Premium
Are There Differences in Technical Assessment Grades Between Adjunct and Full‐Time Dental Faculty? A Pilot Study
Author(s) -
Deeb Janina Golob,
Koertge Thomas E.,
Laskin Daniel M.,
Carrico Caroline K.
Publication year - 2019
Publication title -
journal of dental education
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.53
H-Index - 68
eISSN - 1930-7837
pISSN - 0022-0337
DOI - 10.21815/jde.019.046
Subject(s) - adjunct , periodontology , grading (engineering) , medicine , dentistry , full time , faculty development , medical education , psychology , professional development , philosophy , linguistics , civil engineering , engineering , economics , economic growth
Some dental students preferentially schedule graded assessments with adjunct faculty members in expectation of obtaining a higher grade. The aim of this pilot study was to compare the grades given by full‐time and adjunct faculty members in clinical periodontics to determine if a difference in grading existed. Grades for students given by seven full‐time and 11 adjunct faculty members for various technical and competency assessments in D3 and D4 clinical periodontics courses in academic year 2015‐16 were compared. Associations between grades and faculty type were sought using mixed model regression to account for correlations among a student's scores. A total of 845 technical assessment and competency scores from 208 students in the two classes were included in the analysis. Scores were for four procedures: periodontal examination and treatment planning, scaling and root planing, evaluation of initial therapy, and periodontal maintenance. Full‐time faculty members graded 58% of the assessments, and 42% were scored by adjunct faculty members. Grades for the adjunct faculty were on average 0.14 (out of 5) higher than those for the full‐time faculty (p<0.0001). The number of graded assessments was also significantly associated with a higher average score, suggesting potential student bias toward selecting faculty members who grade more favorably (p<0.0001). These students generally received higher grades from adjunct faculty members, whereas the grades given by full‐time faculty members were closer in average and more consist with each other. The results point to the need for more calibration training for adjunct faculty members.