Inter-rater reliability of global and analytic assessment of prosthodontic procedures

Guardado en:
Detalles Bibliográficos
Publicado en:BMC Medical Education vol. 25 (2025), p. 1-8
Autor principal: Baik, Khadijah M
Publicado:
Springer Nature B.V.
Materias:
Acceso en línea:Citation/Abstract
Full Text
Full Text - PDF
Etiquetas: Agregar Etiqueta
Sin Etiquetas, Sea el primero en etiquetar este registro!

MARC

LEADER 00000nab a2200000uu 4500
001 3247111886
003 UK-CbPIL
022 |a 1472-6920 
024 7 |a 10.1186/s12909-025-07732-4  |2 doi 
035 |a 3247111886 
045 2 |b d20250101  |b d20251231 
084 |a 58506  |2 nlm 
100 1 |a Baik, Khadijah M 
245 1 |a Inter-rater reliability of global and analytic assessment of prosthodontic procedures 
260 |b Springer Nature B.V.  |c 2025 
513 |a Journal Article 
520 3 |a BackgroundThere have been few comparisons of global and analytic evaluations of fixed prosthodontic procedures. Given the growing number of dental students and the time-consuming nature of assessment, there is a need for a simple but reliable method of evaluation. This study therefore evaluated and compared inter-rater reliability of assessment of preclinical prosthodontic procedures using global and analytic methods and the impact of academic rank on evaluation outcomes.MethodsTwo professors and three assistant professors evaluated five different prosthodontic procedures performed by dental students using two evaluation methods (analytic evaluation using a rubric and global “glare and grade”). Inter-examiner reliability was assessed using interclass correlation coefficients.ResultsInterclass correlations ranged from moderate to excellent for both analytic and global evaluations. There were no significant differences in interclass correlations between the analytic and global methods. There were no significant differences in grading between professors and assistant professors for either approach.ConclusionsWith proper faculty calibration, global evaluation is equivalent to using a analytic method of evaluation and is not affected by academic rank. Overall, the evaluation method appears to have less of an impact on reliability than the need to calibrate faculty members at the beginning of the academic year. 
610 4 |a King Abdulaziz University 
653 |a Students 
653 |a Investigations 
653 |a Scanners 
653 |a Teeth 
653 |a Dentists 
653 |a Independent sample 
653 |a Methods 
653 |a Dentistry 
653 |a Academic Rank (Professional) 
653 |a Undergraduate Students 
653 |a Laboratory Procedures 
653 |a Graduate Students 
653 |a College Faculty 
653 |a Interrater Reliability 
653 |a Measurement Techniques 
653 |a Reliability 
653 |a Dental Schools 
653 |a Examiners 
653 |a Correlation 
653 |a Student Evaluation 
653 |a Educational Objectives 
653 |a Global Approach 
653 |a Dental Evaluation 
653 |a Self Evaluation (Individuals) 
653 |a Evaluators 
653 |a Outcomes of Education 
653 |a Computer Software 
773 0 |t BMC Medical Education  |g vol. 25 (2025), p. 1-8 
786 0 |d ProQuest  |t Healthcare Administration Database 
856 4 1 |3 Citation/Abstract  |u https://www.proquest.com/docview/3247111886/abstract/embedded/6A8EOT78XXH2IG52?source=fedsrch 
856 4 0 |3 Full Text  |u https://www.proquest.com/docview/3247111886/fulltext/embedded/6A8EOT78XXH2IG52?source=fedsrch 
856 4 0 |3 Full Text - PDF  |u https://www.proquest.com/docview/3247111886/fulltextPDF/embedded/6A8EOT78XXH2IG52?source=fedsrch