1. Problem
Traditional score‐based evaluations in preclinical periodontal instrumentation at the University of Maryland School of Dentistry have shown consistent failure rates of 19% and considerable faculty time spent on remediation. While score‐based assessments aimed to rigorously measure technique fidelity, they may inadvertently induce negative educational outcomes, including elevated student anxiety, instructional inefficiency, and uncertain predictivity for future clinical performance. In response, faculty engaged in evidence‐based revisions to better align teaching and assessment practices with the clinical competency outcomes essential for quality patient care [1]. Grounded in Messick's framework of consequential construct validity, which asserts that assessment legitimacy hinges not only on psychometric rigor but also on its educational impact [2], this report evaluated whether a simplified pass/fail rubric can uphold clinical competency standards while enhancing instructional effectiveness.
2. Solution
To address persistent challenges with a traditional score‐based evaluation, faculty redesigned the assessment for the Class of 2026 in their second‐year preclinical periodontal instrumentation practical examination. A simplified pass/fail rubric (Table 1) was developed by eliminating all points assigned and all technical aspects from the previous score‐based rubric through consensus, focusing on critical performance criteria—identifying the correct instrument with the correct working end, which is consistent with literature discussing impact of pass/fail grading systems [3, 4, 5]. This binary (pass or fail) rubric aimed to streamline evaluations, reduce faculty workload, and foster a more supportive learning environment. No changes were made to the instructional content or flow (Figure 1). Data were collected over two academic years and analyzed using Chi‐square statistics (Table 2), comparing outcomes on the second‐year practical, second‐year objective structured clinical examination (OSCE), and the third‐year patient‐based instrumentation competency examination between the Class of 2025 (score‐based rubric) and Class of 2026 (pass/fail rubric).
TABLE 1.
Simplified Pass/Fail‐based rubric from score‐based Practical Examination Rubric.
| Gracey 11/12 (20 points) | |
Critical Failure
|
|
| |
| Gracey 13/14 (20 points) | |
Critical Failure
|
|
| |
| Universal Columbia 13/14 (20 points) | |
Critical Failure
|
|
| |
Note: The red font indicates the deletions from the previous score‐based rubric. The new rubric included only the black font.
FIGURE 1.
A chart of study flow.
TABLE 2.
Summary of student performances in each examination.
|
Class of 2025 (n = 127) |
Class of 2026 (n = 138) |
Total (N = 265) |
p value 1 | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Second Year practical examination | Assessment | Score‐based | Pass/fail based | 0.025 | |
| Pass | 112 (88.2%) | 132 (95.7%) | 244 (92.1%) | ||
| Fail | 15 (11.8%) | 6 (4.3%) | 21 (7.9%) | ||
| Second Year OSCE | Universal | 0.702 | |||
| Pass | 115 (90.6%) | 123 (89.1%) | 238 (89.9%) | ||
| Fail | 12 (9.4%) | 15 (10.9%) | 27 (10.2%) | ||
| Gracey 13/14 | 0.229 | ||||
| Pass | 109 (85.8%) | 125 (90.6%) | 234 (88.3%) | ||
| Fail | 18 (14.2%) | 13 (9.4%) | 31 (11.7%) | ||
| Gracey 11/12 | 0.905 | ||||
| Pass | 123 (96.9%) | 134 (97.1%) | 257 (97%) | ||
| Fail | 4 (3.1%) | 4 (2.9%) | 8 (3%) | ||
| Third Year | Instrumentation Competency Examination | 0.087 | |||
| Pass | 107 (84.3%) | 128 (92.8%) | 235 (88.7%) | ||
| Fail once | 17 (13.4%) | 9 (6.5%) | 26 (9.8%) | ||
| Fail twice | 3 (2.4%) | 1 (0.7%) | 4 (1.5%) | ||
Chi‐squared test.
3. Results
3.1. What Went Well
Formal faculty calibration sessions for the pass/fail‐based rubric were not conducted as there was little gray areas in the rubric; instead, brief reviews occurred before the practical examination. The Class of 2026 showed a significantly lower failure rate on the practical examination compared to the Class of 2025 (6 vs. 15 failures; p = 0.025). Feedback was primarily given for the failed students. Faculty remediation time decreased from 6 to 2 hours. No significant differences were observed in the subsequent second‐year OSCEs or third‐year clinical instrumentation examinations (p > 0.05) between the two classes, indicating that the revised rubric maintained clinical competency while reducing load for faculty and students.
3.2. Lessons Learned
These findings suggest that simplifying the rubric did not compromise clinical readiness. The simplified pass/fail approach may help reduce performance‐related student anxiety by avoiding the dissection of every procedural step, as existing literature reports that overly detailed assessments can elevate stress [3, 4]. The assessment using the simplified rubric reduced failure rates and remediation time, aligning with Messick's consequential validity [2] by minimizing adverse outcomes without sacrificing standards. The binary format offered clear decision points, reduced ambiguity since no gradations or subjective partial credits were present, and therefore, supported competency‐based education. While long‐term predictive validity is in progress, these early results indicate that the simplified rubric maintains essential competencies. Robust studies with larger cohorts and longitudinal designs are needed to comprehensively evaluate the long‐term educational effectiveness of this intervention.
Ethics Statement
This report was conducted under an approved protocol by the Institutional Review Board at the University of Maryland, Baltimore (HP‐00104016).
Conflicts of Interest
The authors declare no conflicts of interest.
Syme S., Mishler O., Barnes C., and Oh S.‐L., “Simplifying Preclinical Periodontal Instrumentation Assessment: A Pass/Fail Rubric Approach.” Journal of Dental Education 90, no. S1 (2026): S17–S20. 10.1002/jdd.70052
Funding: The authors received no specific funding for this work.
References
- 1. Oh S.‐L., Mishler O., Syme S., Jones D., and Saito H., “Impact of the Modified Curricula on Periodontal Instrumentation Skills Development During the COVID‐19 Pandemic From 2020 to 2023,” Journal of Dental Education 88, no. 11 (2024): 1503–1510, 10.1002/jdd.13632. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2. Messick S., “Validity of Psychological Assessment: Validation of Inferences From Persons' Responses and Performances as Scientific Inquiry Into Score Meaning,” American Psychologist 50, no. 9 (1995): 741–749, 10.1037/0003-066X.50.9.741. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 3. Ramaswamy V., Veremis B., and Nalliah R. P., “Making the Case for Pass‐Fail Grading in Dental Education,” European Journal of Dental Education 24, no. 3 (2020): 601–604, 10.1111/eje.12520. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4. Zubiaurre Bitzer L. A., Dathatri S., Fine J. B., and Swan Sein A., “Building a Student Learning‐Focused Assessment and Grading System in Dental School: One School's Experience,” Journal of Dental Education 87, no. 5 (2023): 614–624, 10.1002/jdd.13158. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5. Jham B. C., Cannella D., Adibi S., Austin K., Allareddy V., and Petrie C. S., “Should Pass/Fail Grading Be Used Instead of Traditional Letter Grades in Dental Education? Two Viewpoints,” Journal of Dental Education 82, no. 12 (2018): 1258–1264, 10.21815/JDE.018.131. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]