Utilizing Mixed Methods Research for Survey Development: Application of NCHEC Competencies Retta R. Evans 1, Brian F. Geiger 1, Marcia R. O'Neal 1, Nataliya V. Ivankova 1, Kent G. Palcanis 1, Karen W. Carera 2 and Lasonja Kennedy 1 (1)University of Alabama at Birmingham, Schools of Education and Dentistry, (2)Oak Ridge Institute for Science and Education, TN Health education faculty seek to engage students in research. Faculty and students can benefit from understanding how to apply a systematic mixed methods approach to enhancing curricula, outreach and intervention activities in school and community settings. The purpose of this presentation is to describe how a mixed methods approach was used to evaluate stakeholders’ perceptions about evidence -based teaching in a university dentistry curriculum. The collaborative systematic framework can be utilized in many allied health interventions and directly applies to NCHEC Responsibility Area I (Competency A, and B); Area II (Competency A, B, and G); and Area IV (Competency A, C, D, and E). ABSTRACTMIXED METHODS DESIGN Health educators must be prepared to meet the demands of the changing dynamics of the profession. Today health educators might be asked to assist in the development or enhancement of a curriculum for schools, health agencies or other organizations. Evidence-based teaching is a systematic way to incorporate the best available scientific evidence, clinical judgment and patient’s needs into decisions regarding patient outcomes (Hutter 2004, Mayo Foundation for Medical Education and Research 2010, Rabb-Waytowich 2009). Following a 1995 IOM report criticizing dental school curricula as ineffective (Field 1995), the American Dental Education Association (ADEA) formed a Commission on Change and Innovation in Dental Education. The Commission recognized the need to train dentists through ‘interdisciplinary education opportunities by integrating medical and dental education through problem-based learning, team building, and grand rounds involving cross disciplinary students and a variety of primary care providers’ (Haden, Catalanotto, Alexander et al. 2003: 578). The NCHEC Areas of Responsibility and Competencies are a useful guide for health educators working in the field. Three NCHEC areas of responsibility were addressed during survey development to guide innovations of an evidence based curriculum at a school of dentistry. Researchers also identified nine competencies that were utilized during the sequential steps of survey development. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND Mixed methods research combines qualitative and quantitative methods. A fundamental principle is that each method complements the other, while minimizing weaknesses. Authors adapted the sequential mixed methods design instrument development model into a framework of 4 conceptual phases for curriculum innovation: (1) explore the phenomenon; (2) develop two new instruments; (3) collect, analyze, and evaluate data; and (4) apply to curriculum reform. Eight sequential procedural steps diagrammed in figure 1 guided program improvement. Authors developed two surveys to explore how stakeholders’ (faculty, students, alumni) perceptions of EBD could impact plans for curriculum enhancement (Responsibilities II & IV). In a similar manner, Van Drief, Bulte and Verloop (2008) surveyed chemistry faculty in The Netherlands to understand contextual beliefs before designing a new curriculum. The integrative process described in this paper included the collection and analysis of initial qualitative data, development of the new instruments, and collection and analysis of quantitative data to guide curriculum innovation (Responsibilities I & IV). University health education and educational research faculty acted as brokers, connecting groups of stakeholders to become engaged in curriculum reform (Fernandez, Ritchie, Barker 2008). Further sections describe the conceptual phases and related procedural steps in detail as shown in figure 1. CONCLUSIONS A mixed methods approach enabled authors to maximize strengths of both methods and comprehensively describe perceptions about EBD among stakeholders (basic science and dental school faculty, students, alumni). This systematic integrative process yielded credible data for informed decision-making for curriculum enhancement. The use of outside collaborators with expertise in mixed methods process complemented discipline-specific knowledge of dental faculty. Results revealed emerging interest in case-based inquiry, interdisciplinary collaboration, and preparing dental scholar- practitioners. Goals to strengthen the local curriculum were consistent with professional competencies for the general dentists as approved by the ADEA (2010). Faculty members sought to enhance emphasis on EBD and students’ practice of critical thinking beyond the classroom.