Impact of Collaborative Leadership in Dental School Team Clinics.

Dental students' ability to critique team performance in dental school team clinics is a key component of dental education. The aim of this study was to determine if students' perceptions of their team leaders' openness of communication, cooperative decision making, and well-defined goals were positively related to the students' improvement-oriented voice behavior and willingness to raise concerns in the clinical environment. This study used a voluntary 12-question survey, distributed via email to all 311 students at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas School of Dental Medicine after completion of the spring 2017 semester. Eighty-seven students responded, for a response rate of 28%. Responses were stratified by team, class year, and gender, and the quantitative distribution of answers to each question was correlated with each other. Team leader collaborative qualities, which included openness for communication, cooperative decision making, and well-defined goals, were found to have a significant positive relationship with students' willingness to both raise concerns and make suggestions. Additionally, when measured by class year and gender, team differences in voice behavior assessment by students across the teams were found to be independent of class year, and no significant differences were found by gender. These results suggested that, to maintain high levels of communication, proper reporting of concerns, and a high standard of care, dental schools should encourage team leaders to enhance their capacity to present active collaborative behaviors in the school's clinic. The study also highlighted potential opportunities for further study of faculty traits and development in the dental school team model.

Should the U.S. Adopt a National Dental Clinical Licensure Examination? Two Viewpoints: Viewpoint 1: National Licensure Would Provide Multiple Advantages for Practitioners and the Profession and Viewpoint 2: Licensing Authority Should Remain Under State Dental Boards' Jurisdiction.

This Point/Counterpoint article examines the need for and potential impact of implementing a national clinical examination for initial licensure in dentistry. Viewpoint 1 supports a national licensure exam that meets the clinical exam's credentialing requirement for licensure in every state. According to this viewpoint, a national exam will reduce costs, enhance portability of graduates, simplify the transition from dental school to practice or specialty training programs, and standardize requirements for licensure between states. Viewpoint 2 opposes a national licensure exam. This viewpoint supports individual states' dental board decision making process, which is based on identifiable state-specific criteria. The ability to prioritize needs at the state level allows for higher exam standards, easier modifications, more focused requirements, and better calibration in specific exam areas. Viewpoint 2 argues that the delicate balance between licensure agencies and organized dentistry in each state, as well as the involvement of dental schools in the licensure process, must be preserved. This Point/Counterpoint concludes with a joint statement about the prospects for adoption of a national licensure exam.

Methods and Purposes for Conducting Students' Course Evaluations Reported by North American Dental School and Dental Hygiene Program Leaders: A Preliminary Survey Study.

The aim of this preliminary survey study was to determine the perceptions of leaders of dental schools and dental hygiene programs regarding methods of and purposes for conducting students' course evaluations and their role in course improvement, curriculum design, and faculty assessment. A short electronic survey was distributed in 2016 to the academic deans of all 76 dental schools in the U.S. and Canada and a convenience sample of program directors of 232 of the total 332 accredited dental hygiene programs. Individuals from 93 institutions responded for an overall response rate of 30%: 30 of 76 dental schools (39.5% response rate) and 63 of the 232 dental hygiene programs (27% response rate). All of the respondents (100%) reported that their institutions' full-time faculty members were assessed by students in course evaluations for each course and semester they taught. However, only 78% reported that their part-time faculty members were evaluated by students. Course evaluations were mandatory in 62% (n=58) of the responding institutions, with the remaining 38% (n=35) optional. Respondents indicated course directors received the evaluation results for purposes of annual review (n=73, 78%) and instructional review (n=70, 75%). Further investigation of the use and effects of student evaluations is needed to better understand their role in faculty assessment and other aspects of the administration of dental schools and dental hygiene programs.