Critical Thinking Disposition and Skills in Dental Students: Development and Relationship to Academic Outcomes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Critical thinking is a key element of complex problem-solving and professional behavior. An ideal critical thinking measurement instrument would be able to accurately predict which dental students are predisposed to and capable of thinking critically and applying such thinking skills to clinical situations. The aims of this study were to describe critical thinking disposition and skills in dental students at the beginning and end of their first year, examine cohort and gender effects, and compare their critical thinking test scores to their first-year grades. Volunteers from three student cohorts at the University of British Columbia were tested using the California Critical Thinking Disposition Inventory and California Critical Thinking Skills instruments at the beginning and end of their first year. Based on the preliminary findings, one cohort was retested at graduation when their final-year grades and clinical advisor rankings were compared to their critical thinking test scores. The results showed that students who entered dental school with higher critical thinking scores tended to complete their first year with higher critical thinking scores, achieve higher grades, and show greater disposition to think critically at the start of the program. Students who demonstrated an ability to think critically and had a disposition to do so at the start of the program were also likely to demonstrate those same attributes at the completion of their training. High critical thinking scores were associated with success in both didactic and clinical settings in dental school.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 teacher head, 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".