Fairness as an Ethical Imperative in Dental Assessment: German Students' Perspectives on Oral Examinations and Structured Assessment Formats.
6 affiliations
- 1Department of Periodontology and Operative Dentistry, University Medical Center, Johannes Gutenberg University, Augustusplatz 2, 55131 Mainz, Germany.
- 2Department of Conservative Dentistry, Faculty of Medicine, University Hospital Heidelberg, Heidelberg University, Im Neuenheimer Feld 400, 69120 Heidelberg, Germany.
- 3Synoptic Dentistry, Medical Faculty, Saarland University, Kirrbergerstr. 100, Bldg. 73, 66421 Homburg/Saar, Germany.
- 4Federal Association of Dental Students in Germany (bdzm), Chausseestraße 14, 10115 Berlin, Germany.
- 5Institut für Kommunikations- und Prüfungsforschung gGmbH (Institute for Communication and Assessment Research), 69123 Heidelberg, Germany.
- 6Department of Prosthetic Dentistry, Center for Dental Medicine, Medical Center-University of Freiburg, Faculty of Medicine, University of Freiburg, Hugstetterstr. 55, 79106 Freiburg, Germany.
Abstract
Background/Objectives: Oral examinations can assess clinical reasoning and professional judgement, but examiner-dependent variation and unclear expectations may compromise reliability, procedural fairness, and accountability. This study investigated German dental students' perceptions of oral examinations and identified learner-informed priorities for fair, transparent, and ethically responsible assessment. Methods: This national cross-sectional mixed-methods study used a participatory approach to questionnaire development. The main online survey was distributed to undergraduate dental students through national student networks. Three supplementary questions were administered separately to participants at the 2026 National Conference of German Dental Student Representatives. Quantitative data were analysed descriptively. Free-text responses were examined using qualitative content analysis conducted collaboratively by two researchers. Results: The main survey included 368 students from 26 dental schools, representing 84% of German dental schools; the separate conference-based dataset comprised 168 participants. Students strongly endorsed clearly defined competencies required to pass (mean 4.74 ± 0.81), transparent assessment criteria (4.64 ± 0.87), and structured questions to promote consistent and fair assessment (4.42 ± 0.99). Conference participants perceived a substantial influence of examiners on grades (4.25 ± 0.81). The qualitative findings contextualised the quantitative results across four areas: fairness and examiner influence; transparency of expectations and criteria; structure and consistency; and psychological safety, feedback, and preparation. Conclusions: Students viewed fairness, transparency, and accountability as integral to assessment quality. Structured oral examinations may support more equitable assessment while preserving opportunities to evaluate clinical reasoning and professional judgement. Because qualitative coding was conducted collaboratively rather than independently, no formal inter-rater reliability coefficient was calculated, limiting the reproducibility of the qualitative findings.
Related
- Ensuring quality in research, 'Authorship Effect' & Conflict of Interest. Response submitted to BMJ Mental Health in response to 'Clinician perspectives on the utility and acceptability of OxSATS: a qualitative study of a novel structured suicide risk assessment tool
- Association of Structured Preclinical Phantom Training and OSCE/OSPE-Based Assessment with Endodontic Procedural Complications Among Dental Students: A Retrospective Cohort Study
- Improving Post‐Fall Assessment Documentation in Older Inpatients Using a Structured Falls Proforma: A Retrospective Cohort Study
- Feasibility of a structured digital patient-reported assessment pathway in older adults with acute leukaemia in Spain: protocol for a prospective single-centre, single-arm pilot study
- Evaluating Open-Weight Large Language Models for Structured Depression Assessment from Clinical Interviews
BibTeX
@article{morlock2026fairness,
title = {{Fairness as an Ethical Imperative in Dental Assessment: German Students' Perspectives on Oral Examinations and Structured Assessment Formats.}},
author = {Lisa Morlock and Sarah Rampf and Stefan Rupf and Leonhard Kowalczyk and Konstantin Schrader and Jana Jünger and Anna-Lena Hillebrecht},
journal = {Dentistry journal},
year = {2026},
month = oct,
doi = {10.3390/dj14100644},
url = {https://europepmc.org/article/MED/42930410},
note = {CC BY},
}
RIS
TY - JOUR
TI - Fairness as an Ethical Imperative in Dental Assessment: German Students' Perspectives on Oral Examinations and Structured Assessment Formats.
AU - Lisa Morlock
AU - Sarah Rampf
AU - Stefan Rupf
AU - Leonhard Kowalczyk
AU - Konstantin Schrader
AU - Jana Jünger
AU - Anna-Lena Hillebrecht
PY - 2026
DA - 2026/10/05
JO - Dentistry journal
DO - 10.3390/dj14100644
UR - https://europepmc.org/article/MED/42930410
AB - Background/Objectives: Oral examinations can assess clinical reasoning and professional judgement, but examiner-dependent variation and unclear expectations may compromise reliability, procedural fairness, and accountability. This study investigated German dental students' perceptions of oral examinations and identified learner-informed priorities for fair, transparent, and ethically responsible assessment. Methods: This national cross-sectional mixed-methods study used a participatory approach to questionnaire development. The main online survey was distributed to undergraduate dental students through national student networks. Three supplementary questions were administered separately to participants at the 2026 National Conference of German Dental Student Representatives. Quantitative data were analysed descriptively. Free-text responses were examined using qualitative content analysis conducted collaboratively by two researchers. Results: The main survey included 368 students from 26 dental schools, representing 84% of German dental schools; the separate conference-based dataset comprised 168 participants. Students strongly endorsed clearly defined competencies required to pass (mean 4.74 ± 0.81), transparent assessment criteria (4.64 ± 0.87), and structured questions to promote consistent and fair assessment (4.42 ± 0.99). Conference participants perceived a substantial influence of examiners on grades (4.25 ± 0.81). The qualitative findings contextualised the quantitative results across four areas: fairness and examiner influence; transparency of expectations and criteria; structure and consistency; and psychological safety, feedback, and preparation. Conclusions: Students viewed fairness, transparency, and accountability as integral to assessment quality. Structured oral examinations may support more equitable assessment while preserving opportunities to evaluate clinical reasoning and professional judgement. Because qualitative coding was conducted collaboratively rather than independently, no formal inter-rater reliability coefficient was calculated, limiting the reproducibility of the qualitative findings.
SN - 2304-6767
ER -