Exploring uses of the UK Clinical Aptitude Test-situational judgement test in a dental student selection process.

AIM: In 2013 the UKCAT included a non-cognitive situational judgement test in addition to the four cognitive subtests commonly used by UK dental schools to select students. However, little is known about the situational judgement test's psychometric properties and relationship to other selection tools. This study's aim was explore these issues to inform decisions about the inclusion of the UKCAT SJT in the dental student selection process. METHOD: The sample comprised a cohort of applicants to a Bachelor of Dental Surgery programme, at a UK dental school, which does not use achievement in the UKCAT SJT in its selection process. The impact on applicant outcomes of two theoretical uses of the UKCAT SJT was examined. First, SJT Band was used as the criterion for offers of a place instead of the school's admission interview, and second, weighted UKCAT scores, including a weighted SJT Band score, were ranked to make interview invitation decisions. Associations between SJT Band, UKCAT cognitive scores, interview score and performance in first year assessments were examined. RESULTS: If SJT Band 1 & 2 were used as the criterion for an offer of a place, some applicants rejected by this school's interview, including 'red flagged' applicants, would have received an offer of a place. Using a weighted UKCAT/SJT system for invitation for interview decisions increased the mean total UKCAT cognitive score of those invited for interview but included applicants rejected by this school's structured interview, including 'red flagged' applicants. Neither usage disadvantaged under-represented groups. SJT Band correlated with UKCAT score (n = 228, rs = -0.38, P < 0.01) with interview score (n = 186, rs = -0.17, P < 0.05) but not with first year study assessments. CONCLUSION: This study has shown that the UKCAT SJT does not add value to the existing methods of this dental school to make valid, reliable and fair student selection decisions.

Use of peer assessment in tooth extraction competency.

INTRODUCTION: Peer assessment is a widely recognised practice in higher education and is being increasingly utilised in healthcare education. It offers multiple advantages and may play a useful role in enhancing students' learning experience. This study was carried out to evaluate the utility of peer assessment in tooth extraction competency in simulated dental learning environment (SDLE). METHODS: Year 2 dental students were invited to participate in a formative, peer assessment exercise on forceps tooth extraction in SDLE. The ratings made by peers in the formative assessment were compared with the ratings made by academic supervisors in an equivalent summative assessment. RESULTS: One hundred and twenty-two students participated in both the formative and summative assessments. Descriptive statistics demonstrated that the majority of students were given the same rating in both assessments. However, there were a number of students who were rated as 'Competent' in one assessment and 'Not Competent' in the other assessment. Spearman's Rho correlations showed that there were weak relationships between the formative and summative assessments. There was also weak inter-rater reliability for the ratings of the peers and academic supervisors, as measured by the intraclass correlation coefficient. Feedback from the students and academic supervisors showed unanimously positive perceptions about the peer assessment experience, and they expressed the desire for incorporating peer assessment in other competencies. CONCLUSIONS: This study shows mixed results with regard to the value of the peer assessment. Given the potential utility of peer assessment as a tool to augment and enrich students' learning experience, further work needs to be done to evaluate the use of peer assessment in operative competencies in dentistry.

Comparison of utility weighted DMFT with patient-reported oral well-being.

This study investigated a method of measuring oral health, as opposed to measuring disease. The objective was to compare DMF score and whole mouth utility scores to a patient-reported outcome measure (PROM). Disutility values for lost and restored teeth were used to weight the decayed, missing and filled teeths(DMFTs) of 10 adult patients. This gave two whole mouth utility scores (WMU). These scores were then compared with a patient-reported oral health outcome measure recorded by the use of a visual analogue scale (VAS). The anchors for the VAS were 'my mouth could not be worse' and 'my mouth could not be better'. There was a positive correlation (r = 0.6457) between WMU1 and the patient-reported outcome measure (P < 0.05) and a negative correlation (r = -0.8383) between WMU1 and DMFT which was significant at the P < 0.01 level. There was a statistically significant positive correlation of r = 0.7926 between WMU2 and the patient-reported outcome measure (P < 0.01) and a negative correlation (r = -0.9393) between WMU2 and DMFT (P < 0.01). The Pearson's correlation between DMFT and the patient-reported outcome measure was -0.8757, which was significant at the 0.01 level. Patient reports of their perceived level of health correlate well with DMFT scores. Weighting DMFT scores according to the differential values assigned to missing, or missing and filled, teeth does not increase the degree of correlation between the measure and the patients' personal quantification of their oral health. Decayed, missing and filled teeth therefore seems to adequately capture the patient's sense of well-being.