Assessing students’ confidence in interpreting dental radiographs following a blended learning module
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: This study assessed senior dental hygiene (DH) students' self-reported confidence in interpreting dental radiographs following the introduction of a blended learning (BL) module for radiology interpretation. The assessment of students was conducted five months prior to graduation. METHODS: A BL oral radiology module was designed. In order to capture the context, descriptions and differences of students' experience and confidence, a qualitative research approach was selected. Data were captured using a semi-structured interview process and analysed using phenomenographic methods. RESULTS: Sixteen students were interviewed. Blinded transcripts were analysed, and the main themes relating to confidence were extracted and arranged into categories. The categories were coded as to how confident (low, medium or high) each of the students felt specific to varying contexts and complexities of radiographic interpretation. CONCLUSION: Predominately, the BL model had a positive impact on DH students' confidence in the interpretation of radiographic findings. However, when asked about their level of overall confidence in interpreting dental radiographs, students still did not describe themselves as confident for all potential findings on radiographs at this point in their education. The students highlighted the importance of having patient history details and clinical assessment findings included in the interpretation exercises and expressed a desire to collaborate with other professionals when interpreting radiographs.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".