Inter-rater reliability of global and analytic assessment of prosthodontic procedures.

BACKGROUND

There have been few comparisons of global and analytic evaluations of fixed prosthodontic procedures. Given the growing number of dental students and the time-consuming nature of assessment, there is a need for a simple but reliable method of evaluation. This study therefore evaluated and compared inter-rater reliability of assessment of preclinical prosthodontic procedures using global and analytic methods and the impact of academic rank on evaluation outcomes.

METHODS

Two professors and three assistant professors evaluated five different prosthodontic procedures performed by dental students using two evaluation methods (analytic evaluation using a rubric and global "glare and grade"). Inter-examiner reliability was assessed using interclass correlation coefficients.

RESULTS

Interclass correlations ranged from moderate to excellent for both analytic and global evaluations. There were no significant differences in interclass correlations between the analytic and global methods. There were no significant differences in grading between professors and assistant professors for either approach.

CONCLUSIONS

With proper faculty calibration, global evaluation is equivalent to using a analytic method of evaluation and is not affected by academic rank. Overall, the evaluation method appears to have less of an impact on reliability than the need to calibrate faculty members at the beginning of the academic year.