Are we really as good as we think we are?

A W, Evans; B, Aghabeigi; R, Leeson; C, O'Sullivan; J, Eliahoo

Found an issue? Give us feedback

Annals of The Royal ...arrow_drop_down

Annals of The Royal College of Surgeons of England

Article . 2002

Data sources: Europe PubMed Central

Are we really as good as we think we are?

descriptionPublicationkeyboard_double_arrow_right Article 19 Apr 2002 English Journal:Annals of the Royal College of Surgeons of England, volume 84 (issn: 0035-8843,

Copyright policy )

Authors: A W, Evans; B, Aghabeigi; R, Leeson; C, O'Sullivan; J, Eliahoo;

pmid: 11890627

pmc: PMC2503746

Are we really as good as we think we are?

- Summary
- Subjects
- Metrics

Abstract

Differences are examined in assessment and self-assessment scores, in oral and maxillofacial surgery trainees and MSc postgraduates, following the surgical removal of lower third molar teeth. This study found evidence of a surprising and worrying over-rating of their own surgical skills by many trainees and postgraduates.

Related Organizations

University College London
United Kingdom

Keywords

Analysis of Variance, Humans, Molar, Third, Clinical Competence, Surgery, Oral, United Kingdom

Impact byBIP!

	selected citations These citations are derived from selected sources. This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).	17
	popularity This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network.	Average
	influence This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).	Top 10%
	impulse This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network.	Top 10%