- Email: [email protected]
Correlation study between personality tests and dental student performance
Correlation study between personality tests and dental student performance
Betty L. K alis* P h.D .; John J. Tocchini, f D.D.S., and Paul R. Thomassen,% D.D.S., San Francisco
In an effort to determine whether per sonality performance tests would bring out emotional defects that correlated with dental student failures and drop outs, two standard personality inven tories, the Minnesota Multiphasic Per sonality Inventory (M M P 1 ) and the California Personality Inventory (C P I), were administered to 910 students and applicants at the College of Physicians and Surgeons School of Dentistry. There were no test score differences between students rated high and low by faculty members, students staying in school or dropping out, students high and low in class standing or applicants accepted and rejected. The findings suggest that these tests as scored would not be a meaningful addition to the selection battery for den tal school applicants.
This study was undertaken to learn whether standard personality inventories might be useful in the selection of dental students and the prediction of success in dental college. Although the aptitude tests devised by the Council on Dental Education of the American Dental Asso ciation, together with predental grade point averages, have proved to be excel
lent selection criteria, the numbers of failures and dropouts, while small, have continued to be of concern, particularly to the small private institution.1'7 If it is assumed that students scoring high on the American Dental Association aptitude tests and having a high pre dental grade point average are intellectu ally capable of completing the dental curriculum, then it may be hypothesized that emotional difficulties might interfere with intellectual functioning and con tribute to failures and dropouts. Can per sons with such difficulties be screened out at the time of application, or are they discriminable from those applicants whose personal problems do not interfere with their academic achievement? T o explore this question, two standard personality inventories, the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (M M P I )8 and the California Personality Inventory (C P I )9 were administered to 910 students and applicants at the College of Physicians and Surgeons School of Dentistry. A p proximately 55 per cent of this number were selected and became students at the College, whereas 45 per cent either were not accepted or decided to go elsewhere. T w o kinds o f criteria were used to evaluate the test findings. The first cri terion consisted of faculty ratings o f four classes. The second criterion was the
K A L I S — T O C C H I N I — T H O M A S S E N . . . V O L U M E 64, M A Y l % 2 . 61/457
actual academic progress of the subjects who became students. F A C U L T Y R A T IN G S
In view o f the fact that dentistry is a diversified profession which can utilize different kinds of talent in its teaching, research and various clinical aspects, aca demic progress, although essential, may not necessarily be the most valid criterion for predicting success in the profession. Moreover, some students, while able to fulfill the formal requirements of their training, do not have the personal char acteristics or integrity valued by those who are striving to enhance the standards o f the profession. In the hope that fac ulty members acquainted with the stu dents might be able to select those stu dents best suited to the profession as differentiated from those least suited, a multidimensional rating scale was de vised, in consultation with faculty mem bers, dentists in the community and psy chologists. The resulting scale contained three major variables and five minor ones. The first rating concerned “ Ease and warmth o f relationships with faculty, students, and patients. Respects others and their needs. Can deal effectively with difficult situations and/or individuals. Be haves in socially appropriate ways.” The second major variable was “ Emo tional balance, self-confidence, and ca pacity for self-evaluation. M ay have per sonal problems, but they don’ t interfere with his work. Is constructively selfcritical. Is self-confident without being egotistical.” The third major variable concerned “ Intellectual and technical proficiency and drive. Has initiative and curiosity re garding the body of knowledge crucial to progressive dentistry. Can grasp and in tegrate new ideas and information. Can express his ideas clearly and understand ably.” For each of these three variables, six
faculty members actively involved in the teaching of each class were asked to select four groups o f students, as follows: A. Five students who are at the top o f their class regarding the rated variable. B. The next ten (following the five) at the top of their class. C. Five students who least represent the quality rated in the class. D. The next ten (following the five) who least represent the quality. In addition, ratings were made on five major variables in the hope o f tapping qualities desirable for certain subaspects of the profession. These five sets o f rat ings were as follows: 1. I f you were establishing a group practice, which three members o f the class would you be willing to invite to practice with you? Which three would you definitely not invite? 2. I f you were establishing a school of dentistry, which three would you be willing to invite to teach on the faculty? Which three would you be unwilling to have on the faculty? 3. I f you had funds to conduct re search on the relationship between caries and diet or other projects, which three would you invite to work with you? Which three would you not invite? 4. I f you were choosing speakers to explain dental hygiene at community meetings, which three would you ask? Which three would you not ask? 5. I f you were arranging a Saturday night social gathering in your home, which three would you most like to in vite? Which three would you prefer not to invite? P E R S O N A L IT Y IN V E N T O R IE S
T h e two instruments used in the study were chosen because they provide com plementary kinds o f data. The M M P I is the older of the two, having appeared in 1940 and been actively in use since 1943. It is intended, according to the authors,10 for “ the clinical or personnel worker who
62/658 • T H E J O U R N A L O F T H E A M E R I C A N D E N T A L A S S O C I A T I O N
♦ N um ber o f students in each c rite rio n group based o n facu lty In te rra te r agreement
T a b le
G ro u p Class
N H ig h *
Low f 12
S enior (1957)
51
15
Junior (1958)
49
10
12
S ophom ore (19591
55
15
18
Freshman (1960)
56
10
5
211
50
47
TOTAL
*R a te d as m ost representing the q u a litie s ta p p e d by the th re e m a jo r va ria b le s . fR a te d as least re p resenting these q u a litie s .
wishes to assay those traits that are com monly characteristic o f disabling psycho logical abnormality.” The inventory was originally standardized on psychiatric pa tients, and scores on the validity and clin ical scales enable comparison of response tendencies with these standardization groups. The usefulness of this instrument for personnel selection has been repeat edly demonstrated. The CPI, a newer instrument first pub lished for general research use in 1957 (after six years of preliminary validation on over 50,000 subjects in more than 60 separate studies), actually uses 200 of the 550 M M P I items. It is designed, how ever, to measure those characteristics of personality that are related to the “ fa vorable and positive aspects of personality rather than to the morbid,” and is in tended for most general use in schools, colleges, business and industry.9 The CPI has been applied to the problem of drop outs between high school and college among gifted students, as well as to the problem of differential academic achieve ment among gifted students at both edu cational levels.1113 In addition to these two instruments, this investigation was concurrent with the Council on Dental Education’s explora tion of uses for the Edwards Personal Preference Schedule (EPPS),14 and score profiles for this test were also available for most of the applicants in the study.
S U B JE C TS
In the spring o f 1957, the testing program was begun with all students currently registered in the College (the classes of 1957, 1958, 1959 and 1960), and faculty ratings, as described previously, were si multaneously secured for all four classes. The students were informed that the pro gram was in the nature of research and that the findings would in no way be used administratively or affect their academic standing. There was a total of 211 stu dents in this original group: 51 in the class of 1957; 49 in the class of 1958; 55 in the class of 1959, and 56 in the class of 1960. Since that time, four additional classes have been tested; test records were ob tained for all but four of the members of these classes. There were 58 in the class of 1961; 60 in the class of 1962; 57 in the class of 1963, and 59 in the class of 1964. In addition, 45 M M P I records and 51 CPI records were obtained from applicants selected as alternates for the classes o f 1961 and 1963. As of February, 1961, a total o f 42 students from these eight classes for whom test records were obtained were either dismissed from school because of poor grades, dropped out of school, or were re quired to repeat a year because o f poor grades. Since the number in each sub group is small, the combined group of failures, dropouts and repeats will be used for all comparisons. All applicants to the school in 1958 and 1959 were required to complete the inventories. For the classes of 1962 and 1963, therefore, the M M P I records o f 422 applicants and the CPI records o f 414, who were not selected or who went else where, are available for comparison. R ESU LTS
Faculty Ratings, Criterion Groups and Classes of 1957-1960 • Criterion group membership was based on listing in the
K A L IS — T O C C H I N I - T H O M A S S E N . . . V O L U M E 64. M A Y 1962 . 63/659
C r ite r io n
C r ite r io n g ro u p
g ro u p X X X X X
H igh
X
X X X X X
H igh
X X X X X X X X X
Low
o
X
X X X X X X X X X
o o 0 o 0 o o o o o
0
1 -2 6
O O
0 o o o o O 0 0 o o o o o
0
O O
Low
2 7 -5 1
1 -2 7
2 8 -5 5
these ratings is maximal in the senior year. The number of students in each of the criterion groups for each class is shown in the table. The composite criterion groups were highly correlated with the students’ grade point averages. Figures 1-4 show the number of students in each criterion group above and below the median of their class in grade point averages. Composite M M P I profiles of the cri terion groups for each class separately are shown in Figures 5-8. None o f the mean differences is statistically significant (at the 5 per cent confidence level) al-
C r ite r io n g ro u p
C r ite r io n g ro u p
Low
X
H igh
X
K
X
X
H ig h
X
extreme 5 by two or more of the six fac ulty raters or in the extreme 15 by three or more. For the three major variables, despite the effort to tap different personal qualities, there was almost total overlap in the resultant lists. Composite criterion groups were therefore utilized. Ratings for the senior class (1957) were most closely agreed on by the faculty raters, and those for the freshman class (1960) least so. Faculty raters were most reluc tant to rate freshman students on the “ undesirable” end of the continuum. These findings suggest that faculty famil iarity with students for the purpose of
X
Fig. 3 • R e la tio n b e tw e e n c r ite r io n g ro u p m e m b e rs h ip and g ra d e p o in t a v e ra g e s : soph o m o res, class o f 1959
X
F ig . I • R e la tio n b e tw e e n c r ite r io n g ro u p m e m b e rs h ip and g ra d e p o in t a v e ra g e s : seniors, class o f 1957
X
C lass standing b a s e d o n g r a d e p o in t a v e ra g e s
X
C la s s s ta n d in g b a s e d on g r a d e p o in t a v e ra g e s
® o •
1 -2 5
0 O 0 0 0 O 0 0 0
2 6 -5 0
Low
X X X X X X X X X X
O 0 o o
o
1 -2 8
2 9 -5 6
C lass s tanding base d on g r a d e p o in t a v e ra g e s
C lass standing based on g ra d e p o in t a v e ra g e s
F ig . 2 • R e la tio n b e tw e e n c rite rio n g ro u p m em b e rs h ip and g ra d e p o in t a v e ra g e s : ju n io rs, class o f 1958. • = stu d e n ts r e p e a tin g th e class
Fig. 4 • R e la tio n b e tw e e n c rite r io n g ro u p m e m b e rs h ip a nd g ra d e p o in t a v e ra g e s : fre sh m e n , class o f I9 6 0
64/440 . T H E J O U R N A L O F T H E A M E R I C A N D E N T A L A S S O C I A T I O N
Tor Tc
?
L
F
K
Hs+.5K
D
T o rT c
?
L
F
K
H s+ .5 K
D
H ig h
Hy
Pd+.4K
Mf
Po ' P t+ IK S c + IK
M a+.2K
Si
TorTc
Hy
P d+4K
Mf
Po
M a+2K
Si
T orTc
P t+ IK S c+ IK
L o w ---------------
'
F ig . 5 • C o m p o s ite M M P I p ro file s : c r ite rio n g ro u p s — seniors, class o f 1957. H ia h s = N o M M P I p ro file s in c lu d e K c o rre c tio n
T orTc
T o rT c
?
?
L
L
F
F
K
Hs+.5K
D
K
H s + .5 K
D
H ig h
F ig . 6 •
Hy
Hy '
Pd+.4K
P d+4K
12.
Mf
Pa
P t+ IK S c + IK
M a+.2K
Si
TorTc
Mf
Pa
P t+ IK S c+ IK
M a+2K
Si
TorTc
L o w — — — ——
C o m p o s ite M M P I p ro file s : c r ite r io n g ro u p s — ¡uniors, class o f 1958. H ig h s =
though differences reflecting anxiety, sub jective distress and unusual admissions (Pt, F and Sc scales) approach signifi cance for the more reliably rated senior (1957) class. Composite CPI profiles of the criterion groups for each class separately are shown in Figures 9-12. Again, none of the mean differences is statistically significant, and
15; lows =
10; lows == 12
frequency distributions for each o f the individual scales likewise suggest n o pre dictive trends. When the composite mean M M P I and CPI profiles for all criterion groups are compared with the mean profiles for the total class membership, the extent o f sim ilarity is most noticeable, as shown in Figures 13 and 14. All the clinical scales
K A L I S - T O C C H I N I - - T H O M A S S E N . . . V O L U M E 64, M A Y 1962 • 65/061
F ig . 7 • C o m p o s ite M M P I p ro file s : c r ite r io n g ro u p s — so p h o m o re s, class o f 1959. H ig h s =
15; lows =
18
H ig h
F ig . 8 • C o m p o s ite M M P I p ro file s : c r ite r io n g ro u p s — fre sh m e n , class o f I9 6 0 . H ig h s =
o f the M M P I fall within one standard deviation o f the mean for the general population, and the patterning of scores (with peaks on hypomania, hysteria and masculinity-femininity) is the same as that reported for normal college males in other studies. The mean score on the K (suppressor) validity scale barely ex ceeds one standard deviation above the
10; lows =
5
general mean and reflects a test-taking attitude of attempting to create a good impression, which is appropriate to the circumstances o f administration. The CPI scores also cluster closely around the general mean, with only one of the 18 scales (self-acceptance) verging above the one standard deviation mark, a find ing to be expected on the basis of chance
66/662 • T H E J O U R N A L O F T H E A M E R I C A N D E N T A L A S S O C I A T I O N
Do
Cs
Sy
Sp
So
Wb
Re
So
Sc
To •
Gi
Cm
Ac
Ai
le
F ig . 9 • C o m p o s ite C PI p ro file s : c r ite r io n g ro u p s — seniors, class o f 1957. H ig h s =
Do
Cs
Sy
Sp
So
Wb
Re
So
Sc
To
Gi
Cm
Ac
AI
le
F ig . 10 • C o m p o s ite C P I p ro file s : c r ite rio n g ro u p s — ju n io rs , class o f 1958. H ig h s =
Py
15; low s =
Py
Fx
10; lows =
F ig . I I • C o m p o s ite C P I p ro file s : c r ite r io n g ro u p s — soph o m o res, class o f 1959. H ig h s =
alone. Mean profiles for the separate classes are so similar that they do not warrant separate presentation; there are, of course, no significant differences on any of the individual scales between classes.
Fx
Fe
12
Fe
12
15; low s =
18
Profile Characteristics of Applicants for Classes of 1961-1964 • Mean profiles for the combined classes o f 1961 through 1964 are presented in Figures 15 and 16. Again, individual class profiles are too similar to warrant separate presentation.
K A L IS — T O C C H I N I — T H O M A S S E N . . . V O L U M E 6 4 , M A Y 1962 • 6 7 / 6 6 3
F ig . 12 • C o m p o s ite C P I p ro file s : c rite rio n g ro u p s — fre sh m e n , class o f I9 6 0 . H ig h s =
H ig h —
10; lows =
5
L o w —— — ——
C la s s
F ig . 13 • C o m p o s ite M M P I p ro file s : c r ite r io n g ro u p s versus to ta l classes 1957-1960. T o ta l h ighs = to ta l lows = 4 7 ; to ta l classes = 211
Do
Cs
Sy
Sp
So
Wb
Re
So
Sc
To
Gi
Cm
Ac
Ai
le
Py
Fx
5 0;
Fe
F ig . 14 • C o m p o s ite C PI p ro file s : c r ite rio n g ro u p s versus to ta l classes 1957-1960. T o ta l h ig h s = to ta l lows = 4 7 ; to ta l classes = 211
5 0;
68/664 • T H E J O U R N A L O F T H E A M E R I C A N D E N T A L A S S O C I A T I O N
T o rT c
?
L
F
K
Hs+.5K
D
Hy
Pd+.4K
Mf
Pa
Pt+1K S c + IK
F ig . 15 • C o m p o s ite M M P I p ro file s : classes o f 1961-1964. N o . =
Do
Cs
Sy
Sp
So
Wb
Re
So
Sc
To
Gi
Cm
Ac
Ai
le
F ig . 16 • C o m p o s ite C P I p ro file s : classes o f 1961-1964. N o . =
Comparison of Figures 13 and 15 and of Figures 14 and 16 demonstrates that pro file characteristics for students in the classes of 1957-1960 do not differ from those o f students in the classes of 19611964. Applicants selected as alternates for the classes of 1961 and 1963 were also tested. Figures 17 and 18 present mean profiles for 46 alternates for whom M M P I records were available and 51 for whom CPI records were obtained. These composite profiles do not differ from those for students accepted for the classes, as comparison with Figures 13-16 shows.
M ai-.2K
Si
T orTc
232
Py
Fx
Fe
234
All worthwhile applicants, from the standpoint of grade point average and dental aptitude rating, for the classes of 1962 and 1963 were tested, and M M P I records for 422 applicants, and C PI rec ords for 414, were obtained. These mean profiles, shown in Figures 19 and 20, in dicate that students accepted by the Col lege do not differ from the total pool of applicants in personality characteristics measured by these tests. Profile Characteristics Versus Academic Standing • A total of 42 students were dismissed for poor scholarship, dropped out of school, or were required to repeat
K A L I S — T O C C H 1N I — T H O M A S S E N . . . V O L U M E 64, M A Y 1962 • 69/465
T o rT c
?
L
F
K
H st.5 K
D
Hy
Pd+.4K
Mf
Pa
P t + IK S c + 1 K
Mo-t-.2K
F ig . 17 • C o m p o s ite M M P I p ro file s : a lte rn a te s f o r classes o f 1961 and 1963. N o . =
Do
Cj
Sy
Sp
So
Wb
— --
Cs
Sy
Sp
So
Sc
To
Gi
Cm
Ac
Ai
le
Py
TorT c
46
Fx
Fe
Z7S- - . ~ 4 T T - ; - ------------ ----------------------------
I
-= 4 0 = * ~4 5 - 15 _ -------------- — — =---- =---------- z ----------- --------------------------------- ---------------------------=--------2 0 + 6 0
-3 0 -4 0
Do
Re
Si
Sa
Wb
Re
So
Sc
To
Gi
Cm
Ac
Ai
Je
Py
Fx
F ig . 18 • C o m p o s ite C PI p ro file s : a lte rn a te s f o r classes o f 1961 a nd 1963. N o . =
a year during the period of this study. M M PI and CPI records were available for all these students, and EPPS scores for 38 of the 42. Figures 21 and 22 pre sent their mean M M P I and CPI profiles. Comparison with previous figures indi cates that these students do not differ with respect to characteristics measured by the test scales from the remainder of the student body. Figure 23 presents the mean EPPS scores for this group in rela tion to standard scores developed by the Council on Dental Education o f the American Dental Association in its na tionwide testing program of dental appli cants, and on none of these measures are
Fe
51
there significant differences. Another comparison between profile characteristics and class standing is af forded by Figure 24, which shows the mean profile on the M M P I for 29 stu dents at the top o f their class in grade point averages in the classes of 1959, 1960, and 1962, and 29 students at the bottom o f those same classes in grade point averages. Again, none o f the dif ferences is significant. Figure 25 presents the mean EPPS profiles for these same 58 students, and on none of these scales is there a significant difference. A some what different approach, using the CPI Intellectual Efficiency scale, was simi
70/664 • T H E J O U R N A L O F T H E A M E R I C A N D E N T A L A S S O C I A T I O N
T o rT c
?
L
F
K
Hs+.5K
D
Hy
Pd+.4K
Mf
Po
P t+ IK S c + IK
M a+.2K
Si
T orTc
T o rT c
?
L
F
K
H s + .5 K
D
Hy
Pd+4K
Mf
Pa
P t+ lK S c + lK
M a+2K
Si
TorTc
F ig . 19 • C o m p o s ite M M P I p ro file s : a p p lic a n ts n o t a c c e p te d f o r classes o f 1962 a n d 1963. N o . =
422
F ig . 2 0 • C o m p o s ite C P I p ro file s : a p p lic a n ts n o t a c c e p te d f o r classes o f 1962 a n d 1963. N o . =
414
larly nonproductive: Scores on this scale were compared with yearly and four-year grade point averages for all classes, and in no instance was a significant correla tion found between the two. Individual M M P I profiles significantly different from the overall mean on two or more scales were selected from six o f the eight classes. O n the average, 46 per cent of these profiles were from students above the median in class standing. D IS C U S S IO N
The results indicate that these personality inventories do not discriminate between
students completing and failing dental school, those rated high or low by faculty members, or those accepted and rejected by the institution where the study was conducted. Several considerations bear on these findings. The first of these concerns the failure to obtain faculty ratings o f suitability for the profession which were independ ent of academic standing; perhaps the expectation that such independence ex ists is unrealistic when teachers are as sessors and students, assessees. In this connection, however, another unknown is the relation between grades, class stand ing and so forth and later competence
K A L IS — T O C C H I N I — T H O M A S S E N . . . V O L U M E 64, M A Y 1962 • 7 1/447
T o rT c
?
L
F
K
H s+.5K
D
Hy
Pd+.4K
Mf
Pa
P t + IK S c + 1 K
Ma-l-.2K
Si
TorT c
T o rT c
?
L
F
K
H s + .5 K
D
Hy
P d+4K
Mf
Pa
P t+ IK S c+ IK
M a+2K
Si
T orTc
F ig . 21
Do
Cs
Sy
• C o m p o s ite M M P I p ro file s : fa ilu re s , d ro p o u ts and re p e a ts . N o . =
Sp
So
Wb
Re___ S o ____Sc
To
Gi
Cm
Ac
Ai
le
42
Py
Fx
Fe
•20- -6 0
Do
Cs
Sy
Sp
Sa
Wb
Re
So
Sc
To
Gi
Cm
Ac
Ai
le
Py
F ig . 22 • C o m p o s ite C P I p ro file s : fa ilu re s , d r o p o u ts a n d re p e a ts . N o . =
and “ success” in the profession. Another consideration in evaluating the findings involves the adequacy o f the personality inventories utilized. Although there is adequate rationale for their choice, like all self-administering inven tories they are susceptible to test-taking attitudes. The context in which the in ventories were administered may well have contributed to test-taking defen siveness on the part of all subjects, which masked differences that may have emerged under other circumstances, or with more sensitive instruments, were they available. It may be that analysis o f the individual items, which was not
Fx
Fe
42
within the scope of this study, would en able construction of a special scale which would effectively discriminate the unsuit able or poorly motivated dental student. It is apparent, however, that the standard scales utilized, under the test-taking cir cumstances o f the study, do not. These considerations, in turn, lead to a re-examination of the basic hypothesis that some students do not succeed in den tal school because of their emotional diffi culties. Although this may be a valid assumption in some instances, many stu dents with similar problems do well in school. Moreover, some students who fail do not demonstrate any remarkable psy-
72/648 * T H E J O U R N A L O F T H E A M E R I C A N D E N T A L A S S O C I A T I O N
F ig . 23 • C o m p o s ite EPPS p ro file s : fa ilu re s , d r o p o u ts a n d re p e a ts ( N o . = 3 8 ) a g a in s t norm s b a se d on 689 d e n ta l stu d e n ts o f th e 1956-1957 fre s h m a n classes th ro u g h th e U n ite d S tates
T o rT c
?
L
F
K
Hs+.5K
D
H ig h
F ig . 2 4 • I9 6 0 a n d
C o m p o s ite 1962. H ig h
MMPI = 29;
Hy
"
-
Pd+.4K
Mf
Pa
P t+ IK S c + IK
M a+.2K
Si
TorTc
l o w — — — ** —
p ro file s : s tu d e n ts w ith h ig h a n d lo w g ra d e p o in t a v e ra g e s , classes o f 1959, tow = 29
K A L I S — T O C C H I N I — T H O M A S S E N . . . V O L U M E 64, M A Y 1762 • 73/669
Fig 25 • C o m p o s ite EPPS p ro file s : stu d e n ts w ith h ig h a n d lo w g ra d e p o in t a v e ra g e , classes o f 1959, I9 6 0 a n d 1962 (h ig h = 2 9 ; low = 2 9 ) a g a in s t norm s based on 689 d e n ta l stu d e n ts o f th e 1956-1957 fre s h m a n class
chopathologic condition, and it is ap parent that there must be multiple causes for failure. Perhaps the most important considera tion lies in the already exceedingly low rate of failures and dropouts, which sug gests that current selection criteria are highly efficient, and that any further re duction of error may be unattainable. T h e stable characteristics o f the mean profiles on the personality inventories in this study are further evidence o f the high caliber o f applicants from among whom a choice must be made.
Inventory (C P I) were administered to 910 dental students and applicants to evaluate their usefulness as selection cri teria and predictors of success in dental school. There were no test score differences between applicants accepted and re jected, students rated high and low by faculty members, students failing or dropping out o f school, or students high and low in grade point averages or class standing. The findings suggest that these instruments as presently scored would not be a meaningful addition to the selection battery. 344 Fourteenth Street
SUM M ARY
T w o personality inventories, the M in nesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (M M P I) and the California Personality
This study was s u p p o rte d ¡n p a rt by a research g ra n t fro m th e C a lifo rn ia D ental A s s o c ia tio n . *A ssistan t c lin ic a l professor o f m e d ic a l psychology, U n iv e rs ity o f C a lifo rn ia School o f M e d ic in e .
74/670 • T H E J O U R N A L O F T H E A M E R I G A N D E N T A L A S S O C I A T I O N
fD e a n a n d professor o f o p e ra tiv e d e n tis try , C o lle g e o f Physicians and Surgeons o f San Francisco School o f D entistry. fC o o r d in a to r o f b a sic and c lin ic a l sciences, C o lle g e o f Physicians and Surgeons o f San Francisco.
betw een a p titu d e te s tin g and d e n ta l ance. J . D. Educ. 25:269 Sept. 1961. 8. H a tha w ay, S. R., and M cK in le y, th e M inne sota M u ltip h a s ic Personality 1951. New York, P sychological C o rp .,
1. Peterson, S h ailer. Forecasting the success o f fresh m an d e n ta l students th ro u g h th e a p titu d e te s tin g p ro g ra m . J .A .D .A . 37:259 Sept. 1948. 2. Peterson, S h ailer. A d m ission to d e n ta l study. J .A .D .A . 40:692 June 1950. 3. Parkin, G . L. R e port on th e results o f th e a p titu d e te s tin g p ro g ra m . J . D. Educ. 22:9 Jan. 1958.
9. G ough, H . G . M anual f o r the C a lifo rn ia Psycho lo g ic a l Inv e n to ry . Palo A lto , C o n s u ltin g Psychologists Press, Inc., 1957. 10. H atha w ay, S. R., and M c K in le y , J . C . M u ltip h a s ic p e rs o n a lity schedule (M in n e s o ta ): I. C o n s tru c tio n o f the schedule. J . Psychol. 10:249 O c t. 1940. 11. G o u g h , H . G . C o n s tru c tio n o f a p e rs o n a lity scale t o p r e d ic t scholastic achievem ent. J . A p p l. Psychol. 37:361 O c t. 1953. 12. G ough, H . G . Factors re la te d to d iffe re n tia ) a chievem ent am ong g ifte d persons. U n p u b lis h e d . 13. G o u g h , H . G . Some p e rs o n a lity d iffe re n c e s b e tw een h ig h - a b ility high school students w ho d o , and d o not, g o to c o lle g e . U n published . 14. Edwards, A . L. M anual f o r th e Edwards Personal P reference Schedule. New York, P sych olog ical C o rp ., 1954.
4. W e b b , S. C . E valuating tests as p re d ic to rs d e n ta l school gra d e s. J . D. Educ. 22:33 Jan. 1958.
of
5. H o llid a y , H o u g h to n , and Koepchen, E. E. Visual tests as a c rite rio n fo r the selection o f d e n ta l students. J . D. Educ. 18:7 Jan. 1954. 6. Blom m ers, P. J. P rediction o f success in firs t and second years o f th e study o f d e n tis try on basis o f c e r ta in selecte d v a ria b le s . J. D. Educ. 20:5 Jan. 1956. 7. T occh lni,
J.
J.,
and
others.
C o rre la tio n
study
student p e rfo rm J. C . M anual fo r Inventory, revised 1951.
The Survey of Dentistry— one point of view
John Oppie McCall, D.D.S., Jericho, N. Y.
The recently published Survey of D en tistry is a statesmanlike study and a use ful blueprint for the future development of dentistry in the United States. The supplementary 65-page Summary R e port, with its condensed overall view of the Survey, may have failed to convey to some dentists and dental editors the full value and intent of the Survey. The chief objective of the Survey is not only the basic improvement of dental service but its extension to a larger segment of the public in the interests of public health. Serious consideration of the Survey and its recommendations is in order.
Announcement was made recently of the publication of a Survey of Dentistry pre senting the results of a comprehensive study of American dentistry. The study
was made by a distinguished Commission consisting of prominent educators and authorities in medicine, dentistry and public health. The Survey, consisting of 472 pages of text and tables with six ap pendixes, not only is a conclusive survey of dentistry as it is today but presents a potentially useful blueprint, through its recommendations, for the future develop ment of dentistry in this country in dis charging its responsibility to the general public. Since the Survey itself is quite lengthy, although by no means overly extended, a supplementary Summary Report o f 65 pages (Dentistry in the United States) also was published. This digest, although it has value with regard to convenience for quick reading, providing a condensed overall view of the subject, has certain built-in dangers. By its necessary compres sion of the discussions presented in the original, it leads at times to possible mis
Betty L. K alis* P h.D .; John J. Tocchini, f D.D.S., and Paul R. Thomassen,% D.D.S., San Francisco
In an effort to determine whether per sonality performance tests would bring out emotional defects that correlated with dental student failures and drop outs, two standard personality inven tories, the Minnesota Multiphasic Per sonality Inventory (M M P 1 ) and the California Personality Inventory (C P I), were administered to 910 students and applicants at the College of Physicians and Surgeons School of Dentistry. There were no test score differences between students rated high and low by faculty members, students staying in school or dropping out, students high and low in class standing or applicants accepted and rejected. The findings suggest that these tests as scored would not be a meaningful addition to the selection battery for den tal school applicants.
This study was undertaken to learn whether standard personality inventories might be useful in the selection of dental students and the prediction of success in dental college. Although the aptitude tests devised by the Council on Dental Education of the American Dental Asso ciation, together with predental grade point averages, have proved to be excel
lent selection criteria, the numbers of failures and dropouts, while small, have continued to be of concern, particularly to the small private institution.1'7 If it is assumed that students scoring high on the American Dental Association aptitude tests and having a high pre dental grade point average are intellectu ally capable of completing the dental curriculum, then it may be hypothesized that emotional difficulties might interfere with intellectual functioning and con tribute to failures and dropouts. Can per sons with such difficulties be screened out at the time of application, or are they discriminable from those applicants whose personal problems do not interfere with their academic achievement? T o explore this question, two standard personality inventories, the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (M M P I )8 and the California Personality Inventory (C P I )9 were administered to 910 students and applicants at the College of Physicians and Surgeons School of Dentistry. A p proximately 55 per cent of this number were selected and became students at the College, whereas 45 per cent either were not accepted or decided to go elsewhere. T w o kinds o f criteria were used to evaluate the test findings. The first cri terion consisted of faculty ratings o f four classes. The second criterion was the
K A L I S — T O C C H I N I — T H O M A S S E N . . . V O L U M E 64, M A Y l % 2 . 61/457
actual academic progress of the subjects who became students. F A C U L T Y R A T IN G S
In view o f the fact that dentistry is a diversified profession which can utilize different kinds of talent in its teaching, research and various clinical aspects, aca demic progress, although essential, may not necessarily be the most valid criterion for predicting success in the profession. Moreover, some students, while able to fulfill the formal requirements of their training, do not have the personal char acteristics or integrity valued by those who are striving to enhance the standards o f the profession. In the hope that fac ulty members acquainted with the stu dents might be able to select those stu dents best suited to the profession as differentiated from those least suited, a multidimensional rating scale was de vised, in consultation with faculty mem bers, dentists in the community and psy chologists. The resulting scale contained three major variables and five minor ones. The first rating concerned “ Ease and warmth o f relationships with faculty, students, and patients. Respects others and their needs. Can deal effectively with difficult situations and/or individuals. Be haves in socially appropriate ways.” The second major variable was “ Emo tional balance, self-confidence, and ca pacity for self-evaluation. M ay have per sonal problems, but they don’ t interfere with his work. Is constructively selfcritical. Is self-confident without being egotistical.” The third major variable concerned “ Intellectual and technical proficiency and drive. Has initiative and curiosity re garding the body of knowledge crucial to progressive dentistry. Can grasp and in tegrate new ideas and information. Can express his ideas clearly and understand ably.” For each of these three variables, six
faculty members actively involved in the teaching of each class were asked to select four groups o f students, as follows: A. Five students who are at the top o f their class regarding the rated variable. B. The next ten (following the five) at the top of their class. C. Five students who least represent the quality rated in the class. D. The next ten (following the five) who least represent the quality. In addition, ratings were made on five major variables in the hope o f tapping qualities desirable for certain subaspects of the profession. These five sets o f rat ings were as follows: 1. I f you were establishing a group practice, which three members o f the class would you be willing to invite to practice with you? Which three would you definitely not invite? 2. I f you were establishing a school of dentistry, which three would you be willing to invite to teach on the faculty? Which three would you be unwilling to have on the faculty? 3. I f you had funds to conduct re search on the relationship between caries and diet or other projects, which three would you invite to work with you? Which three would you not invite? 4. I f you were choosing speakers to explain dental hygiene at community meetings, which three would you ask? Which three would you not ask? 5. I f you were arranging a Saturday night social gathering in your home, which three would you most like to in vite? Which three would you prefer not to invite? P E R S O N A L IT Y IN V E N T O R IE S
T h e two instruments used in the study were chosen because they provide com plementary kinds o f data. The M M P I is the older of the two, having appeared in 1940 and been actively in use since 1943. It is intended, according to the authors,10 for “ the clinical or personnel worker who
62/658 • T H E J O U R N A L O F T H E A M E R I C A N D E N T A L A S S O C I A T I O N
♦ N um ber o f students in each c rite rio n group based o n facu lty In te rra te r agreement
T a b le
G ro u p Class
N H ig h *
Low f 12
S enior (1957)
51
15
Junior (1958)
49
10
12
S ophom ore (19591
55
15
18
Freshman (1960)
56
10
5
211
50
47
TOTAL
*R a te d as m ost representing the q u a litie s ta p p e d by the th re e m a jo r va ria b le s . fR a te d as least re p resenting these q u a litie s .
wishes to assay those traits that are com monly characteristic o f disabling psycho logical abnormality.” The inventory was originally standardized on psychiatric pa tients, and scores on the validity and clin ical scales enable comparison of response tendencies with these standardization groups. The usefulness of this instrument for personnel selection has been repeat edly demonstrated. The CPI, a newer instrument first pub lished for general research use in 1957 (after six years of preliminary validation on over 50,000 subjects in more than 60 separate studies), actually uses 200 of the 550 M M P I items. It is designed, how ever, to measure those characteristics of personality that are related to the “ fa vorable and positive aspects of personality rather than to the morbid,” and is in tended for most general use in schools, colleges, business and industry.9 The CPI has been applied to the problem of drop outs between high school and college among gifted students, as well as to the problem of differential academic achieve ment among gifted students at both edu cational levels.1113 In addition to these two instruments, this investigation was concurrent with the Council on Dental Education’s explora tion of uses for the Edwards Personal Preference Schedule (EPPS),14 and score profiles for this test were also available for most of the applicants in the study.
S U B JE C TS
In the spring o f 1957, the testing program was begun with all students currently registered in the College (the classes of 1957, 1958, 1959 and 1960), and faculty ratings, as described previously, were si multaneously secured for all four classes. The students were informed that the pro gram was in the nature of research and that the findings would in no way be used administratively or affect their academic standing. There was a total of 211 stu dents in this original group: 51 in the class of 1957; 49 in the class of 1958; 55 in the class of 1959, and 56 in the class of 1960. Since that time, four additional classes have been tested; test records were ob tained for all but four of the members of these classes. There were 58 in the class of 1961; 60 in the class of 1962; 57 in the class of 1963, and 59 in the class of 1964. In addition, 45 M M P I records and 51 CPI records were obtained from applicants selected as alternates for the classes o f 1961 and 1963. As of February, 1961, a total o f 42 students from these eight classes for whom test records were obtained were either dismissed from school because of poor grades, dropped out of school, or were re quired to repeat a year because o f poor grades. Since the number in each sub group is small, the combined group of failures, dropouts and repeats will be used for all comparisons. All applicants to the school in 1958 and 1959 were required to complete the inventories. For the classes of 1962 and 1963, therefore, the M M P I records o f 422 applicants and the CPI records o f 414, who were not selected or who went else where, are available for comparison. R ESU LTS
Faculty Ratings, Criterion Groups and Classes of 1957-1960 • Criterion group membership was based on listing in the
K A L IS — T O C C H I N I - T H O M A S S E N . . . V O L U M E 64. M A Y 1962 . 63/659
C r ite r io n
C r ite r io n g ro u p
g ro u p X X X X X
H igh
X
X X X X X
H igh
X X X X X X X X X
Low
o
X
X X X X X X X X X
o o 0 o 0 o o o o o
0
1 -2 6
O O
0 o o o o O 0 0 o o o o o
0
O O
Low
2 7 -5 1
1 -2 7
2 8 -5 5
these ratings is maximal in the senior year. The number of students in each of the criterion groups for each class is shown in the table. The composite criterion groups were highly correlated with the students’ grade point averages. Figures 1-4 show the number of students in each criterion group above and below the median of their class in grade point averages. Composite M M P I profiles of the cri terion groups for each class separately are shown in Figures 5-8. None o f the mean differences is statistically significant (at the 5 per cent confidence level) al-
C r ite r io n g ro u p
C r ite r io n g ro u p
Low
X
H igh
X
K
X
X
H ig h
X
extreme 5 by two or more of the six fac ulty raters or in the extreme 15 by three or more. For the three major variables, despite the effort to tap different personal qualities, there was almost total overlap in the resultant lists. Composite criterion groups were therefore utilized. Ratings for the senior class (1957) were most closely agreed on by the faculty raters, and those for the freshman class (1960) least so. Faculty raters were most reluc tant to rate freshman students on the “ undesirable” end of the continuum. These findings suggest that faculty famil iarity with students for the purpose of
X
Fig. 3 • R e la tio n b e tw e e n c r ite r io n g ro u p m e m b e rs h ip and g ra d e p o in t a v e ra g e s : soph o m o res, class o f 1959
X
F ig . I • R e la tio n b e tw e e n c r ite r io n g ro u p m e m b e rs h ip and g ra d e p o in t a v e ra g e s : seniors, class o f 1957
X
C lass standing b a s e d o n g r a d e p o in t a v e ra g e s
X
C la s s s ta n d in g b a s e d on g r a d e p o in t a v e ra g e s
® o •
1 -2 5
0 O 0 0 0 O 0 0 0
2 6 -5 0
Low
X X X X X X X X X X
O 0 o o
o
1 -2 8
2 9 -5 6
C lass s tanding base d on g r a d e p o in t a v e ra g e s
C lass standing based on g ra d e p o in t a v e ra g e s
F ig . 2 • R e la tio n b e tw e e n c rite rio n g ro u p m em b e rs h ip and g ra d e p o in t a v e ra g e s : ju n io rs, class o f 1958. • = stu d e n ts r e p e a tin g th e class
Fig. 4 • R e la tio n b e tw e e n c rite r io n g ro u p m e m b e rs h ip a nd g ra d e p o in t a v e ra g e s : fre sh m e n , class o f I9 6 0
64/440 . T H E J O U R N A L O F T H E A M E R I C A N D E N T A L A S S O C I A T I O N
Tor Tc
?
L
F
K
Hs+.5K
D
T o rT c
?
L
F
K
H s+ .5 K
D
H ig h
Hy
Pd+.4K
Mf
Po ' P t+ IK S c + IK
M a+.2K
Si
TorTc
Hy
P d+4K
Mf
Po
M a+2K
Si
T orTc
P t+ IK S c+ IK
L o w ---------------
'
F ig . 5 • C o m p o s ite M M P I p ro file s : c r ite rio n g ro u p s — seniors, class o f 1957. H ia h s = N o M M P I p ro file s in c lu d e K c o rre c tio n
T orTc
T o rT c
?
?
L
L
F
F
K
Hs+.5K
D
K
H s + .5 K
D
H ig h
F ig . 6 •
Hy
Hy '
Pd+.4K
P d+4K
12.
Mf
Pa
P t+ IK S c + IK
M a+.2K
Si
TorTc
Mf
Pa
P t+ IK S c+ IK
M a+2K
Si
TorTc
L o w — — — ——
C o m p o s ite M M P I p ro file s : c r ite r io n g ro u p s — ¡uniors, class o f 1958. H ig h s =
though differences reflecting anxiety, sub jective distress and unusual admissions (Pt, F and Sc scales) approach signifi cance for the more reliably rated senior (1957) class. Composite CPI profiles of the criterion groups for each class separately are shown in Figures 9-12. Again, none of the mean differences is statistically significant, and
15; lows =
10; lows == 12
frequency distributions for each o f the individual scales likewise suggest n o pre dictive trends. When the composite mean M M P I and CPI profiles for all criterion groups are compared with the mean profiles for the total class membership, the extent o f sim ilarity is most noticeable, as shown in Figures 13 and 14. All the clinical scales
K A L I S - T O C C H I N I - - T H O M A S S E N . . . V O L U M E 64, M A Y 1962 • 65/061
F ig . 7 • C o m p o s ite M M P I p ro file s : c r ite r io n g ro u p s — so p h o m o re s, class o f 1959. H ig h s =
15; lows =
18
H ig h
F ig . 8 • C o m p o s ite M M P I p ro file s : c r ite r io n g ro u p s — fre sh m e n , class o f I9 6 0 . H ig h s =
o f the M M P I fall within one standard deviation o f the mean for the general population, and the patterning of scores (with peaks on hypomania, hysteria and masculinity-femininity) is the same as that reported for normal college males in other studies. The mean score on the K (suppressor) validity scale barely ex ceeds one standard deviation above the
10; lows =
5
general mean and reflects a test-taking attitude of attempting to create a good impression, which is appropriate to the circumstances o f administration. The CPI scores also cluster closely around the general mean, with only one of the 18 scales (self-acceptance) verging above the one standard deviation mark, a find ing to be expected on the basis of chance
66/662 • T H E J O U R N A L O F T H E A M E R I C A N D E N T A L A S S O C I A T I O N
Do
Cs
Sy
Sp
So
Wb
Re
So
Sc
To •
Gi
Cm
Ac
Ai
le
F ig . 9 • C o m p o s ite C PI p ro file s : c r ite r io n g ro u p s — seniors, class o f 1957. H ig h s =
Do
Cs
Sy
Sp
So
Wb
Re
So
Sc
To
Gi
Cm
Ac
AI
le
F ig . 10 • C o m p o s ite C P I p ro file s : c r ite rio n g ro u p s — ju n io rs , class o f 1958. H ig h s =
Py
15; low s =
Py
Fx
10; lows =
F ig . I I • C o m p o s ite C P I p ro file s : c r ite r io n g ro u p s — soph o m o res, class o f 1959. H ig h s =
alone. Mean profiles for the separate classes are so similar that they do not warrant separate presentation; there are, of course, no significant differences on any of the individual scales between classes.
Fx
Fe
12
Fe
12
15; low s =
18
Profile Characteristics of Applicants for Classes of 1961-1964 • Mean profiles for the combined classes o f 1961 through 1964 are presented in Figures 15 and 16. Again, individual class profiles are too similar to warrant separate presentation.
K A L IS — T O C C H I N I — T H O M A S S E N . . . V O L U M E 6 4 , M A Y 1962 • 6 7 / 6 6 3
F ig . 12 • C o m p o s ite C P I p ro file s : c rite rio n g ro u p s — fre sh m e n , class o f I9 6 0 . H ig h s =
H ig h —
10; lows =
5
L o w —— — ——
C la s s
F ig . 13 • C o m p o s ite M M P I p ro file s : c r ite r io n g ro u p s versus to ta l classes 1957-1960. T o ta l h ighs = to ta l lows = 4 7 ; to ta l classes = 211
Do
Cs
Sy
Sp
So
Wb
Re
So
Sc
To
Gi
Cm
Ac
Ai
le
Py
Fx
5 0;
Fe
F ig . 14 • C o m p o s ite C PI p ro file s : c r ite rio n g ro u p s versus to ta l classes 1957-1960. T o ta l h ig h s = to ta l lows = 4 7 ; to ta l classes = 211
5 0;
68/664 • T H E J O U R N A L O F T H E A M E R I C A N D E N T A L A S S O C I A T I O N
T o rT c
?
L
F
K
Hs+.5K
D
Hy
Pd+.4K
Mf
Pa
Pt+1K S c + IK
F ig . 15 • C o m p o s ite M M P I p ro file s : classes o f 1961-1964. N o . =
Do
Cs
Sy
Sp
So
Wb
Re
So
Sc
To
Gi
Cm
Ac
Ai
le
F ig . 16 • C o m p o s ite C P I p ro file s : classes o f 1961-1964. N o . =
Comparison of Figures 13 and 15 and of Figures 14 and 16 demonstrates that pro file characteristics for students in the classes of 1957-1960 do not differ from those o f students in the classes of 19611964. Applicants selected as alternates for the classes of 1961 and 1963 were also tested. Figures 17 and 18 present mean profiles for 46 alternates for whom M M P I records were available and 51 for whom CPI records were obtained. These composite profiles do not differ from those for students accepted for the classes, as comparison with Figures 13-16 shows.
M ai-.2K
Si
T orTc
232
Py
Fx
Fe
234
All worthwhile applicants, from the standpoint of grade point average and dental aptitude rating, for the classes of 1962 and 1963 were tested, and M M P I records for 422 applicants, and C PI rec ords for 414, were obtained. These mean profiles, shown in Figures 19 and 20, in dicate that students accepted by the Col lege do not differ from the total pool of applicants in personality characteristics measured by these tests. Profile Characteristics Versus Academic Standing • A total of 42 students were dismissed for poor scholarship, dropped out of school, or were required to repeat
K A L I S — T O C C H 1N I — T H O M A S S E N . . . V O L U M E 64, M A Y 1962 • 69/465
T o rT c
?
L
F
K
H st.5 K
D
Hy
Pd+.4K
Mf
Pa
P t + IK S c + 1 K
Mo-t-.2K
F ig . 17 • C o m p o s ite M M P I p ro file s : a lte rn a te s f o r classes o f 1961 and 1963. N o . =
Do
Cj
Sy
Sp
So
Wb
— --
Cs
Sy
Sp
So
Sc
To
Gi
Cm
Ac
Ai
le
Py
TorT c
46
Fx
Fe
Z7S- - . ~ 4 T T - ; - ------------ ----------------------------
I
-= 4 0 = * ~4 5 - 15 _ -------------- — — =---- =---------- z ----------- --------------------------------- ---------------------------=--------2 0 + 6 0
-3 0 -4 0
Do
Re
Si
Sa
Wb
Re
So
Sc
To
Gi
Cm
Ac
Ai
Je
Py
Fx
F ig . 18 • C o m p o s ite C PI p ro file s : a lte rn a te s f o r classes o f 1961 a nd 1963. N o . =
a year during the period of this study. M M PI and CPI records were available for all these students, and EPPS scores for 38 of the 42. Figures 21 and 22 pre sent their mean M M P I and CPI profiles. Comparison with previous figures indi cates that these students do not differ with respect to characteristics measured by the test scales from the remainder of the student body. Figure 23 presents the mean EPPS scores for this group in rela tion to standard scores developed by the Council on Dental Education o f the American Dental Association in its na tionwide testing program of dental appli cants, and on none of these measures are
Fe
51
there significant differences. Another comparison between profile characteristics and class standing is af forded by Figure 24, which shows the mean profile on the M M P I for 29 stu dents at the top o f their class in grade point averages in the classes of 1959, 1960, and 1962, and 29 students at the bottom o f those same classes in grade point averages. Again, none o f the dif ferences is significant. Figure 25 presents the mean EPPS profiles for these same 58 students, and on none of these scales is there a significant difference. A some what different approach, using the CPI Intellectual Efficiency scale, was simi
70/664 • T H E J O U R N A L O F T H E A M E R I C A N D E N T A L A S S O C I A T I O N
T o rT c
?
L
F
K
Hs+.5K
D
Hy
Pd+.4K
Mf
Po
P t+ IK S c + IK
M a+.2K
Si
T orTc
T o rT c
?
L
F
K
H s + .5 K
D
Hy
Pd+4K
Mf
Pa
P t+ lK S c + lK
M a+2K
Si
TorTc
F ig . 19 • C o m p o s ite M M P I p ro file s : a p p lic a n ts n o t a c c e p te d f o r classes o f 1962 a n d 1963. N o . =
422
F ig . 2 0 • C o m p o s ite C P I p ro file s : a p p lic a n ts n o t a c c e p te d f o r classes o f 1962 a n d 1963. N o . =
414
larly nonproductive: Scores on this scale were compared with yearly and four-year grade point averages for all classes, and in no instance was a significant correla tion found between the two. Individual M M P I profiles significantly different from the overall mean on two or more scales were selected from six o f the eight classes. O n the average, 46 per cent of these profiles were from students above the median in class standing. D IS C U S S IO N
The results indicate that these personality inventories do not discriminate between
students completing and failing dental school, those rated high or low by faculty members, or those accepted and rejected by the institution where the study was conducted. Several considerations bear on these findings. The first of these concerns the failure to obtain faculty ratings o f suitability for the profession which were independ ent of academic standing; perhaps the expectation that such independence ex ists is unrealistic when teachers are as sessors and students, assessees. In this connection, however, another unknown is the relation between grades, class stand ing and so forth and later competence
K A L IS — T O C C H I N I — T H O M A S S E N . . . V O L U M E 64, M A Y 1962 • 7 1/447
T o rT c
?
L
F
K
H s+.5K
D
Hy
Pd+.4K
Mf
Pa
P t + IK S c + 1 K
Ma-l-.2K
Si
TorT c
T o rT c
?
L
F
K
H s + .5 K
D
Hy
P d+4K
Mf
Pa
P t+ IK S c+ IK
M a+2K
Si
T orTc
F ig . 21
Do
Cs
Sy
• C o m p o s ite M M P I p ro file s : fa ilu re s , d ro p o u ts and re p e a ts . N o . =
Sp
So
Wb
Re___ S o ____Sc
To
Gi
Cm
Ac
Ai
le
42
Py
Fx
Fe
•20- -6 0
Do
Cs
Sy
Sp
Sa
Wb
Re
So
Sc
To
Gi
Cm
Ac
Ai
le
Py
F ig . 22 • C o m p o s ite C P I p ro file s : fa ilu re s , d r o p o u ts a n d re p e a ts . N o . =
and “ success” in the profession. Another consideration in evaluating the findings involves the adequacy o f the personality inventories utilized. Although there is adequate rationale for their choice, like all self-administering inven tories they are susceptible to test-taking attitudes. The context in which the in ventories were administered may well have contributed to test-taking defen siveness on the part of all subjects, which masked differences that may have emerged under other circumstances, or with more sensitive instruments, were they available. It may be that analysis o f the individual items, which was not
Fx
Fe
42
within the scope of this study, would en able construction of a special scale which would effectively discriminate the unsuit able or poorly motivated dental student. It is apparent, however, that the standard scales utilized, under the test-taking cir cumstances o f the study, do not. These considerations, in turn, lead to a re-examination of the basic hypothesis that some students do not succeed in den tal school because of their emotional diffi culties. Although this may be a valid assumption in some instances, many stu dents with similar problems do well in school. Moreover, some students who fail do not demonstrate any remarkable psy-
72/648 * T H E J O U R N A L O F T H E A M E R I C A N D E N T A L A S S O C I A T I O N
F ig . 23 • C o m p o s ite EPPS p ro file s : fa ilu re s , d r o p o u ts a n d re p e a ts ( N o . = 3 8 ) a g a in s t norm s b a se d on 689 d e n ta l stu d e n ts o f th e 1956-1957 fre s h m a n classes th ro u g h th e U n ite d S tates
T o rT c
?
L
F
K
Hs+.5K
D
H ig h
F ig . 2 4 • I9 6 0 a n d
C o m p o s ite 1962. H ig h
MMPI = 29;
Hy
"
-
Pd+.4K
Mf
Pa
P t+ IK S c + IK
M a+.2K
Si
TorTc
l o w — — — ** —
p ro file s : s tu d e n ts w ith h ig h a n d lo w g ra d e p o in t a v e ra g e s , classes o f 1959, tow = 29
K A L I S — T O C C H I N I — T H O M A S S E N . . . V O L U M E 64, M A Y 1762 • 73/669
Fig 25 • C o m p o s ite EPPS p ro file s : stu d e n ts w ith h ig h a n d lo w g ra d e p o in t a v e ra g e , classes o f 1959, I9 6 0 a n d 1962 (h ig h = 2 9 ; low = 2 9 ) a g a in s t norm s based on 689 d e n ta l stu d e n ts o f th e 1956-1957 fre s h m a n class
chopathologic condition, and it is ap parent that there must be multiple causes for failure. Perhaps the most important considera tion lies in the already exceedingly low rate of failures and dropouts, which sug gests that current selection criteria are highly efficient, and that any further re duction of error may be unattainable. T h e stable characteristics o f the mean profiles on the personality inventories in this study are further evidence o f the high caliber o f applicants from among whom a choice must be made.
Inventory (C P I) were administered to 910 dental students and applicants to evaluate their usefulness as selection cri teria and predictors of success in dental school. There were no test score differences between applicants accepted and re jected, students rated high and low by faculty members, students failing or dropping out o f school, or students high and low in grade point averages or class standing. The findings suggest that these instruments as presently scored would not be a meaningful addition to the selection battery. 344 Fourteenth Street
SUM M ARY
T w o personality inventories, the M in nesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (M M P I) and the California Personality
This study was s u p p o rte d ¡n p a rt by a research g ra n t fro m th e C a lifo rn ia D ental A s s o c ia tio n . *A ssistan t c lin ic a l professor o f m e d ic a l psychology, U n iv e rs ity o f C a lifo rn ia School o f M e d ic in e .
74/670 • T H E J O U R N A L O F T H E A M E R I G A N D E N T A L A S S O C I A T I O N
fD e a n a n d professor o f o p e ra tiv e d e n tis try , C o lle g e o f Physicians and Surgeons o f San Francisco School o f D entistry. fC o o r d in a to r o f b a sic and c lin ic a l sciences, C o lle g e o f Physicians and Surgeons o f San Francisco.
betw een a p titu d e te s tin g and d e n ta l ance. J . D. Educ. 25:269 Sept. 1961. 8. H a tha w ay, S. R., and M cK in le y, th e M inne sota M u ltip h a s ic Personality 1951. New York, P sychological C o rp .,
1. Peterson, S h ailer. Forecasting the success o f fresh m an d e n ta l students th ro u g h th e a p titu d e te s tin g p ro g ra m . J .A .D .A . 37:259 Sept. 1948. 2. Peterson, S h ailer. A d m ission to d e n ta l study. J .A .D .A . 40:692 June 1950. 3. Parkin, G . L. R e port on th e results o f th e a p titu d e te s tin g p ro g ra m . J . D. Educ. 22:9 Jan. 1958.
9. G ough, H . G . M anual f o r the C a lifo rn ia Psycho lo g ic a l Inv e n to ry . Palo A lto , C o n s u ltin g Psychologists Press, Inc., 1957. 10. H atha w ay, S. R., and M c K in le y , J . C . M u ltip h a s ic p e rs o n a lity schedule (M in n e s o ta ): I. C o n s tru c tio n o f the schedule. J . Psychol. 10:249 O c t. 1940. 11. G o u g h , H . G . C o n s tru c tio n o f a p e rs o n a lity scale t o p r e d ic t scholastic achievem ent. J . A p p l. Psychol. 37:361 O c t. 1953. 12. G ough, H . G . Factors re la te d to d iffe re n tia ) a chievem ent am ong g ifte d persons. U n p u b lis h e d . 13. G o u g h , H . G . Some p e rs o n a lity d iffe re n c e s b e tw een h ig h - a b ility high school students w ho d o , and d o not, g o to c o lle g e . U n published . 14. Edwards, A . L. M anual f o r th e Edwards Personal P reference Schedule. New York, P sych olog ical C o rp ., 1954.
4. W e b b , S. C . E valuating tests as p re d ic to rs d e n ta l school gra d e s. J . D. Educ. 22:33 Jan. 1958.
of
5. H o llid a y , H o u g h to n , and Koepchen, E. E. Visual tests as a c rite rio n fo r the selection o f d e n ta l students. J . D. Educ. 18:7 Jan. 1954. 6. Blom m ers, P. J. P rediction o f success in firs t and second years o f th e study o f d e n tis try on basis o f c e r ta in selecte d v a ria b le s . J. D. Educ. 20:5 Jan. 1956. 7. T occh lni,
J.
J.,
and
others.
C o rre la tio n
study
student p e rfo rm J. C . M anual fo r Inventory, revised 1951.
The Survey of Dentistry— one point of view
John Oppie McCall, D.D.S., Jericho, N. Y.
The recently published Survey of D en tistry is a statesmanlike study and a use ful blueprint for the future development of dentistry in the United States. The supplementary 65-page Summary R e port, with its condensed overall view of the Survey, may have failed to convey to some dentists and dental editors the full value and intent of the Survey. The chief objective of the Survey is not only the basic improvement of dental service but its extension to a larger segment of the public in the interests of public health. Serious consideration of the Survey and its recommendations is in order.
Announcement was made recently of the publication of a Survey of Dentistry pre senting the results of a comprehensive study of American dentistry. The study
was made by a distinguished Commission consisting of prominent educators and authorities in medicine, dentistry and public health. The Survey, consisting of 472 pages of text and tables with six ap pendixes, not only is a conclusive survey of dentistry as it is today but presents a potentially useful blueprint, through its recommendations, for the future develop ment of dentistry in this country in dis charging its responsibility to the general public. Since the Survey itself is quite lengthy, although by no means overly extended, a supplementary Summary Report o f 65 pages (Dentistry in the United States) also was published. This digest, although it has value with regard to convenience for quick reading, providing a condensed overall view of the subject, has certain built-in dangers. By its necessary compres sion of the discussions presented in the original, it leads at times to possible mis