IADR Abstract Archives
Complementary Assessment of Two Communication Domains among Undergraduate Dental Students
Objectives: Effective therapeutic communication creates good dentist-patient relationship thus, promoting positive health outcome and increases satisfaction. This study aimed to assess the dental students’ communication skill in the caring and sharing information domain from three complementary perspectives; self-assessment, patients’ feedback and clinical instructor evaluation.
Methods: A cross-sectional study on 176 students in three clinical years; Yr5 (n:52), Yr4 (n:55) and Yr3 (n:69) was conducted. The assessment tools used were Patient Communication Assessment Instrument (PCAI), Student Communication Assessment Instrument (SCAI) and Clinical Instructor Communication Assessment Instrument (CCAI). Domain 1 (D1) on being caring and respectful and Domain 2 (D2) on sharing information were assessed. Each question was rated for its satisfaction with 1= poor, 2=satisfactory, 3=good, 4=very good and 5=excellent. A total of 176 patient assessment (PCAI), matching 176 students’ self-assessment (SCAI) and 80 clinical instructor assessment (CCAI) were analyzed. The PCAI were randomly administered using random sampling technique. Five calibrated clinical instructor used the CCAI to assess the students.
Results: Mean scores in D1 for PCAI (4.145±0.61), SCAI (3.805±0.59), and CCAI (3.570±0.44) and mean scores in D2 for PCAI (4.059±0.65), SCAI (3.793±0.61), CCAI (3.483±0.55). In patients’ socio-demographic, 1-way ANOVA analysis reported no significant differences in gender, age, education and number of visits to dentist. In relation to students’ clinical years, no significant differences (p>0.05) in PCAI and SCAI. However, CCAI exhibited significant difference (p<0.05) in D1 between Yr4 (3.875±0.59) and Yr5 (3.429±0.36) and in D2 between Yr4 (3.800±0.47) and Yr5 (3.317±0.52). Repeated measured ANOVA showed significant effect between the 3 groups (p<0.05) for the associated probability value in both domains.
Conclusions: The use of PCAI, SCAI and CCAI together gives a better overall view of students’ performance in these two domains. The increasing mean scores pattern CCAI
Methods: A cross-sectional study on 176 students in three clinical years; Yr5 (n:52), Yr4 (n:55) and Yr3 (n:69) was conducted. The assessment tools used were Patient Communication Assessment Instrument (PCAI), Student Communication Assessment Instrument (SCAI) and Clinical Instructor Communication Assessment Instrument (CCAI). Domain 1 (D1) on being caring and respectful and Domain 2 (D2) on sharing information were assessed. Each question was rated for its satisfaction with 1= poor, 2=satisfactory, 3=good, 4=very good and 5=excellent. A total of 176 patient assessment (PCAI), matching 176 students’ self-assessment (SCAI) and 80 clinical instructor assessment (CCAI) were analyzed. The PCAI were randomly administered using random sampling technique. Five calibrated clinical instructor used the CCAI to assess the students.
Results: Mean scores in D1 for PCAI (4.145±0.61), SCAI (3.805±0.59), and CCAI (3.570±0.44) and mean scores in D2 for PCAI (4.059±0.65), SCAI (3.793±0.61), CCAI (3.483±0.55). In patients’ socio-demographic, 1-way ANOVA analysis reported no significant differences in gender, age, education and number of visits to dentist. In relation to students’ clinical years, no significant differences (p>0.05) in PCAI and SCAI. However, CCAI exhibited significant difference (p<0.05) in D1 between Yr4 (3.875±0.59) and Yr5 (3.429±0.36) and in D2 between Yr4 (3.800±0.47) and Yr5 (3.317±0.52). Repeated measured ANOVA showed significant effect between the 3 groups (p<0.05) for the associated probability value in both domains.
Conclusions: The use of PCAI, SCAI and CCAI together gives a better overall view of students’ performance in these two domains. The increasing mean scores pattern CCAI