Assessments in Dentistry. The General Dental Council (GDC) describe assessment as “...the process or exercises which measure and record a student’s progress towards achieving the learning outcomes necessary for completion of their programme and registration as a dental professional ... (assessments) ... enable staff involved in the delivery of a programme to form an opinion of student performance.” (GDC, 2015a p.8). The term “performance” is used frequently, as outlined in the literature review above, with no clear definition given. Chuenjitwongsa et al. (2016) citing Xxxxxxxx and Xxxxxxxx (1997) define “performance” in dentistry, as a “specific sample of ability under specific conditions” and explain confusion remains in the literature, with the term occasionally used interchangeably with “competence” and “competency”. Gipps (2012) indicates there are other interpretations of performance; one interpretation views performance as “what is actually done under existing circumstances” as opposed to competence, which is “what a person can do under ideal circumstances”. Assessment drives student learning, allows appraisal of educational efficacy and helps protect patients by ensuring minimum standards are met by graduates (Norcini et al., 2011). Teaching does not always lead to learning however (Xxx, 2007) and poorly discriminatory assessment methods may reward such non-learning (Xxxxxxx et al., 2008a). Similarly, assessment may not test subject understanding, leading to superficial learning, hence assessment should be developed in conjunction with pedagogy (Xxxxxxx et al., 2008b). Students commencing the dental programmes at KCLDI undertake a variety of Bachelor of Dental Surgery (BDS) assessments during their training, including in-course assessment (ICA), online multiple-choice papers, written papers and objective structured clinical examinations (OSCEs). This is in line with a statement produced by the Association for Dental Education in Europe (ADEE), which included the recommendation that multiple methods of assessment should be used (Manogue et al., 2011). Xxxxxx (2004) reported that multiple, mixed forms of assessment were required to assess clinical competence and Xxxxxxxxx & van der Vleuten (2004) recommended the use of a range of methods, with each customised to the specific requirements of the assessment. However, the validity of assessments was context specific, with no one method being perfect. This view was supported by van der Vleuten (2000) who suggested significant erro...
