THE AIM THE STUDY
The choice of situational tasks to assess the knowledge of orthodontists about the management of patients with combined jaw deformities.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
An expert assessment of 13 situational tasks was carried out in relation to three categories: validity — compliance with real cases in clinical practice, clarity — a complete and adequate description of the case; complexity — the difficulty of solving the problem. The assessment by category was performed on a rating six-point scale based on a calculated integral coefficient (IC) equal to the sum of the ratings by category.
RESULTS
The values of the Integral coefficient of the first round of estimates differ significantly, p≤0.001. The Duncan test identifies 9 homogeneous subsets. The estimates of tasks No. 10, 1, 9, 4, 3, 11 simultaneously form 4 groups of subsets for which a second round of evaluation is made. The integral coefficient of the points of the second round of the expert assessment is significantly different, p≤0.001. The Duncan test identifies 2 homogeneous subsets. The experts rated task No. 3 significantly higher (M=10.9). The integral coefficient of the third round of assessments of tasks 3.12.13 is significantly different, p=0.023, «reasonableness» (p=0.815) and «clarity» (p= 0.082) do not differ, the “complexity” of task 13 is higher than that of task 3 (p=0.026), differences in the “complexity” of tasks 3 and 12 (p=0.209), 12 and 13 (p=0.383) no. In the first round, the reasonableness (3.23±1.34 points), complexity (3.15±1.26), clarity (3.04±1.15) of the tasks did not significantly differ (0.055≤p≤0.422). In the second round, the reasonableness (2.98±0.89) of the tasks is higher than their complexity (2.52±0.86) and clarity (2.54±0.74), (p=0.005 and p=0.003), but the complexity and clarity of the tasks are the same (t=0.18, p=0.860). Reasonableness (5.67±0.48), complexity (5.38±0.49) and clarity (5.62±0.49) do not differ in the third round (0.058≤p≤0.763).
CONCLUSION
The situational tasks selected in the study are distinguished by an integral coefficient of validity, complexity and clarity higher than other evaluated tasks, which allows for a multi-level assessment of the knowledge of orthodontists in the management of patients with combined dental anomalies. Expert assessment is acceptable for validating situational tasks when identifying assessment categories.
