Comparison of two case difficulty assessment methods on cohorts of undergraduate dental students – a multi‐centre study

Aim To compare the educational benefits and user friendliness of two anonymized endodontic case difficulty assessment (CDA) methods. Methodology A cohort (n = 206) of fourth‐year undergraduate dental students were recruited from four different Dental Schools and divided randomly into two groups (Gro...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:International endodontic journal 2020-11, Vol.53 (11), p.1569-1580
Main Authors: Shah, P. K., Duncan, H. F., Abdullah, D., Tomson, P. L., Murray, G., Friend, T. M., Thomas, S., Butcher, S., Chong, B. S.
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
case difficulty assessment
Dental schools
Dentistry
EndoApp
Endodontics
Feedback
Humans
Standardized tests
Statistical analysis
Students, Dental
treatment risks
University students
web‐based tool
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Aim To compare the educational benefits and user friendliness of two anonymized endodontic case difficulty assessment (CDA) methods. Methodology A cohort (n = 206) of fourth‐year undergraduate dental students were recruited from four different Dental Schools and divided randomly into two groups (Group A and B). The participants assessed six test endodontic cases using anonymized versions of the American Association of Endodontists (AAE) case difficulty assessment form (AAE Endodontic Case Difficulty Assessment Form and Guidelines, 2006) and EndoApp, a web‐based CDA tool. Group A (n = 107) used the AAE form for assessment of the first three cases, followed by EndoApp for the latter. Group B (n = 99) used EndoApp for the initial three cases and switched to the AAE form for the remainder. Data were collected online and analysed to assess participants’ knowledge reinforcement and agreement with the recommendation generated. Statistical analysis was performed using the two‐way mixed model anova, Cohen’s Kappa (κ) and independent t‐tests, with the levels of significance set at P 
ISSN:0143-2885
1365-2591
DOI:10.1111/iej.13377