See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/7491972
Personality as a Predictor of Professional Behavior in Dental School:
Comparisons with Dental Practitioners
Article in Journal of Dental Education · December 2005
DOI: 10.1002/j.0022-0337.2005.69.11.tb04021.x · Source: PubMed
CITATIONS
READS
77
1,837
3 authors, including:
Vic Catano
Saint Mary's University
60 PUBLICATIONS 2,084 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
All content following this page was uploaded by Vic Catano on 29 January 2015.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.
Personality as a Predictor of Professional
Behavior in Dental School: Comparisons with
Dental Practitioners
T.C. Chamberlain, M.Sc.; V.M. Catano, Ph.D.; D.P. Cunningham, D.D.S.
Abstract: The purpose of this study was to examine the use of personality measures to predict the success of dental students
(N=87) in clinical and academic courses and to compare their personality profiles to those of dental practitioners (N=130). A
second purpose of the study was to develop a new criterion measure, the Student Professionalism Scale, based on competencies
previously identified as necessary for professional success. The Canadian Dental Aptitude Test (DAT) predicted first-year,
preclinical academic success; the DAT Reading Comprehension component predicted third-year clinical performance; and
Perceptual Ability, the ability to deal with two- and three-dimensional objects, predicted student professionalism. Results from
the personality measure indicated that Conscientiousness and Neuroticism, and to a lesser extent Agreeableness, were significant
predictors of both first-year academic performance and professional behavior. In comparing the personality profiles of dental
students to dental practitioners, students who were more similar to the dentists did better in their first year of coursework.
Implications of the findings are discussed in the context of the dental admissions process.
Ms. Chamberlain is employed by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police; Dr. Catano is Professor and Chair, Department of
Psychology, Saint Mary’s University; and Dr. Cunningham is Associate Professor and Assistant Dean, Faculty of Dentistry,
Dalhousie University. Direct correspondence to Dr. D.P. Cunningham, Dalhousie University, 5981 University Ave., Halifax,
Nova Scotia, CANADA B3H 3J5; 902-494-2876 phone; 902-494-2527 fax; d.p.cunningham@dal.ca. This study is based on
data collected as part of a master’s thesis project at Saint Mary’s University.
Key words: DAT, personality measures, predicting performance, professional behavior
Submitted for publication 4/21/05; accepted 7/19/05
T
o succeed in dental school, dental students
need both academic and behavioral skills.
Certain academic-related competencies, such
as time management, task organization, reading comprehension, memorization, test taking, and concentration, may be more critical to success during the
first year of dental school when students are confronted with the demands of a professional school
curriculum and may have not yet learned how to cope
with their new environment. As students progress
through dental school, the curriculum begins to include clinical interactions with patients, and behavioral skills such as verbal communication and empathy become more valuable. 1 Dental school
admissions criteria, such as the Canadian Dental
Aptitude Test (DAT), can predict academic performance among dental students,2-4 particularly in the
first and second year of dental school training.2,5,6 In
contrast, minimal research has examined the ability
of dental school admissions criteria to predict behavioral skills that relate to professionalism. Selection tools, such as personality measures, that are designed to assess behavioral skills may add to the
prediction of performance in dental school.
1222
Recently, Smithers et al.3 demonstrated that there
was a need to differentiate between academic and clinical performance when investigating which factors predicted success in dental school. In that study, the investigators found that a valid measure of personality
based on the Five-Factor Model of personality7 could
improve selection decisions. In our study we continue
to investigate the degree to which dental students’
personalities predict their performance in dental
school. One limitation of the Smithers et al.3 study
was the lack of comparative personality data from
practicing dentists. As we discuss later in this article,
one major theory of vocational choice argues that particular personality types are attracted to certain work
environments. Without normative personality data
from practicing dentists, using personality as a predictor during the admissions process might predict
success in coursework, but not in dentistry as a career. We rectify this limitation in our study by comparing the personality profiles of dental students to
dental practitioners.
The chief means of assessing dental student
performance is through grades assigned to
coursework. Smithers et al.3 showed that there are
different sets of predictors for academic and clinical
Journal of Dental Education ■ Volume 69, Number 11
courses. In the latter case, the students’ behavioral
and interpersonal skills may play a more important
role than cognitive ability; on the other hand, cognitive ability, as measured by the DAT, is necessary
for successful academic performance. Clinical
grades, nonetheless, assess performance of clinical
skills but may not capture the full extent of desired
professional behaviors. In this study we also sought
to develop a measure of performance that would assess the student’s degree of professionalism.
narrower “facets.” Some researchers argue that the
narrower facets can be more useful in predicting performance than the five broad factors. Smithers et al.3
found that both the broad five factors and the narrower facets had value in predicting dental school
performance; in some cases the broad factors improved prediction, but in other cases where the broad
factor failed to predict, its narrow facets made a significant contribution to predicting the various criteria.
Personality and Selection
Personality and Dental Student
Selection
The Five-Factor Model of
Personality
The Five-Factor Model of personality, commonly referred to as the “Big Five,”8 is a popular
taxonomy used to classify personality traits into an
understandable structure. The model describes the
most salient aspects of personality. The five factors
are: 1) Extroversion—the quantity and intensity of
interpersonal interaction; 2) Conscientiousness—the
amount of persistence, organization, and motivation
in goal-directed behaviors; 3) Neuroticism—the tendency to experience negative affect, such as anxiety,
depression, and hostility (this factor is often termed
“Emotional Stability” when used in work settings;
Emotional Stability is the absence of neurotic behavior; that is, it reflects a calm, relaxed approach to
situations, events, or people. It is an emotionally
controlled response to changes in the work environment); 4) Openness to Experience—the proactive
seeking and appreciation of new experiences; and 5)
Agreeableness—the quality of one’s interpersonal
interactions along a continuum from compassion to
antagonism.
The Five-Factor Model of personality is recognized as an important model that summarizes relationships among various personality traits7,9 with
the five factors collectively comprising important
characteristics that are used to categorize the various traits.10 Meta-analytic reviews for each of the Big
Five dimensions show that each dimension predicts
job performance in many occupations with conscientiousness correlating most highly with overall job
performance for many jobs, but extroversion, openness to experience, and emotional stability correlated
most highly with leadership in business settings.11
The five major factors are sometimes subdivided into
November 2005
■
Journal of Dental Education
The use of personality measures as part of the
dental student selection process is not a recent consideration. Barkley12 suggested that rather than selecting top performing science students and attempting to make them value interpersonal relationships
with patients and staff, dental programs should select individuals who already value relationships with
people and train those people to become dentists. In
1974, the Canadian Dental Association introduced a
personality measure into the Dental Admissions Testing Program, but later abandoned it because of administrative and cost considerations.13 The Five-Factor Model, which can be assessed with reliable and
valid personality measures, now provides a viable
method to investigate dental school applicants’ personalities during the academic selection process.
Research findings pertinent to several components
of this model are reviewed in the following sections,
with emphasis placed on the only two studies that
have used the Five-Factor Model in assessing dental
school performance. As might be expected from the
results from only two studies, there are inconsistencies in the findings, again pointing out the need for
additional research on this model’s application to
dental school performance.
Conscientiousness is related to success in almost every occupational field.14 In academic work,
conscientious students are more likely to set and
achieve goals.15 Conscientiousness is related to traits
such as organization, persistence, and purposefulness16; these traits are similar to the need for determination, deliberation, caution, and reliability that
underlie the often repetitive nature of dental work.17
Surprisingly, Smithers et al.3 did not find any evidence linking conscientiousness to performance in
dental school, as measured by course grades.
Smithers et al. suggested that overly conscientious
individuals might not perform well in occupations
1223
that do not allow for long periods of deliberation
while making a decision. In dental school, students
may not be afforded long lengths of time to make
decisions. Thus, highly conscientious dental students
would not outperform students who were less conscientious. Alternatively, current selection procedures
in dental school may result in a student body that is
very homogeneous in terms of conscientiousness.
Further research on the importance of conscientiousness is warranted, given its success as a predictor for
other occupations.
Agreeableness and Extroversion may also be
important in predicting dental school performance.
Evans and Dirks18 used the Big Five factors to predict dental students’ grades in three laboratory
courses where psychomotor skills were important.
The broad factor of Agreeableness predicted one
course grade while three of its narrow facets—Trust,
Straightforwardness, and Compliance—predicted
two other grades. Two narrow facets of Extroversion—Warmth and Excitement-Seeking—also predicted one grade. Smithers et al.3 did not find a significant relationship between Agreeableness and
dental school performance, but similar to Evans and
Dirks, they found that Straightforwardness had a significant positive relationship with grades in year two
of dental school training. Contrary to Evans and
Dirks, Smithers et al. reported a negative relationship between Compliance and third-year dental
school coursework as well as a negative relationship
between Tender Mindedness, another facet of Agreeableness, and third-year dental school coursework.
They also found that Positive Emotions, a facet of
Extroversion, predicted third-year clinical training.
One possible explanation for the inconsistent findings between Evans and Dirks and Smithers et al.
regarding Agreeableness is the use of different criterion variables in the two studies. Specifically, Evans
and Dirks examined the prediction of laboratory
courses, and Smithers et al. studied the prediction of
performance in each year of dental school, which
involved laboratory courses as well as a variety of
other dental courses.
Openness to Experience in the Evans and
Dirks18 study did not correlate with performance in
dental school. Openness to Experience has been
linked to intelligence16 and creativity.19 Dental students may not have much opportunity to be creative
or intellectually curious in a controlled laboratory
setting. In fact, Smithers et al.3 found that Openness
to Experience was negatively related to academic
1224
performance in years two and three and to clinical
performance in year three. Three facets of Openness
to Experience—Fantasizing/Daydreaming, Openness
to Ideas, and Aesthetics—all were negatively related
to performance criteria. That is, students who daydreamed less, were less open to ideas, and were less
interested in aesthetics performed better in dental
school.
There is an ongoing debate in the behavioral
literature on whether it is more advantageous to use
only the broad factors as opposed to their narrow
facets to predict performance. The research conducted by both Evans and Dirks18 and Smithers et
al.3 suggests that, at the moment, research on personality as a predictor of dental school performance
should continue to assess both broad and narrow facets as certain factors may be relevant at both the broad
and narrow level.
Personality of Dental Students and
Dentists
While several studies have investigated the
personality of dental students (see Smithers et al.3
for a review), we could find only one study that compared the personality of dental students and practitioners, and it reported inconclusive results.
McDaniel et al.,20 using the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI), found that recent graduate practitioners and dental students were similar on the MBTI
dimensions of Extraversion-Introversion (E-I) and
Sensing-Intuitive (S-N), but that they differed on the
Thinking-Feeling (T-F) and Judgment-Perceptive (JP) scales. New practitioners tended to cluster more
towards the “Thinking” end of the T-F scale and were
typed as more judgmental than students on the J-P
scale. The MBTI is based on Jungian psychoanalytic
theory and uses the four dimensions noted above to
classify personality types. For example, a ENFP type
would have an outward focus on other people and
things (E), rely on intuition (N) more than their
senses, make judgments based on their values rather
than the facts (F), and interact with the environment
through their perceptions rather than through a formal cognitive process (P). The MBTI types do not
coincide with the Big Five dimensions and are not
well suited for use in selection procedures.21 Smithers
et al. commented on the need to collect normative,
personality data from dental practitioners, if personality measures were to be incorporated into the assessment of dental school applicants.
Journal of Dental Education ■ Volume 69, Number 11
In one of the most influential theories of career choice, Holland22 proposes that specific personality types are attracted to certain work environments
that are compatible with their own values and interests and let them exercise their skills and abilities on
problems that they find interesting. Holland’s theory
is much more complex than we can present here, but
essentially it identifies six personality types—Realistic (R), Investigative (I), Artistic (A), Social (S),
Enterprising (E), Conventional (C) (RIASEC)—that
in combination are used to identify both individuals
and work environments. Individuals are thought to
search for work environments whose profiles match
their own vocational personality profile. Ultimately,
a person’s work performance is determined by an
interaction of personality and environment, with the
best performance occurring when there is a positive
match between both.
Several studies have investigated the correspondence between the RIASEC types and the Big
Five personality dimensions. While there is not a
complete overlap between the two models, overall
these studies suggest that there is good correspondence between the Big Five and RIASEC types.23-26
Based on Holland’s theory, we would expect to see
convergence between the personality profiles of dental students and dental practitioners. Specifically, we
would expect both groups to exhibit similar values
on the Big Five dimensions.
A Measure of Professional
Performance
In 1998, the Canadian Dental Association
(CDA) commissioned a study to identify the nontechnical competencies, that is, sets of behaviors
rather than technical dentistry skills, that were required for successful performance as a dentist.27 That
project identified eight competencies, specifically,
Sensitivity to Others, Self-Control, Tact and Diplomacy, Oral Communication, Integrity, Judgment and
Analysis, Conscientiousness, and Life-Long Learning. These competencies, or sets of behaviors, are
thought to be central to the development of ethical
and professional values and skills both in dental
school and beyond.27 These competencies are believed to be so fundamental that an applicant is expected to exhibit these behaviors at a certain level
prior to admission and build on them afterwards in
the dentistry program. The CDA developed a structured interview protocol involving behavioral-based
November 2005
■
Journal of Dental Education
and situational questions that were derived from critical incidents related to the first seven competencies.
That interview protocol is now in use as part of admissions procedures by Canadian dental schools and
is currently being evaluated.
One concern of many professional schools is
to develop a sense of “professionalism” among their
graduates. Although there is disagreement on a definition of professionalism, many researchers and professional bodies include criteria related to such factors as altruism, accountability, excellence, duty,
self-assessment, communication, maturity, respect
for others, reliability, honesty, and integrity.28-31 These
elements of professionalism overlap considerably
with the CDA competencies identified as necessary
for successful performance in dental practice. As
such, the CDA competencies can be considered elements of professionalism.
Course grades may capture both the knowledge
and clinical skills of a dental student; however, grades
may not truly reflect the essential components of
professionalism. To that end, we undertook to develop a performance measure based on the seven
CDA competencies that are assessed by the CDA
interview. We report the development of a behaviorally anchored rating scale (BARS) that can be used
to assess a dental student’s professional behavior. A
BARS32 is a rating scale that uses descriptions of
behaviors to anchor numerical values. The verbal
descriptors reflect critical, work-related performance
factors as identified by subject matter experts for the
job or occupation in question. Behaviorally anchored
rating scales, in general, are recognized as one of the
best types of rating scales in use today as a BARS
integrates critical performance information directly
to the performance appraisal measure.33 Table 1 presents the rating scale that we used to assess Conscientiousness, one of seven behaviors measured in this
study. We refer to the seven BARS items used in this
study as the Student Professionalism Scale (SPS).
Method
Participants
All students at a Canadian dental school were
invited to participate in the study; eighty-seven out of
135 of the students (64 percent) enrolled in the school
accepted the invitation. Participation decreased with
1225
Table 1. The SPS item developed to measure Conscientiousness
Conscientiousness: This competency focuses on a student’s ability to be enthusiastic and committed to one’s work. It
addresses such characteristics as preparedness, planning and organization, sustained enthusiasm, attention to detail,
maintenance of standards, pride, and responsibility.
Rating
Behavioral Anchors
5
•Reacts immediately to mistakes, making necessary adjustments
•Accepts responsibility for mistakes with no quibbling
•Consistently prepared
•Consistently organized
•Consistently attempts to work beyond usual and customary standards of accepted practice procedures
•Clearly demonstrates behavior that illustrates the “extra mile”
•Demonstrates a sense of pride and responsibility about self/work/personal activities
3
•Responds adequately to responsibilities but no more than necessary
•Is generally prepared and organized but not always
•Generally thorough in assessing patients but makes occasional error
•Does not avoid “difficult” patients but does not seek them
1
•Ensures that personal needs are served first, all others second
•Makes errors in scheduling
•Not prepared, not organized
•Takes exception to having errors pointed out
•Makes excuses
•Tends to point fingers at anyone other than self for mistakes/problems
•Avoids working with “difficult” patients
•Unable to make sound decisions appropriate to skill level without excessive consultation with faculty
•Shows little concern when patients/classmates/faculty/staff are kept waiting
year of study: thirty-four of the thirty-six first-year
students, twenty-five of the thirty-four second-year
students, eighteen of the thirty-three third-year students, and ten of the thirty-two fourth-year students
voluntarily participated. Based on anecdotal evidence,
we believe that the decline in participation over cohorts reflects a greater focus on the part of senior students towards graduation and beginning their careers.
Of the eighty-seven participants, 56 percent were
women and 44 percent were men, the same gender
composition as the entire student body (N=135). Participants ranged in age from twenty-one to forty-three
years, with a mean age of twenty-five years (SD=2.92).
For the entire student body the mean age was twentyfour with the same age range.
Surveys were mailed to all 356 dentists in Nova
Scotia who were listed as members of the Provincial
dental association, with 130 (37 percent) members
from this population agreeing to participate. A letter
from the president of the Provincial association accompanied the surveys requesting that the dentists
participate in the study. The NEO-PI-R takes about
1226
forty minutes to complete; this factor may have deterred some dentists from responding. Of the respondents, ninety-one (70 percent) were men. Participants
ranged in age from twenty-seven to seventy-four
years, with a mean age of forty-seven years
(SD=11.13). The year of graduation from dental
school ranged from 1956 to 2003, the average year
of graduation was 1983 (SD=11.00).
This study was reviewed and approved on January 16, 2004 by the Dalhousie University Research
Ethics Board, following the policy on research with
human participants developed by the three Canadian
federal granting agencies. All students and dentists
were assured that any information obtained through
the course of the study would remain confidential
and that only aggregate data would be reported. Students were further assured that participation or
nonparticipation in the study would have no impact
on their grades and that course instructors would not
have access to any of the information they provided.
Both students and dentists signed informed consent
forms as part of their participation in the study.
Journal of Dental Education ■ Volume 69, Number 11
Measures
Control Measures
Scores from the Reading Comprehension Examination, the Perceptual Motor Ability Test, and the
Academic Average components of the DAT were
obtained from the student participants’ official
records. We used these three DAT components as
previous research indicated that these were the best
measures of cognitive ability.3 We did not use undergraduate GPA as a control variable because this was
correlated with the DAT Academic Average. The
Academic Average was a better indicator since it is
based on a standardized measure taken across all
applicants.
Predictor Measures
Costa and McCrae’s16 NEO-PI-R was used to
assess personality. (NEO-PI-R is an acronym based
on the first letter of three of the five factors: Neuroticism, Extraversion and Openness coupled with
the first letters of Personality Inventory, and Revised
to indicate the latest version of the inventory.) This
measure has 240 items that were specifically developed to assess the Big Five factors of personality:
Extroversion (E), Conscientiousness (C), Neuroticism (N), Openness to Experience (O), and Agreeableness (A). There are six narrow facets for each of
the broad personality factors. The NEO-PI-R is a
reliable measure of personality that demonstrates
excellent convergent validity with other recognized
measures of personality.16 For the student and dentist samples combined, Cronbach’s Alpha Coefficients were: α=.89 for Extroversion, α=.89 for Conscientiousness, α=.93 for Neuroticism, α=.89 for
Openness to Experience, and α=.88 for Agreeableness; the alpha coefficients for each sample were very
similar to those for the combined sample.
Criterion Measures
Four criteria were based on course grades,
while the fifth was the SPS measure developed for
the study. The first two course grade measures were
weighted GPA in the first and second year of dental
training. These were composite measures derived
from academic coursework and weighted by the
credit-value of the course; that is, the number of hours
the course is taught. First- and second-year courses
November 2005
■
Journal of Dental Education
included Gross Anatomy, Physiology, Histology,
Biology, Cariology, Periodontology, Patient Care,
Growth and Development, Pharmacology, and foundation courses directly related to dentistry such as
Removable Prosthodontics, Pediatric Dentistry, and
Clinical Patient Care. Second-year courses were
mostly advanced topics from courses covered in the
first year. The third criterion was a weighted GPA of
clinical courses in year three of dental training. Faculty in the dental school identified these clinical
courses; these courses had a major component of their
course grades derived directly from assessments
made in the dental clinic. Courses in the category
included Clinical Comprehensive Patient Care and
Clinical Oral Diagnosis and Treatment Planning. The
fourth criterion was a weighted GPA of academic
courses taken in year three of dental training and included such courses as Evidence-Based Dentistry,
Implant Dentistry, and General Medicine and Patient
Health Assessment. The “academic” performance
criteria measured traditional classroom, didactic performance with minimal or no clinical activity involved.
We also developed a behaviorally anchored
rating scale to assess professional performance of
the dental students based on seven of the eight competencies that the CDA identified as needed for successful practice as a dentist: communication, conscientiousness, integrity, judgment and analysis,
self-control, sensitivity to others, and tact and diplomacy. Life Long Learning was not included in the
performance measure because we felt that this competency was appropriate for dental practitioners but
not for dental students who were already in a learning situation.
As part of developing the new CDA structured
interview, focus groups comprised of dentists, dental students, and patients generated critical incidents
related to the seven competencies, which were then
rated from 1 (very ineffective) to 5 (very effective).
Descriptors from similarly rated incidents were then
used to generate the behavioral anchors for each competency. This procedure has been described in detail
elsewhere.34 Next, the rating scales were reviewed
and modified by dental school faculty who taught in
the dental school’s clinic. Behavioral anchors were
created for scale values 1, 3, and 5 (see Table 1).
Finally, the eighteen faculty (twelve males and six
females) who were involved in clinical teaching all
agreed to participate in the study. Each faculty member spent at least half a day per week in the clinic
with the same “cluster” of eight students for at least
1227
a minimum of one term. The faculty attended a training session in the use of the new Student Professionalism Scale (SPS) where they were instructed to familiarize themselves with the rating scales; to use
each scale as a guide and not as a checklist; to assess
only the students that they were familiar with; to render an assessment that reflected the students’ typical
behavior and not a particular incident; and to do this
assessment in a place where they could be reflective. The faculty assessed only those students in each
cluster who had agreed to participate in the study
and whom they had supervised in the clinic. The assessors were provided with a photograph of each
participant to aid their recognition and memory. The
faculty made their ratings in the winter term during
the latter part of March and into April. Each participant received only one evaluation.
In the present study, total scores on the SPS
ranged from 20 to 35, the highest score possible
(M=29.39, SD=3.70). The scale had a high degree of
internal reliability, Cronbach’s alpha=.89. The SPS
total score was used as the criterion measure. In effect, high performance on one competency compensates for low performance on another. This is similar
to scoring on the new Canadian Dental Association
interview, on which the SPS was based.
Results
Age, gender, and year of study in the dental
school program were correlated with the variables
of interest. There were no meaningful relationships
between each of the control variables and the predictor and criterion measures, except for a significant relationship between gender and neuroticism
(r=.45; p<.01) where female students tended to exhibit more anxiety, self-consciousness, and vulnerability than their male colleagues.
Table 2 presents the correlations between all
predictor and criterion variables. The DAT academic
average scores correlated with both the DAT reading comprehension (r=.58, p<.01) and perceptual
ability (r=.28, p<.05) components. Students who did
well on Academic Average also did better on both
Perceptual Ability and Reading Comprehension.
Perceptual Ability and Reading Comprehension were
not significantly correlated with each other. Both
Academic Average (r=.37, p<.01) and Perceptual
Ability (r =.36, p<.01) predicted performance in year
one. Overall, students who performed well in the first
year of dental training received higher scores on the
Academic Average and Perceptual Ability compo-
Table 2. Correlations among predictor and criterion variables
M
SD
1
-
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
Criterion Variables
1. Year 1
145.08
13.15
2. Year 2
145.82
10.02
3. Year 3 Clinical
79.31
5.50
.68**a .84** c -
4. Year 3 Academic
16.70
1.20
.50**a .60** a .57** a -
5. SPS Ratings
29.39
3.70
.26**f .09 a
.42** a .31 a
6. Academic Average
18.34
1.84
.37**e .25 b
.31 a
.07 a
7. Perceptual Ability
17.51
2.16
.36**e .10 b
.32 a
-.18 a
8. Reading Comp.
19.11
2.75
.10e
.19 b
.42* a
.32 a
9. Conscientiousness 125.67
16.65
.23*e
.27 c
.16 a
.47*a
c
a
.86**c -
-
DAT Measures
.16 d
-
.36** d .28* d -.05 d
.58** d -.11 d
-
Personality
e
a
.29** e -.09 d
e
10. Agreeableness
125.67
18.33
.30** .26
11. Extroversion
123.24
15.12
.08 e
.09 c
-.05 a
.35 a
.09 e
12. Openness
121.24
18.50
.15 e -.06 c
-.07 a
.18 a
.18 e
a
a
13. Neuroticism
81.74
22.19
-.15
e
-.14
c
-.10
-.25
.22
.15
.15
-.27*
.08 d
-.09 d
.89
d
-.15 d
.23* e
-.04 d -.13 d
-.04 d
.30**e .06 e
-.05
d
.09 d
e
.09
d
.05
.12 d
.03 d
d
-.30** .14
d
.89
.12 e
.85
.10 e
e
.41** e .89
e
-.34** -.35** -.16 e
.03 e .89
*p<.05, ** p<.01, Two-tailed test
Cronbach Alphas for personality dimensions are reported in bold on the diagonal.
Listwise n: a n = 27 – 28. b n = 42 – 48. c n = 53. d n = 76 – 80. e n = 80 – 87.
1228
Journal of Dental Education ■ Volume 69, Number 11
nents of the DAT. Reading Comprehension correlated with third-year clinical coursework (r=.42,
p<.05); students who received higher reading comprehension scores performed better in their third-year
clinical coursework.
Perceptual Ability also correlated with scores
from the SPS measure of professionalism (r=.36,
p<.01). Students who scored high on the pre-admission Perceptual Ability component were more likely
to receive favorable clinical performance assessments
on the SPS.
Personality and Performance on
the Criterion Measures
Conscientiousness predicted Year 1 (r=.23,
p<.05) and Year 3 Academic Performance (r=.47,
p<.05) performance. Students who were more conscientious performed better in their first- and thirdyear academic courses. Conscientiousness also predicted the students’ SPS assessments (r=.29, p<.01);
students who were more conscientious received higher
ratings on the SPS. Agreeableness predicted first-year
performance (r=.30, p<.01), with agreeable students
performing better in Year 1. Low scores on Neuroticism were associated with high SPS ratings (r=-.27,
p<.05); students who scored lower on Neuroticism,
that is, who were more emotionally stable, were assessed as performing better in the clinic on the SPS
measure. Extroversion and Openness to Experience
did not predict any of the criterion variables.
Narrow Personality Facets and
Performance
The relationships between the narrow personality facets and dental school performance criteria
are presented in Table 3 together with the reliability
data for each facet. Three facets of Agreeableness
correlated with different criteria: 1) Trust correlated
with performance in Year 1 (r=.36, p<.01) and also
predicted ratings on the SPS (r=.22, p<.05); students
who trusted others more, performed better; 2)
Straightforwardness correlated with performance in
both Year 1 (r=.22, p<.05) and Year 2 (r=.29, p<.01);
students who were more straightforward received
higher grades in both years; and 3) Modesty predicted
performance in both Year 1 (r=.23, p<.05) and Year
2 (r=.29, p<.05), that is, humble, self-effacing students tended to receive higher grades in their courses.
Four facets of Neuroticism were associated
with ratings on the SPS. Students who were less
November 2005
■
Journal of Dental Education
Angry or Hostile (r=-.24, p<.05), less Depressed (r=
-.25, p<.05), and less Impulsive (r=-.26, p<.01) received higher scores on the SPS as did students who
were less Self-Conscious (r=-.26, p<.01). Students
with low scores on Anger/Hostility (r=-.25, p<.05)
and Depression (r=-.25, p<.05) performed better in
Year 1 courses. Students who had low Depression
scores also did better in Year 3 clinical coursework
(r=-.38, p<.05).
Four Conscientiousness facets correlated with
both the grades and SPS criteria. Students who were
highly Competent performed better on all criteria
with correlations ranging from .22 to .50. Dutifulness predicted Year 2 (r=.41, p<.01) and Year 3 academic coursework (r=.47, p<.01). Students who had
high levels of Self-Discipline had higher Year 1
grades (r=.24, p<.05) and higher scores on the SPS
(r=.23, p<.05). Students who scored high in Deliberation performed better in Year 3 academic courses
(r=.40, p<.05) and received higher ratings on the SPS
(r=.37, p<.01).
Two facets of Openness of Experience predicted different criteria. Actions, a measure of preference to novelty rather than familiarity, had a positive relationship with Year 1 grades (r=.22, p<.05)
while students with high levels on Ideas, or intellectual curiosity, received more favorable assessments
on the SPS (r=.26, p<.01).
Professionalism as Assessed
by the SPS
Hierarchical regression analyses were used to
determine the relative contribution of the personality factors in predicting the faculty assessment of
professionalism as measured through the SPS. Since
Perceptual Ability, a component of the DAT, significantly correlated with the SPS, it was entered on the
first step of the regression as a control variable. In
the first analysis, Conscientiousness and Neuroticism, the only broad personality factors that correlated with the SPS, were entered on the second step.
In the second regression analysis, the narrow facets
that significantly correlated with the SPS replaced
the broad factors. Table 4 presents the results from
these analyses.
Perceptual Ability explained 14 percent of the
variance (∆R2=.14, F1,76=12.60, p<.001). The broad
personality factors accounted for an additional 7 percent of the variance (∆R2=.07, F2,74=3.15, p<.05), with
Conscientiousness the only significant predictor
(β=.24, p<.05). The nine, narrow personality facets
1229
explained substantially more, almost three times as
much, variance than the broad factors (∆R2=.20,
F9,67=2.23, p<.05). Within this set of narrow facets,
the Deliberation facet from Conscientiousness
(β=.33, p<.01) and the Ideas facet from Openness to
Experience (β=.22, p<.05) were significant predictors of professionalism.
Personality Profiles of Dental
Students and Dentists
Figure 1 presents the mean scores of the dental
students and dentists on the Big Five personality factors. While the profiles shown in Figure 1 are similar, there was an overall multivariate difference between the two groups across the five personality
Table 3. Correlations for narrow facets of the Big Five with dental school performance measures
Mean
SD
Year 1
Year 2
Year 3
Clinical
Year 3
Academic
SPS
Ratings
Reliability
of Facet
Agreeableness Facets
Trust
Straightforwardness
Altruism
Compliance
Modesty
Tender Mindedness
29.39
29.18
33.11
26.06
27.27
28.65
4.94
4.40
3.32
4.55
4.60
3.75
.36**
.22*
.13
.20
.23*
.09
.23
.29*
.08
.06
.29*
.16
.07
.01
-.09
-.13
-.14
-.22
.08
.32
.28
-.11
.29
.16
.22*
.12
.07
.13
.12
-.05
.87
.67
.71
.72
.71
.62
Neuroticism Facets
Anxiety
Angry, Hostility
Depression
Self-Consciousness
Impulsiveness
Vulnerability
24.06
20.18
19.81
22.80
24.99
17.88
5.68
5.24
5.29
4.40
4.66
3.62
-.02
-.25*
-.25*
-.16
-.05
.04
-.06
-.07
-.19
-.09
-.13
.13
-.16
-.04
-.38*
-.18
-.22
-.12
.31
.21
-.04
-.05
.04
.12
-.06
-.24*
-.25*
-.26**
-.26**
-.19
.83
.83
.80
.65
.67
.71
Extroversion Facets
Warmth
Gregariousness
Assertiveness
Activity
Excitement Seeking
Positive Emotions
32.68
28.24
25.40
25.96
28.19
30.38
3.48
4.95
4.88
4.22
4.21
2.68
.19
.05
.04
.06
-.05
.03
.12
-.01
.09
.09
.04
-.03
-.16
-.20
.14
.22
-.13
-.16
.37
.19
.32
.32
-.09
.24
.14
.10
.01
.06
-.11
.15
.71
.75
.76
.56
.53
.59
Conscientiousness Facets
Competence
Order
Dutifulness
Achievement, Striving
Self-Discipline
Deliberation
30.13
26.88
31.84
28.94
29.21
26.21
3.44
4.98
3.99
3.78
4.19
4.54
.39**
-.14
.21
.11
.24*
.20
.38**
-.20
.41**
.18
.16
.21
.50**
-.05
.14
.04
-.01
.27
.41*
.30
.47**
.36
.19
.40*
.22*
.08
.17
.09
.23*
.37**
.61
.74
.67
.69
.77
.73
Openness to Experience Facets
Fantasy
28.16
4.47
.02
-.20
-.16
.06
.00
.72
Aesthetics
26.22
6.02
.07
-.10
-.05
.17
.17
.83
Feelings
30.15
4.41
.01
-.09
-.06
.33
.12
.74
Actions
24.99
3.99
.22*
.16
.23
.15
.06
.65
Ideas
28.73
4.71
.17
-.07
-.28
-.17
.26**
.77
Values
31.04
3.41
.16
.08
.15
.16
.06
.58
*p<.05, **p<.01; Two tailed test
Note: Any correlations involving the narrow facets with Year 1 Academic performance and SPS ratings were based on a
sample size of 85; with Year 2 performance were based on a sample size of 53; and with Year 3 Clinical performance and
Year 3 Academic performance were based on a sample size of 28.
1230
Journal of Dental Education ■ Volume 69, Number 11
Table 4. Hierarchical regression of SPS ratings on personality
Step
Independent Variables
1
Dental Aptitude Test
Perceptual Ability
Personality
Conscientiousness
Neuroticism
Personality Facets
Neuroticism
Angry
Depression
Self-Consciousness
Impulsiveness
Openness to Experience
Ideas
Agreeableness
Trust
Conscientiousness
Competence
Self-Discipline
Deliberation
2
2
Beta
R
R2
∆ R2
F
Sig. F
.38
.14
.14**
12.60
.00
.46
.21
.07*
3.15
.05
.58
.34
.20*
2.23
.03
.38**
.24*
-.06
.15
-.12
.02
-.15
.22*
.09
-.20
.04
.33**
*p<.05, **p<.01Listwise N=78
factors (Pillai’s Trace: F5, 209=11.86, p<.001). Subsequent univariate analyses showed that there were significant differences between the two groups on each
of the personality factors.
Table 5 presents a comparison of dentists and
dental students on the five personality factors. Dentists were higher in Agreeableness (F1,213=8.04,
p<.05); they tended to be more compassionate. Dentists were lower in Neuroticism (F1,213=7.59, p<.05);
they were more emotionally stable than dental students. Dentists were also higher in Conscientiousness; dentists were more organized, self-disciplined,
and cautious (F1,213=8.04, p<.05). On the other hand,
dental students were higher than the dentists in Extroversion (F1,213=23.46, p=.05); students were more
friendly, talkative, and active than dentists. Dental
students were also higher in Openness to Experience
(F1,213=11.98, p=.05); dental students preferred novelty to familiarity and had more differentiated emotional states. Table 5 shows that dental students and
dentists were most similar on Agreeableness, followed in order by Conscientiousness, Neuroticism,
Openness to Experience, and finally Extroversion.
We used Profile Matching to compare the overall student personality profiles to the mean profile
for the dental practitioners.33 We computed the difference between a student’s score on each personal-
November 2005
■
Journal of Dental Education
ity dimension and the mean score for the dentists on
that dimension, squaring the differences, and summing the squared differences to yield a D2 value. The
larger D2 is, the poorer is the match between the
student’s profile and the mean profile obtained from
the dentists. D2 scores for each student ranged from
63.25 to 1633.39 with the Mean=410.08. The smaller
the D2 score, the more closely the personality profile
of the student resembled that of a practicing dentist.
We looked at the ability of D2 to predict our criterion
measures. D2 negatively correlated with first-year
academic performance (r=-.28, p<.05). That is, students with personality profiles more similar to practitioners (lower D2) had higher first-year grades.
Discussion
The results of our study demonstrate that
noncognitive predictors, such as personality, have a
role to play in the dental school selection process.
Personality variables predicted both first- and thirdyear academic performance and professional behavior in the dental clinic. Dental students’ personality
profile somewhat resembled that obtained from dentists, but both groups differed significantly on each
of the five, broad personality variables. The results
1231
also show the need for separate measures of clinical
and academic performance.
as a selection measure. Perceptual abilities are important in the first year of coursework, but they may not be
used extensively; however, they are crucial in the clinic
where the Perceptual Ability measure appears to provide an indication of a student’s behavior. A student
who is having difficulty performing clinical procedures
because of inadequate perceptual ability is unlikely to
receive a high assessment on the SPS instrument; inadequate technical performance may produce negative
behaviors such as frustration and anxiety and, consequently, lead to lower SPS assessments.
The DAT as a Predictor of
Performance
The DAT components of Academic Average and
Perceptual Ability, which assess cognitive ability, were
good predictors of first-year academic performance; as
well, the DAT Reading Comprehension test strongly
predicted third-year academic coursework. Previously,
Smithers et al.3 found that only the DAT Academic
Average successfully predicted first-year academic performance. We also discovered that Perceptual Ability
predicted assessment of the students’ professionalism
scores from the SPS. While this result was unexpected,
in retrospect, clinical performance depends on the
student’s ability to accurately perform a number of technical procedures that involve their perceptual ability.
This is further evidence supporting the use of the DAT
Personality as a Predictor of Dental
Performance
Conscientiousness predicts job performance in
almost every occupation14 and is associated with organizational skills16 that have been linked to success
in dental school.35 Smithers et al.3 anticipated that
Conscientiousness would also predict dental school
140
Mean Value
120
100
Dental Students
Dentists
80
60
on
m
s
ci
ti
e
o
ur
N
e
i
rs
ov
r
xt
s
es
n
n
pe
O
s
s
ne
us
E
e
ci
s
on
io
nt
ss
e
en
bl
a
e
re
g
A
C
Personality Factor
Figure 1. Mean scores on the Big Five personality factors
1232
Journal of Dental Education ■ Volume 69, Number 11
performance, but did not find that relationship. In
our study, however, Conscientiousness and its facets
were very good predictors of both academic and clinical performance. The broad Conscientiousness factor predicted both first- and third-year academic performance as well as the SPS assessment of
professional behavior.
The narrow Conscientiousness facets were
even more impressive as predictors of dental school
performance in this study. Using the guidelines developed by Cohen,36 which consider a correlation of
.10 to be a small effect, .30 to represent a moderate
effect, and .50 a strong effect, most of the correlations reported here represent moderate to strong effects. The Competence facet—the degree to which
someone is capable, well-prepared, and sensible—
predicted all the criteria, both academic and clinical
coursework, in all three years of dental school that
we assessed as well as our SPS measure of professionalism. Competence was a very strong predictor
of both Year 3 Clinical (r=.50) and a moderate to
strong predictor of Year 3 Academic (r=.41) performance. Students high in Competence simply performed better than those with lower values for this
facet. Dutifulness, adherence to ethical principles,
predicted both Year 2 (r=41) and Year 3 Academic
(r=.47) coursework. Self-Discipline or motivation
predicted Year 1 (r=.24) performance as well as professionalism (r=.23). Deliberation, a measure of
thinking before acting, predicted Year 3 Academic
(r=.40) and the SPS (r=.37) measure of performance.
These results provide strong evidence for the
use of Conscientiousness and its facets in the selection of dental students. Students who score high in
conscientiousness are more likely to perform better
in both their clinical and academic courses and to
receive higher assessments with respect to professionalism. Our regression analyses further supported
the importance of Conscientiousness and its facets
as predictors of dental school performance. Conscientiousness and its facet of Deliberation significantly
improved upon the prediction of professional behavior that could be made from the DAT component of
Perceptual Ability.
Agreeableness was the only other broad personality factor that predicted dental school success.
It correlated moderately only with performance in
first-year coursework (r=.30). Three of its facets,
however, predicted other criteria. Trust (r=.36), believing that others are honest and well-intentioned,
Straightforwardness (r=.22), being frank and sincere,
and Modesty (r=.23), being humble and self-effac-
November 2005
■
Journal of Dental Education
Table 5. Comparison of five personality factors for
dental students and dentists
Dental Students
Mean
(SD)
Dentists
Mean
(SD)
Neuroticism
81.74
(22.18)
76.34
(23.58)
Extroversion
123.23
(15.12)
110.82
(20.08)
Openness
121.31
(18.50)
115.91
(18.97)
Conscientiousness
125.28
(16.65)
132.01
(17.35)
Agreeableness
125.67
(18.33)
130.58
(16.88)
Differences between both groups were significant on all
five factors at the .05 level.
ing, all predicted first-year coursework, while only
Straightforwardness (r=.29) and Modesty (r=.29)
predicted second-year work. Trust (r=.22) predicted
performance as assessed by the SPS criteria. Previously, Evans and Dirks18 found that Agreeableness
and its facets of Trust and Straightforwardness predicted laboratory course grades. Smithers et al.3 also
found support for Straightforwardness, but not the
broad Agreeableness factor, as a predictor of secondyear coursework. We did not find evidence for Compliance as a predictor3,18 or for Tender Mindedness.3
The inconsistencies between these studies are likely
due to differences in the criterion measures as well
as the relatively small number of participants in each
study that could lead to sampling error. Nonetheless,
the results suggest the value of using Agreeableness
and its facets as part of a selection program.
Neuroticism did not predict any of our
coursework criteria, but its facets of Angry Hostility
(r=-.25), being apprehensive, fearful, and prone to
worry, and Depression (r=-.25), having feelings of guilt
or sadness, were negatively and moderately correlated
with first-year coursework performance. Students who
were low on these two facets performed at a higher
level during their first year in dental school. Depression (r=-.38) was also negatively correlated with thirdyear clinical work. Perhaps even more important than
predicting coursework grades, Neuroticism (r=-.27)
and its facets of Angry Hostility (r=-.24), Depression
(r=-.25), Self-Consciousness (r=-.26), being uneasy
around others, and Impulsiveness (r=-.26), the inability to control urges, all predicted the faculty mem-
1233
bers’ assessments of professional behavior on the SPS.
In other words, students who exhibited an absence of
neuroticism and were more emotionally stable received higher assessments in terms of their perceived
professionalism. Emotional stability, that is, the lack
of neuroticism, appears to be an important predictor
of professional behavior.
The significant relationship between gender
and neuroticism (r=.45) deserves comment. This
correlation suggests that female students were more
anxious, self-conscious, and vulnerable than their
male colleagues. We believe that this may reflect,
even in an environment of gender equality in the student population, characteristics of females who apply to what may have once been perceived as a maledominated health profession. This relationship needs
further study as some women may still perceive dental school as a hostile environment and forgo applying for admission.
Openness to Experience did not predict any of
the criterion measures, but its narrow facets of Actions (r=.22), preferring novelty to the routine, predicted first-year performance while Ideas (r=.26), being intellectually curious, predicted professional
behavior. Smithers et al.3 found that Openness to Experience was negatively correlated with the
coursework criteria, as was the Ideas facet. These differences with respect to Openness to Experience may
reflect differences between the participants in the two
studies. The results in our study are more in line with
expectations that students in a professional program
of study should be more intellectually curious.
Extroversion was not associated with any performance measure. Neither were any of its facets
linked to the criteria; this differed from Smithers et
al.3 where the facet of Positive Emotions predicted
third-year clinical training.
Broad vs. Narrow Personality Measures. Overall, our results, like those of Smithers et al.3 offer
support for the use of both broad and narrow personality factors in the selection of dental students. In
the case of Conscientiousness, Agreeableness, and
Neuroticism, both the broad factor and one or more
of its facets predicted criterion measures although
not necessarily the same criterion. In the case of
Openness to Experience, only facets predicted criteria. Furthermore, narrow facets from Conscientiousness, Agreeableness, and Neuroticism had success
in predicting second- and third-year criteria, both
academic and clinical, while only Conscientiousness
predicted third-year academic performance. Most
importantly, both Conscientiousness and Neuroti-
1234
cism, along with several of their facets, predicted the
SPS professionalism criterion.
The incorporation of narrow facets as part of
an admissions procedure will produce a rich set of
predictors; however, their use comes with a cost of
increased time needed to process applicants. The
broad factors of Conscientiousness, Neuroticism, and
Agreeableness may provide acceptable predictions
of success in dental school. The current results were
obtained using the longer 240-item personality assessment. The shorter sixty-item version of the NEOPI-R provides valid and reliable measurement of the
broad factors. Admissions committees will have to
decide between these two alternatives.
Dental Student and Dentist Personalities. Our
results, as expected, show convergence between the
personality profiles of the dental students and dentists. These data support Holland’s22 theory that specific personality types are attracted to certain work
environments that are compatible with their own
values and interests. Figure 1 shows the similarity
between the personality profiles of the students and
dentists. On Conscientiousness and Agreeableness,
the dentists scored higher, on average, than students
while the students had higher values on Neuroticism,
Extroversion, and Openness to Experience. Some of
these differences may simply be a function of age;
for example, adults are often less extroverted than
younger individuals.37 The D2 analysis, however,
showed that the personality profiles of students
ranged from those that were essentially identical to
the normative data collected from the dentists to those
that varied considerably. Students whose profiles
were similar to the dentists’ average profile performed better in the first year of dental school.
The D2 measure has the potential to be used as
a predictor of dental school success. Applicants who
had completed a personality measure could be ranked
from those whose profiles were most similar to practitioners to those who were most dissimilar. There
are two concerns, however, with incorporating the
D2 measure into the admissions procedure at this time.
First, our data is based on a small sample, and the
only significant relationship we established was prediction of first-year performance. The second and
more important issue is that our normative data comes
from dentists practicing in one Canadian province.
We have no idea how representative the personality
profile based on this set of dentists is for dentists
practicing elsewhere. There is a need to collect normative data from dentists in other regions to establish truly normative data.
Journal of Dental Education ■ Volume 69, Number 11
Predicting Professionalism
One of the most interesting results from this
study is the development of our measure of professional behavior. The SPS measure assessed the competencies that had been previously identified for success in dentistry. These same competencies overlap
with characteristics others have argued imbue professionalism.28-31 Feedback from faculty who used
the measure suggested that they found it to be a valuable tool that allowed them to assess aspects of a
student’s behavior that were not captured in clinical
course grades.
While others may disagree with our
conceptualization of “professionalism,” the measure
nonetheless provided valid assessments of students’
behavior in the clinic. The SPS assessment correlated moderately, r=.42, with third-year clinical
grades and to a lesser extent with first-year course
performance, r=.26. It also correlated positively with
Conscientiousness, r=.29, and negatively with Neuroticism, r=-.27, suggesting that these two personality components are major factors in forming a dental
student’s professional behavior. Although these results are very promising, additional work must be
done with other student populations to ensure the
generalizability of this measure of professionalism.
did not have sufficient data to examine personality
by gender for both students and dentists; this remains
for future research.
The size of the correlations between predictors and criteria in our study ranged from .05 to .47.
These values are likely to be underestimates of the
true correlations in the population, due to range restriction.33 These data were obtained from students
who had been selected into the program and who
were, most certainly, more homogeneous in terms
of academic average and DAT scores than the broader
pool of applicants from which they were selected.
Correlations computed on data obtained from a very
homogeneous group will be smaller than when computed over a more heterogeneous population. There
are procedures to correct for range restriction to estimate the population values of the correlations, but
we did not have the data needed to make these adjustments.
Finally, we must note that the relatively small
sample size of the students may not have provided
the power necessary to find small or moderate effects among the variables. Nonetheless, the sample
size did not prevent us from finding many significant moderate to strong correlations. Additional research will add to this database on the role of personality in predicting dental school performance.
Study Limitations
In addition to the concerns we have already
raised about the generalizability of our data to other
dental populations, the data we report here should
be interpreted with caution, particularly findings that
were based on third-year coursework. The number
of student participants decreased with their year of
study, which may have led to a decrease in power to
detect significant effects for our third-year criteria.
Also, we must consider how well the data collected
from volunteer participants generalizes to those who
chose not to participate.
Our student and dentist participant groups differed in gender: 56 percent of the dental students were
females compared to 30 percent of the practicing
dentists. The average year of graduation of the practitioners was 1983, which most likely reflects the
gender composition of dental schools at that time.
The gender composition of the students in our study
does not differ from the current gender composition
of the dental school. This difference in gender composition should be considered when comparing the
personality profiles of both groups and could be responsible for the difference between the profiles. We
November 2005
■
Journal of Dental Education
Conclusions and Future
Directions
The results from this study add support to those
recently reported by Smithers et al.3 Academic and
clinical aspects of dental training require different
sets of predictors. The DAT is an excellent predictor
of first-year academic performance. However, personality components, especially Conscientiousness,
Neuroticism, and their facets, were better predictors
of students’ professional behavior than one might
expect in dental school. Dental students need both
the cognitive skills that the DAT assesses and the
noncognitive competencies that are related to the Big
Five personality factors.
This study also provides additional evidence
on the worth of using personality measures as part
of the dental student selection process. Although all
of the Big Five components or their facets, except
Extroversion, predicted our criteria, Conscientiousness and Neuroticism, and to a lesser extent Agreeableness, appear to be the most important personal-
1235
ity components. Nonetheless, our results also suggest that it is too early to simply concentrate on the
five major personality dimensions and forgo examination of the narrow facets. In several instances the
facets provided richer details with respect to our criteria. What these results suggest is that the best dental school students are those who are persistent, organized, goal-directed, calm, emotionally stable, and
compassionate. Our results further showed that students who were similar to the dentists in our sample
tended to do well in dental school. As noted above,
we need to expand our normative data from dental
practitioners to ensure that the data reported here are
generalizable to other locations and people.
The SPS measure that we used to assess professional behavior has the potential to become an
important assessment tool. We constructed the SPS
from the same set of critical incidents that were used
to develop the new CDA structured interview; it is
based on the same competencies assessed by the new
interview. Our long-term goal is to investigate a possible link between the pre-admission interview and
professional performance as measured through the
SPS. At present we do not have enough interview
data to perform this analysis but are in the process of
collecting interview, personality, and SPS data from
dental schools across Canada. Future work will need
to determine if the SPS instrument we constructed is
specific to Canada and the CDA competencies or
whether it will generalize to other venues. These initial results suggest that it will be a useful measure in
other environments.
REFERENCES
1. Westerman GH, Grandy TG, Combs CGE, Turner CH.
Personality variables as predictors of performance for firstyear dental students. J Dent Educ 1989;53:233-7.
2. Kramer GA. Predictive validity of the Dental Admission
Test. J Dent Educ 1986;50:526-31.
3. Smithers S, Catano VM, Cunningham DP. What predicts
performance in Canadian dental schools? J Dent Educ
2004;68:598-613.
4. Dworkin SF. Dental aptitude test as predictors of performance over four years of dental school: analysis and interpretation. J Dent Educ 1979;34:58-62.
5. Oudshoorn WC. The utility of Canadian DAT perceptual
ability and carving dexterity scores as predictors of psychomotor performance in the first-year of operative dentistry. J Dent Educ 2003;67:1201-8.
6. Thompson GW, Ahlawat K, Buie R. Evaluation of the
dental aptitude test components as predictors of dental
school performance. J Can Dent Assoc 1979;45:407-9.
7. Digman JM. Personality structure: emergence of the fivefactor model. Annu Rev Psychol 1990;41:417-40.
1236
8. Goldberg LR. An alternative “description of personality”:
the Big-Five factor structure. J Pers Soc Psychol 1990;
59:1216-29.
9. Goldberg LR. The structure of phenotypic personality
traits. Am Psychol 1993;48:26-34.
10. Farsides T, Woodfield R. Individual differences and undergraduate academic success: the roles of personality,
intelligence, and application. Pers Individual Differences
2003;34:1225-43.
11. Hough LM, Furnham A. Use of personality variables in
work settings. In: Borman WC, Ilgen DR, Klimoski R,
eds. Handbook of psychology: industrial and organizational psychology. New York: John Wiley and Sons, 2003:
131-69.
12. Barkley RF. The dilemma of dental school admissions: a
possible solution. J Am Coll Dent 1979;43:119-26.
13. Boyd MA, Graham JW, Teteruck WR. Personality testing
for dental admission. J Can Dent Assoc 1979;45:405-6.
14. Barrick MR, Mount MK. The Big Five personality dimensions and job performance: a meta-analysis. Personnel Psychol 1991;44:1-26.
15. Barrick MR, Mount MK, Strauss JP. Conscientiousness
and performance of sales representatives: test of the mediating effects of goal setting. J Appl Psychol 1993;78:
715-22.
16. Costa PT, McCrae RR. Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO-PI-R) and NEO Five-Factor Inventory (NEOFFI) professional manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological
Assessment Resources Inc., 1992.
17. McDaniel SP, Siler WM, Isenberg BP. Analysis of personality traits of the contemporary dental student. J Dent
Educ 1985;49:579-83.
18. Evans JG, Dirks SJ. Dental aptitude test as predictors of
performance over four years of dental school: analysis
and interpretation. J Dent Educ 2001;65:874-82.
19. McCrae RR. Creativity, divergent thinking, and openness
to experience. J Pers Soc Psychol 1987;52:1258-65.
20. McDaniel SP, Siler WM, Isenberg BP. Comparison of
personality variables and values among dental students,
practitioners, and faculty. J Dent Educ 1988;52:156-9.
21. Gardner W, Martinko M. Using the Myers-Briggs type
indicator to study managers: a literature review and research agenda. J Management 1996;22:45-83.
22. Holland JL. Making vocational choices: a theory of personalities and work environments. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources, 1997.
23. Costa PT Jr, McCrae RR, Holland JL. Personality and
vocational interests in an adult sample. J Appl Psychol
1984;69:390-400.
24. De Fruyt F, Mervielde I. The Five-Factor Model of personality and Holland’s RIASEC interest types. Pers Individual Differences 1997;23:87-103.
25. Gottfredson GD, Jones EM, Holland JL. Personality and
vocational interests: the relation of Holland’s six interest
dimensions to the five robust dimensions of personality.
J Counseling Psychol 1993;40.
26. Schinka JA, Dye DA, Curtiss G. Correspondence between
Five-Factor and RIASEC models of personality. J Pers
Assessment 1997;68:355-68.
27. Tomini B, Keown D. The development of a situational
interview for dental school admissions. Toronto, ON:
Organizational Studies Inc., 1998.
Journal of Dental Education ■ Volume 69, Number 11
28. Medicine ABoI. Project professionalism. Philadelphia:
American Board of Internal Medicine, 1994.
29. Gibson DD, Coldwell LL, Kiewit SF. Creating a culture
of professionalism: an integrated approach. Acad Med
2000;75:509-10.
30. Miller GD, Frank D, Franks RD, Getto CJ. Noncognitive
criteria for assessing students in North American medical
schools. Acad Med 1989;64:42-5.
31. Phelan S, Obenshain S, Galey WR. Evaluation of the
noncognitive professional traits of medical students. Acad
Med 1993;68:799-803.
32. Smith PC, Kendall LM. Retranslation of expectations: an
approach to the construction of unambiguous anchors for
rating scales. J Appl Psychol 1963;47:149-55.
33. Catano VM, Wiesner WH, Hackett RD, Methot LL. Recruitment and selection in Canada. 3rd ed. Toronto:
Nelson, 2004.
November 2005
View publication stats
■
Journal of Dental Education
34. Shaw DG, Schneier CE, Beatty RW. Managing performance with a behaviorally based appraisal system. In:
Jones J, Steffy BD, Bray DW, eds. Applying psychology
in business: the handbook for managers and human resource professionals. New York: Lexington Books,
1991:314-25.
35. Mace JG, Tira DE. Time management behaviors as potential explanatory factors in dental academic achievement. J Dent Educ 1999;63.
36. Cohen J. Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. New York: Academic Press, 1977.
37. Srivastava S, John OP, Gosling SD, Potter J. Development of personality in early and middle adulthood: set
like plaster or persistent change? J Pers Soc Psychol 2003;
84:1041-53.
1237