Abstract：
OBJECTIVE: A lack of contemporary dental literature exists on evaluating dental residents in postgraduate education, with no standardized criteria or information on technology adoption. This study aims to understand current evaluation methods in dental residency programs and compare them to existing literature.
METHODS: A survey with 22 questions was sent to program directors of 749 ADA/CODA (American Dental Association/Commission on Dental Accreditation)-accredited postgraduate dental residencies. The questions focused on evaluation frequency, faculty involvement, submission methods, and electronic software usage.
RESULTS: The survey response rate was 30.2% (226 responses). Results show that 98% of program directors are involved in evaluations, but require more support from auxiliary faculty. Evaluations are typically submitted twice or four times a year, with 12% of programs wanting increased frequency. Face-to-face delivery of feedback is considered crucial. While desktop computers are widely used for evaluation submission, 55% of programs utilize mobile devices, which correlates with higher program director satisfaction. The most popular evaluation software includes New Innovations, MEd Hub, and Qualtrics. Overall, 86.96% of program directors are satisfied with current evaluation practices. Areas needing improvement are non-program director faculty involvement, resident response/feedback, and software navigation.
CONCLUSIONS: This study found that a majority of program directors of the postgraduate dental education system are using electronic technology for their resident evaluation systems and are satisfied with their current mechanism of evaluation.
METHODS: A survey with 22 questions was sent to program directors of 749 ADA/CODA (American Dental Association/Commission on Dental Accreditation)-accredited postgraduate dental residencies. The questions focused on evaluation frequency, faculty involvement, submission methods, and electronic software usage.
RESULTS: The survey response rate was 30.2% (226 responses). Results show that 98% of program directors are involved in evaluations, but require more support from auxiliary faculty. Evaluations are typically submitted twice or four times a year, with 12% of programs wanting increased frequency. Face-to-face delivery of feedback is considered crucial. While desktop computers are widely used for evaluation submission, 55% of programs utilize mobile devices, which correlates with higher program director satisfaction. The most popular evaluation software includes New Innovations, MEd Hub, and Qualtrics. Overall, 86.96% of program directors are satisfied with current evaluation practices. Areas needing improvement are non-program director faculty involvement, resident response/feedback, and software navigation.
CONCLUSIONS: This study found that a majority of program directors of the postgraduate dental education system are using electronic technology for their resident evaluation systems and are satisfied with their current mechanism of evaluation.
摘要：
目标：缺乏当代牙科文献来评估研究生教育中的牙科住院医师，没有关于技术采用的标准化标准或信息。本研究旨在了解牙科住院医师计划中的当前评估方法，并将其与现有文献进行比较。
方法：向749名ADA/CODA（美国牙科协会/牙科认证委员会）认可的研究生牙科住院医师的项目主管发送了22个问题的调查。问题集中在评估频率上，教师参与，提交方法，和电子软件的使用。
结果：调查应答率为30.2%（226个应答）。结果显示，98%的项目主管参与了评估，但需要辅助教师的更多支持。评估通常每年提交两次或四次，12%的节目希望增加频率。面对面的反馈被认为是至关重要的。虽然台式计算机被广泛用于评估提交，55%的程序使用移动设备，这与更高的项目主管满意度相关。最受欢迎的评估软件包括NewInnovations，MEd集线器,和Qualtrics。总的来说,86.96%的项目主管对当前的评估做法感到满意。需要改进的领域是非项目主任教师的参与，居民回应/反馈，软件导航。
结论：这项研究发现，大多数研究生牙科教育系统的项目主管正在使用电子技术作为其驻地评估系统，并对他们目前的评估机制感到满意。
方法：向749名ADA/CODA（美国牙科协会/牙科认证委员会）认可的研究生牙科住院医师的项目主管发送了22个问题的调查。问题集中在评估频率上，教师参与，提交方法，和电子软件的使用。
结果：调查应答率为30.2%（226个应答）。结果显示，98%的项目主管参与了评估，但需要辅助教师的更多支持。评估通常每年提交两次或四次，12%的节目希望增加频率。面对面的反馈被认为是至关重要的。虽然台式计算机被广泛用于评估提交，55%的程序使用移动设备，这与更高的项目主管满意度相关。最受欢迎的评估软件包括NewInnovations，MEd集线器,和Qualtrics。总的来说,86.96%的项目主管对当前的评估做法感到满意。需要改进的领域是非项目主任教师的参与，居民回应/反馈，软件导航。
结论：这项研究发现，大多数研究生牙科教育系统的项目主管正在使用电子技术作为其驻地评估系统，并对他们目前的评估机制感到满意。
