A Comparative Study on the Work Capability and National Licensing Examination System Between Korean Opticians and Other International Opticians

2017 ◽  
Vol 19 (2) ◽  
pp. 103-114 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sang-Hyun Kim ◽  
◽  
Sung-Soo Kang ◽  
Hyun-Suk Shim ◽  
Jun-Beom Shim
Author(s):  
In-Soon Park

During the reign of Japanese Government-General of Korea (Joseon) from 1910 to 1945, the main health professionals who were educated about modern medicine were categorized into physicians, dentists, pharmacists, midwives, and nurses. They were clearly distinguished from traditional health professionals. The regulations on new health professionals were enacted, and the licensing system was enforced in earnest. There were two kinds of licensing systems: the license without examination through an educational institution and the license with the national examination. The Japanese Government-General of Korea (Joseon) combined education with a national examination system to produce a large number of health professionals rapidly; however, it was insufficient to fulfill the increasing demand for health services. Therefore, the government eased the examination several times and focused on quantitative expansion of the health professions. The proportion of professionals licensed through national examination had increased. This system had produced the maximum number of available professionals at low cost. Furthermore, this system was significant in three respects: first, the establishment of the framework of the national licensing examination still used today for health professionals; second, the protection of people from the poor practices of unqualified practitioners; and third, the standardization of the quality of health.


JAMA ◽  
2012 ◽  
Vol 308 (21) ◽  
pp. 2233 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kevin W. Eva ◽  
Harold I. Reiter ◽  
Jack Rosenfeld ◽  
Kien Trinh ◽  
Timothy J. Wood ◽  
...  

1973 ◽  
Vol 4 (4) ◽  
pp. 386-391 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lillian D. Terris

2019 ◽  
Vol 10 (11) ◽  
pp. 4324
Author(s):  
Sung-HeeBaik ◽  
Jae-Kwan Koo ◽  
Hyun-Gyung Kim ◽  
Tae-Sik Lee

2007 ◽  
Vol 193 (1) ◽  
pp. 86-89 ◽  
Author(s):  
Martin Friedlich ◽  
Sydney Smee ◽  
Timothy Wood

Author(s):  
Yoon-Sook Hwang ◽  
Hyun-Sook Kang ◽  
Soo-Hwa Kim ◽  
Hee-Jung Moon ◽  
Sun-Mi Lee ◽  
...  

Purpose: This study aimed to investigate current issues and areas for improvement in the Korean Dental Hygienist National Licensing Examination (KDHNLE) through an expert Delphi survey.Methods: A Delphi survey was conducted from May through August 2016 in Korea. This Delphi survey included 20 persons representing the field of dental hygiene (7 groups from various dental hygiene-related organizations). The Delphi survey was administered through e-mail as 3 rounds of questionnaire surveys regarding the issues facing the KDHNLE and potential solutions to those challenges. The primary Delphi survey was an open questionnaire. In each round, subjects’ responses were categorized according to the detailed themes of their responses. The minimum value of the content validity ratio of the survey results was determined by the number of panels participating in the Delphi survey.Results: Issues facing the KDHNLE were identified from the results of the Delphi survey. The following 4 items had an average importance score of 4.0 or higher and were considered as important by over 85% of the panels: the failure of the practical test to reflect actual clinical settings, the focus of the practical test on dental scaling, the gap between the items evaluated on the national examination and actual practical work, and insufficiency in strengthening the expertise of licensed dental hygienists. The following items were suggested for improvement: more rigorous rater training, adjustment of the difficulty of the licensing examination, the introduction of a specialized dental hygienist system, and more rigorous refresher training for licensed dental hygienists.Conclusion: Based on the above results, the KDHNLE should be improved according to the core competencies of dental hygienists, including on-site clinical practice experience.


2019 ◽  
Vol 29 (1) ◽  
pp. 241-245 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sophapun Ekarattanawong ◽  
Pholasit Chamod ◽  
Amornnat Thuppia ◽  
Nakorn Mathuradavong ◽  
Pattharawin Pattharanitima ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document