Background: Metacognition plays a pivotal role in learning, particularly in dentistry, enabling individuals to effectively manage their cognitive processes and identify areas for improvement. Objective: To evaluate the degree of metacognition among dental professionals at various phases of their careers. Methods: A cross-sectional study was conducted, using a non-probability sampling technique in private dental hospitals of Lahore from April to June 2024. A total of 320 dental professionals consented to participate. Data collection involved a semi-structured questionnaire and the Metacognitive Assessment Inventory (MAI), comprising two overarching domains – knowledge about cognition and regulation of cognition, each with three and five subdomains, respectively. Data were analysed using SPSS version 25. Descriptive statistics were computed, and one-way ANOVA and post hoc analysis were used to evaluate group differences. A p-value of <0.05 was considered statistically significant. Results: Consultants demonstrated significantly higher total cognitive knowledge scores than house officers (16.4 versus 8.5, respectively). This trend extended across subdomains, including procedural, conditional, and declarative knowledge. Similarly, consultants outperformed other participants in cognitive regulation (32.9 versus 17.6, respectively), particularly in planning and evaluation. Subdomains such as information management, communication, and debugging strategies were significantly higher in consultants than in graduate dentists, house officers, and postgraduates. General dentists had the highest cognition score among all the others (p<0.05). Conclusion: The metacognition level of consultants and general dentists was highest among dental professionals. It underscores the importance of fostering self-learning among dental professionals, particularly through developing their metacognitive abilities.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Nayab et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: