J Adv Prosthodont.  2022 Aug;14(4):203-211. 10.4047/jap.2022.14.4.203.

Rating criteria to evaluate student performance in digital wax-up training using multi-purpose software

• Mino T
• Kurosaki Y
• Tokumoto K
• Higuchi T
• Nakanoda S
• Numoto K
• Tosa I
• Kimura-Ono A
• Maekawa K
• Kim TH
• Kuboki T

• KMID: 2532748
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.4047/jap.2022.14.4.203

Abstract

PURPOSE
. The aim of this study was to introduce rating criteria to evaluate student performance in a newly developed, digital wax-up preclinical program for computer-aided design (CAD) of full-coverage crowns and preliminarily investigate the reliability and internal consistency of the rating system.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
. This study, conducted in 2017, enrolled 47 fifth-year dental students of Okayama University Dental School. Digital wax-up training included a fundamental practice using computer graphics (CG), multipurpose CAD software programs, and an advanced practice to execute a digital waxup of the right mandibular second molar (#47). Each student’s digital wax-up work (stereolithography data) was evaluated by two instructors using seven qualitative criteria. The total qualitative score (0-90) of the criteria was calculated. The total volumetric discrepancy between each student’s digital wax-up work and a reference prepared by an instructor was automatically measured by the CAD software. The inter-rater reliability of each criterion was analyzed using a weighted kappa index. The relationship between the total volume discrepancy and the total qualitative score was analyzed using Spearman’s correlation.
RESULTS
. The weighted kappa values for the seven qualitative criteria ranged from 0.62 - 0.93. The total qualitative score and the total volumetric discrepancy were negatively correlated (ρ = -0.27, P = .09, respectively); however, this was not statistically significant.
CONCLUSION
. The established qualitative criteria to evaluate students’ work showed sufficiently high inter-rater reliability; however, the digitally measured volumetric discrepancy could not sufficiently predict the total qualitative score.

Keyword

Educational measurement; Training program; Prosthodontics; Rating criteria; Computer-aided design