Faculty Calibration and Standardization Practices in Predoctoral Prosthodontics at US Dental Schools: A Multi‐Institutional Survey

ABSTRACT Objectives The benefits of calibration and faculty development in dental education are well documented, albeit inconsistent in their definition between institutions. The aim of this study was to establish a baseline of the faculty standardization and calibration practices used in predoctoral prosthodontic and restorative instruction at US dental schools, including the methods used, their frequency, how they are monitored, how extramural site faculty are included, and how respondents perceive their effectiveness. Methods A web‐based cross‐sectional descriptive survey was distributed to a single identified prosthodontic or restorative contact at each US predoctoral dental education program accredited by the Commission on Dental Accreditation (CODA); representatives of 27 institutions responded. The survey included questions related to respondent role and departmental faculty composition, methods of calibration and standardization, extramural sites, and respondent perception of the effectiveness of these programs. Descriptive statistical analyses were conducted. Results About 73% of respondents indicated that their institutions have a formal process to standardize faculty teaching methods to ensure all students receive consistent information. In addition, 69% of respondents reported their institution has a formal process to calibrate faculty in assessing student knowledge and skills. Techniques and methods for both of these vary widely. Perceptions were presented only to the 18 respondents whose institutions had a formal calibration process. Among these, 58.8% reported a means of assessing program effectiveness, and all who answered ( n = 17) agreed that these practices improve the overall quality of education and student outcomes, with 88.2% indicating strong agreement. Conclusions Most responding dental schools reported having formal processes for ensuring consistency in teaching and assessment, and respondents generally expressed confidence in their programs’ ability to promote uniform instruction. However, substantial variability exists in how these processes are implemented, monitored, and reinforced with institutions facing key challenges in the full realization of these practices. The data suggests that enhanced institutional support, protected faculty time, enhanced training resources, and inclusion of external rotation facilities can improve program outcomes.