ArticleBMC medical education2026
Assessing the reliability and validity of a standardized rubric for staff evaluation of all-ceramic crown preparations at preclinical setting.
Article in BMC medical education, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundEnsuring a consistent and valid assessment of preclinical technical skills is essential in dental education. This study evaluated the inter-rater reliability and validity of a standardized analytic rubric for staff evaluation of single all-ceramic crown preparations across multiple academic years. It compared student performance in midterm and final examinations, examined cohort variability, and investigated the correlation between academic achievement (grade point average or GPA) and practical performance. MATERIALS AND
methodsA retrospective cross-sectional study was conducted on fourth-year male dental students from three consecutive academic years (2020-2023). Two experienced double-blinded faculty members independently evaluated midterm and final crown preparations by using a validated analytic rubric. The rubric comprised six criteria: five technical domains (occlusal/incisal reduction, axial reduction, taper, finish line placement, and finishing of the preparation) scored 0-6 points and one professionalism domain scored 0-4 points, yielding a total maximum score of 40 points. Inter-rater reliability, cohort differences, and GPA correlation were assessed using Cronbach's alpha, Kruskal-Wallis tests, and Pearson's correlation, respectively, and significance was set at p < 0.05.
resultsInter-rater reliability was high for the overall scores (midterm α = 0.881, final α = 0.899). Among the individual parameters, taper (retention and resistance) scored the highest in the midterm examination (Staff 1: 5.13/6), and finish line placement scored the lowest in the final examination (Staff 1: 3.79/6). Professionalism showed the lowest inter-rater consistency (α = -0.095). Performance considerably declined from midterm to final examinations (Staff 1 scores declined from 28.19 to 23.68). Substantial variability existed across the academic years, with the 2021-2022 cohort outperforming the others. GPA showed only one weak positive correlation with final scores from one evaluator (r = 0.287, p = 0.037) and was otherwise not significant.
conclusionThe analytic rubric proved reliable for standardized preclinical assessment, supporting its implementation despite the unexpected decline in the final examination scores and cohort variations with a high inter-reliability score. Academic GPA was a poor predictor of practical crown preparation performance, reinforcing that cognitive and psychomotor competencies are distinct domains in dental education.
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.