Scholarlink

Background <p>This systematic review seeks to explore the implementation and impact of rubrics in dental education, both for clinical and theoretical courses at undergraduate and postgraduate levels, and from both student and teacher perspectives.</p> Methods <p>Systematic searches in PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science were conducted up to April 2025, following PRISMA 2020 guidelines. Studies were included if they involved undergraduate or postgraduate dental students and reported either the application of a rubric system regarding assessment, teaching or feedback. Study design, rubric type, context of assessment, validity/reliability, perceptions and educational outcomes were extracted.</p> Results <p>Twenty-three studies that have been published between 2013 and 2025 have been included in the review. Most were undergraduate program studies and used an analytic rubric approach (20/23). Rubrics were used in formative (<i>n</i> = 9), summative (<i>n</i> = 8), or both formative and summative settings (<i>n</i> = 6). Evidence indicates that rubrics did help enhance grading consistency and inter-rater reliability, faculty/learner calibration, and student self-regulation. Teachers and students generally viewed rubrics positively and reported that rubrics created clearer expectations and more useful feedback. Challenges reported were time-consuming development, unreliable validation, insufficient standardization, and overestimation by students in self-assessment.</p> Conclusion <p>Rubrics enhance objectivity, the quality of feedback, and transparency in dental education. The evidence is of moderate certainty, primarily due to the predominance of single-institution study designs. While this represents strength in terms of local adaptability, the limited cross-institutional validation restricts generalizability. Future research should focus on refining institution-specific rubrics through structured calibration training and rigorous psychometric evaluation, alongside complementary multi-institutional studies to strengthen external validity.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Rubric use in dental education: a systematic review of design, implementation, and educational impact

  • 期刊论文

  • 出版模式：

    开放获取

  • 发表日期：

    2026年5月13日

查看全文
  • Amol Ramchandra Gadbail,
  • Shailesh M. Gondivkar,
  • Monal B. Yuwanati,
  • Archana Sonone,
  • Mithilesh Dhamande,
  • Aarati Panchbhai,
  • Alka H. Hande,
  • Swati Patil,
  • Sachin C. Sarode

摘要

Background

This systematic review seeks to explore the implementation and impact of rubrics in dental education, both for clinical and theoretical courses at undergraduate and postgraduate levels, and from both student and teacher perspectives.

Methods

Systematic searches in PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science were conducted up to April 2025, following PRISMA 2020 guidelines. Studies were included if they involved undergraduate or postgraduate dental students and reported either the application of a rubric system regarding assessment, teaching or feedback. Study design, rubric type, context of assessment, validity/reliability, perceptions and educational outcomes were extracted.

Results

Twenty-three studies that have been published between 2013 and 2025 have been included in the review. Most were undergraduate program studies and used an analytic rubric approach (20/23). Rubrics were used in formative (n = 9), summative (n = 8), or both formative and summative settings (n = 6). Evidence indicates that rubrics did help enhance grading consistency and inter-rater reliability, faculty/learner calibration, and student self-regulation. Teachers and students generally viewed rubrics positively and reported that rubrics created clearer expectations and more useful feedback. Challenges reported were time-consuming development, unreliable validation, insufficient standardization, and overestimation by students in self-assessment.

Conclusion

Rubrics enhance objectivity, the quality of feedback, and transparency in dental education. The evidence is of moderate certainty, primarily due to the predominance of single-institution study designs. While this represents strength in terms of local adaptability, the limited cross-institutional validation restricts generalizability. Future research should focus on refining institution-specific rubrics through structured calibration training and rigorous psychometric evaluation, alongside complementary multi-institutional studies to strengthen external validity.