The Dental Values Scale: Development and Validation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to produce a valid scale for use in measuring the values of dental students and practitioners--the lack of which has impeded research on professionalism in dentistry. Following standard scale development procedures, we had focus groups of dental practitioners (N=23) develop a ninety-nine-item pool of value terms related to dentistry. Next, Canadian dentists (N=449) rated the relevance of each item through an online survey. They also rated the values in a generic values measure, Schwartz's Values Scale. Exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses identified twenty-five items representing five values: Altruism, Personal Satisfaction, Conscientiousness, Quality of Life, and Professional Status. These values correlate with related dimensions from Schwartz's measure; they also correspond to the values in the American Dental Education Association's statement on professionalism. We then administered the new Dental Values Scale to dental students (N=96) to determine the relationship between practitioner and student values. First-year students were higher in Conscientiousness, Altruism, and Personal Satisfaction than practitioners, but these values decreased over time to those held by the dentists. We discuss the implication of these results and the potential value of the new scale for dental education.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.018 | 0.042 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".