Diversity among Bi-ethnic students and differences in educational outcomes and social functioning

The number of bi-ethnic children is increasing. The focus of this study is on bi-ethnic students in the Netherlands with one parent with an ethnic majority background and one parent with an ethnic minority background. Most studies that have investigated educational outcomes and social functioning in school for bi-ethnic students have not focused on the diversity within this group. In this study, we described the demographic, social and cultural diversity among bi-ethnic students and examined whether, in particular, ethnic background and gender of the migrant parent were related to the educational outcomes and social functioning of bi-ethnic students. Data on a total of 653 sixth grade bi-ethnic students (age 11–12) in primary education of the national Dutch cohort study (COOL5−18) were used in this study. To analyse the relationship between the ethnic background and gender of the migrant parent and the educational outcomes and social functioning among bi-ethnic students, multivariate multilevel analyses were performed. The research findings indicate that bi-ethnic students differ demographically, socially and culturally in a manner dependent on ethnic background and gender of the migrant parent. We also found that the ethnic background and the gender of the migrant parent were related to cognitive outcomes, social-emotional functioning and citizenship competences. When trying to understand and support bi-ethnic students, we must consider the diversity among them

Reasons That Dutch Dentists and Dental Hygienists Oppose or Support an Extended Scope of Practice for Dental Hygienists

BACKGROUND: In the Netherlands, the scope of dental hygiene practice was expanded in 2006. The objective of this study was to explore reasons among dentists and dental hygienists for supporting or opposing an extended scope of practice and to find explanatory factors. METHODS: A questionnaire containing pre-defined reasons and an open-ended question was distributed among 1,674 randomly selected members of two Dutch professional associations (874 dentists, 800 dental hygienists). Data were analyzed with binary logistic regression with Bayesian information criterion (BIC) model selection. RESULTS: Response were obtained from 541 practitioners (32.3%): i.e., 233 dentists (43.1%) and 308 dental hygienists (56.9%). Non-response analysis revealed no differences, and representativeness analysis showed similarities between samples and target populations. Most often, dentists reported flexible collaboration (50.2%) and dental hygienists indicated task variation (71.1%) as supportive reasons. As opposing reasons, dentists generally reported quality of care (41.2%) and dental hygienists' self-competence (22.7%). Reasons were explained by profession, gender, and new-style practitioners. CONCLUSION: Dentists and dental hygienists conveyed different reasons for supporting or opposing an extended scope of dental hygiene practice. Outcomes can be categorized as reasons related to economic, professional status, quality, job satisfaction, and flexible collaboration and are not only explained by profession

Reasons That Dutch Dentists and Dental Hygienists Oppose or Support an Extended Scope of Practice for Dental Hygienists

BACKGROUND: In the Netherlands, the scope of dental hygiene practice was expanded in 2006. The objective of this study was to explore reasons among dentists and dental hygienists for supporting or opposing an extended scope of practice and to find explanatory factors. METHODS: A questionnaire containing pre-defined reasons and an open-ended question was distributed among 1,674 randomly selected members of two Dutch professional associations (874 dentists, 800 dental hygienists). Data were analyzed with binary logistic regression with Bayesian information criterion (BIC) model selection. RESULTS: Response were obtained from 541 practitioners (32.3%): i.e., 233 dentists (43.1%) and 308 dental hygienists (56.9%). Non-response analysis revealed no differences, and representativeness analysis showed similarities between samples and target populations. Most often, dentists reported flexible collaboration (50.2%) and dental hygienists indicated task variation (71.1%) as supportive reasons. As opposing reasons, dentists generally reported quality of care (41.2%) and dental hygienists' self-competence (22.7%). Reasons were explained by profession, gender, and new-style practitioners. CONCLUSION: Dentists and dental hygienists conveyed different reasons for supporting or opposing an extended scope of dental hygiene practice. Outcomes can be categorized as reasons related to economic, professional status, quality, job satisfaction, and flexible collaboration and are not only explained by profession