title: Does performance on school-administered mock boards predict performance on a dental licensure exam?
abstract: Many dental schools consider the successful completion of a state or regional dental licensure examination as one of the significant benchmarks for assessing effectiveness of the curriculum. At the University of Florida College of Dentistry (UFCD), performance on the state dental licensure examination is monitored and compared with senior year mock board performance and clinical productivity to identify factors that may contribute to state board "pass" rates. A retrospective analysis was conducted of "first-time" performance on the Florida Dental Licensure Exam for graduates from classes 1996 to 2003. Using ANOVA, licensure exam performance data was analyzed and compared with performance on the senior mock board exam and clinical productivity, determined by numbers of procedures completed in each discipline. Significant relationships were noted between four of thirteen aspects of mock board performance and clinical productivity data and performance on the Florida Dental Licensure Exam. First, a significant relationship (p<0.05) was found between passing the senior mock board fixed prosthodontic preparation and successful completion of that procedure on the state licensure exam. Second, a significant relationship (p<0.05) was noted between the clinical (patient-based) Class II amalgam on the senior mock board and passing that procedure on the state licensure exam. Third, a significant relationship was noted (p<0.05) between the number of Class IV clinical composite procedures completed during dental school and passing the licensure exam Class IV manikin composite procedure. Fourth, there was a significant relationship (p<0.01) between the number of clinical Class II amalgam procedures completed during the junior and senior years and passing the state licensure exam clinical amalgam procedure. No significance was found between the remaining five mock board procedures (Class II composites, Class IV composites, pin amalgams, endodontic, and periodontal scaling/root planing) and performance on the like procedures on the licensure exam. Likewise, no significance was found between the remaining four productivity measures (numbers of Class II composites, endodontic teeth treated, crowns and abutments completed, and quadrants of periodontal scaling/root planing) and performance of these procedures on the state licensure exam.
authors.affiliation: Division of Oral Diagnostic Sciences, Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery and Diagnostic Sciences, University of Florida College of Dentistry, Gainesville, FL 32610-0414, USA. cstewart@dental.ufl.edu
authors.forename: Carol M
authors.initials: CM
authors.lastname: Stewart
authors.forename: Robert E
authors.initials: RE
authors.lastname: Bates
authors.forename: Gregory E
authors.initials: GE
authors.lastname: Smith
mesh_terms: D002568:Certification / Q000706:statistics & numerical data*; D002983:Clinical Competence / Q000706:statistics & numerical data*; D004497:Education, Dental / Q000706:statistics & numerical data*; D004521:Educational Measurement / Q000379:methods*; D005431:Florida; D006801:Humans; D008005:Licensure, Dental / Q000706:statistics & numerical data*; D011237:Predictive Value of Tests; D015397:Program Evaluation; D013044:Specialty Boards; D013335:Students, Dental / Q000706:statistics & numerical data; D013663:Teaching / Q000379:methods