|
| Author, date | Assessment training | Predictive value | Faculty calibration | Grading rubric | Risk of bias |
|
| Furness 2018 et al. [12] | N/A | Software was not successful in identifying consistently common critical errors. | N/A | Yes, a well-defined grading rubric with criteria. | High |
| Lee 2018 et al. [13] | Yes | Lower performing students benefitted the most in improving their ability to self-assess. | Yes | Yes, a well-defined grading rubric with criteria. | Unclear |
| Sadid-zadeh 2018 et al. [10] | Yes | Compare software can be used to evaluate complete coverage crown preparations as interrater agreement between virtual software and faculty was almost perfect. | Yes | Yes, a well-defined grading rubric with criteria. | Low |
| Sadid-zadeh 2018 [14] | Yes | Compare software can be as effective in providing immediate feedback as faculty feedback. | Yes | Yes, a well-defined grading rubric with criteria. | Low |
| Sadid-zadeh 2018 et al. [15] | Yes | Compare software can be as effective in providing immediate feedback as faculty feedback. | Yes | Yes, a well-defined grading rubric with criteria. | Low |
| Shahriari-Rad 2017 et al. [16] | Yes | Haptic virtual reality software in combination with traditional phantom head mannequin is very effective in developing and assessing psychomotor skills. | N/A | Yes, a well-defined grading rubric with criteria. | High |
| Lee 2017 et al. [17] | Not mentioned | Low performing students overestimated their self-assessment and vice versa. | Yes | Yes, a well-defined grading rubric with criteria. | Unclear |
| Sly 2017 et al. [18] | Yes | Compare software was not comprehensive in grading intracoronal preparations. | Yes | Yes, a well-defined grading rubric with criteria. | Unclear |
| Gottlieb 2017 et al. [19] | Yes | Advanced simulator exam scores can be used as performance predictors in preclinical operative and fixed prosthodontics. | Not mentioned | Yes, a well-defined grading rubric with criteria. | Unclear |
| De Peralta 2017 et al. [20] | Yes | Use of multisource assessment improved student’s ability to self-assess and interrater agreement with faculty. | Yes | Yes, a well-defined grading rubric with criteria. | High |
| Gratton 2017 et al. [21] | Yes | There was no significant difference between the use of compare software vs. prepcheck in students’ performance. | Yes | Yes, a well-defined grading rubric with criteria. | Low |
| Gratton 2016 et al. [22] | Yes | Use of evaluation software had no effect on student’s prosthodontics technical and self-evaluation abilities. | No | Yes, a well-defined grading rubric with criteria. | Low |
| Zou 2016 et al. [23] | Yes | Computerized cavity preparation evaluation system was a valuable tool for self-learning. | Yes | Yes, a well-defined grading rubric with criteria. | Unclear |
| Garrett 2015 et al. [24] | Yes | Conventional self-reflection and faculty guidance in conjunction with a digital evaluation tool can be used to teach students on how to perform self-assessments. | Yes | Yes, a well-defined grading rubric with criteria. | Low |
| McPherson 2015 et al. [25] | Yes | Software can be used for self-assessment and grading by faculty. | Yes | Yes, but not clear. | Unclear |
| Callan 2015 et al. [26] | N/A | Interchangeability of typodonts of the same make and model do not affect the accuracy of assessment. | Not mentioned | Yes, a well-defined grading rubric with criteria. | Unclear |
| Callan 2014 et al. [27] | N/A | “Small dots diagonal” on the gingiva was the best option. | No | Yes, but not clear. | Low |
| Velayo 2014 et al. [28] | N/A | Positive significant correlation between student’s preclinical and clinical performance. | Not mentioned | Yes, a well-defined grading rubric with criteria. | Unclear |
| Mays and Levine [29] | Yes | Using CAD CAM did not improve student’s self-assessment ability and poor agreement with faculty assessment was observed. | Yes | Yes, a well-defined grading rubric with criteria. | High |
| Graham 2013 et al. [30] | N/A | Preclinical OSCE was a reliable predictor of clinical performance. | N/A | Yes, a well-defined grading rubric with criteria. | High |
| Renne 2013 et al. [31] | N/A | E4D compare software was a reliable assessment tool. | Yes | Yes, a well-defined grading rubric with criteria. | Unclear |
| Nunez 2012 et al. [32] | N/A | Preclinical performance on typodonts was a poor predictor of clinical performance on live patients. | Yes | Yes, a well-defined grading rubric with criteria. | High |
| Urbankova and Engebretson 2011 [33] | Yes | Computer-assisted dental simulation test can identify students needing early instructional intervention | Yes | Yes, but not clear. | Unclear |
| Boushell 2011 et al. [34] | No | Learn-A-Prep II can be a good tool to identify students that may need early instructional intervention. | Not mentioned | Yes, a well-defined grading rubric with criteria. | Unclear |
|
