Personality and Intelligence
predictors of educational
outcomes
Adrian Furnham
Professor of Psychology
University College London
Jensen
Fluid
Ability
(Test of Power)
Individual
Differences
“g”
Crystallized
Normal
Costa & McCrae
Eysenck
Cattell
Abnormal
Jung
Cognitive
Kolb
Multiple intelligence
Traits
Types
Personality
(Test of Preferences) Styles
Eysenck
Cattell
Learning
Coping
Disorders
Hogan
Belief & Value
Lemer
Rotter
Rokeach
Individual Differences
Personality
Intelligence
2
1
“No man’s land”
3
Squatters/Hot
Intelligences
Behaviour (Performance)
4
What
5
next?
Central Questions
• Do personality traits predict educational
outcome?
• If so, which and how much variance do they
account for?
• Is the trait-performance link dependent on
discipline?
• To what extent do intelligence test scores predict
educational outcome?
• Does crystalised intelligence preduct better than
fluid intelligence?
• What variance is accounted for?
• Together, how much variance typically does
personality and intelligence account for in
predicting school examination grades?
Personality Correlates of Psychometric Intelligence:
The Big Five and Ability Test Scores
n
N
E
-.15*
.08*
O
A
C
.33*
.01
.02
General Intelligence
(psychometric g)
Crystallized
intelligence (gc)
Cognitive speed
-.09*
.11*
.30*
.04
-.05
-.04
.06*
-.05
.04
.04
Visual perception
-.04*
.06*
.24*
.02
-.10
Mathematical/
numerical ability
-.17*
.09*
.01
-.05
-.15*
Note. *p < .05. N = Neuroticism, E = Extraversion, O = Openness, A =
Agreeableness, C = Conscientiousness. Table and results from Ackerman and
Heggestad’s (1997) meta analysis of 135 samples.
Personality correlates of school
grades
• N-- Anxiety inhibits performance at high
levels
• E- Extraverts distracted, bored by
preparation
• O+++ Intellectual curiosity and
adventurous
• A Usually unrelated to grade
• C+++ Need for achievement, diligence
important for success
Intelligence and educational
achievement
Ian J. Deary, Steve Strand, Pauline Smith,
and Cres Fernandes.
Department of Psychology, University of Edinburgh
Centre for Educational Development, Appraisal and Research,
University of Warwick, UK
NFER-Nelson, London, UK
Intelligence, Vol 35(1) pp. 13-21
Abstract
This 5-year prospective longitudinal study of 70,000 + English children
examined the association between psychometric intelligence at age
11 years and educational achievement in national examinations in 25
academic subjects at age 16.
The correlation between a latent intelligence trait (Spearman's g
from CAT2E) and a latent trait of educational achievement (GCSE
scores) was 0.81.
General intelligence contributed to success on all 25 subjects. Variance
accounted for ranged from 58.6% in Mathematics and 48% in English
to 18.1% in Art and Design.
Girls showed no advantage in g, but performed significantly better on all
subjects except Physics. This was not due to their better verbal
ability.
GCSE Subject
Results
Table shows correlations between
general cognitive ability and GCSE
scores
Correlations: CAT g
Overall Score
GCSE total Points
0.69
GCSE Best 8
0.72
Arts and Humanities
English
0.67
English Literature
0.59
Drama
0.47
Religious Education
0.52
French
0.64
German
0.61
Spanish
0.62
Science
Mathematics
0.77
Double Science
0.68
Single Science
0.60
Physics
0.50
Chemistry
0.46
Biology
0.51
Social Science
Geography
0.65
History
0.63
Business
0.56
Information Technology
0.47
Information Technology Short Course
0.48
Big Five personality predictors of postsecondary academic performance
Melissa C. O’Connor *& Sampo V. Paunonen
Department of Psychology, Social Science Centre, The University of
Western Ontario,London, Ontario, Canada
Personality and Individual Differences Vol. 45 (5) pp. 971-990
Abstract
We reviewed the recent empirical literature on the relations
between the Big Five personality dimensions and postsecondary academic achievement, and found some consistent
results.
A meta-analysis showed Conscientiousness, in particular, to be
most strongly and consistently associated with academic
success.
In addition, Openness to Experience was sometimes positively
associated with scholastic achievement, whereas Extraversion
was sometimes negatively related to the same criterion,
although the empirical evidence regarding these latter two
dimensions was somewhat mixed.
Furthermore, personality predictors can account for variance in
academic performance beyond that accounted for by measures
of cognitive ability.
Results
Conscientiousness and Eysenckian
psychoticism as predictors of school
grades: A one-year longitudinal study
Patrick C.L. Heaven *, Joseph Ciarrochi, & Wilma
Vialle
Department of Psychology, University of Wollongong, Northfields
Avenue, Wollongong, Australia
Personality and Individual Differences Vol. 42 (3) pp. 535-546
Abstract
Using data from the Wollongong Youth Study, we assessed the extent to
which psychoticism (P) and conscientiousness (C) (both Time 1) predict
academic performance one year later.
Participants were in their first year of high school at Time 1 (N = 784; 382
males and 394 females; 8 did not indicate their gender). The mean age was
12.30 yrs. (SD = 0.49). End of year grades were obtained for English,
Science, Mathematics, Religious studies, Visual art, and Design.
C, but not P, significantly predicted Total grade as well as outcomes in
English, Religious studies, Visual art, and Design.
The impact of P was more modest. Changes in P and C over time were also
related to academic performance at Time 2.
Results
Fluid intelligence, personality traits and
scholastic success:
Empirical evidence in a sample of Italian
high school students
Annamaria Di Fabio & Lara Busoni
Department of Psychology, University of Florence, Italy
Personality and Individual Differences Vol 43(8) pp. 2095-2014
Abstract
The aim of the present study was to investigate the role of intelligence and
personality scholastic success and, particularly, verify the existence of
incremental validity of compared to cognitive ability.
A sample of 286 students were administered Matrices and the Big Five
Questionnaire.
The results confirm the impact of intelligence and personality on scholastic
success, underlining the role of personality traits.
However, the principal predictor was found to be Conscientiouness,
utilizing the end of the academic year GPA as an indicator of success,
Intelligence, as an index of performance was indicated by the grade
obtained on the State Exam.
Results
Self-Assessed Intelligence and
Academic Performance
Tomas Chamorro-Premuzic* and Adrian
Furnham**
*Goldsmiths, University of London, UK; **University College London,
UK
Educational Psychology Vol. 26(6) pp. 769-779
Abstract
This paper reports the results of a two-year longitudinal study of the relationship
between self assessed intelligence (SAI) and academic performance (AP) in a
sample of 184 British undergraduate students.
Results showed significant correlations between SAI (both before and after taking an
IQ test) and academic exam marks obtained two years later, even when IQ scores
were partialled out.
Several continuous assessment indicators (notably attendance, oral expression, and
motivation) were also significantly correlated with SAI, even when IQ scores were
controlled.
A series of hierarchical regressions indicated that although exam grades were best
predicted by IQ, SAI showed significant incremental validity in the prediction of AP,
accounting for an additional 3% of exam, 9% of continuous assessment, and 2% of
essay grades.
Results
Correlations between personality scales and general and
narrow ability factors.
Females
Males
Personality
g
g
Culture (O)
.22
.10
Tidiness (C)
.02
.09
Maturity (C)
.24
.22
Leadership (E)
.12
.15
Impulsiveness (E)
.14
.02
Vigor (E)
.10
.14
Sociability (E)
-.05
.00
Social Sensitivity (A)
.18
.19
Self-Confidence (ES)
.16
.22
Calmness (ES)
.16
.23
Note: Due to extreme sample size, all correlations larger than .01 are statistically significant.
Correlations are corrected for unreliability in the personality scales. (Reeve, Meyer & Bonacciio,
2005).
Pearson Correlations between WAIS-R and APM Scores
and Personality Dimensions from the EPQ and the STI
(Data from Stough, Nettelbeck et al.)
E
N
P
L
Verbal IQ
-.30
-.20
-.03
-.29b
Performance IQ
.08
-.12
-.02
-.01
Full-scale IQ
.00
.04
.00
-.20
APM
.04
.02
-.05
-.26a
Gf
.08
.08
.07
-.18
Gc
-.10
-.19
-.08
-.13
a
p < .05
bp < .01
Bandwith-Fidelity Beta values for multiple regression
coefficients of Big 5 personality factors on fluid intelligence
Neuroticism
Extraversion
Openness
Agreeableness
Conscientiousness
Regression Model
Adjusted R2
gf
β
t
-.07
-3.32*
-.09
-3.68*
.12
5.51*
.00
.14
-.13
-5.81*
F(5,2625) = 15.40*
.03
Moutafi, Furnham & Crump, 2005
Worry
Low self-efficacy
Trait anxiety
Low competence
State/test anxiety
Low performance
Low preparation
(in future tests)
A hypothetical model for the processes underlying the relation between
anxiety and test performance (based on Muller, 1992).
Model of the relationship between Neuroticism and academic
success (Dobson, 2000)
Threat
associated
with testing
situation
State
Anxiety
Trait
Anxiety
Interference
in Cognitive
processing
Lowered test
performance
Two models representing Neuroticism being directly related to
intelligence and the relationship between Neuroticism and
intelligence being mediated by test anxiety affecting IQ test
performance
Model 1
Model 2
Neuroticism
(Trait
Anxiety
Neuroticism
IQ
Test Anxiety
(State
Anxiety)
IQ test
performance
Correlations between Neuroticism, fluid intelligence, test
anxiety and induced anxiety
Neuroticism
Intelligence
Intelligence
-.19*
Test Anxiety
.34***
-.22*
Induced
Anxiety
.48***
-.11
*p <.05,
**p <.01, ***p < .001
Test
Anxiety
.32**
The relationship between Neuroticism, test anxiety
and intelligence (test performance).
Neuroticism
Test Anxiety
Moutafi et al, 2005
Intelligence (test
performance)
Correlations between Conscientiousness and intelligence
measures
Measure of IQ
r
p
N
Graduate Managerial Assessment (Abstract)
-.11
<.01
900
Watson-Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisal g
-.13
<.001
900
g
-.14
<.001
900
2
Graduate Managerial Assessment (Abstract)
-.11
<.001
2658
3
General Reasoning Test Battery 1 – Numerical
Reasoning
-.12
<.05
201
GRTB 2 – Verbal Reasoning
-.23
<.001
201
GRTB 2 – Abstract Reasoning
-.26
<.001
201
4
Raven’s Standard Progressive Matrices
-.02
<.05
182
5
Baddeley Reasoning Test
-.21
<.05
100
6
General Reasoning Test Battery 2 – Numerical
Reasoning
-.20
<.001
4625
GRTB 2 – Verbal Reasoning
-.26
<.001
4625
GRTB 2 – Abstract Reasoning
-.16
<.001
4625
g
-.25
<.001
4625
1
Test Related Features to High and Low Extraversion
Extraversion Level
High
Low
Divided attention
+
-
Long-term memory
-
+
Reflective problem solving
-
+
Resistance to distraction
+
-
Retrieval from memory
+
-
Short term memory
+
-
Vigilance
-
+
Note: Table is adapted from Matthews (1999)
Study 1
• Participants: 80 British schoolchildren
• Measures:
– GCSE results in various subjects (10th grade)
– NEO-FFI
– Wonderlic Personnel Test
Correlations between GCSE scores, cognitive ability scores and the Big Five
personality measures. (Partial correlations shown in brackets partialling out sex
and age.)
MATHS
SCIENCE
ENGLISH LIT
ENGLISH
LANG
RELIGION
LANGUAGE
TOTAL
WPT
0.46**
(0.50)
0.34**
(0.33)
0.22
(0.24)
0.22
(0.30)
0.17
(0.15)
0.14
(0.15)
0.34**
(0.37)
N
- 0.26*
(0.17)
- 0.07
(0.06)
- 0.11
(- 0.12)
- 0.20
(-0.08)
- 0.17
(-0.19)
-0.09
(-0.09)
-0.26*
(0.17)
E
0.05
(0.11)
0.05
(0.04)
0.03
(0.03)
0.09
(0.08)
0.02
(0.08)
0.02
(0.02)
0.05
(0.04)
O
0.16
(0.15)
0.23*
(0.23)
0.31**
(0.31)
0.36**
(0.36)
0.31*
(0.15)
0.08
(0.08)
0.28*
(0.28)
A
0.07
(0.00)
0.08
(0.09)
0.08
(0.07)
0.12
(0.10)
0.04
(0.03)
0.05
(0.06)
0.06
(0.04)
C
0.17
(0.14)
0.29**
(0.30)
0.18
(0.17)
0.21
(0.16)
0.22*
(0.20)
0.27*
(0.27)
0.31**
(0.29)
n = 79. *p<0.05, **p<0.01
N = Neuroticism, E = Extraversion, O = Openness to Experience, A =
Agreeableness, C = Conscientiousness
WPT = Wonderlic Personnel Test
β andt-values as predictors of AP after hierarchical regression. Regressions of Total
GCSE Scores, individual GCSE scores and combined scores.
Wonderlic
F
Total
GCSE
β
t
β
t
β
t
0.32
3.16*
0.45
4.46
0.23
2.09
(1,78) 9.77*
Adj. R2
M/S
(1,78)
0.10
L/L
19.9**
(1,78) 4.35*
0.19
0.04
Neuroticism
-0.16
-1.44
-0.12
1.12
-0.15
-1.30
Extraversion
-0.05
-0.44
-0.03
0.29
-0.02
-0.16
Openness to Experience
0.20
1.92
0.03
0.28
0.13
1.03
Agreeableness
-0.09
0.66
0.21
0.83
0.08
0.65
Conscientiousness
0.31
3.12*
0.16
1.34
0.26
2.05*
F
Adj. R2
(6,76) 3.58**
0.23
(6,78)
4.14
0.19
(6.78)
2.77*
0.12
Study 2
• Participants: 250 British schoolchildren
• Measures:
– GCSE results in various subjects (10th grade)
– NEO-FFI
– Wonderlic Personnel Test
Furnham, A., & Monsen, J. (2009) Personality traits and intelligence
predict academic school grades.Learning and Individual Differences,
19,28-33.
Table 2
Means, SDs and correlations between the major variables
M
SD
S
W
B
N
E
O
A
C
L
Lit
M
Sex (S)
Wonderlic (W)
25.50
5.81
-.27
Baddeley (B)
36.89
7.78
-.46
.45
Neuroticism (N)
35.01
6.79
.04
.00
.00
Extraversion (E)
40.72
4.72
.12
-.17
-.04
.03
Openness (O)
35.09
5.40
-.09
-.08
.01
.00
.06
Agreeableness (A)
37.67
5.24
-.11
.16
.12
.09
.07
-.04
Conscientiousness (C)
39.11
4.16
.01
.02
-.02
-.13
.17
.14
.03
Eng Lang (L)
5.36
0.82
-.44
.41
.35
-.10
-.24
.01
.09
.12
Eng Lit (Lit)
5.60
1.06
-.40
.32
.34
-.12
-.17
.00
.02
.17
.69
Maths (M)
5.57
0.98
-.17
.41
.23
-.27
-.17
.07
.06
.12
.45
.39
Science (Sc)
5.21
1.18
-.26
.39
.32
-.18
-.18
.04
.09
.16
.55
.52
Correlations were two-tailed. Correlations > .12 were p < .05, those r > .17, p < 001
.68
Table 3
Regression results for the Compulsory Subjects (N = 240)
Eng Lang
Eng Lit
Maths
Science
Total
Beta
t
Beta
t
Beta
t
Beta
t
Beta
t
Wonderlic
.25
4.34***
.18
2.89**
.39
6.53***
.32
5.24***
.34
5.99***
Neuroticism
-.08
1.42
-.08
1.31
-.26
4.53***
-.14
2.52**
-.17
3.21**
Extraversion
-.18
3.25***
-.14
2.40**
-.14
2.36**
-.13
2.22**
-.18
3.26***
Openness
.00
0.11
-.04
0.64
.08
1.34
.01
0.28
.01
0.23
Agreeableness
.05
0.83
-.03
0.43
.03
0.53
.05
0.87
.04
0.80
Conscientiousness
.13
2.38**
.20
3.36***
.11
1.87
.19
3.15**
.19
3.43***
Sex
-.35
6.60***
-.34
5.64***
-.04
0.60
-.16
2.72**
-.25
-4.53***
F
Adj R2
F
Adj R2
F
Adj R2
F
Adj R2
F
Adj R2
Wonderlic (IQ)
46.08***
.16
24.71***
.09
54.49***
.18
45.92***
.16
62.12***
.21
IQ + Personality
11.14***
.20
7.13***
.13
15.85***
.27
12.04***
.22
17.19***
.29
IQ + P + Sex
16.26***
.30
11.48***
.24
13.60***
.27
11.67***
.24
18.94***
.35
Model
*** p < .001 ** p < .01 *p < .05 (two tailed)
+ Males = 1; Females = 2
Typical intellectual engagement
•
•
•
•
Personality
Approaches to learning
Typical Intellectual style
General and crystalised intelligence
Furnham, A., Monsen, J., & Ahmetoglu,G. (2009) Typical intellectual
engagement, Big Five personality traits, approaches to learning and
cognitive ability predictors of academic performance. British Journal of
Educational Psychology, 79, 769-782.
English (+Literature)
Maths (+ Science)
Std.B
t
Std.B
Age
.18
2.66**
.13
Gender
.25
F
3.73 **
(2, 212) = 13.02**
AdjR²
t
Total (Maths+English)
Std.B
2.06*
.35
5.47**
(2, 212) = 20.16**
.10
.13
.19
Total(All)
t
Std.B
t
1.85
.11
1.62.
2.82**
(2, 212) = 7.02**
.15
.12
-1.78
(2, 212) = 3.62*
.05
.02
WPT
.37
5.57**
.41
6.24**
.35
4.25**
.22
2.65**
GK
.39
5.60**
.31
4.43**
.21
2.53*
.34
3.81**
F
(4, 212) = 61.23**
AdjR²
TIE
F
(4, 212) = 63.26**
.53
.07
.54
1.27
(5, 212) = 49.45**
AdjR²
(4, 212) = 22.79**
.09
.29
1.61
(5, 212) = 51.51**
.53
(4, 212) = 18.7**
.21
.25
3.15**
(5, 212) = 21.01**
.55
.19
2.74**
(5, 212) = 16.95**
.32
.27
N
.06
1.00
.08
1.44
.08
1.39
.07
1.09
E
.05
.97
.03
.66
.04
.61
.02
.32
O
-.03
-.47
-.11
-1.92
-.12
-1.63
-.10
-1.34
A
.04
.73
.05
1.11
.02
.29
.03
.43
C
.07
1.60
.07
.07
1.21
.10
1.63
F
(10, 212) = 25.28**
AdjR²
.07
1.22
SPQD
-.09
-1.41
SPQA
.15
2.01*
AdjR²
(10, 212) = 27.44**
(10, 212) = 11.19**
(10, 212) = 9.17**
.56
.33
.28
.54
SPQS
F
1.54
(13, 212) = 20.54**
.55
.01
.17
.05
.76
.05
.66
-.09
1.40
-.07
-.82
-.02
-.20
.18
2.54*
.19
2.20*
.12
1.37
(13, 212) = 22.20**
.57
(13, 212) = 9.43**
.34
(13, 212) = 7.41**
.28
Individual Differences
in Test Taking
• Do personality traits affect intelligence test
performance?
Self-Efficacy, Test Anxiety, Need for Achievement,
Self-Regulation, Extraversion, Need for Cognition
• Does intelligence affect personality test responses?
• Dissimulation
• Are there any “pure” measures of either personality
or intelligence?
• Can we avoid “noise” in measurement?
Mixed, Middle-ground, Muddled,
Mesopotamium Constructs ?
• Social Intelligences specifically Emotional
Intelligence *
• Self-Assessed Personality & Intelligence (SAI)
• Typical Intellectual Engagement (TIE)
• Intellectual Competence
• Cognitive, Learning, Thinking Styles
• Self-Confidence/Core Self-Concept
• Creativity *
*Measure by both power and preference
We know that:
• Intelligence and personality predict school success
• Intelligence is probably more important than
personality
• The more salient personality variables are in order
Openness, Conscientiousness, Neuroticism
• But the power of these factors depends on other
things like
* The subject being taught
* The teacher as his/her preferred method
* The learning style of the student
A simple model
Intelligence
Fluid/Crystallised
Personality
OCN
Learning
Style SPQ
School
Success
The Incremental Validity Question
Do typical intellectual learning styles and
approaches add
enough
explicable
useful
incremental validity in addition to
personality and intelligence in predicting
school success.
N
Topic
Teacher
E
O
Teaching
Style
A
Assessment
Methods
C
Academic
Achievement
Preference For...Satisfaction With………Choice Of
IQ
Does learning style have incremental
validity?
N = 158
1. Study Process Questionnaire
2. NEO-PI-R
3. Wonderlic Personnel Test
4. Baddeley Reasoning Test
Exam Marks (Totalled) 3 years later
Does Personality and Ability Predict
Examination Preference?
Learning approaches, personality and intelligence as predictors of exam marks
B
Model 1
Surface
Deep
Achieving
-.38
.63
.24
Adj.R2 = 17
Model 2
Neuroticism
Extraversion
Openness
Agreeableness
Conscientiousness
Adj.R2 = 41
Standardised β
.21
.17
.15
t
-.19
.37
.17
1.87
3.64**
1.58
.03
.12
.27
-.09
.40
.34
1.01
2.64**
.88
4.04**
.05
.28
.45
2.72**
F (3, 78) = 6.58**
.04
.15
.30
-.10
.33
Adj.R2 = 35
Model 3
IQ
gf
Std.Error
.14
.16
.11
.12
.08
F (8, 73) = 6.43**
.04
.18
.09
.06
F (10, 71) = 6.63**
Note. N = 284. * p < .05, ** p < .01. IQ = Wonderlic Personnel Test. gf = fluid intelligence
Does Typical Intellectual Engagement have
incremental validity
N = 104
1. NEO-FFI
2. Typical Intellectual Engagement
3. Wonderlic Personnel Test
4. Baddeley Reasoning Test
5. Raven’s Advanced Progressive Matrices
Hierarchical Multiple Regressions: Cognitive Ability, Personality and Typical Intellectual Engagement
as Predictors of Academic Performance
FINAL PROJECT
St. β
1
2
Psychometric g
Psychometric g
.10
EXAMS
St. β
t
.97
.15
1.49
St. β
t
.26
2.72**
Model F (1, 100) = .96
Adj.R2 = .01
Model F (1, 100) = 2.22
Adj.R2 = .01
Model F (1, 100) = 7.43**
Adj.R2 = .06
R = .10
R = .15
R = .26**
.07
.67
.12
1.19
.23
Neuroticism
-.14
1.24
-.16
1.44
-.12
-1.11
Extraversion
-.03
.25
-.06
.54
-.01
.04
Openness
-.19
1.84
-.06
.53
-.18
1.80
Agreeableness
-.09
.81
.02
.19
-.03
.35
.21
2.02*
.19
1.74
.31
3.06**
Conscientiousness
3
t
ESSAYS
Psychometric g
2.39**
Model F (6, 95) = 2.10
Adj.R2 = .06
Model F (6, 95) = 1.56
Adj.R2 = .03
Model F (6, 95) = 3.98**
Adj.R2 = .15
R = .34*
R = .30
R = .45**
.04
.38
.08
.77
.18
1.95*
Neuroticism
-.11
1.03
-.13
1.17
-.08
.77
Extraversion
-.01
.11
-.04
.32
.02
.23
Openness
-.22
2.10*
-.10
.94
-.22
2.36*
Agreeableness
-.11
.99
-.01
.06
-.07
.69
Conscientiousness
.15
1.43
.10
.91
.21
2.10*
TIE
.20
1.92*
.30
2.90**
.34
3.54**
Model F (7, 94) = 2.39*
Adj.R2 = .09
Model F (7, 94) = 2.64**
Adj.R2 = .10
Model F (7, 94) = 5.62**
Adj.R2 = .24
R = .39*
R = .41*
R = .54**
F
Preferences for University Assessment Methods
N = 120 Students
NEO – FFI
Wonderlic Personnel Test
Correlations Between PAMI Factors, IQ, Big Five Personality Traits and Gender
Multiple
Choice
Essay-type
exam
Viva
Oral Exam
Continuous
assessment
Final project
(dissertation)
.23*
-.03
-.22*
.01
.02
IQ
N
.04
(.01)
-.21* (-.21*)
-.24*
(-.22*)
-.10
(-.10)
.09
(.09)
E
-.06
(-.06)
-.04
(-.04)
.27**
(.28**)
.16
(.16)
-.05
(-.05)
O
-.02
(-.02)
-.05
(-.05)
.10
(.10)
.01
(.01)
-.02
(-.02)
A
-.06
(-.06)
.22*
(.22)
-.03
(-.03)
.16
(.16)
.05
(.05)
C
-.06
-.01)
.08
(.08)
.16
(.11)
.25**
(.25**)
.02
(.03)
Gender
-.21*
(-.15)
.01
(.03)
-.07
(-.12)
.11
(.13)
.13
(.21*)
Hierarchical Regressions, Academic Perform. IQ, Personality, gender.
Essay-type Exam
Viva
st.β
β
t
st.β
β
t
WEM
-.06
.51
-.03
.26
SB
.16
1.42
.05
.42
Adj.R2
.03
IQ
-.10
.97
.08
.77
N
-.28
2.28*
-.23
1.94*
E
-.06
.47
.17
1.30
O
.10
.92
-.12
1.12
A
-.19
1.79*
-.15
1.44
C
.01
.13
.14
1.22
Adj.R2
.07
Gender
-.07
F(1,101)
1.68
2.00*
Adj.R2
.06
.09
.01
.10
.59
-1.06
1.82
n = 93. WEM=Written exam marks, SB=Seminar Behaviour, IQ=Wonderlic. High on PAMI
factors, e.g. Multiple Choice, Viva, refer to preference, whereas low scores refer to dislike.
Gender codes 1 = males, 2 = females, * p <.05
Hierarchical Regressions, Academic Perform. IQ, Personality, gender.
Continuous Assessment
Final Proj. Dissertation
st.β
β
t
st.β
β
t
WEM
-.10
.83
-.05
.23
SB
-.00
.03
.10
.94
Adj.R2
.02
IQ
.10
.95
.06
.66
N
.09
.70
.08
.67
E
.10
.75
-.17
1.39
O
-.22
1.96*
-.14
1.40
A
-.15
1.43
.01
.13
C
.24
2.13*
.36
3.36**
Adj.R2
.04
Gender
.18
F(1,101)
1.58
3.45**
Adj.R2
.05
.19
.02
.19
1.50
-.10
.89
n = 93. WEM=Written exam marks, SB=Seminar Behaviour, IQ=Wonderlic. High on PAMI
factors, e.g. Multiple Choice, Viva, refer to preference, whereas low scores refer to dislike.
Gender codes 1 = males, 2 = females, * p <.05
Conclusion
Personality and Intelligence and…….predict:
•
•
•
•
•
•
Exam marks
Project marks
Term Essay
General Knowledge
How students like to be assessed
How students like to be taught