Does our research tool kit equip us to make generalisable claims about dental education?

Chambers, David W.

doi:10.1111/j.1600-0579.2012.00742.x

Cited by 3 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 9 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The orthodontic research literature is diverse and representative of the range of inquiry now being used to build stronger practices. Although conducted primarily by residents under the tutelage of university faculty 22 and responsive to those dedicated to evidence-based dentistry, it should retain its dynamic nature. It has become truly international 17,18 and represents a diversity of topics and approaches.…”

Section: Opening the Questionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Characterizing the orthodontic research literature: 2020

Chambers¹

2022

The Angle Orthodontist

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives To characterize features of the current orthodontic literature. Methods and Materials All research articles published in 2020 (N = 350) in the American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics, The Angle Orthodontist, and the European Journal of Orthodontics were categorized on 48 features such as type of study (domain of generalization, subjects, and research design), analytical tools (statistical tests, power and normality of data, consistency of measurement, management of covariables, and corrections of multiple independent tests), and reporting characteristics. Consistency of the coding was high (κ > .990). Results The “most typical” article was a cohort study reporting multiple patient outcomes at a single treatment location. Soundness of analyses was uneven, with about half providing information on power or normality of the data and consistency of measurement. Few articles addressed covariables or adjusted for multiple tests of independent outcomes. Photos and flow charts were commonly used to explain methods, and results were presented in multiple formats. There was a clear association between design and reporting characteristics and type of study for systematic reviews, meta-analyses, and case reports. There were small but consistent differences across the three journals. Conclusions The quality of the orthodontic research literature has advanced at an uneven pace, and this review identifies areas that could be strengthened. Substantial gaps remain in achieving accepted standards for randomized controlled trials and opportunities exist for better understanding measures of effect through design and analysis using regression techniques to identify sources of variance.

show abstract

Section: Opening the Questionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Characterizing the orthodontic research literature: 2020

Chambers¹

2022

The Angle Orthodontist

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…It is much more scientifically rigorous than it was in previous decades. [6][7] The perspective presented here is to use the broadest meaningful measure of educational effectiveness as a common outcome objective. Students enter dental school with the expectation that they will have a degree and be qualified to practice independently or participate in an advanced education program within approximately 3 months of graduation.…”

Section: Using Outcomes To Guide the Complex Dental Education Processmentioning

confidence: 99%

Using program yield to guide dental educational process improvement

Chambers

2021

Journal of Dental Education

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Dental education is a complex system of activities repeated on an annual cycle. Small adjustments are constant in an effort to improve the overall performance of the process. While it is possible to evaluate each change in isolation against standards particular to their circumstances, it is ultimately necessary to ensure that the set of changes has an overall positive impact on the program as a whole.Approach: It is valuable to have a school-wide criterion for choosing the best portfolio of constituent activities. This perspective piece describes the use of one such standard: program yield, defined as the proportion of students who are recognized as competent practitioners within a few months of the anticipated graduation date. The success of one program that used this approach is described.It is also suggested that dental education is a cyclical process that involves the four classical components of the quality movement. These are described as Goal, Experience, Assessment, and Refection in this paper. Impact: This is the first of three related perspectives. The other two are devoted to quality assurance and improvement and the challenge of transferring innovations published in the literature to application in other schools. The common theme in these perspectives is the value of driving improvement in dental education by focus on the outcome variable.

show abstract

“…A count of the articles appearing in the 2010 volume of the JDE 41 reveals that the most typical article is a survey of the opinions of others. Forty percent of the journal's articles for that year follow the format of surveying what others think (compared with 12 percent in the sister publication Academy of Management Learning & Education ).…”

Section: Summationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Dental Education's Involvement with Dentists’ Learning in Practice: Data and Theory

Chambers

2012

Journal of Dental Education

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A careful reading of the Journal of Dental Education from its founding in 1936 and of the Proceedings of the American Association of Dental Schools (the predecessor of the American Dental Education Association) from 1924, as well as other documents, allows us to describe the role dental schools have played in supporting the learning of dentists following graduation from formal programs. This article is in two parts. First, data are presented showing the emergence of continuing dental education in the 1960s and its continual growth. The exception to this pattern is that dental schools shared in the initial bloom but experienced an inexorable decline beginning in the 1980s. In the second part, it is shown that scholarship regarding how dentists learn over multiple settings and as they acquire greater mastery of their discipline has also failed to develop. Reasons are given for both phenomena, reasons that include competitive external factors and point to intrinsic weaknesses in the scholarship of dental education.

show abstract

Does our research tool kit equip us to make generalisable claims about dental education?

Cited by 3 publications

References 9 publications

Characterizing the orthodontic research literature: 2020

Characterizing the orthodontic research literature: 2020

Using program yield to guide dental educational process improvement

Dental Education's Involvement with Dentists’ Learning in Practice: Data and Theory

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About