Exam evaluation in prosthodontics across preclinical and clinical years from students' perspective: a cross-sectional study

Introduction The purpose of this study was to explore the students' perceptions and performance in prosthodontics theory exam. Methods A cross-sectional descriptive study was conducted on 560 (80.82%) students of different levels (third, fourth and fifth years) to explore their opinions and performance with regard to a number of issues on a prosthodontics theory exam (exam evaluation, exam preparation, exam material, exam timing). Demographic data were also collected. Descriptive statistics were generated and Chi-square test, independent sample t-test, ANOVA test and Pearson's correlation coefficient were used to examine the associations between different variables. The significance level was set at p < .05. Results Students' responses regarding exam evaluation was influenced by their gender, study level, high-school Grade Point Average (GPA) and undergraduate cumulative GPA. Perceived exam difficulty was significantly affected by gender (p = .03) and study level (p < .001), and negatively correlated to both high-school GPA (p < .001) and university GPA (p = .03). The vast majority (88.2%) depended on lecture hand-outs and lecture notes for study. Exam material and preparation were not significantly affected by any of the demographic variables with most respondents (76.8%) thinking that the lectures blended with prosthodontics laboratories/clinics would improve their understanding of the exam material. The suggested best time to conduct the exam was early afternoon (31.6%). Student performance was significantly affected by the study level (p < .001) and cumulative GPA (p < .001) with significant positive correlation between the high-school GPA and the mark in the exam (r = .29, p < .001) and by the amount of time students spent for exam preparation (p < .001). Those students who reported using textbooks to prepare for the exam got significantly higher marks (66.1 ± 8.7) compared to the students who did not (62.8 ± 9.7) (p = .03). Conclusions Course level, GPA and gender were identified as the most influential factors in different aspects of exam evaluation and students' performance. Regular study and use of textbooks were demonstrated to improve academic performance. Additional orientation and guidance relating to the exam (especially for third year students) would be welcomed, as would alternate teaching methods such as small group discussions or study groups