Claims

Faculty calibration with instructional rubrics yields high inter-rater reliability, rising after repeated calibration

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · review r3 · q2
Currency · newest study 2026 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims

Reading the evidence codes

q is the design tier, i the impact, n the sample, and the kind with its r the rigour judged within that kind: what each code means.

This claim: no standardized effect is recorded in observations/ for it yet, so no benchmark reading is possible.

q2 i? Instructional rubrics augmented with faculty calibration yielded intra-class correlation coefficients of 0.75, rising to 0.97 after repeated calibration on periodontal practical exams. → Gadbail Amol Ramchandra 2026

Evidence

Gadbail Amol Ramchandra 2026

Gadbail Amol Ramchandra, Gondivkar Shailesh M., Yuwanati Monal B., Sonone Archana, Dhamande Mithilesh, Panchbhai Aarati, Hande Alka H., Patil Swati, Sarode Sachin C. (2026). Rubric use in dental education: a systematic review of design, implementation, and educational impact. BMC Medical Education. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-026-09218-3

q2 · i? · review · r3

The review reports, citing its reference 11, that instructional rubrics with faculty calibration yielded "intra-class correlation coefficients (ICC) of 0.75, rising to 0.97 after repeated calibration"; the underlying study's design is described only as the review reports it.

"instructional rubrics augmented with faculty calibration yielded intra-class correlation coefficients (ICC) of 0.75, rising to 0.97 after repeated calibration demonstrating excellent grading consistency on periodontal practical exams"

Discussion

Page metadata
Field Value
status review
generated by process:wiki-ingest on 2026-10-31
trust unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content

Frontmatter is the page's machine-readable record — see the Schema & Guide.