PREDICTING BOARD PERFORMANCE

VIA GRADES IN PROFESSIONAL DENTISTRY SUBJECTS

Angelina T. Tajud1*, Faith R. Banez2, Cris Anne M. David3, Art Kevin J. de Leon4, Adelyn E.
Jandoc5, Wonseok Lee6, Maria Cecilia S. Muer-Samiano7, Ramoncito R. Valdezco8

Journal Requirement in Methods of Research,

Graduate School Program, CEU Manila
1

School of Dentistry, CEU Manila, Mendiola, Manila

Dental Unit, Auxillary Services, Philippine Amusement and Gaming Corporation,
Manila
3
Dentistry Department, CEU Malolos, Malolos City, Bulacan
4
Dentistry Department, Our Lady of Fatima University, Marulas, Valenzuela City,
PAED, IAO, PPTC
5
Dental Dispensary, 1301st GHQ Dental Dispensary Camp General Emilio Aguinaldo,
Quezon City
6
Student, Graduate School Program, CEU Manila, Mendiola, Manila
7
Smile Unlimited, Academy of Laser Dentistry, American Dental Association, PAFJOTMJ INC, PSO INC
8
Clinical Dentistry Department, Our Lady of Fatima University, Marulas, Valenzuela
City, Philippines
2

* Author for correspondence: email: attajud@ceu.edu.ph

Abstract:
This study aimed to determine the predictive value of the students performance in the
professional dentistry subjects particularly Dental Materials, Prosthodontics 1 (fixed partial
prosthodontics), Prosthodontics 2 (removable partial prosthodontics), and Prosthodontics 3
(removable complete prosthodontics) in relation to the result of the theoretical
Prosthodontics set in the Dentistry Licensure Examination. Predictive validity is a
measurement of how well a test predicts future performance. . In order for a test to have
predictive validity, there must be a statistically significant correlation between test scores
and the criterion being used to measure the validity. Retrospective is the research method
used. It allows the investigator to formulate ideas about possible associations and
investigate potential relationships. Purposive sampling is used since we picked respondents
with available grades in 4 professional dentistry subjects as well as their board rating in
prosthodontics theoretical set. The mean and standard deviation were the statistical
presentation used. The simple linear correlation analysis was used to determine the degree
of linear relationship between professional dentistry subjects and theoretical board exam
1

results in the same subjects. The board exam performance is consistently lower than the
performance in the 4 professional dentistry subjects. All the four subjects were predictors
of board exam performance and the most consistent predictor was prosthodontics 2, with
up to 63% predicting power. Therefore, teaching methods should be reorganized and
planned very well to improve the results in the board exam as well as instructions in the 3
professional subjects found to be non-predictor should be intensified.
Keywords: licensure, undergraduate, denture, written examination, prosthesis
Introduction:
It is the dream of every individual to be successful in the future right after graduation.
Nowadays, there is nothing more valuable in education than having students or graduates
who are equipped with all the necessary knowledge and skills in their area of specialization
and develop them into full-fledged professionals. These knowledge and skills can only be
acquired through quality education. However, in dentistry, graduation is just a halfway step
to success, the completion of professional achievement lies in the results of the dentist
licensure examination.
Doctor of Dental Medicine is a four year course but with a pre-requisite of a 2-year
preparatory dentistry course or a graduate of any Bachelor of Science course. It is
composed of 2 years pre-clinical and 2 years clinical course with the supervision of
competent faculty members and with the used of the modern dental facilities and
equipment.
The Dentist Licensure Board Examination is being held twice a year; every May and
December. It comprises of two major parts: a. the first part, the theoretical board
examination is held for 3 days and comprises of 9 sets of 100 items questions. The second
part, the practical board examination is held for two days after the release of the result of
the theoretical part. Those who passed the theoretical board exam will only proceed to
practical board exam. The practical board examination tests how well the examinees can
perform different dental procedures on patients such as tooth restoration, jacket crown
preparation, and removable dentures (partial and complete).
All these are basically the requirements to assess the performance of the students and
prepare them in their chosen profession. These can be a predicting factor to determine well
their performance in the practical board examination.
The scholastic achievement of the students in dental materials and prosthodontics subjects
are believed to be the forecast of performance in the particular set in theoretical board
examination which covers both subjects. Therefore, in summary this study is hinged on the
concept that the academic performance of a student is usually represented by his grades
which can be predicting factor in determining the validity of theoretical board examination
results. The main purpose of this study was to establish a basis of the relationship of the
2

students academic
examination.

achievement

and their

performance

in the

theoretical

board

Materials and Methods:

Collection of Data:
This study was conducted at Centro Escolar University. The researchers selected
respondents with paired grades, namely, with available grades in the board exam (whether
pass or fail) and with grades in the four undergraduate subjects; Dental Materials,
Prosthodontics 1, Prosthodontics 2 and Prosthodontics 3. The sample size was 89 in 2013,
96 in 2014 and 135 in 2015 which gives a total of 320 in three consecutive years.
The samples used in this study were this The research instrument used in this study were
the academic performance in dental materials and prosthodontics in the professional
dentistry subjects coming from CEU Students Records Management Department (SRMD)
along with the actual board exam rating in prosthodontics and dental materials. The board
ratings in the December board exam in the years 2013, 2014 1nd 2015 were obtained from
the Records Section of the Professional Regulatory Commission (PRC). A letter was
addressed to the Registrar of CEU. Actual data gathering was done afterwards. Likewise,
another letter was forwarded to the PRC records section to get the actual board exam
results.
Statistical Treatment
The simple linear correlation analysis was used to determine the degree of linear
relationship between professional dentistry subjects and theoretical board exam results in
the same subjects. This was determined by the Pearson product moment coefficient
designated by the letter r.
Results:
The table below (Table 1) shows the mean and standard deviation of graduates in Dental
Materials, Prosthodontics 1, Prosthodontics 2,
and Prosthodontics 3. The board
performance can be gleaned on the lower part of the table.

CURR.
YEAR
Average
grade in
professional
courses
Board
performance

2012-2013

2013-2014

2014-2015

OVERALL
From 20122013

2.45 +.35

2.49+.34

2.38+.25

2.43+.31

2.74 +.47

2.86+.49

3.02+.50

2.89+.50

Table
1.
Academic
Achievements
and
Board
Performance
Performance
of the
3

graduates in the prosthodontics and dental materials set of exam

licensure examination

in the dentistry

The graduates had highest board exam performance in the curriculum year 2012-2013,
(mean=2.74), followed by those under the curriculum year 2013-2014 (mean=2.86) and the
least was in curriculum year 2014-2015 (mean=3.02). The performance exhibits a
downward trend from 2012 to 2015.
The following graphs show the trends of grades and subjects in three curriculum years,
superimposed with each other.

Looking at the standard deviation, that of the grades in professional courses is .31 whereas
in the board exam, the standard deviation was .50. This is an indication that the grades in
the board exam are more heterogenous while the grades in the professional courses are
homogenous based on the standard deviation.
Relationship between students' grades in the professional dentistry courses and their
performance in the theoretical prosthodontics part of the dentistry licensure
examination
In the curriculum year 2012-2013, Dental Materials and prostho 1 was found to have low
correlation with the board exam performance (r= .386 and .336 respectively). However,
prostho 2 and 3 had substantial correlation with the board performance as reflected in the
r values .484 and .503 respectively.
In the curriculum year 2013-2014, all the subjects (except prostho 1) under study were
substantially correlated with the board exam performance (Dental materials r=.490,
prostho 2 r= .503, prostho 3, r=.432). On the other hand, Prostho 1 however had negligible
4

correlation with the board exam with r value of .197. This can be attributed to the fact that
prostho 1 is more geared towards being applied in the practical side rather in the
theoretical board exam.
Lastly, the curriculum year 2014-2015 yielded results that revealed that prostho 3 had
negligible correlation with the board exam(r=.136) whereas for the rest of the subjects,
there is substantial correlation between dental materials and prostho 2 against the board
exam performance with r values of .587 and .503 respectively. Prostho 1 had low
correlation with the board exam with r=.299.

Overall, in the span of the three curriculum years being studied, the grades in all the four
subjects being studied had correlation with the board exam performance. Dental materials
and prostho 2 had substantial correlation with r values of .430 and .464 respectively.
Whereas that of prostho 1 and prostho 3 had low correlation with r values of .219 and .311
respectively.
Board performance
2012-2013
Pearson
Correlation
DentalMaterials

VI
Sig. (2-tailed)
Pearson
Correlation

Prostho1

VI
Sig. (2-tailed)
Pearson
Correlation

Prostho2

VI
Sig. (2-tailed)

Prostho3

Pearson
Correlation
VI

.386**
Low
Correlation

2013-2014
.490**

2014-2015

Overall

.587**

.430**

Substantial Substantial
Correlation Correlation

Substantial
Correlation

.000

.000

.000

.000

.336**

.197

.299**

.219**

Negligible
Low
Correlation Correlation

Low
Correlation

Low
Correlation
.001

.055

.000

.000

.433**

.503**

.503**

.464**

Substantial Substantial
Correlation Correlation

Substantial
Correlation

Substantial
Correlation
.000

.000

.000

.000

.484**

.432**

.136

.311**

Substantial Negligible
Correlation Correlation

Low
Correlation

Substantial
Correlation

Sig. (2-tailed)
Pearson
Correlation
Average

VI
Sig. (2-tailed)

.000

.000

.116

.000

.503**

.538**

.579**

.486**

Substantial Substantial
Correlation Correlatio

Substantial
Correlation

Substantial
Correlation
.000

.000

.000

.000

Table 2. Relationship between the Performance in the Professional Subjects and the Board
Exam Performance
It is noteworthy to mention that on the average, the overall relationship of the four subjects
with the board exam is interpreted to be with substantial correlation as seen in the average
r values of:
2012-2013 (r=.503) 2013-2014 (r=.538) 2014-2015 ( r= .579). Furthermore on the general
average, there is a substantial correlation between the four subjects and the board exam
performance with r = .486.
Discussion
Validity is a means to determine how well a test actually measures what it intends to
measure. There are various types of validity, and one is the criterion-related validity. In this
criterion-related validity, the stronger the correlation between the assessment data and the
target behaviour, the higher the degree of predictive validity the assessment possesses.
Under this type of validity is the predictive validity which is used in this study.
Predictive validity assesses or tests a program to predict an outcome that it should
theoretically be able to predict. As the name implies, predictive validity addresses the
efficiency of a specific tool to predict future behaviour.
In the present study, the researchers aim to utilize predictive validity in determining the
performance of student-clinicians in the dental licensure examination through assessing
academic and clinical outcomes. Determining the academic and clinical performances of
aspiring dental clinicians and its correlation with board examination results can contribute
to improving the existing curricula for dental courses. A comprehensive assessment of
students scholastic performance plays an integral role in educational planning (da Silva,
et.al. 2010)
Significant correlations were discovered between dental school performance for 1996-2003
University of Florida College of Dentistry (UFCD) graduates and performance on the Florida
dental licensure examination. These significant relationships were noted between
performance in dental school, based on quartile ranking according to graduating GPA, and
6

overall performance on the Florida dental licensure exam, performance on the clinical Class
II amalgam procedure, performance on the combined clinical Class II amalgam and
periodontal procedures, and performance on the laboratory section, with and without the
written prosthodontic exam.
The study of Curtis and his colleagues cited that the reasons for low correlation between
student performance in preclinical laboratory performance and in clinical assessments that
the preclinical and clinical contexts differ substantially and factors that contribute to
success in each may also differ. He suggested that over-learning, or practicing o skill
beyond the point of initial correct performance, may be helpful to transfer skills from
preclinical to clinical contexts.
The question of why the preclinical examinations are not more predictive of future clinical
performance arises. The study addressed this question by suggesting that the preclinical
and clinical contexts differ. This concept is supported by fellow researcher Zakay and
Wooler, who found that training conducted under normal conditions improve decision
performance but did not improve performance under conditions of reduced time.
The study of Raqueno and Yabut, 2013, described the academic performance of the
graduates, as well as their performance in the board examination subtests. It determine the
degree of relationship of their academic performance to their ratings in the board
examination thus identify the predictors of the board examination results from among the
subject components and develop a model using the graduates academic achievements.
Based on the results obtained, it is noteworthy to mention that on the average, the overall
relationship of the four professional courses (dental materials, prosthodontic 1, 2, 3) with
the board exam is interpreted to be with substantial correlation. All the four subjects are
predictors of board exam performance.
Conclusion
Based on the results obtained, this study could serve as a baseline for all the subjects as
predictors of board exam performance. Furthermore it is prostho 2 that manifest as the
most prominent as a predictor given in the board performance. Moreover, future studies
involving teacher ability to impart the course should be carried out in order to provide a
well knowledgeable student. This could further help to determine the board exam
performance of graduates.
Acknowledgements
We thank the Professional Regulation Commission by giving us the Dentistry Board exam
results, Dean Pearly Lim, College of Dentistry, Centro Escolar University for her support
and Dr. Yabut for the statistical assistance.
7

References
1. Curtis, D. A., Lind, S. L., Brear, S. B., & Finzen, F. C. (2007). The Correlation of Student
Performance in Preclinical and Clinical Prosthodontic Assessments. Journal of Education,
365-372.
2. da Silva, E. T., Nunes, M. d., Queiroz, M. G., & Leles, C. R. (2010). Factors Influencing
Students Performance in a Brazilian Dental School. Braz Dent J, 80-86.
3. Raqueno, A. R., Yabut, E.V. (2013), Developmentbof a Mathematical Model in Predicting
the Board Examination Performance from a Higher Education Institution in Relation to
their Mathematics, Science and Professional Subjects Academic Achievement,International
Symposium on Mathematical Sciences and Computing Research
4. Stacey, D. G., & Whittaker, J. M. (2005). Predicting Academic Performance and Clinical
Competency for International Dental Students: Seeking the Most Efficient and Effective
Measures. Journal of Dental Education, 270-280.
5. Stewart, C. M., Bates, R. E., & Smith, G. E. (2005). Relationship Between Performance in
Dental School and Performance on a Dental Licensure Examination: An Eight-Year Study.
Journal of Dental Education, 864-869.
6. Tajud, A. T. (1994). The Student-Clinicians' Performance in Removable Partial Dental
Prosthetics Exercises: An Assessment. Manila: Centro Escolar University.
7. Trochim, W. M. (2005). Measurement Validity Types. Retrieved from Research Methods:
Knowledge Base: http://www.socialresearchmethods.net/kb/measval.php
8. Veloso, J. G. (1996). The Performance of Senior Dental Clinicians in Complete Denture
Prosthodontics: An Assessment. Manila: Centro Escolar University