College students are a period of adapting to various changes and environments and forming a sense of identity and values. College life and academic adaptation are very important for a successful college life and for the vision of life in the future. Adaptation to college life is not only about academic achievement, but also responding to new and diverse experiences such as interpersonal relationships and coping with the demands of college life^1,2).

In particular, dental hygiene students should continue to communicate and cooperate with patients, guardians, and colleagues in the clinical field in the future. Therefore, in order to perform the overall role of dental treatment, it is necessary to have problem solving ability, judgment ability, and communication ability³⁾. Dental hygiene students are experiencing many conflicts and difficulties during clinical practice due to insufficient communication ability and interpersonal skills. It is reported that this decreases satisfaction with clinical practice and leads to skepticism about the career path^4,5). Eventually, it has a negative effect on the adaptation of college life, which leads to dropouts such as leave of absence or withdrawal⁶⁾. In this way, adaptation to college life affects your future career and your life as a whole.

Recently, as the subject of health care services has changed to focus on subjects, the importance of communi-cation capability in the clinical scene has been emphasized⁷⁾. This communication ability can be sufficiently improved through education because it is acquired not by innate ability. Therefore, it is necessary to materialize it through education⁸⁾.

In addition, as long as humans live in a group, conflicts between individuals and groups are inevitable, and there are inevitable conflicts in various forms⁹⁾. For college students to engage in social activities after graduation, it is important to experience various group activities, deal with intra-group conflicts, and grow through them¹⁰⁾. In particular, hospitals are made up of a variety of occupations, so job conflicts are relatively high compared to other general organizations¹¹⁾. So it is more important to dental hygiene students.

In previous studies, there are various factors that influence conflict, but many studies consistently suggest a high correlation between communication and conflict¹²⁾. People with excellent communication abilities have been reported to efficiently resolve conflicts with others, achieve high academic achievement, improve self-esteem, and have high potential for employment and promotion¹³⁾.

The adaptation to college life of college students was higher with better interpersonal relationships, higher levels of personality behavior¹⁴⁾, and higher major satisfaction levels and academic achievements¹⁵⁾. College students' adaptation to college life was found to be higher with better interpersonal relationships and higher levels of personality behavioral areas¹⁶⁾. While many other factors are related to adaptation to college life, research on the effects of communication ability and conflict management types on college life adaptation is insufficient. Dental hygienists working in clinical settings will become experts in professional competency if they manage conflict management and communication skills from college.

The purpose of this study is to understand the impact on adaptation to college life according to dental hygiene and student communication ability and conflict management types. Through this, it was intended to suggest a strategy to improve adaptation to college life as well as to play a role as a professional dental hygienist in clinical practice.

1. Subjects

The data of this study were selected by random sample extraction of dental hygiene departments of two colleges in Gyeonggi and one college in Chungcheong. The survey was conducted on first, second, and third graders at each college, and the survey period was from July 20 to October 31, 2020. This study was investigated with the consent of the subject in order to comply with the research ethics. The sample size was used in the G Power 3.1 program, and 351 people were calculated for correlation and regression analysis based on effect size 0.30 and significance level 0.05, and statistical power 0.95. No questionnaires were excluded, and samples were analyzed for the final 351 subjects.

2. Variables used in the analysis

The general characteristics were age, sex, grade, religion, economic level, residence, major satisfaction, and college life satisfaction. In terms of major satisfaction and college life satisfaction, 5 points were very satisfied, and 1 point was very dissatisfied.

As a variable for communication ability, the GICC (Global Interpersonal Communication Competence Scale) item developed by Hur¹⁷⁾ was used. The questions are self-disclosure (3 questions), empathy (3 questions), social relaxation (3 questions), assertiveness (3 questions), concentration (3 questions), interaction management (3 questions), expressiveness (3 questions), supportiveness (3 questions), immediacy (3 questions), efficiency (3 questions), social appropriateness (3 questions), conversational coherence (3 questions), goal detection (3 questions), responsiveness (3 questions), noise control (3 questions), 15 sub-areas and a total of 45 questions. The Likert-type 5-point scale with a perfect score of 5 was used, and the Cronbach’s a value was 0.913.

For the type of conflict management, Kilmann and Thomas’s research tool was used (1975)¹⁸⁾. The questionnaire consisted of a problem solving method (5 questions), a forced method (5 questions), an avoidance method (5 questions), a compromise method (5 questions), a concession method (5 questions), and a total of 25 questions. Each question was surveyed on a 5-point scale by assigning ‘very much’ to 5 points and ‘not at all’ as 1 point, and the Cronbach’s a value of the research tool was 0.714.

Adaptation to college life used Kwon’s questionnaire¹⁹⁾. There are four questions for academic adaptation, five questions for social adaptation, five questions personal- emotional adaptation, and five questions for college environment adaptation, with a total of 19 questions. The Likert-type 5-point scale with a perfect score of 5 was used, and the Cronbach’s a value was 0.869.

3. Data analysis

Data were analyzed using statistical analysis software PASW Statistics 18.0 (IBM Co., Armonk, NY, USA). The general characteristics were frequency analysis, and the communication ability, conflict management types, and adaptation to college life were analyzed with descriptive statistics. T-test and one-way ANOVA analysis were performed to compare communication ability, conflict management types, and adaptation to college life according to general characteristics. An equal variance test was performed using the Levene statistic, and differences between groups were analyzed through the Scheffe post-test. Pearson’s correlation analysis was performed to see the correlation between communication ability, conflict management types, and adaptation to college life. Multiple regression analysis was performed to find out the effect on adaptation to college life and the significance level of all analyzes was set to 0.05.

1. Communication ability, conflict management types, and adaptation to college life

In terms of communication ability, responsiveness was the highest with 4.26, followed by concentration with 4.17. Assertiveness and conversational coherence were the lowest at 3.40. As for the type of conflict management, the compromise method was the highest with 3.73, and the forced method was the lowest with 1.93. Among adaptation to college life, college environment adaptations were the highest at 3.45. The academic adaptation was the lowest at 3.03 (Table 1).

Table 1

Communication Ability, Conflict Management Types, Adaptation to College Life

Variable	Mean±standard deviation
Communication ability	3.74±0.401
Self-disclosure	3.53±0.679
Empathy	3.87±0.552
Social relaxation	3.51±0.496
Assertiveness	3.40±0.748
Concentration	4.17±0.616
Interaction management	3.63±0.580
Expressiveness	3.63±0.672
Supportiveness	3.46±0.564
Immediacy	3.90±0.661
Efficiency	3.78±0.648
Social appropriateness	4.13±0.595
Conversational coherence	3.40±0.715
Goal detection	3.76±0.630
Responsiveness	4.26±0.621
Noise control	3.70±0.555
Conflict management types	3.01±0.312
Problem solving method	3.53±0.509
Forced method	1.93±0.652
Avoidance method	2.41±0.682
Compromise method	3.73±0.554
Concession method	3.47±0.554
Adaptation to college life	3.30±0.595
Academic adaptation	3.03±0.784
Social adaptation	3.22±0.696
Personal-emotional adaptation	3.44±0.894
College environment adaptation	3.45±0.659

2. Differences in conflict management types according to general characteristics

The comparison of five types of conflict management according to general characteristics is as follows. Among the general characteristics, the higher the grade, the higher the forced method (p=0.003) and the avoidance method (p=0.046), showing a statistically significant difference. The higher the economic level, the higher the problem solving method (p=0.049) and the compromise method (p=0.039). The problem-solving method (p<0.001), the avoidance method (p=0.013), the compromise method (p=0.002), and the concession method (p=0.036) showed statistically significant differences according to major satisfaction. The problem-solving method (p=0.001) and the concession method (p=0.036) showed significant differences according to the degree of satisfaction with college life (Table 2).

Table 2

Differences in Conflict Management Types according to General Characteristics

Characteristic	n (%)	Problem solving method				Forced method				Avoidance method				Compromise method				Concession method
		Mean±standard deviation	p-value	Scheffe		Mean±standard deviation	p-value	Scheffe		Mean±standard deviation	p-value	Scheffe		Mean±standard deviation	p-value	Scheffe		Mean±standard deviation	p-value	Scheffe
Age (y)			0.828	n/a			0.002	b<c			0.151	n/a			0.108	n/a			0.848	n/a
20a	151 (43.0)	3.52±0.529				1.85±0.601				2.37±0.632				3.78±0.549				3.48±0.581
21b	76 (21.7)	3.56±0.460				1.80±0.691				2.34±0.750				3.78±0.559				3.50±0.498
22c	71 (20.2)	3.48±0.533				2.12±0.704				2.57±0.652				3.68±0.539				3.42±0.531
≥23d	53 (15.1)	3.53±0.492				2.08±0.587				2.43±0.738				3.58±0.564				3.46±0.594
Sex			0.085				0.118				0.739				0.921				0.013
Male	5 (1.4)	3.92±0.460				1.48±0.460				2.52±1.005				3.76±0.477				4.08±0.389
Female	346 (98.6)	3.52±0.508				1.93±0.653				2.41±0.678				3.73±0.556				3.46±0.552
Grade			0.143	n/a			0.003	a,b<c			0.046	n/a			0.088	n/a			0.242	n/a
1a	186 (53.0)	3.49±0.529				1.85±0.600				2.33±0.620				3.74±0.561				3.46±0.579
2b	83 (23.6)	3.62±0.470				1.88±0.679				2.46±0.787				3.81±0.533				3.55±0.517
3c	82 (23.4)	3.50±0.492				2.14±0.698				2.55±0.684				3.62±0.549				3.41±0.529
Religion			0.039				0.527				0.417				0.504				0.554
Yes	103 (29.3)	3.61±0.531				1.96±0.663				2.37±0.666				3.70±0.538				3.49±0.543
No	248 (70.7)	3.49±0.495				1.91±0.648				2.43±0.689				3.74±0.561				3.46±0.560
Economic level			0.049	a>c			0.119	n/a			0.941	n/a			0.039	a>c			0.595	n/a
Topa	27 (7.7)	3.75±0.577				1.92±0.790				2.41±0.735				3.83±0.483				3.48±0.598
Middleb	276 (78.6)	3.51±0.507				1.90±0.624				2.42±0.671				3.75±0.570				3.48±0.560
Bottomc	48 (13.7)	3.47±0.451				2.11±0.709				2.38±0.728				3.55±0.465				3.39±0.502
Residence			0.673	n/a			0.992	n/a			0.913	n/a			0.043	a,c<d			0.459	n/a
Seoula	46 (13.1)	3.40±0.512				1.91±0.671				2.43±0.645				3.61±0.579				3.40±0.521
Incheon, Gyeonggib	252 (71.8)	3.54±0.507				1.93±0.630				2.41±0.685				3.76±0.528				3.48±0.549
Chungcheongc	41 (11.7)	3.48±0.517				1.94±0.715				2.46±0.700				3.62±0.645				3.41±0.634
Otherd	12 (3.4)	3.76±0.416				1.90±0.875				2.31±0.764				4.05±0.546				3.65±0.519
Major satisfaction			<0.001	n/a			0.235	n/a			0.013	n/a			0.002	n/a			0.036	n/a
Very unsatisfieda	3 (0.9)	3.46±0.461				2.46±0.702				2.40±0.529				3.66±0.611				3.46±0.461
Dissatisfactionb	7 (2.0)	3.65±0.596				1.77±0.604				2.00±0.901				3.71±0.620				3.20±0.986
Usuallyc	128 (36.5)	3.32±0.514				2.01±0.631				2.57±0.602				3.58±0.564				3.36±0.531
Satisfactiond	164 (46.7)	3.61±0.462				1.89±0.670				2.34±0.696				3.84±0.531				3.53±0.524
Very satisfactione	49 (14.0)	3.76±0.459				1.86±0.637				2.31±0.743				3.77±0.522				3.58±0.607
College life satisfaction			0.001	n/a			0.274	n/a			0.089	n/a			0.136	n/a			0.036	n/a
Very unsatisfieda	9 (2.6)	3.35±0.622				2.15±0.691				2.46±0.768				3.42±0.777				3.31±0.348
Dissatisfactionb	41 (11.7)	3.53±0.470				2.08±0.593				2.45±0.639				3.78±0.456				3.47±0.538
Usuallyc	160 (45.6)	3.41±0.517				1.94±0.661				2.48±0.667				3.68±0.570				3.38±0.567
Satisfactiond	115 (32.8)	3.66±0.465				1.87±0.611				2.38±0.673				3.81±0.522				3.58±0.516
Very satisfactione	26 (7.4)	3.68±0.512				1.80±0.819				2.09±0.792				3.73±0.614				3.55±0.648

n/a: not available.

^a∼dData was analysed by t-test and one-way ANOVA statistics.

3. Differences in communication ability and adaptation to college life according to general characteristics

Among the general characteristics, there was a statistically significant difference in adaptation to college life according to age and grade (p=0.011, p=0.031). There were statistically significant differences in communication ability and adaptation to college life according to economic level, major satisfaction, and college life satisfaction. The higher the economic level, the higher the communication ability (p=0.012) and adaptation to college life (p<0.001). The higher the degree of satisfaction with college life, the higher the degree of adaptation to college life (p<0.001, Table 3).

Table 3

Differences in Communication Ability and Adaptation to College Life according to General Characteristics

Characteristic	Category	n (%)	Communication ability				Adaptation to college life
			Mean±standard deviation	p-value	Scheffe		Mean±standard deviation	p-value	Scheffe
Age (y)	20a	151 (43.0)	3.76±0.411	0.365	n/a		3.27±0.588	0.011	b>d
	21b	76 (21.7)	3.79±0.363				3.49±0.585
	22c	71 (20.2)	3.71±0.449				3.25±0.540
	23≤d	53 (15.1)	3.67±0.356				3.17±0.653
Sex	Male	5 (1.4)	3.67±0.089	0.134			3.30±0.691	0.990
	Female	346 (98.6)	3.74±0.404				3.30±0.595
Grade	1a	186 (53.0)	3.76±0.406	0.689	n/a		3.27±0.601	0.031	b>c
	2b	83 (23.6)	3.72±0.364				3.44±0.557
	3c	82 (23.4)	3.72±0.429				3.21±0.602
Religion	Yes	103 (29.3)	3.78±0.438	0.209			3.37±0.621	0.147
	No	248 (70.7)	3.73±0.385				3.27±0.583
Economic level	Topa	27 (7.7)	3.92±0.399	0.012	a>c		3.50±0.686	<0.001	a,b>c
	Middleb	276 (78.6)	3.74±0.395				3.33±0.578
	Bottomc	48 (13.7)	3.64±0.413				3.00±0.551
Residence	Seoula	46 (13.1)	3.66±0.415	0.392	n/a		3.24±0.559	0.448	n/a
	Incheon, Gyeonggib	252 (71.8)	3.75±0.399				3.29±0.613
	Chungcheongc	41 (11.7)	3.78±0.389				3.36±0.552
	Otherd	12 (3.4)	3.82±0.447				3.52±0.493
Major satisfaction	Very unsatisfieda	3 (0.9)	3.88±0.276	<0.001	n/a		3.03±0.425	<0.001	b<e
	Dissatisfactionb	7 (2.0)	3.98±0.405				2.77±0.643
	Usuallyc	128 (36.5)	3.57±0.389				3.01±0.489
	Satisfactiond	164 (46.7)	3.81±0.376				3.42±0.556
	Very satisfactione	49 (14.0)	3.92±0.370				3.74±0.568
College life satisfaction	Very unsatisfieda	9 (2.6)	3.89±0.437	<0.001	n/a		2.71±0.521	<0.001	a<c<d<e
	Dissatisfactionb	41 (11.7)	3.65±0.460				2.78±0.519
	Usuallyc	160 (45.6)	3.64±0.374				3.18±0.452
	Satisfactiond	115 (32.8)	3.85±0.377				3.53±0.572
	Very satisfactione	26 (7.4)	3.94±0.377				4.01±0.450

n/a: not available.

^a∼dData was analysed by t-test and one-way ANOVA statistics.

4. Correlation between communication ability and conflict management types and adaptation to college life

Among the types of conflict management, the relationship between problem solving method and compromise showed the highest positive correlation (r=0.613). Among the types of communication ability and conflict management, the forced method showed the lowest negative correlation (r=−0.356, Table 4).

Table 4

Correlation between Communication Ability and Conflict Management Types and Adaptation to College Life

Variable	Communication ability	Problem solving method	Forced method	Avoidance method	Compromise method	Concession method	Adaptation to college life
Communication ability	1
Problem solving method	0.575***	1
Forced method	−0.356***	−0.212***	1
Avoidance method	−0.350***	−0.126*	0.506***	1
Compromise method	0.501***	0.613***	−0.318***	−0.202***	1
Concession method	0.285***	0.530***	−0.205***	0.022	0.527***	1
Adaptation to college life	0.379***	0.231***	−0.338***	−0.296***	0.204***	0.049	1

Data was analysed by Pearson correlation statistics.

*p<0.05, ***p<0.001.

5. Factors affecting adaptation to college life

Prior to regression analysis, the result of analysis to diagnose multicollinearity between independent variables was 0.58~0.92, which was more than 0.1. Variance expansion coefficient was 1.0 to 1.7, which did not exceed 10, indicating that there was no problem in multi-collinearity between independent variables. In order to determine the relative influence of which factors affect the adaptation to college life, we compared them through the b value of the standardization coefficient. Concentration 0.166, forced method −0.240, self-disclosure 0.186, conversational coherence 0.145, social relaxation −0.104, showing that self-disclosure has the highest static relationship and has the highest impact on adaptation to college life. The explanatory power was 22.0% and the Durbin–Watson index was 1.830, which was close to 2, indicating that there was no autocorrelation in the error term. The regression model was found to be statistically significant (F=20.720, p<0.001, Table 5).

Table 5

Factors Affecting Adaptation to College Life

Variable	B	SE	b	t(p)	TOL	VIF
(Constant)	2.503	0.319		7.849***
Concentration	0.161	0.060	0.166	2.699**	0.586	1.705
Forced method	−0.219	0.050	−0.240	−4.368***	0.739	1.354
Self-disclosure	0.163	0.045	0.186	3.665***	0.861	1.161
Conversational coherence	0.121	0.045	0.145	2.709**	0.775	1.290
Social relaxation	−0.125	0.059	−0.104	−2.117*	0.927	1.079
F(p)	20.720***
Adjusted R2	0.220
Durbin–Watson	1.830

TOL: tolerance, VIF: variance expansion coefficient.

*p<0.05, **p<0.01, ***p<0.001.

This study was investigated to find ways to improve effective conflict management and communication ability by finding out the relationship between adaptation to college life by identifying communication ability and conflict management types with dental hygiene students.

As a result of the study, the average score of the dental hygiene and communication ability of students was 3.74 out of 5 points. This result was higher than that of the study of dental hygiene students (3.28)³⁾ and the study of nursing college students (3.51)¹⁶⁾. Among the sub-areas, responsiveness and concentration were the highest, which was consistent with the study of nursing students¹⁶⁾. After employment, dental hygiene students communicate a lot with colleagues and patients in the clinical field. It is very encouraging to have high responsiveness and concentration to the other person. Among the sub-areas of communi-cation ability, conversational coherence is the ability to interconnect opinions generated in the process of conversation in a meaningful and orderly manner¹⁷⁾. The lowest score was 3.39. As a result of this, it seems that the subject of the study is a college student, and thus, there is still insufficient self-assertion and coping with pro-fessionalism in the job or environmental change.

The conflict management types score of the study subjects was 3.01 points, and among the sub-areas, the compromise method was the highest with 3.74 points. Dental hygiene students who are exposed to in-school practice and clinical practice seem to prefer the strategy of compromise²⁰⁾ so that each party can be satisfied to some extent. Among the dental hygiene students’ major satisfaction, among the conflict management types, problem solving methods, avoidance methods, compromise methods, and concession methods were related to the problem solving methods, avoidance methods, compromise methods, and concession methods. It seems that most of the students who are satisfied with their major actively cope with conflict management and are positively adapting to college life. In addition, since graduation is exposed to more conflict than college life in complex and diverse clinical environments, conflict management is very important even for dental hygienists in clinical practice²¹⁾.

The average of the study subjects’ adaptation to college life was 3.30 points. Among the sub-areas, college environment adaptation was high with 3.45 points and personal-emotional adaptation with 3.44 points, and academic adaptation was the lowest with 3.03 points. As a result of the lowest academic adaptation, dental hygiene students seem to have difficulty in adaptation to college life due to the heavy pressure on academics, clinical practice, and national examinations. In addition, it was found that the economic level, major satisfaction, and college life satisfaction of dental hygiene students affected not only their communication ability but also their adaptation to college life. Yi and Kwak²²⁾ reported that students with high satisfaction with their major and high academic grades showed a positive tendency toward their major and college, and that their sense of goals for careers was clear, which could improve adaptation to college life.

In terms of communication ability, conflict management type, and adaptation to college life, dental hygiene and students showed a high positive correlation in problem solving method and compromise method among conflict management types. It seems that the better the ability to respond logically to the situation when a problem occurs in college life, the better the conflict can be resolved by drawing a reasonable alternative with the other party.

The factors affecting the adaptation to college life of dental hygiene students were as follows. Concentration to pay attention to signals from the other party, self- disclosure that expands the breadth of trust and under-standing in the other person to form a stronger human relationship, conversational coherence, which is the ability to coherently communicate one's opinion to the other person. Social relaxation¹⁷⁾, the ability to accept criticism, influenced the adaptation to college life of dental hygiene students. If communication ability is insufficient, it is not delivered as intended, resulting in conflict with the other party¹⁶⁾. It is related to the clinical field and college life after graduation. Therefore, dental hygiene students will need a variety of educational strategies such as simulations and situational plays through comparison and activities.

Among conflict management types, the forced method was found to have an effect on adaptation to college life. The forced method is a method that pushes one’s position to fulfill its position²⁰⁾. This is a type that has a tendency to be uncertain about the opportunity to achieve one's goals, and shows a negative correlation to adaptation to college life, which should be avoided.

The limitation of this study is that it is difficult to generalize because it was conducted for some local dental hygiene and students. In addition, objective comparison was difficult due to lack of research on dental hygiene on conflict management types. However, it is significant in that it derives sub-areas of communication ability and conflict management types that affect adaptation to college life. In the future, research on conflict management types for dental hygienists should be conducted so that dental hygienists have the ability to actively and actively cope with conflict situations.

No potential conflict of interest relevant to this article was reported.

This study was approved by the Institutional Review Board of Baekseok Culture University (No.2-7008132- A-N-01).

Conceptualization: Myong-Suk Shin, Ji-Hyoung Han, and Ji-Min Hwang. Data acquisition: Myong-Suk Shin, Ji-Hyoung Han, and Ji-Min Hwang. Formal analysis: Ji-Min Hwang. Supervision: Myong-Suk Shin. Writing—original draft: Myong-Suk Shin and Ji-Min Hwang. Writing—review & editing: Ji-Hyoung Han and Ji-Min Hwang.