Consistency and Objectivity in Assignment Evaluation in Dental Education: A Comparison of Different Assessment Methods

Objective This study examines differences in scores assigned to dental students' assignments when evaluated by two instructors and compares assessments conducted with a structured preclinical assessment form versus those without one. Materials and Methods In this study, two instructors independently evaluated 50 die model assignments prepared by third‐year dental students. Each instructor assessed the same assignment using two methods: With a structured preclinical assessment form and without one. The obtained scores were compared for consistency between instructors and within the same instructor across different evaluation methods. The data were analysed using a paired t ‐test and intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC). The level of statistical significance was set at p < 0.05. Results Significant differences were observed both between instructors and within one instructor when different assessment methods were applied. For the junior specialist, a statistically significant difference was found between evaluations conducted with and without the structured preclinical assessment form ( p < 0.001), with higher scores observed when the form was used. However, no statistically significant difference was found between the two assessment methods for the senior specialist. Furthermore, inter‐rater comparison revealed no statistically significant difference in scores when the unstructured method was used ( p = 0.053). In contrast, the use of the structured preclinical assessment form resulted in a statistically significant difference among evaluators ( p < 0.001). Inter‐rater reliability was moderate with the structured form (ICC = 0.51) and lower with the unstructured method (ICC = 0.41). Conclusion Although the use of a structured preclinical assessment form did not eliminate inconsistencies between instructors, it revealed discrepancies associated with different evaluation methods. These findings underscore the importance of calibration and structured implementation to improve consistency in dental education assessment.