Introduction: The aim of this study is to evaluate, within the scope of an experimental design, to
what extent the assessment of two different settings of prepared cavities, based on video sequences,
containing digital analysis tools of the prepCheck software, as well as to what extent they deviate from
one another and are reliable.
Materials and Methods: For this prospective, single-centred, experimental study, 60 examination
cavities related to a ceramic inlay preparation were assessed by four trainers in two different settings (A:
video fi lm versus B: video fi lm plus an analogue model assessment) by using a standard checklist. The
examined parameters contained: the 1. preparation / outer edges, 2. surface & smoothness / inner edges,
3. width & depth, 4. slide-in direction, 5. outer contact positioning and 6. overall grade on a Likert scale of 1
= ‘excellent’, 2 = ‘very good’, 3 = ‘good’, 4 = ‘satisfactory’ to 5 = ‘unsatisfactory’. An evaluation questionnaire
with 33 items was additionally addressed to the concept of application of a digital-analytic software.
The statistical analysis, using SAS 9.2 (SAS Institute Inc., Cary, USA, PROC MIXED) and R (Version 2.15,
Package lme4) concerned the reliability, inter-rater correlation and signifi cant factors at a p of 0.05.
Results: The assessment of the individual criteria and overall grade of the control group (A) were,
on average, lower (i.e. better) than in the study group (B), yet with the exception of the ‘outer contact
positioning’, without conclusive statistical signifi cance. The reliability lay at an average of α=0.83 (A) and
α=0.79 (B). The maximum reliability of the criteria ‘preparation edge’, ‘surface’, ‘width & depth’ as well as
‘overall grade’ were reasonable in the assessment mode, with α > 0.7. The inter Video-based Assessment 3
rater correlation was at an average of 0.43 < r < 0.74 higher in assessment mode A than B that comprised
0.35 < r < 0.60.
Conclusion: The current examination shows an average reliability in the assessment mode A that
exceeds the requirements for practical examination (α ≥ 0.6) and also fulfi ls the general requirements for
‘high-stake’ examinations of α ≥ 0.8.
Keywords:
Published on: Oct 18, 2018 Pages: 5-14
Full Text PDF
Full Text HTML
DOI: 10.17352/tcsit.000007
CrossMark
Publons
Harvard Library HOLLIS
Search IT
Semantic Scholar
Get Citation
Base Search
Scilit
OAI-PMH
ResearchGate
Academic Microsoft
GrowKudos
Universite de Paris
UW Libraries
SJSU King Library
SJSU King Library
NUS Library
McGill
DET KGL BIBLiOTEK
JCU Discovery
Universidad De Lima
WorldCat
VU on WorldCat
PTZ: We're glad you're here. Please click "create a new query" if you are a new visitor to our website and need further information from us.
If you are already a member of our network and need to keep track of any developments regarding a question you have already submitted, click "take me to my Query."