Fourth‐year dental hygiene students’ educational preparedness: Self‐confidence ratings of the Canadian Dental Hygienists Association baccalaureate competencies (2017‐2019)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PROBLEM STATEMENT: The Canadian Competencies for Baccalaureate Dental Hygiene Programs (CCBDHP) were first published in 2015 by the Canadian Dental Hygienists Association. They reflect the first articulation of dental hygiene baccalaureate competencies in North America. However, there is little evidence to support baccalaureate graduates acquire these abilities. OBJECTIVE: To examine the confidence levels of baccalaureate fourth-year students in their ability to demonstrate the CCBDHPs. METHODS: This 3-year longitudinal study rated the self-confidence levels of fourth-year students as they neared graduation from the University of British Columbia from 2017 to 2019. It involved an online, anonymous survey using a 5-point scale ranging from not confident to confident. Respondents rated their self-confidence in the 110 sub-competencies articulated within the 13 competency domains of the CCBDHP. RESULTS: Responses were received from 54 of the 70 graduating students for a cumulative 77% response rate. Respondents expressed the most confidence in the competency domains of Clinical Therapy (100%), Collaboration (100%), Disease Prevention (100%), Professionalism (100%), and Oral Health Education (90%) but expressed less confidence in Research Use (73%), Health Promotion (70%), Leadership (67%), Policy Use (20%), and Advocacy (11%). CONCLUSION: These data suggest that curriculum revisions are needed in 5 domains but such changes may not be sufficient. Transition support may be warranted to assist graduates as they enter practice, while some competencies may be more appropriate for graduate studies. The study contributes to an international discussion about the educational preparedness of baccalaureate graduates, and the boundaries between diploma, baccalaureate and master's 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 | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".