OBJECTIVE: To explore the correlation of student and faculty assessments of, second-year dental students' (D2s) communicative skills during simulated patient interviews. METHODS: Eighty-two D2s, 14 student instructors and 8 faculty used a 5-point scale, (1=poor-5=excellent) to assess 12 specific communicative skills of D2s generating assessment sources of self, peer-group, student instructor, and faculty. Mean scores and comparisons between assessment sources were calculated. Spearman correlations evaluated relationships between specific skills and assessment sources. RESULTS: Mean assessment score and standard error for peer-group (4.14 ± 0.04), was higher than self (3.86 ± 0.06, p<0.05) yet slightly higher than student instructor (4.07 ± 0.04) and faculty (3.93±0.10). Regarding assessment sources, the degree of correlation from highest to lowest was peer-group and student instructor (ρ=0.46, p<0.0001), self and student instructor (ρ=0.35, p<0.002), self and peer-group (ρ=0.28, p<0.02). The correlations between student instructor and faculty, faculty and self, and faculty and peer-group were nonsignificant. CONCLUSION: Student assessments were different from faculty by mean score and correlation index. Future studies are needed to determine the nature of the differences found between student and faculty assessments. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Peer, student instructor and faculty assessments of dental students' communicative skills are not necessarily interchangeable but may offer uniquely different and valuable feedback to students. Published by Elsevier Ireland Ltd.
OBJECTIVE: To explore the correlation of student and faculty assessments of, second-year dental students' (D2s) communicative skills during simulated patient interviews. METHODS: Eighty-two D2s, 14 student instructors and 8 faculty used a 5-point scale, (1=poor-5=excellent) to assess 12 specific communicative skills of D2s generating assessment sources of self, peer-group, student instructor, and faculty. Mean scores and comparisons between assessment sources were calculated. Spearman correlations evaluated relationships between specific skills and assessment sources. RESULTS: Mean assessment score and standard error for peer-group (4.14 ± 0.04), was higher than self (3.86 ± 0.06, p<0.05) yet slightly higher than student instructor (4.07 ± 0.04) and faculty (3.93±0.10). Regarding assessment sources, the degree of correlation from highest to lowest was peer-group and student instructor (ρ=0.46, p<0.0001), self and student instructor (ρ=0.35, p<0.002), self and peer-group (ρ=0.28, p<0.02). The correlations between student instructor and faculty, faculty and self, and faculty and peer-group were nonsignificant. CONCLUSION: Student assessments were different from faculty by mean score and correlation index. Future studies are needed to determine the nature of the differences found between student and faculty assessments. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Peer, student instructor and faculty assessments of dental students' communicative skills are not necessarily interchangeable but may offer uniquely different and valuable feedback to students. Published by Elsevier Ireland Ltd.