A page from the OpenDepot.org service

Jump to the start of the main contents

Ahmad, N. A. and Naimie, Z. and Lui, J. L. and Aziz, A. A. and Abdullah, M. and Kasim, N. H. Abu and Kassim, N. L. Abu and Toh, C. G. and Thong, Y. L. and Razak, A. A. A. and Abdullah, H. and Aziz, Z. A. C. Ab and Sulaiman, E. and Gonzalez, M. A. G. and Bindal, P. (2012) Clinical Pairing Revisited: A Study at the University of Malaya, Malaysia. Journal of Dental Education, 76 (10). pp. 1377-1383. ISSN 0022-0337

[img] PDF
Download (27Kb)


    This study is part of ongoing educational research conducted by the Department of Conservative Dentistry, University of Malaya, Malaysia, to evaluate the perception of clinical pairing. A thirteen-question survey was distributed to 148 dental students after they had experienced four-handed dentistry. The objectives were to identify the advantages, disadvantages, and the acceptance of the implementation of clinical pairing from the students' point of view. The responses from the open-ended questions were categorized into six main themes (areas of interest): quality-related (Q), patient-related (PT), partner-related (P), lecturer-related (T), infection control (IC), and learning environment (L). Data analysis was done using SPSS version 18. Results indicated that the students perceived they possessed enough knowledge regarding clinical pairing. However, it was found that they still preferred to work independently as compared to working in pairs. The benefits of clinical pairing may not be viewed in the same vein by both dental students and teachers. The quality-related theme was perceived by students as the main advantage of clinical pairing, whilst the partner-related theme was perceived otherwise. The study also revealed that students may have some preconceived notions about pairing that may have impaired their acceptance. As a consequence, some reluctance was seen in their responses.

    Item Type: Article
    Additional Information: ISI Document Delivery No.: 017DG Times Cited: 0 Cited Reference Count: 10 Cited References: Brooks CM, 2003, J ED BUSINESS, V78, P268 Chapnick LA, 1999, J ENDODONT, V25, P686, DOI 10.1016/S0099-2399(99)80356-2 Finkbeiner BL, 2006, DENT EQUIPMENT MAT, P18 Holmes DC, 2009, J DENT EDUC, V73, P1083 Jehn KA, 2001, ACAD MANAGE J, V44, P238, DOI 10.2307/3069453 Kogut B, 1997, INT BUSINESS EMERGIN, P470 MAIER MH, 1994, ECON INQ, V32, P358 Qualtrough AJE, 2001, BRIT DENT J, V190, P614, DOI 10.1038/sj.bdj.4801054a Rudland JR, 2005, MED EDUC, V39, P448, DOI 10.1111/j.1365-2929.2005.02108.x Siciliano JI, 2001, J MANAGEMENT ED, V25, P8, DOI 10.1177/105256290102500103 Ahmad, Norasmatul A. Naimie, Zahra Lui, Joo L. Aziz, Azwatee A. Abdullah, Mariam Abu Kasim, Noor H. Abu Kassim, Noor L. Toh, Chooi G. Thong, Yo L. Razak, Abdul A. Abdul Abdullah, Hadijah Ab Aziz, Zeti A. Che' Sulaiman, Eshamsul Gonzalez, Maria Angela G. Bindal, Priyadarshni Rg 100/09htm This study was supported by a research grant (RG 100/09HTM). Amer dental education assoc Washington
    Uncontrolled Keywords: dental education academic environment dental school clinics dental students prosthodontics Malaysia
    Subjects: Medicine and Dentistry > Clinical Dentistry
    Divisions: UNSPECIFIED
    Depositing User: Ms Nursyafiqah Abd Malek
    Date Deposited: 20 Nov 2012 03:42
    Last Modified: 20 Nov 2012 03:42
    URI: http://opendepot.org/id/eprint/1526

    Actions (login required)

    View Item