METHODS: We followed the guidelines suggested by Whetten for constructing a theoretical model for framework development. There were four phases in the model development. In the first phase, different literature review methods were used, and additional students' perspectives were collected through focus group discussions. Then, using the data, we constructed the theoretical model in the second phase. In the third phase, we validated the newly developed model and its related guidelines. Finally, we performed response process validation of the model with a group of medical teachers.

RESULTS: The developed systematic assessment resilience framework (SAR) promotes four constructs: self-control, management, engagement, and growth, through five phases of assessment: assessment experience, assessment direction, assessment preparation, examiner focus, and student reflection. Each phase contains a number of practical guidelines to promote resilience. We rigorously triangulated each approach with its theoretical foundations and evaluated it on the basis of its content and process. The model showed high levels of content and face validity.

METHODS: This cross-sectional study evaluated the psychometric properties of Jefferson Scale of Empathy-Healthcare Provider Student (JSE-HPS) and empathic behaviour of dietetics students.

RESULTS: Undergraduate dietetics students from one private and two public universities in Malaysia participated (n = 455). Item and scale psychometric properties were examined using principal component analysis and differences in mean empathy scores for students were assessed across years of study and types of universities. A 3-factor solution emerged in the results, accounting for 26.76%, 10.75% and 6.3% of the variance. The JSE-HPS demonstrated good internal consistency (α = 0.83). Despite students enroled at public universities scoring higher mean empathy scores than students enroled at the private university, the difference was not significant. The only significant difference was between the empathy level of first and third year students (p = 0.033).

MATERIALS AND METHODS: Dental students (n = 122) in their clinical years, year 3 (n = 37), year 4 (n = 44), and year 5 (n = 41) received training (two-hour introductory lecture on ICDAS, followed by a 90 min e-learning video, and practice sessions using extracted teeth and photographs) from a calibrated expert. After training, the students examined a prevalidated set of extracted teeth and assigned scores in two sessions. The intra- and inter-examiner agreement between students was analyzed using weighted kappa statistics and a focus group discussion was conducted for qualitative feedback.

RESULTS: The range of kappa values for intra-examiner agreement among the year 3, 4, and 5 students for ICDAS caries code (0.611-0.879, 0.633-0.848, and 0.645-1.000) and restoration code (0.615-0.942, 0.612-0.923, 0.653-1.000), respectively. The range of kappa values for inter-examiner agreement for year 3, 4, and 5 students with a trained expert for ICDAS caries code (0.526-0.713, 0.467-0.810, and 0.525-0.842) and restoration code (0.531-0.816, 0.682-0.842, and 0.645-0.928), respectively.

CONCLUSION: The ICDAS system is a promising tool for caries detection and its implementation in the curriculum was perceived by dental students as an effective method. In general, there was moderate to substantial agreement for ICDAS caries and restoration code between students of different academic year groups and with a trained ICDAS expert.