattie J, Timperley H. The power of feedback. Rev Educ Res 2007;77(1):181-182. https://doi. org/10.3102/003465430298487
Dijksterhuis MG, Voorhuis M, Teunissen PW, et al. Assessment of competence and progressive independence in postgraduate clinical training. Med Educ 2009;43(12):1156-1165. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2923.2009.03509.x 10. Franzone JM, Kennedy BC, Merritt H, et al. Progressive independence in clinical training: Perspectives of a national, multispecialty panel of residents and fellows. J Grad Med Educ 2015;7(4):700-704. https://doi.org/10.4300/JGME-07-04-51
Kashner TM, Byrne JM, Henley SS, et al. Measuring progressive independence with the resident supervision index: Theoretical approach. J Grad Med Educ 2010;2(1):8-16. https://doi.org/10.4300/JGME-D-09-00083.1
Kashner TM, Byrne JM, Chang BK, et al. Measuring progressive independence with the resident supervision index: Empirical approach. J Grad Med Educ 2010;2(1):17-30. https://doi.org/10.4300/1949-8357-2.1.17
Kennedy TJ, Regehr G, Baker GR, Lingard LA. Progressive independence in clinical training: A tradition worth defending? Acad Med 2005;80(10):S106-S111. https://doi. org/10.4300/1949-8357-2.1.17
Khan K, Ramachandran S. Conceptual framework for performance assessment: Competency, competence and performance in the context of assessments in healthcare – deciphering the terminology. Med Teach 2012;34(11):920-928. https://doi.org/10.3109/0142159X.2012.722707
Chuenjitwongsa S, Oliver RG, Bullock AD. Competence, competency-based education, and undergraduate dental education: A discussion paper. Eur J Dent Educ 2018;22(1):1-8. https://doi.org/10.1111/eje.12213
EvansA.Assessingcompetenceinsurgicaldentistry.BDJ2001;190(7):343-346.
GeneralDentalCouncil.TheFirstFiveYears.AFrameworkforUndergraduateDentalEducation.London:GDC,2002.
General Dental Council. The First Five Years (Interim). London: GDC, 2008.
Schumacher DJ, Bria C, Frohna JG. The quest toward unsupervised practice: Promoting autonomy, not
independence. JAMA 2013;310(24):2613-2614. https://doi.org/10.1001/ jama.2013.282324
Edwards PC. The future of dental education: Toward disruptive innovation or incremental improvements? Oral
Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol 2015;119(3):257-259. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oooo.2014.12.006
DaRosa DA, Zwischenberger JB, Meyerson SL, et al. A theory-based model for teaching and assessing residents in the operating room. J Surg Educ 2013;70(1):24-30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsurg.2012.07.007
George BC, Teitelbaum EN, Meyerson SL, et al. Reliability, validity, and feasibility of the Zwisch scale for the assessment of intraoperative performance. J Surg Educ 2014;71(6):e90-e96. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsurg.2014.06.018
Bookhan V, Becker LH, Oosthuizen MP. Criteria referenced student self-assesment in restorative dentistry. S Afr Dent J 2005;60(4):161-166.
Ten Cate TJO, Snell L, Carraccio C. Medical competence: The interplay between individual ability and the health care environment. Med Teach 2010;32(8):669-675. https://doi.org/10.3109/0142159X.2010.500897
Boursicot K, Kemp S, Wilkinson T, et al. Performance assessment: Consensus statement and recommendations from the 2020 Ottawa Conference. Med Teach 2020;14:1-10. https://doi.org/10.1080/0142159X.2020.1830052
McKenney S, Reeves TC. Conducting Educational Design Research. 2nd ed. London: Routledge, 2018.