ArticleBritish dental journal2021
Development, implementation and feedback for an online speciality membership examination in orthodontics during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Article in British dental journal, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- The impact of COVID-19 on medical students.GMS journal for medical education · 2024Review
- The impact of COVID-19 pandemic on orthodontic services and trainees' mental health in India.Frontiers in medicine · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 7 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction The Royal College of Surgeons of England (RCSEng) and the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Glasgow (RCPSG) offer the bi-collegiate Membership in Orthodontics (MOrth) examination, a summative assessment of specialist knowledge, skill and behaviour in orthodontics. The COVID-19 pandemic has had a profound global effect on almost every facet of normal life, including the conduct of face-to-face examinations. We highlight development, implementation and feedback for the bi-collegiate MOrth Part 2 examination delivered remotely to a cohort of candidates in September 2020 by RCSEng/RCPSG.Methods Two anonymised online surveys (Google Forms) were distributed via electronic mail following completion of the examination diet. Forty-two candidates were sent a survey covering four domains and comprising a total of 31 questions. The 20 examiners were sent a survey containing eight questions. In both surveys, free-text responses were also collected. A rating system was used to categorise responses. All survey responses were summarised in an online data collection sheet.Results The response rate was 78.5% (33/42) and 75% (15/20) for candidates and examiners, respectively. Overall, favourable responses in relation to all sections of the assessment were elicited from candidates with the majority (mean 79.8%; 75.8-81.9%) reporting that the online examination format worked well. Equally, favourable responses were reported by examiners. Notably, 80% of examiners felt that the online exam style did not affect the mark a candidate would receive, and 100% were confident that the marks the candidates received were a reflection of their ability and were not affected by the online delivery of the assessment.Conclusions The feedback from both candidates and examiners relating to an online remote assessment of the bi-collegiate MOrth Part 2 was generally positive. Based on the survey responses, this format of a high-stakes examination was acceptable to all stakeholders, and demonstrated a high level of perceived validity and reliability in terms of content.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.