World Journal of Dentistry

Register      Login

VOLUME 11 , ISSUE 3 ( May-June, 2020 ) > List of Articles


Development of Psychomotor Skills in Dentistry Based on Motor Learning Principles: A Review

Sheeba Khan, Mohammed NK Inamdar, Swapna Munaga, Neha Khare, Mohd Umar Farooq

Keywords : Grade point average, Motor learning theories, Perceptual aptitude test, Preclinical exercises, Psychomotor skills

Citation Information : Khan S, Inamdar MN, Munaga S, Khare N, Farooq MU. Development of Psychomotor Skills in Dentistry Based on Motor Learning Principles: A Review. World J Dent 2020; 11 (3):247-251.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10015-1734

License: CC BY-NC 4.0

Published Online: 27-07-2020

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2020; The Author(s).


Aim: This review aims to recapitulate the available literature for skill development, instruction, and evaluation of the dental and dental hygiene preclinical students. Background: The attainment of psychomotor skills is a crucial competence in dental education. The dental profession demands high precision and skill that require the development of cognition, distinctive abilities, and motivation, which influence motor performance. Practical instructions and knowledge for dental instrumentation necessitate the association of knowledge of motor skills with excellent motor skills attainment. Dental trainees need small, unequivocal steps that outline production. Preceding any task, the skill needed for the task should be projected precisely by the learner. Appropriate and detailed feedback from the trainer to the trainee contributes to learning and evolving. Review results: This review reveals that learning of dexterity accretion should ingress both the aspects of psychomotor skills, that is the motor performance and motor learning, to obtain data that can be used to support skill learning. Conclusion: To gain a better understanding of the accretion of cognitive content in operative dentistry, and differences in dental performance, more research should focus on factors such as the learning environment, including the type and sequence of learning activities. There is a critical need for staff development for the laboratory tutors who develop positive learning environment and provide students with effective feedback. Clinical significance: This review highlights the importance of preclinical exercises in dentistry and how it enhances the psychomotor skills of students making them better clinicians in future. Reforms are needed in dentistry for improvement in learning atmosphere, proper arrangement of learning activities, and staff development for the laboratory tutors.

  1. Orlich DC, Harder RJ, Callahan RC, et al. Teaching Strategies: A Guide to Effective Instruction. Boston, Wadsworth (ed): Cengage Learning; 2009.
  2. The Royal Australian College of General Practitioners: Procedural Skills. In: The RACGP Curriculum for Australian General Practice 2011. Victoria, Australia: The Royal Australian College of General Practitioners. The Royal Australian College of General Practitioners, 2011.
  3. Afify AR, Zawawi KH, Othman HI, et al. Correlation of psychomotor skills and didactic performance among dental students in Saudi Arabia. Adv Med Educ Pract 2013;4:223–226. DOI: 10.2147/AMEP.S53319.
  4. Suksudaj N, Townsend GC, Kaidonis J, et al. Acquiring psychomotor skills in operative dentistry: do innate ability and motivation matter? Eur J Dent Educ 2012;16(1):e187–e194. DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-0579.2011.00696.x.
  5. De Andrés AG, Sánchez E, Hidalgo JJ, et al. Appraisal of psychomotor skills of dental students at university complutense of Madrid. Eur J Dent Educ 2004;8(1):24–30. DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-0579.2004.00296.x.
  6. Rose DJ, Christina RW. A multilevel approach to the study of motor control and learning. San Francisco: Pearson/Benjamin Cummings (ed): Pearson; 2006.
  7. Wierinck E, Puttemans V, Swinnen S, et al. Effect of augmented visual feedback from a virtual reality simulation system on manual dexterity training. Eur J Dent Educ 2005;9(1):10–16. DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-0579.2004.00351.x.
  8. Wierinck E, Puttemans V, Van Steenberghe D. Effect of tutorial input in addition to augmented feedback on manual dexterity training and its retention. Eur J Dent Educ 2006;10(1):24–31. DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-0579.2006.00392.x.
  9. Hegarty M, Keehner M, Khooshabeh P, et al. How spatial abilities enhance, and are enhanced by, dental education. Learn Individ Differen 2009;19(1):61–70. DOI: 10.1016/j.lindif.2008.04.006.
  10. Wong JA, Matsumoto ED. Primer: cognitive motor learning for teaching surgical skill—how are surgical skills taught and assessed? Nat Clin Pract Urol 2008;5(1):47–54. DOI: 10.1038/ncpuro0991.
  11. Bradley P, Bligh J. Clinical skills centers: where are we going? Med Educ 2005;39(7):649–650. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2929.2005.02189.x.
  12. Okuda Y, Bryson EO, DeMaria JrS, et al. The utility of simulation in medical education: what is the evidence? Mt Sinai J Med 2009;76(4):330–343. DOI: 10.1002/msj.20127.
  13. Quinn F, Keogh P, McDonald A, et al. A study comparing the effectiveness of conventional training and virtual reality simulation in the skills acquisition of junior dental students. Eur J Dent Educ 2003;7(4):164–169. DOI: 10.1034/j.1600-0579.2003.00309.x.
  14. Quinn F, Keogh P, McDonald A, et al. A pilot study comparing the effectiveness of conventional training and virtual reality simulation in the skills acquisition of junior dental students. Eur J Dent Educ 2003;7(1):13–19. DOI: 10.1034/j.1600-0579.2003.00264.x.
  15. Adams JA. A closed-loop theory of motor learning. Journal of motor behaviour 1971;3(2):111–150. DOI: 10.1080/00222895.1971.10734898.
  16. Schmidt RA. A schema theory of discrete motor skill learning. Psychol Rev 1975;82(4):225. DOI: 10.1037/h0076770.
  17. Schmidt RA, Lee T. Motor control and learning: A Behavioural emphasis. 4th ed., Champaign, Illinois: Human Kinetics; 2005.
  18. Tedesco LA. Issues in dental curriculum development and change. J Dent Educ 1995;59(1):97–147. DOI: 10.1002/j.0022-0337.1995.59.1.tb02922.x.
  19. Hamstra SJ. Predicting the technical competence of surgical residents. Clin Orthopaed Relat Res 2006;449:62–66. DOI: 10.1097/01.blo.0000224060.55237.c8.
  20. Heintze U, Radeborg K, Bengtsson H, et al. Assessment and evaluation of individual prerequisites for dental education. Eur J Dent Educ 2004;8(4):152–160. DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-0579.2004.00345.x.
  21. Cook DA, Beckman TJ. Current concepts in validity and reliability for psychometric instruments: theory and application. Am J Med 2006;119(2):166-e7. DOI: 10.1016/j.amjmed.2005.10.036.
  22. Gillet D, Quinton A, Jeannel A. Is there a link between writing ability, drawing aptitude and manual skills of dental students? Eur J Dent Educ 2002;6(2):69–73. DOI: 10.1034/j.1600-0579.2002.60205.x.
  23. Beckman TJ, Cook DA, Mandrekar JN. What is the validity evidence for assessments of clinical teaching? J Gen Intern Med 2005;20(12): 1159–1164. DOI: 10.1111/j.1525-1497.2005.0258.x.
  24. Haynes SN, Richard D, Kubany ES. Content validity in psychological assessment: a functional approach to concepts and methods. Psychol Assess 1995;7(3):238. DOI: 10.1037/1040-3590.7.3.238.
  25. Magill RA. Motor learning and control: concepts and applications 9th ed., New York: McGraw-Hill. McGraw-Hill Education; 2010.
  26. Ackerman PL, Cianciolo AT. Cognitive, perceptual-speed, and psychomotor determinants of individual differences during skill acquisition. J Exp Psychol Appl 2000;6(4):259. DOI: 10.1037//1076-898x.6.4.259.
  27. Fitts PM, Posner MI. Human Performance-Basic concepts in psychology series. Brooks/Cole Publishing Company, the University of Michigan; 1967.
  28. Ackerman PL. Determinants of individual differences during skill acquisition: cognitive abilities and information processing. J Experiment Psychol: Gen 1988;117(3):288–318. DOI: 10.1037/0096-3445.117.3.288.
  29. Keehner M, Lippa Y, Montello DR, et al. Learning a spatial skill for surgery: how the contributions of abilities change with practice. Appl Cogn Psychol 2006;20(4):487–503. DOI: 10.1002/acp.1198.
  30. Boyle AM, Santelli JC. Assessing psychomotor skills: the role of the crawford small parts dexterity test as a screening instrument. J Dent Educ 1986;50(3):176–179. DOI: 10.1002/j.0022-0337.1986.50.3.tb01981.x.
  31. Walcott AM, Knight GW, Charlick RE. Waxing tests as predictors of students’ performance in preclinical dentistry. J Dent Educ 1986;50(12):716–721. DOI: 10.1002/j.0022-0337.1986.50.12.tb02065.x.
  32. Gansky SA, Pritchard H, Kahl E, et al. Reliability and validity of a manual dexterity test to predict preclinical grades. J Dent Educ 2004;68(9):985–994. DOI: 10.1002/j.0022-0337.2004.68.9.tb03848.x.
  33. Kramer G. Predictive validity of the dental admission test. J Dent Educ 1986;50(9):526–531. DOI: 10.1002/j.0022-0337.1986.50.9.tb02035.x.
  34. Oudshoorn W. The utility of canadian DAT perceptual ability and carving dexterity scores as predictors of psychomotor performance in first-year operative dentistry. J Dent Educ 2003;67(11):1201–1208. DOI: 10.1002/j.0022-0337.2003.67.11.tb03711.x.
  35. Lundergan WP, Soderstrom EJ, Chambers DW. Tweezer dexterity aptitude of dental students. J Dent Educ 2007;71(8):1090–1097. DOI: 10.1002/j.0022-0337.2007.71.8.tb04375.x.
  36. Giuliani M, Lajolo C, Clemente L, et al. Is manual dexterity essential in the selection of dental students? Br Dent J 2007;203(3):149. DOI: 10.1038/bdj.2007.688.
  37. Wanzel KR, Hamstra SJ, Caminiti MF, et al. Visual-spatial ability correlates with efficiency of hand motion and successful surgical performance. Surgery 2003;134(5):750–757. DOI: 10.1016/s0039-6060(03)00248-4.
  38. Yarrow K, Brown P, Krakauer JW. Inside the brain of an elite athlete: the neural processes that support high achievement in sports. Nat Rev Neurosci 2009;10(8):585–596. DOI: 10.1038/nrn2672.
  39. Friedl R, Höppler H, Scholz W, et al. Multimedia driven teaching significantly improves students’ performance during heart operations when compared to a print medium: a prospective, randomised trial. Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2005;53(S01):116. DOI: 10.1055/s-2005-862059.
  40. Yeo G, Neal A. A multilevel analysis of effort, practice, and performance: effects of ability, conscientiousness, and goal orientation. J Appl Psychol 2004;89(2):231–247. DOI: 10.1037/0021-9010.89.2.231.
  41. Langan-Fox J, Armstrong K, Balvin N, et al. Process in skill acquisition: motivation, interruptions, memory, affective states, and metacognition. Aust Psychol 2002;37(2):104–117. DOI: 10.1080/00050060210001706746.
  42. Kanfer R, Ackerman PL. Motivation and cognitive abilities: an integrative/aptitude treatment interaction approach to skill acquisition. J Appl Psychol 1989;74(4):657–690. DOI: 10.1037/0021-9010.74.4.657.
  43. Grant H, Dweck CS. Clarifying achievement goals and their impact. J Pers Soc Psychol 2003;85(3):541. DOI: 10.1037/0022-3514.85.3.541.
  44. Yeo G, Neal A. Subjective cognitive effort: a model of states, traits, and time. J Appl Psychol 2008;93(3):617. DOI: 10.1037/0021-9010.93.3.617.
  45. Locke EA, Latham GP. Building a practically useful theory of goal setting and task motivation: a 35-year odyssey. Am Psychol 2002;57(9):705–717. DOI: 10.1037/0003-066X.57.9.705.
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.