Background <p>Traditional assessment in undergraduate oral and maxillofacial surgery (OMFS) internships mostly relies on single-skill examinations, focusing only on technical proficiency while ignoring communication ability, clinical reasoning and medical documentation. This study aimed to develop and pilot-validate a comprehensive competency-based assessment system for undergraduate OMFS outpatient internships.</p> Methods <p>This mixed-methods development and pilot validation study identified six core clinical competency domains through literature review and semi-structured interviews with five senior OMFS faculty members. A multi-dimensional assessment framework was established, including theoretical examination, integrated clinical operation evaluation, phased skill assessment aligned with national licensing standards, patient-related indicators and daily performance evaluation. Forty-six students in the development cohort (2024–2025) adopted the new system; 48 students in the reference cohort (2023–2024) received traditional assessment. Each student was independently evaluated by three faculty members from an eleven-person rater panel. Inter-rater reliability was calculated using the intraclass correlation coefficient. Questionnaire feedback and adverse event data were compared between groups.</p> Results <p>Six core competency domains were finalized. Student ratings of the comprehensiveness of the two assessment systems were not significantly different (8.14 vs. 6.52, <i>P</i> = 0.086). Faculty ratings showed a significant difference in comprehensiveness (9.64 vs. 6.28, <i>P</i> = 0.043). The overall inter-rater reliability was good (ICC = 0.78, 95% CI: 0.65–0.87). Based on participant feedback, the weight of theoretical examination and patient satisfaction was reduced, and more objective indicators were added. No significant between-group differences were found in adverse event incidence.</p> Trial registration <p>Not applicable.</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

A competency-based assessment system for undergraduate oral and maxillofacial surgery internship: development and pilot validation

  • Yan-yan Zhang,
  • Shuang Yang,
  • Wen-bo Zhang,
  • Na An,
  • Nian-hui Cui

摘要

Background

Traditional assessment in undergraduate oral and maxillofacial surgery (OMFS) internships mostly relies on single-skill examinations, focusing only on technical proficiency while ignoring communication ability, clinical reasoning and medical documentation. This study aimed to develop and pilot-validate a comprehensive competency-based assessment system for undergraduate OMFS outpatient internships.

Methods

This mixed-methods development and pilot validation study identified six core clinical competency domains through literature review and semi-structured interviews with five senior OMFS faculty members. A multi-dimensional assessment framework was established, including theoretical examination, integrated clinical operation evaluation, phased skill assessment aligned with national licensing standards, patient-related indicators and daily performance evaluation. Forty-six students in the development cohort (2024–2025) adopted the new system; 48 students in the reference cohort (2023–2024) received traditional assessment. Each student was independently evaluated by three faculty members from an eleven-person rater panel. Inter-rater reliability was calculated using the intraclass correlation coefficient. Questionnaire feedback and adverse event data were compared between groups.

Results

Six core competency domains were finalized. Student ratings of the comprehensiveness of the two assessment systems were not significantly different (8.14 vs. 6.52, P = 0.086). Faculty ratings showed a significant difference in comprehensiveness (9.64 vs. 6.28, P = 0.043). The overall inter-rater reliability was good (ICC = 0.78, 95% CI: 0.65–0.87). Based on participant feedback, the weight of theoretical examination and patient satisfaction was reduced, and more objective indicators were added. No significant between-group differences were found in adverse event incidence.

Trial registration

Not applicable.