Teaching and assessment of implant dentistry in undergraduate and postgraduate education: a European consensus

This paper constitutes a summary of the consensus documents agreed at the First European Workshop on Implant Dentistry University Education held in Prague on 19-22 June 2008. Implant dentistry is becoming increasingly important treatment alternative for the restoration of missing teeth, as patients expectations and demands increase. Furthermore, implant related complications such as peri-implantitis are presenting more frequently in the dental surgery. This consensus paper recommends that implant dentistry should be an integral part of the undergraduate curriculum. Whilst few schools will achieve student competence in the surgical placement of implants this should not preclude the inclusion of the fundamental principles of implant dentistry in the undergraduate curriculum such as the evidence base for their use, indications and contraindications and treatment of the complications that may arise. The consensus paper sets out the rationale for the introduction of implant dentistry in the dental curriculum and the knowledge base for an undergraduate programme in the subject. It lists the competencies that might be sought without expectations of surgical placement of implants at this stage and the assessment methods that might be employed. The paper also addresses the competencies and educational pathways for postgraduate education in implant dentistry.

Global evidence in local debates: the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) in Swiss direct-democratic debates on school policy

This article analyses the use of the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) and other evidence in educational policy discourse in the context of direct-democratic votes in Switzerland. The results of a quantitative content analysis show that PISA is used by all actors to support a wide range of policy measures and ideological positions. Other evidence, however, is only used to support single specific policy positions. These findings demonstrate the ubiquity of PISA. The article discusses these results in view of the question of whether the incorporation of evidence into policy debates contributes to informed discourse.

Do multiple true-false items beat the commonly used one-best-answers questions regarding to the Ottawa Criteria for Good Assessment? Results of a literature review

Background: Multiple True-False-Items (MTF-Items) might offer some advantages compared to one-best-answer-questions (TypeA) as they allow more than one correct answer and may better represent clinical decisions. However, in medical education assessment MTF-Items are seldom used. Summary of Work: With this literature review existing findings on MTF-items and on TypeA were compared along the Ottawa Criteria for Good Assessment, i.e. (1) reproducibility, (2) feasibility, (3) validity, (4) acceptance, (5) educational effect, (6) catalytic effects, and (7) equivalence. We conducted a literature research on ERIC and Google Scholar including papers from the years 1935 to 2014. We used the search terms “multiple true-false”, “true-false”, “true/false”, and “Kprim” combined with “exam”, “test”, and “assessment”. Summary of Results: We included 29 out of 33 studies. Four of them were carried out in the medical field Compared to TypeA, MTF-Items are associated with (1) higher reproducibility (2) lower feasibility (3) similar validity (4) higher acceptance (5) higher educational effect (6) no studies on catalytic effects or (7) equivalence. Discussion and Conclusions: While studies show overall good characteristics of MTF items according to the Ottawa criteria, this type of question seems to be rather seldom used. One reason might be the reported lower feasibility. Overall the literature base is still weak. Furthermore, only 14 % of literature is from the medical domain. Further studies to better understand the characteristics of MTF-Items in the medical domain are warranted. Take-home messages: Overall the literature base is weak and therefore further studies are needed. Existing studies show that: MTF-Items show higher reliability, acceptance and educational effect; MTF-Items are more difficult to produce

Computer-based summative assessment of clinical reasoning in clerkships: A mixed-method comparison of key feature problems with case-based multiple choice questions

Background: It is yet unclear if there are differences between using electronic key feature problems (KFPs) or electronic case-based multiple choice questions (cbMCQ) for the assessment of clinical decision making. Summary of Work: Fifth year medical students were exposed to clerkships which ended with a summative exam. Assessment of knowledge per exam was done by 6-9 KFPs, 9-20 cbMCQ and 9-28 MC questions. Each KFP consisted of a case vignette and three key features (KF) using “long menu” as question format. We sought students’ perceptions of the KFPs and cbMCQs in focus groups (n of students=39). Furthermore statistical data of 11 exams (n of students=377) concerning the KFPs and (cb)MCQs were compared. Summary of Results: The analysis of the focus groups resulted in four themes reflecting students’ perceptions of KFPs and their comparison with (cb)MCQ: KFPs were perceived as (i) more realistic, (ii) more difficult, (iii) more motivating for the intense study of clinical reasoning than (cb)MCQ and (iv) showed an overall good acceptance when some preconditions are taken into account. The statistical analysis revealed that there was no difference in difficulty; however KFP showed a higher discrimination and reliability (G-coefficient) even when corrected for testing times. Correlation of the different exam parts was intermediate. Conclusions: Students perceived the KFPs as more motivating for the study of clinical reasoning. Statistically KFPs showed a higher discrimination and higher reliability than cbMCQs. Take-home messages: Including KFPs with long menu questions into summative clerkship exams seems to offer positive educational effects.