Introduction: Dental students’ performance is assessed on the basis of general and global assessment scales and according to their interaction with colleagues and dental patients, most often in clinical settings. This form of assessment requires a clear set of per¬formance indicators or rubrics that are judged to be important relative to the competency or competencies being evaluated. Students are rated on each indica¬tor.
Aim: The aim was to make an effective form of assessment for evaluating students on their competencies related to critical thinking, communication and interpersonal skills as well as professionalism, although the method is not confined to these competencies only.
Data collection and methodology: 32 students of Dental medicine from the eight semester in the academic 2013/2014 year participated in this study. The students were evaluated by a questionnaire with regard to three clinical subjects (Oral surgery 1, Clinical endodontics 1 and Orthodontics 2). They were asked to answer five questions as presented in Table 1. Students were assessed on a scale ranging from 1 to 5, with 1 indicating that the competency of interest has not been successfully achieved and 5 indicating that most or all aspects of the competency have been achieved successfully.
Conclusion:
1. This assessment form is ideal for evaluating specific areas of performance, and it represents a method for evaluating competencies related to the clinically relevant competencies. As with global ratings, however, it is susceptible to subjectivity on the part of evaluators.
2. The difference between global rating and structured observations lies in the situation to which the student is exposed. With structured observation, the student is exposed to a situation that is designed to elicit specific knowledge or behavior. It is used extensively for assessing psychomotor skills and performance of clinical procedures
