The development and piloting of the graduate assessment of preparedness for practice (GAPP) questionnaire

British Dental Journal

Volumn 221, Issue 6, 2016, Pages 341-346

  Ray, M S ^a   Milston, A M ^b   Doherty, P W ^b   Crean, S ^c  

^a Ravat and Ray Dental Care ^*  (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY OF CENTRAL LANCASHIRE   (United Kingdom)

^c UNIVERSITY OF CENTRAL LANCASHIRE   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

DEMOGRAPHY; DENTAL EDUCATION; DENTAL PRACTICE; DENTIST; HUMAN; HUMAN EXPERIMENT; INSTRUMENT VALIDATION; LIKERT SCALE; NONHUMAN; PILOT STUDY; QUESTIONNAIRE; RELIABILITY; SELF EVALUATION; TICK; TOOTH; VALIDITY; CLINICAL COMPETENCE; CURRICULUM; HEALTH PERSONNEL ATTITUDE; REPRODUCIBILITY;

ATTITUDE OF HEALTH PERSONNEL; CLINICAL COMPETENCE; CURRICULUM; DENTISTS; EDUCATION, DENTAL; HUMANS; PILOT PROJECTS; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; SURVEYS AND QUESTIONNAIRES;

EID: 84988838403     PISSN: 00070610     EISSN: 17417503     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1038/sj.bdj.2016.685     Document Type: Article

References (27)

1. General Dental Council. The First 50 Years. General Dental Council: London; 2006.
2. Legislation.gov.uk. The Dentists Act, 1984. Available online at http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1984/24/ enacted (accessed November 2015).
3. General Dental Council. The First Five Years-A Frame-work for Undergraduate Dental Education, 2nd edition. General Dental Council: London; 2002.
4. General Dental Council. Preparing for practice: dental team learning outcomes for registration. General Dental Council: London; 2012.
5. Levine RS. Experience, skills and knowledge gained by newly qualifed dentists during their frst year of general practice. Br Dent J 1992; 17: 97-102.
6. Patel J, Fox K, Grieveson B, Youngson C C. Undergraduate training as preparation for vocational training in England: A questionnaire of vocational dental practitioners' and their trainers' views. Br Dent J 2006; Suppl.: 9-15.
7. Cabot L B, Radford D R. Are graduates as good as they used to be? Br Dent J 1999; 186: 318-319.
8. COPDEND. Dental Foundation Training Curriculum 2015. Available online at heeoe.hee.nhs.uk (accessed September 2016).
9. COPDEND. Interim Dental Foundation Training Curriculum & Assessment Framework Guidance 2013-14. Available online at http://www.copdend.org/data/fles/Founda-tion/Interim%20DFT%20curriculum%202013-14.pdf (accessed November 2015).
10. Clow R, Mehra S. Evaluation of vocational training of dentists in three different regions. Br Dent J 2006; 201: 774-778.
11. Mc.Grath C M, Corbet E F. Do dental graduates of the University of Hong Kong (1997-2001) perceive themselves prepared for dental practice? HK Dent J 2005; 2: 84-91.
12. Greenwood L F, Townsend G C, Wetherell J D, Mullins G A. Self-perceived competency at graduation: A comparison of dental graduates from the Adelaide PBL curriculum and the Toronto traditional curriculum. Eur J Dent Ed 1999; 3: 153-158.
13. Bartlett D W, Coward P Y, Wilson R, Goodsman D, Darby J. Experiences and perceptions of vocational training reported by the 1999 cohort of vocational dental practitioners and their trainers in England and Wales. Br Dent J 2001; 191: 265-270.
14. Kay E J, Blinkhorn A S. Scottish dental students' views on their undergraduate training. Br Dent J 1987; 162: 317-319.
15. Murray F J, Blinkhorn A S, Bulman J S. An assessment of the views by recent graduates on their undergraduate course. Eur J Dent Educ 1999; 3: 3-9.
16. Silversin J B, Shafer S M, Smales F C, Sheiham A. British dentists and fnal year British and United States students' opinions about their undergraduate training. Br Dent J 1974; 137: 161-168.
17. Ambrose D M, Anstey J R. Questionnaire Development: Demystifying the Process. Int Man Rev 2010; 6: 84-91.
18. Garner WR. Rating scales, discriminability and information transmission. Psychol Rev 1960; 67: 343-352.
19. Likert R. A technique for the measurement of attitudes. Arch Psychol 1932; 140: 1-55.
20. Linacre JM. Optimizing Rating Scale Category Effectiveness. J Appl Measurement 2002; 3: 85-106.
21. Nunnally JC. Psychometric Theory. New York: McGraw-Hill; 1967.
22. Cummins R A, Gullone E. Why we should not use 5-point Likert scales: The case for subjective quality of life meas-urement. Proceedings, second international conference on quality of life in cities. Singapore: National University of Singapore, 2000.
23. Burns N, Grove SK. The practice of nursing research con-duct, critique & utilization. Philadelphia: W B. Saunders and Co., 1997.
24. Cronbach LJ. Test Validation. In Educational measure-ment, 2nd edition. Washington DC: American Council on Education, 1971.
25. Carmines E G, Zeller R A. Reliability and validity assess-ment. Quantitative applications in the social sciences. Beverley Hills: Sage, 1979.
26. Cronbach L J, Coeffcient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika 1951; 16: 297-334.
27. Kuder G F, Richardson M W. The theory of estimation of test reliability. Psychometrika 1937; 2: 151-160.