Re‐defining the virtual reality dental simulator: Demonstrating concurrent validity of clinically relevant assessment and feedback. (28th August 2020)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Dixon, Jonathan; Towers, Ashley; Martin, Nicolas; Field, James
• Is Part Of: European journal of dental education. Volume 25:Number 1(2021)
• Page Start: 108
• Page End: 116
• Publication Date: 2020-08-28
• Subjects: assessment -- dental education -- dental students -- feedback -- pre‐clinical skills -- virtual reality; Dentistry -- Study and teaching -- Europe -- Periodicals; Dentistry -- Study and teaching -- Periodicals; 617.60071
• DOI: 10.1111/eje.12581
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1396-5883

Abstract

Abstract: Introduction: Virtual reality (VR) dental simulators are gaining momentum as a useful tool to educate dental students. To date, no VR dental simulator exercise has been designed which is capable of reliably providing validated, meaningful clinical feedback to dental students. This study aims to measure the concurrent validity of the assessment and the provision of qualitative feedback, pertaining to cavity preparations by VR dental simulators. Methods: A cavity preparation exercise was created on a VR dental simulator, and assessment criteria for cavity preparations were developed. The exercise was performed 10 times in order to demonstrate a range of performances, and for each, the simulator feedback was recorded. The exercises were subsequently three‐dimensionally printed, and 12 clinical teachers were asked to assess the preparations according to the same criteria. Inter‐rater reliability (IRR) between clinical teachers was measured using a free‐marginal multirater kappa value. Clinical teacher assessment responses were compared with the VR simulator responses and percentage agreements calculated. Results: IRR values for each exercise ranged from 0.39 to 0.77 (69.39%‐88.48%). The assessment of smoothness (κfree 0.58, 78.79%) and ability to follow the outline (κfree 0.56, 77.88%) demonstrated highest agreement between clinical teachers, whilst the assessment of undercut (κfree 0.15, 57.58%) and depth (κfree 0.28, 64.09%) had the lowest agreement. The modal percentage agreement between clinical teachers and the VR simulator was, on average, 78% across all exercises. Conclusion: The results of this study demonstrate that it is possible to provide reliable and clinically relevant qualitative feedback via a VR dental simulator. Further research should look to employ this technique across a broader range of exercises that help to develop other complex operative dental skills.