[Validation of situational tasks to assess the competence of orthodontists (using the example of cases of combined jaw deformity)].

The aim the study: The choice of situational tasks to assess the knowledge of orthodontists about the management of patients with combined jaw deformities.

Materials and methods: An expert assessment of 13 situational tasks was carried out in relation to three categories: validity - compliance with real cases in clinical practice, clarity - a complete and adequate description of the case; complexity - the difficulty of solving the problem. The assessment by category was performed on a rating six-point scale based on a calculated integral coefficient (IC) equal to the sum of the ratings by category.

Results: The values of the Integral coefficient of the first round of estimates differ significantly, p≤0.001. The Duncan test identifies 9 homogeneous subsets. The estimates of tasks No. 10, 1, 9, 4, 3, 11 simultaneously form 4 groups of subsets for which a second round of evaluation is made. The integral coefficient of the points of the second round of the expert assessment is significantly different, p≤0.001. The Duncan test identifies 2 homogeneous subsets. The experts rated task No. 3 significantly higher (M=10.9). The integral coefficient of the third round of assessments of tasks 3.12.13 is significantly different, p=0.023, «reasonableness» (p=0.815) and «clarity» (p= 0.082) do not differ, the "complexity" of task 13 is higher than that of task 3 (p=0.026), differences in the "complexity" of tasks 3 and 12 (p=0.209), 12 and 13 (p=0.383) no. In the first round, the reasonableness (3.23±1.34 points), complexity (3.15±1.26), clarity (3.04±1.15) of the tasks did not significantly differ (0.055≤p≤0.422). In the second round, the reasonableness (2.98±0.89) of the tasks is higher than their complexity (2.52±0.86) and clarity (2.54±0.74), (p=0.005 and p=0.003), but the complexity and clarity of the tasks are the same (t=0.18, p=0.860). Reasonableness (5.67±0.48), complexity (5.38±0.49) and clarity (5.62±0.49) do not differ in the third round (0.058≤p≤0.763).

Conclusion: The situational tasks selected in the study are distinguished by an integral coefficient of validity, complexity and clarity higher than other evaluated tasks, which allows for a multi-level assessment of the knowledge of orthodontists in the management of patients with combined dental anomalies. Expert assessment is acceptable for validating situational tasks when identifying assessment categories.