PubMed Health⌕ Search
Home/Archive/PubMed

PubMed · 10889664

A tripartite approach to assessing practice.

T Long·J Asbury
View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Assessment of clinical practice is at least as important as assessment of theory. To date the assessment of clinical competence at differing levels has been neglected. When assessing clinical practice it is vital to utilise multiple sources of evidence. A tripartite relationship of practitioner or student, supervising practitioner, and lecturer is a versatile arrangement for evaluating evidence of achievement.

Explore related subjects

CertificationClinical CompetenceData CollectionEducation, Nursing, BaccalaureateEmployee Performance AppraisalEvidence-Based MedicineHumansPediatric NursingJournal ArticleReview

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

T Long, J Asbury. 2000. A tripartite approach to assessing practice.. https://doi.org/10.1177/136749350000400106

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

PubMed2007

Assessing the American Board of Orthodontics objective grading system: digital vs plaster dental casts.

INTRODUCTION: The purposes of this study were to determine whether the American Board of Orthodontics objective grading system (ABO OGS) can be assessed accurately from digital dental casts and whether there are statistical differences between digital and plaster dental casts in scoring the ABO OGS. METHODS: Thirty posttreatment plaster dental casts were selected and scanned by OrthoCAD (Cadent, Carlstadt, NJ) to produce 30 corresponding digital dental casts. The plaster and digital casts were compared by using the criteria of the ABO OGS. Because the data were ordinal, a nonparametic statistical analysis was used. RESULTS: The Wilcoxon test for paired samples showed significant differences between the plaster and digital casts for occlusal contacts, occlusal relationships, and total scores (P <.05). No significant differences were found for alignment, marginal ridges, overjet, and interproximal contacts. Buccolingual inclination was not included in this study because of inability to perform proper measurements with the OrthoCAD program. Mean differences of points deducted ranged from .03 point for marginal ridges to 5.07 points for the total score. The variable with the most points deducted related to occlusal relationships, and the fewest points were deducted for interproximal contacts. CONCLUSIONS: Based on this study, the current OrthoCAD program (version 2.2) was not adequate for scoring all parameters as required by the ABO OGS.

Certification↗