(PO-105) Effects of Calibration Training on Faculty Grading of Calculus Removal

Author: Jane Cotter, Cotter, RDH, MS, CTTS, FAADH – Assistant Professor, TAMU College of Dentistry, Caruth School of Dental Hygiene
Author: Tracy King, BSDH, MS – Assistant Professor, Texas A&M College of Dentistry
Author: Mary Tolentino, BSDH, MS – Associate Professor, TAMU College of Dentistry, Caruth School of Dental Hygiene
Author: Leigh Ann Wyatt, BSDH, MA, MS – Associate Professor, Texas A&M College of Dentistry
Author: Matthew Kesterke, Ph.D. – Assistant Professor, Department of Orthodontics, Department of Biomedical Sciences, Texas A&M College of Dentistry
Author: Carmina Castro, MS – Educational Design, Texas A&M College of Dentistry
Submitter: Jane Cotter, Cotter, RDH, MS, CTTS, FAADH – Assistant Professor, TAMU College of Dentistry, Caruth School of Dental Hygiene

Objectives: Successful performance on the national and regional boards for licensure is the ultimate goal of all dental and dental hygiene programs. Student performance on these exams provides a tangible assessment of the educational program. Clinical mock board examinations are used in dental and dental hygiene curricula to assess students’ clinical proficiency, ability to self-assess, and aids in identifying students requiring clinical skill remediation. Clinical faculty calibration in board quality calculus detection and removal scoring is a potential influencing factor.

Methods: Standardization and calibration training sessions for dental hygiene faculty were evaluated for intra- and inter-rater reliability. Faculty were required to pass three assessments at 80% accuracy on maxillary and mandibular arches using calibration typodonts. Intra- and inter-rater calibration was assessed using live mock board patients and triplicate calculus detection forms. Faculty were assigned twelve randomly selected teeth and scored four surfaces on each tooth for presence or absence of calculus using an EXD 11/12 explorer. Faculty reliability and differences between faculty years teaching and years of clinical practice were evaluated using Cohen’s Kappa coefficients before and subsequent calibration training sessions. The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in faculty grading consistency after calibration training. Differences between groups were tested using a one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA, α=0.05). All statistics were calculated using SPSS v26.0.

Results: Intra-rater reliability was consistent before and after faculty calibration (IRR > 0.80), with no significant differences between calibration and subsequent reliability (p=0.401). Comparisons between calibration sessions demonstrated no significant differences in faculty performance between the three calibration protocols: no calibration (p=0.13), one calibration session (p=0.06), and three calibration sessions (p=0.99).

Conclusion: While not significant faculty calibration did demonstrate a moderate improvement after each training session. Clinical faculty training assists in maintaining calibration and onboarding of new clinical faculty.