ArticleCureus2026
Reliability of a Novel Grid-Based Dental Rubric as an Effective Assessment Tool for Evaluating Class II Tooth Preparations in Preclinical Settings.
Article in Cureus, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Validity and Reliability of Rubrics for Assessment of Preclinical Orthodontic Practices in Dental Students.Dentistry journal · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction Assessment of preclinical operative skills is often limited by subjectivity and inconsistent grading. Traditional glance-and-grade methods provide minimal formative feedback. Criteria-based rubrics may improve objectivity, reliability, and learning outcomes in preclinical dental education. The aim of the present study was to test the reliability of a novel, criteria-weightage-based rubric for the evaluation of Class II restorations in preclinical settings. Methods A purposive sample of 10 subject-matter experts and 10 non-subject-matter experts was selected, and the rubric document was shared with them. Face Validity Index (FVI) and Content Validity Index (CVI) were calculated. The validated rubric was pilot-tested to evaluate preclinical competency in Class II cavity preparation (N = 36 BDS second-year students). Agreement between scores of two sets of evaluators using the traditional and rubric methods was used to measure inter-examiner reliability (consistency), and agreement between scores of the same examiners evaluating the same preparation after a seven-day washout period was an indicator of intra-examiner reliability (reproducibility). Results The rubric exhibited an adequate FVI of 0.96 and CVI of 0.98. The rubric's inter-examiner reliability and intra-examiner reliability were significantly higher than those of traditional methods. For the rubric method, the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) showed moderate agreement (ICC = 0.526), while the Pearson correlation coefficient indicated a statistically significant positive correlation between observers (r = 0.584, p < 0.001). Overall, the rubric-based method produced consistently higher ICC values for intra-examiner reliability (0.573-0.600) compared with the traditional method (0.265-0.396). Conclusion Based on the findings of the pilot study, the rubric-based assessment method is recommended as the primary tool for evaluating preclinical cavity preparations, as it demonstrated comparatively better inter- and intra-observer reliability than the traditional glance-and-grade approach.
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.