The performance of three examiners when marking students' orthodontic practical work was investigated. It was found that agreement between examiners can sometimes be tenuous and that an examiner's ‘pass’ standard varies from one occasion to another. The study confirms the importance of marking unnamed Work to ensure that the examiner remains uninfluenced by the student's past record.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
GoepferdS. J. and KerberP. E. (1980) A comparison of two methods for evaluating primary Class II cavity preparations, Journal of Dental Education, 44, 537–542.
2.
LilleyJ. D., Ten CateH. J., HollowayP. J., HoltJ. K. and StartK. B. (1968) Reliability of practical tests in operative dentistry, British Dental Journal, 125, 194–197.
3.
NatkinE. and GuildR. E. (1967) Evaluation of preclinical laboratory performance: a systematic study, Journal of Dental Education, 31, 152–161.
4.
SiegelS. (1956) Non-parametric statistics for the behavioral sciences, Kogakusha, Tokyo: McGraw-Hill.
5.
SilvestriA. R., CohenS. N. and SinghI. (1979) The improvement of technical skills in preclinical courses, Journal of Dental Education, 43, 641–644.
6.
SwinscowT. D. V. (1978) Statistics at square one, 3rd edn, London: Macmillan.
