Dental hygiene graduates’ educational preparedness: Self‐confidence ratings of the CDHA baccalaureate competencies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: In 2015, the Canadian Dental Hygienists Association (CDHA) published the first Canadian Competencies for Baccalaureate Dental Hygiene Programs (CCBDHP). To date, there is little evidence to support that baccalaureate graduates have gained these abilities. The purpose of the study was to investigate the confidence levels of baccalaureate graduates in their ability to demonstrate the CCBDHP. METHODS: An online, anonymous study was conducted with the 2013-2016 graduates of the University of British Columbia to rate their confidence level in the 13 competency domains and associated 110 sub-competencies of the CCBDHP based on a 5-point scale ranging from not confident to confident. RESULTS: Thirty of the 84 graduates responded to the survey for a 36% response rate. The mostly confident and confident scores were added to determine the number of sub-competencies within each domain in which 75% to 100% of respondents identified such confidence. The competency domains in which graduates expressed the highest confidence included Collaboration (100%), Communication (100%), Clinical Therapy (100%), Disease Prevention (100%), Oral Health Education (90%), Professionalism (90%), Research Use (90%) and Leadership (90%). They expressed the least confidence in the competency domains of Health Promotion (50%), Advocacy (22%) and Policy Use (0%). CONCLUSION: These data provided the UBC faculty with important insights into the educational preparedness of baccalaureate graduates. The findings are also relevant for other Canadian programmes and contribute to a larger national dialogue about the CCBDHP and the transition of graduates into practice.
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 | 0.004 | 0.012 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".