Articles
DOI DOI: 10.67942/ijcer.2026.13.3.1106

Beyond Performance in Higher Education: A Longitudinal Study of Confidence–Performance Alignment in Undergraduate Dental Education

Dusan Surdilovic1, Sabrin Ali Azim2, Fadia Awadalkreem1, B.S.M.S. Siriwardena1
  1. 1 RAK Medical and Health Sciences University, RAK College of Dental Sciences, Ras Al Khaimah, United Arab Emirates
  2. 2 Al Ain University, College of Dentistry, Al Ain, United Arab Emirates

Abstract

Confidence is often treated as an indicator of readiness in clinical education, although it may not develop in parallel with assessed performance. This non-randomized longitudinal cohort evaluation followed 90 senior dental students in peer-assisted learning (PAL; n = 45) and faculty-led (n = 45) cohorts across three course-embedded assessment points. Confidence was measured with an eight-item course-specific 1–5 rating and assessed performance with structured pediatric dentistry tasks scored 0–6 using a prespecified rubric. Both measures were rescaled to their theoretical 0–100 ranges. Signed and absolute alignment gaps were analyzed with participant-clustered generalized estimating equations (GEE) and robust standard errors; a 10,000-sample participant-cluster bootstrap and a post hoc baseline-adjusted GEE were used as sensitivity analyses. Baseline confidence and performance differed little between cohorts, whereas the signed-gap standardized mean difference was larger because within-cohort variability was limited. From T1 to T3, the PAL cohort showed larger observed increases in confidence (+7.9 percentage points relative to faculty-led; 95% CI [5.4, 10.4]) and assessed performance (+6.8; 95% CI [4.9, 8.7]). Between-cohort differences in change were not statistically significant for the signed gap (+1.2; 95% CI [−1.0, 3.4], p = .28) or absolute gap (+2.21; 95% CI [−0.43, 4.85], p = .10). In the baseline-adjusted signed-gap sensitivity model, the PAL-minus-faculty difference was +11.59 points at T2 (95% CI [8.71, 14.47], p < .001) and +0.77 at T3 (95% CI [−1.70, 3.24], p = .54), preserving the interpretation of marked midpoint divergence but no detectable endpoint difference. These findings indicate that performance level, discrepancy direction, discrepancy magnitude, and longitudinal trajectory provide different educational information. Confidence and numerical gap scores should therefore be interpreted alongside repeated evidence of assessed performance rather than used as substitutes for achievement.

How to Cite

Surdilovic, D., Ali Azim, S., Awadalkreem, F., & Siriwardena, B. (2026). Beyond Performance in Higher Education: A Longitudinal Study of Confidence–Performance Alignment in Undergraduate Dental Education. International Journal of Contemporary Educational Research, 13(3), 192–202. https://doi.org/10.67942/ijcer.2026.13.3.1106
Endnote/Zotero/Mendeley (RIS) BibTeX

References

  1. Abdelaal, H. M., Surdilovic, D., Adtani, P., & Kukreja, B. J. (2023). Effectiveness of peer-assisted learning: Perception of dental students in an academic training institution in UAE. Journal of International Dental and Medical Research, 16, 1147–1152.
  2. Alghilan, M. A., Munaga, S., & Aldakhil, A. (2025). A comparison of dental students’ self-assessment and instructors’ assessment in competency examinations in a preclinical operative dentistry course. Advances in Medical Education and Practice, 16, 177–188. https://doi.org/10.2147/AMEP.S493719
  3. Boud, D., Lawson, R., & Thompson, D. G. (2013). Does student engagement in self-assessment calibrate their judgment over time? Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 38, 941–956. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2013.769198
  4. Boud, D., Lawson, R., & Thompson, D. G. (2015). The calibration of student judgment through self-assessment: Disruptive effects of assessment patterns. Higher Education Research & Development, 34, 45–59. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2014.934328
  5. Brierley, C., Ellis, L., & Reid, E. R. (2022). Peer-assisted learning in medical education: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Medical Education, 56, 365–373. https://doi.org/10.1111/medu.14672
  6. Cameron, D. A., Binnie, V. I., Sherriff, A., & Bissell, V. (2015). Peer assisted learning: Teaching dental skills and enhancing graduate attributes. British Dental Journal, 219, 267–272. https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.bdj.2015.722
  7. Cano Garcia, E., Jardi Ferre, A., Lluch Molins, L., & Martins Gironelli, L. (2024a). Improvement in the quality of feedback as an indication of the development of evaluative judgment. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 49, 824–837. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2024.2329170
  8. Cano Garcia, E., Halbaut Bellowa, L., Martins Gironelli, L., & Lluch Molins, L. (2024b). Online peer assessment in Galenic Pharmacy: Enhancing evaluative judgment in higher education. Medical Education Online, 29, 2409487. https://doi.org/10.1080/10872981.2024.2409487
  9. Che Mohd Zukri, N. D., Nik Ab Rahman, N. A. S., Zurin Adnan, M. A. M., & Abd Rahman, A. N. A. (2024). Peer-assisted learning approach in dental curriculum: The impact on students’ academic performances. Journal of Health and Translational Medicine, Special Issue 1, 1–10. https://doi.org/10.22452/jummec.sp2024no1.1
  10. Cleary, T. J., Konopasky, A., La Rochelle, J. S., Neubauer, B. E., Durning, S. J., & Artino, A. R. (2019). First-year medical students’ calibration bias and accuracy across clinical reasoning activities. Advances in Health Sciences Education, 24, 767–781. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10459-019-09897-2
  11. Davis, D. A., Mazmanian, P. E., Fordis, M., Van Harrison, R., Thorpe, K. E., & Perrier, L. (2006). Accuracy of physician self-assessment compared with observed measures of competence: A systematic review. JAMA, 296, 1094–1102. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.296.9.1094
  12. Eva, K. W., & Regehr, G. (2005). Self-assessment in the health professions: A reformulation and research agenda. Academic Medicine, 80, S46–S54. https://doi.org/10.1097/00001888-200510001-00015
  13. Feng, H., Luo, Z., Wu, Z., & Li, X. (2024). Effectiveness of peer-assisted learning in health professional education: A scoping review of systematic reviews. BMC Medical Education, 24, 1467. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-024-06434-7
  14. Gao, X., Noroozi, O., Gulikers, J., Biemans, H. J. A., & Banihashem, S. K. (2024). A systematic review of the key components of online peer feedback practices in higher education. Educational Research Review, 42, 100588. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2023.100588
  15. Kolovelonis, A. (2023). Exploring university students’ justifications for making metacognitive judgments of learning. Trends in Higher Education, 2, 421–433. https://doi.org/10.3390/higheredu2030025
  16. Prokop, T. R. (2020). Calibration and academic performance in students of health sciences. Health Professions Education, 6, 564–573. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hpe.2020.08.003
  17. Schuwirth, L. W. T., & van der Vleuten, C. P. M. (2011). Programmatic assessment: From assessment of learning to assessment for learning. Medical Teacher, 33, 478–485. https://doi.org/10.3109/0142159X.2011.565828
  18. Sitzmann, T., Ely, K., Brown, K. G., & Bauer, K. N. (2010). Self-assessment of knowledge: A cognitive learning or affective measure? Academy of Management Learning & Education, 9, 169–191. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMLE.2010.51428542
  19. Tai, J., Ajjawi, R., Boud, D., Dawson, P., & Panadero, E. (2018). Developing evaluative judgment: Enabling students to make decisions about the quality of work. Higher Education, 76, 467–481. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-017-0220-3
  20. Ten Cate, O., & Durning, S. (2007). Peer teaching in medical education: Twelve reasons to move from theory to practice. Medical Teacher, 29, 591–599. https://doi.org/10.1080/01421590701606799
  21. van der Vleuten, C. P. M., Schuwirth, L. W. T., Driessen, E. W., Govaerts, M. J. B., & Heeneman, S. (2015). Twelve tips for programmatic assessment. Medical Teacher, 37, 641–646. https://doi.org/10.3109/0142159X.2014.973388
  22. von Elm, E., Altman, D. G., Egger, M., Pocock, S. J., Gøtzsche, P. C., & Vandenbroucke, J. P. (2007). The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement: Guidelines for reporting observational studies. The Lancet, 370, 1453–1457. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(07)61602-X
  23. Weidlich, J., Jivet, I., Woitt, S., Orhan Goksun, D., Kraus, J., & Drachsler, H. (2025). The student feedback literacy instrument (SFLI): Multilingual validation and introduction of a short-form version. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 50, 677–693. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2025.2451729
  24. Zhang, H., Liao, A. W. X., Goh, S. H., Wu, X. V., & Yoong, S. Q. (2022). Effectiveness of peer teaching in health professions education: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Nurse Education Today, 118, 105499. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nedt.2022.105499