K A Derringer1. 1. Department of Orthodontics, GKT Dental Institute, King's College London, Floor 22 Guy's Tower, St. Thomas Street, London, SE1 9RT. kathryn.derringer@kcl.ac.uk
Abstract
AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: This paper assesses the current internal assessment and BDS examination of undergraduate orthodontics in UK dental schools, the changes which have occurred in the last three years, and future changes proposed. METHOD: Questionnaires were emailed to the undergraduate orthodontic course leaders in each of the UK dental schools. Twelve dental schools agreed to participate in the survey. Responses were checked for completeness, summarised and sent back to individual course leaders to verify. These verified responses were then analysed. RESULTS: There was a wide variation in the form and content of the in-course assessment and the BDS examination in the 12 UK dental schools. The in-course assessment varied from minimal to extensive, and in its percentage contribution to BDS. The use of written, clinical, and particularly patient treatment and laboratory assessments varied considerably from school to school. The format of the BDS examination varied in the number, type and timing of written examinations, in the number of students examined clinically, and in the use of additional examinations of viva, case presentation, or OSCE. CONCLUSIONS: Comparison of undergraduate orthodontic courses in UK dental schools revealed a wide variation in student assessment and examination. Current orthodontic internal assessments are inconsistent with no common pattern across the courses, and inconsistencies also exist in the BDS examination. Guidelines for orthodontic assessment and examination are needed to ensure standards and consistency in UK dental schools in the future.
AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: This paper assesses the current internal assessment and BDS examination of undergraduate orthodontics in UK dental schools, the changes which have occurred in the last three years, and future changes proposed. METHOD: Questionnaires were emailed to the undergraduate orthodontic course leaders in each of the UK dental schools. Twelve dental schools agreed to participate in the survey. Responses were checked for completeness, summarised and sent back to individual course leaders to verify. These verified responses were then analysed. RESULTS: There was a wide variation in the form and content of the in-course assessment and the BDS examination in the 12 UK dental schools. The in-course assessment varied from minimal to extensive, and in its percentage contribution to BDS. The use of written, clinical, and particularly patient treatment and laboratory assessments varied considerably from school to school. The format of the BDS examination varied in the number, type and timing of written examinations, in the number of students examined clinically, and in the use of additional examinations of viva, case presentation, or OSCE. CONCLUSIONS: Comparison of undergraduate orthodontic courses in UK dental schools revealed a wide variation in student assessment and examination. Current orthodontic internal assessments are inconsistent with no common pattern across the courses, and inconsistencies also exist in the BDS examination. Guidelines for orthodontic assessment and examination are needed to ensure standards and consistency in UK dental schools in the future.