Volume 81, Issue 3 pp. 262-270
Faculty Development

Faculty Development for Metro New York City Postdoctoral Dental Program Directors: Delphi Assessment and Program Response

Marcie S. Rubin DrPH, MPH, MPA

Corresponding Author

Marcie S. Rubin DrPH, MPH, MPA

Assistant Clinical Professor of Behavioral Sciences in Dental Medicine

College of Dental Medicine, Columbia University Medical Center

Direct correspondence to Dr. Marcie S. Rubin, Section of Population Oral Health, College of Dental Medicine, Columbia University, 622 West 168th Street, PH 7–322, Box 20, New York, NY 10032; 917–855–5862; [email protected].Search for more papers by this author
Dr. Mari Millery PhD

Dr. Mari Millery PhD

President

M Research Studio, LLC

Search for more papers by this author
Dr. Burton L. Edelstein DDS, MPH

Dr. Burton L. Edelstein DDS, MPH

Professor of Dental Medicine and Health Policy and Management, Medical Center and Chair

Section of Population Oral Health, College of Dental Medicine, Columbia University

Search for more papers by this author
First published: 01 March 2017
Citations: 1

Abstract

Faculty development for dental academicians is essential to cultivate a continuous faculty workforce, retain existing faculty members, enhance their teaching skill sets, and remain responsive to changing program requirements and curricular reforms. To maximize the utility of dental faculty development, it is important to systematically assess and address faculty members’ perceived training needs. The aims of this study were to determine priority topics among one group of postdoctoral program directors and to translate those topics into faculty development programs as part of Columbia University's Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA)-sponsored faculty training program for primary care educators. The study was conducted in 2013–16. A Delphi consensus technique was implemented with three sequential surveys of 26 New York City metropolitan area general, pediatric, and public health dentistry residency program directors. On the first survey, the five respondents (19% response rate) identified 31 topics. On the second survey, 17 respondents (response rate 65%) rated the 15 most important topics. In the third and final round, 19 respondents (73% response rate) ranked teaching research methods and teaching literature reviews as the topics of greatest interest. Overall, the responses highlighted needs for faculty development on teaching research methods, motivating trainees, trainee evaluation, and clinical care assessment. Based on these results, a series of six Faculty Forums was developed and implemented for dental educators in the metropolitan area, starting with the topic of teaching research methods. The process flow used for assessing training needs and developing and evaluating training can be applied to a variety of populations of educators.

The full text of this article hosted at iucr.org is unavailable due to technical difficulties.