Related Experiment Video
Updated: Mar 20, 2026

A Standardized Approach to Extra-Oral and Intra-Oral Digital Photography
Published on: July 22, 2022
Development and Implementation of an Electronic Clinical Formative Assessment: Dental Faculty and Student
Michele L Kirkup1, Brooke N Adams2, Melinda L Meadows2
1Dr. Kirkup is Clinical Assistant Professor, Department of Restorative Dentistry, Indiana University School of Dentistry; Dr. Adams is Clinical Assistant Professor, Department of Restorative Dentistry, Indiana University School of Dentistry; Prof. Meadows is Clinical Associate Professor, Department of Pediatric Dentistry, Indiana University School of Dentistry; and Dr. Jackson is Associate Professor, Department of Preventive and Community Dentistry, Indiana University School of Dentistry. mkirkup@iu.edu.
Abstract:
A traditional summative grading structure, used at Indiana University School of Dentistry (IUSD) for more than 30 years, was identified by faculty as outdated for assessing students' clinical performance. In an effort to change the status quo, a feedback-driven assessment was implemented in 2012 to provide a constructive assessment tool acceptable to both faculty and students. Building on the successful non-graded clinical evaluation employed at Baylor College of Dentistry, IUSD implemented a streamlined electronic formative feedback model (FFM) to assess students' daily clinical performance. An important addition to this evaluation tool was the inclusion of routine student self-assessment opportunities. The aim of this study was to determine faculty and student response to the new assessment instrument. Following training sessions, anonymous satisfaction surveys were examined for the three user groups: clinical faculty (60% response rate), third-year (D3) students (72% response rate), and fourth-year (D4) students (57% response rate). In the results, 70% of the responding faculty members preferred the FFM over the summative model; however, 61.8% of the D4 respondents preferred the summative model, reporting insufficient assessment time and low faculty participation. The two groups of students had different responses to the self-assessment component: 70.2% of the D4 respondents appreciated clinical self-assessment compared to 46% of the D3 respondents. Overall, while some components of the FFM assessment were well received, a phased approach to implementation may have facilitated a transition more acceptable to both faculty and students. Improvements are being made in an attempt to increase overall satisfaction.
More Related Videos
Related Concept Videos
Assessment of the Mouth
Mouth Inspection
The inspection begins with visually examining the mouth for symmetry, color, and size.
Nursing Process for Patient and Caregiver Teaching III: Evaluation and Documentation
Nurses can use several methods to evaluate patient outcomes. For example, oral questions can assess cognitive learning,...
Nursing Implementation
The five steps to implementing effective nursing care include reassessing the patient, reviewing and revising the existing nursing care plan, organizing the resources and care delivery, anticipating and preventing complications, and implementing nursing interventions.
Nursing Process for Patient and Caregiver Teaching I: Assessment and Diagnosis
It is critical to determine the patient's learning needs during the assessment. Determination of learning needs compounds data...
Assessment of apical radial pulse
The A-R pulse assessment involves simultaneous evaluation of the apical and radial pulses. When the apical and radial pulse rates vary, this assessment helps identify a pulse deficit.
Pre-Procedural Preparation
Nursing Evaluation

