A Survey of Clinical Faculty Calibration in Dental Hygiene Programs

This study investigated the calibration efforts of entry-level dental hygiene programs in the U.S. Four aspects were explored, including attitudes, characteristics, quality and satisfaction, to evaluate current calibration practices.

A descriptive comparative survey design was used. Directors of accredited dental hygiene programs (n=345) were asked to forward an electronic survey invitation to clinical faculty. Eighty-five directors forwarded the survey to 847 faculty; 45.3% (n=384) participated. The 37-item survey contained multiple-choice and Likert scale questions and was available for 3 weeks. Descriptive statistics were used to analyze demographic data and research questions. The Kruskal-Wallis, Spearman Correlation Coefficient and Mann-Whitney U tests were employed to analyze hypotheses (p=0.05).

The demographic profile for participants revealed that most worked for institutions awarding associate entry-level degrees, had 1 to 10 years' experience, taught clinically and didactically, and held a master's degree. Clinical instructors valued calibration, believed it reduced variation and wanted more calibration. Some were not offered quality calibration. There was a difference between the entry-level degree awarded and the program's evaluation of clinical skill faculty reliability, as analyzed using the Kruskal-Wallis test (p=0.008). Additionally, full-time versus part-time educators reported more observed student frustration with faculty variance, as evaluated using the Mann-Whitney U test (p=0.001, bfp=0.004).

Faculty members value calibration's potential benefits and want enhanced calibration efforts. Calibration efforts need to be improved to include standards for measuring intra- and inter-rater reliability and plans for resolving inconsistencies. More research is needed to determine effective calibration methods and their impact on student learning.