Personality and Gender Influences on Faculty Ratings and Rankings of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery Residency Applicants Lisa Maria E. Frantsve, Ph.D.; Daniel M. Laskin, D.D.S., M.S.; Stephen M. Auerbach, Ph.D. Abstract: This study examined effects of applicants’ personality and gender on faculty rankings and matching to an Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery (OMS) residency program. Forty-seven applicants completed a standardized personality measure (Adjective Check List, ACL), and faculty interviewers rated each applicant on five personality dimensions during their onsite interview. Applicants were found to be similar to the normative population on all ACL personality dimensions, indicating that there is no distinctive personality profile characteristic of individuals seeking an OMS residency position. Male applicants were rated by interviewers as being more capable of dealing with stress effectively and more affiliative and deferent to authority than female applicants. Applicant ACL scores were unrelated to faculty rankings, but applicants rated as more friendly, motivated, assertive, confident, and tolerant of stress received more favorable rankings. Compared to applicants who did not match at this site, matched applicants were more likely to seek emotional support from others and were rated as being more assertive. Study limitations as well as implications for the use of personality measures and interviews in the selection of OMS residency candidates are discussed. Dr. Frantsve is Director, Health Psychology Section, VA Connecticut Health Care System-West Haven Campus; Dr. Laskin is Professor and Chair Emeritus, Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, School of Dentistry, Medical College of Virginia Campus, Virginia Commonwealth University; and Dr. Auerbach is Professor, Department of Psychology, Virginia Commonwealth University. Direct correspondence and requests for reprints to Dr. Lisa M. Frantsve, Psychology Service (116B), VA Connecticut Health Care System-West Haven Campus, West Haven, CT 06516; 203-932-5711, x 2468 phone; 203-937-4951 fax;
[email protected]. Key words: dental careers, oral surgery, personality, interview, resident selection, gender influences Submitted for publication 6/5/03; accepted 9/8/03
R
ecent surveys have documented the widespread endorsement of the interview as a standard applicant selection procedure for admission into oral and maxillofacial surgery (OMS) residency programs1 as well as other areas of dentistry and medicine.2-3 Nonetheless, there is debate concerning the utility of interviews in the applicant selection process. While it is hoped that information from interviews will help ensure that candidates and sites are well suited for each other, the results of empirical studies on the use of interviews in selecting applicants within the medical and dental fields are mixed. There is some evidence that interviews impact how applicants and sites rank each other. For example, Gong et al.4 demonstrated that information gathered from interviews affects how interviewers rank applicants in a residency match program. The interview process also affects applicants’ impressions and ratings of OMS residency sites5 and the applicants’ subsequent satisfaction with their OMS training.6 However, the mechanism by which interviews
1252
influence rankings of candidates is unclear. One view is that interviews are pivotal for the assessment of nonacademic factors—such as personality characteristics—that evade scrutiny during ratings of written application materials. The assumption is that assessment of an applicant’s personality can, and should, ultimately influence selection decisions.7 Similarly, surveys of OMS residency candidates report that applicants also consider the interview an opportunity to display their admirable personality characteristics and demonstrate a “fit” on academic and interpersonal levels.5,8 Personality assessment has potential for predicting how well a particular applicant will match with an OMS residency site’s social and intellectual climate, but there is no empirically validated personality profile for the ideal OMS residency candidate. Previous attempts to classify individuals seeking a career in OMS and related health professions have methodological and theoretical limitations.9-16 One group of studies has been oriented around proposing ideal traits for individuals seeking a ca-
Journal of Dental Education ■ Volume 67, Number 11
reer in OMS based on deductive reasoning, but they do not provide empirical data.16 Available empirical studies either use the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI)17 as a categorical classification schema or use a dimensional approach that compares individuals seeking a dentistry-oriented career to established norms. Studies based on the categorical MBTI have described which personality types (e.g., sensitiveperceptive, intuiting-thinker) are most common among individuals seeing a career in dentistry and have tried to predict dental students’ future career choices and desirable dentist behaviors (e.g., decisive decisionmaking) based on MBTI type.10,14 This approach is somewhat limited because boundaries are drawn between personality traits instead of measuring the relative strength of each trait, making comparisons between groups difficult. In contrast, studies using a dimensional approach to personality assessment measure relative strengths and weaknesses of each individual’s traits and compare individuals with each other and to established norms. For example, Manhold et al.11 compared personality profiles of medical and dental students and found that dental students were more aggressive, displayed greater endurance, and were lower on dominance, nurturance, affiliation, and succorance. Neither the categorical or dimensional approach, however, has produced a consensus concerning the ideal OMS residency candidate or the typical personality profile of an individual seeking a career in OMS. Another set of issues concerns the feasibility of gathering accurate information about an applicant’s personality during an on-site interview18 and the utility of using interview data to predict important professional behaviors. Although earlier studies have reported significant correlations between interview data and dental school performance,19-20 later studies have reported that subjective evaluations, including applicant interviews, did not predict future academic performance in dental school21 or OMS residency programs.22 Given the limited predictive value of applicant interviews, Smith23 suggests that a review of application materials in the absence of conducting interviews is sufficient for selecting qualified applicants. A final issue concerns the possibility of gender bias against women in the field of OMS. Marciani et al.5 reported that female OMS residency applicants in their sample sensed discrimination on the basis of gender. For example, one of these female applicants reported “unprofessional behavior” by an interviewer during the OMS selection process. In a later survey
November 2003
■
Journal of Dental Education
of female OMS practitioners and residents, Risser and Laskin24 found that over 64 percent of their respondents acknowledged a sense that there was a significant bias against women in the field of OMS. Marciani et al.’s8 more recent survey of OMS applicants also reported continued perceived bias against female OMS candidates. Similar concerns of bias against female applicants have also been reported in studies that examined the selection process for related health care training programs.25-26 The study reported in this article evaluated the personality traits of OMS residency candidates using a standardized dimensional self-report measure. In addition, faculty interviewers provided personality ratings of selected personality traits (assertiveness, confidence, friendliness, motivation, and stress tolerance) using a brief rating scale. This article presents personality data on OMS residency applicants to determine if a distinct OMS residency candidate personality profile can be identified, evaluates concordance between self-report data and interviewers’ behavioral ratings of personality characteristics, and assesses the degree to which personality variables can predict applicant ranking and matching. In addition, the study examines whether gender differences among OMS applicants may contribute to possible gender bias in OMS applicant selection.
Methods Forty-eight applicants to the OMS residency program at the Medical College of Virginia campus of Virginia Commonwealth University were invited to participate in the study. No applicant declined to participate. However, one applicant discontinued participating in the study due to inability to complete the required forms during the interview day. Therefore, the final sample of participants consisted of forty-seven applicants (thirty-eight males, nine females; mean age = 27.31 ± 2.59 years). With the exception of the chief resident, all five interviewers were OMS faculty members. All of the interviewers were male, and each faculty member had at least fifteen years of experience in dentistry (range = 15 to 50 years). Applicants were recruited on the day of their on-site interview. A group of four to seven applicants were selected to interview on one of three scheduled interview dates each December during three consecutive years (1997-99). The interview day began with presentations on the OMS training program. After
1253
the presentations, the first author gave a ten-minute overview of the study and invited applicants to participate. Applicants were informed that the purpose of the study was to determine personality characteristics common among individuals who seek a career in OMS as well as to understand how an individual’s personality characteristics might influence the OMS interview and residency selection process. Applicants were also informed that their participation was voluntary and that the information obtained for the study would not be used in the applicant selection process. After providing informed consent, applicants participated in scheduled interviews. Each applicant participated in three interviews lasting twenty to thirty minutes each. During two of these interviews, the applicant met with two faculty members. During the third of these interviews, the applicant met with a faculty member and the chief OMS resident. In the time between interviews, applicants completed the self-report questionnaires. Questionnaires were returned to the researcher and remained in a sealed envelope until after the match date. Faculty members were instructed to conduct their interviews as usual and were given brief oral instructions as well as written instructions concerning completion of questionnaires for the study. On each interview date, OMS faculty members were instructed to complete questionnaires for each applicant independently, insert all their completed questionnaires into an envelope which they were instructed to seal, and then return their forms to the researcher upon completion of interviews. Questionnaires remained in the sealed envelope until after the match date. The personality measure used in the study was the Adjective Checklist27 (ACL), a normed and standardized instrument in which respondents select adjectives that best describe their personalities from an alphabetized list of 300 adjectives. It consists of thirty-seven scales, including validity scales to evaluate potential faking tendencies. Alpha internal consistency coefficients across the thirty-seven ACL scales range from .56 to .95, with a mean of .75. Median test-retest correlations are .65 for males and .71 for females. Eighteen scales from the ACL were selected for analysis. Three validity scales were selected for inclusion: 1) number of items checked— an estimate of an individual’s tendency to be detailed or laconic in self-expression, which was used to adjust all other scales accordingly; 2) favorable—a measure of an individual’s tendency to emphasize
1254
desirable personality characteristics; and 3) unfavorable—a measure of an individual’s tendency to overendorse self-defeating and negativistic personality characteristics. The remaining fifteen scales were selected based upon decisions from the research team concerning which personality characteristics were likely to be more salient among OMS residency candidates. These fifteen scales were: 1) achievement—a measure of an individual’s need to strive for social recognition; 2) dominance—a measure of an individual’s desire for leadership roles; 3) endurance—a measure to task persistence; 4) order—a measure of an individual’s need for neatness and organization; 5) nurturance—a measure of an individual’s tendency to provide material or emotional support to others; 6) affiliation—a measure of an individual’s need to maintain multiple social relationships; 7) autonomy—a measure of an individual’s tendency to act independently; 8) aggression—a measure of an individual’s tendency to be competitive or hostile in interpersonal interactions; 9) change—a measure of an individual’s tendency to seek and enjoy novelty; 10) succorance—a measure of an individual’s tendency to elicit sympathy and emotional support from others; 11) abasement— a measure of an individual’s tendency to express selfcritical statements; 12) deference—a measure of an individual’s tendency to assume subordinate roles with others; 13) self-control—a measure of an individual’s ability to inhibit socially unacceptable impulses; 14) self-confidence—a measure of an individual’s perceived self-worth; and 15) personal adjustment—a measure of an individual’s ability to cope with challenging and stressful situations. Each OMS faculty interviewer (n = 5) rated each applicant using a scale developed for our study entitled the Applicant Rating Form (ARF). The ARF asks interviewers to rate the degree to which applicants possessed certain personality traits (assertiveness, confidence, friendliness, motivation, and stress tolerance) using a Likert scale ranging from “0” (“strongly disagree”) to “6” (“strongly agree”). The five personality traits measured were selected by the first author after consultation with two of the OMS faculty involved in the resident selection process. Final ranking of each applicant was determined through input from the five OMS faculty members after all interviews were completed. Final rankings were submitted to a national matching service.
Journal of Dental Education ■ Volume 67, Number 11
The match status of each applicant with this particular OMS residency site was obtained after official notification of match results were distributed to candidates and training sites. Over the course of the three years of the study, seven of the forty-eight applicants successfully matched with this particular OMS residency site. All of the matched applicants at this particular site were males.
Results Overall personality profile of OMS applicants. Descriptive data on the ACL scales for OMS applicants are presented in Table 1. Scores are presented in terms of standardized T-scores (mean = 50, standard deviation = 10) using the normative data available on the ACL. This permits comparison of how the present sample scored on each scale in comparison with the general population. Applicants were slightly higher than the general population in dominance and self-confidence, and slightly lower in succorance and abasement, detailed self-expression, and tendency to endorse negative characteristics. Nonetheless, all applicant mean scale scores were within one standard deviation of the population mean. Regarding gender differences, male applicants were significantly more likely to enjoy team work (Affiliation F (1, 45) = 5.42, p = .02) and display higher levels of respect and humility towards authority (Def-
erence F (1, 45) = 6.68, p = .01) than female applicants. Interviewer ratings of applicants. Since the ARF was developed for this study and has not been used previously, its reliability was evaluated. Intraclass reliability coefficients were calculated for each ARF personality dimension across the five OMS faculty interviewers, and were found to range from .49 to .76; the coefficient for the total score was .81 (all p’s < .005). OMS faculty interviewers rated male applicants as significantly more likely to cope with stress effectively than their female counterparts (Stress Tolerance F (1, 44) = 9.49, p = .004). No other differences by gender were obtained. In evaluating concordance between applicant personality traits as rated by interviewers on the ARF and via applicant self-reports on the ACL, a significant negative correlation was obtained between selfreported unfavorable traits on the ACL and OMS faculty ratings of friendliness on the ARF (r = -.32, p = .03). In addition, the correlations between applicants’ self-report of the degree to which they elicit sympathy from others (succorance) and ratings of applicant assertiveness (r = -.26, p = .08), and between applicant self-reported aggression and ratings of applicant motivation (r = .28, p = .06) approached significance. These findings, while internally consistent, should be considered exploratory given the large number of coefficients that were calculated.
Table 1. Adjective Checklist (ACL) standardized T scores by gender ACL Scale
Overall Mean ± SD
Males Mean ± SD
Females Mean ± SD
Number Checked Favorable Unfavorable Achievement Dominance Endurance Order Nurturance Affiliation* Autonomy Aggression Change Succorance Abasement Deference† Self-Control Self-Confidence Personal Adjustment
44.19 ± 52.55 ± 43.57 ± 53.85 ± 56.64 ± 54.06 ± 52.26 ± 50.70 ± 50.45 ± 51.36 ± 52.51 ± 47.17 ± 44.11 ± 44.55 ± 50.06 ± 49.64 ± 56.64 ± 53.91 ±
44.79 ± 53.21 ± 43.58 ± 53.87 ± 56.08 ± 53.68 ± 52.24 ± 51.37 ± 51.89 ± 50.66 ± 51.95 ± 47.52 ± 44.50 ± 45.34 ± 51.32 ± 50.37 ± 56.16 ± 54.95 ±
41.67 ± 8.17 49.78 ± 9.77 43.56 ± 3.68 53.78 ± 6.36 59.00 ± 5.39 55.67 ± 7.33 52.33 ± 6.98 47.89 ± 5.80 44.33 ± 7.89 54.33 ± 6.95 54 .89 ± 5.78 45.67 ± 7.45 42.44 ± 8.16 41.22 ± 4.29 44.78 ± 6.46 45.56 ± 6.54 57.11 ± 7.39 49.56 ± 5.32
*
7.39 7.52 4.65 6.70 6.44 6.91 7.07 7.14 9.17 6.92 7.92 8.90 7.38 6.35 7.23 7.13 7.60 7.93
7.19 6.89 4.89 6.85 6.61 6.86 7.19 7.32 8.94 6.82 8.31 9.26 7.24 6.54 6.90 7.15 7.73 8.14
Males scored significantly higher, p = .024. Males scored significantly higher, p = .013.
†
November 2003
■
Journal of Dental Education
1255
Relation of personality measures to rankings. Correlations were calculated to examine the relation between the ACL, ARF, and applicant rankings. No significant correlations between ACL scores and rankings were obtained, although there were tendencies for people who are detailed in self-expression (Number Checked) (r = .22,), neat and organized (Order) (r = .20), and who do not seek novelty (Change) (r = .24) to receive higher rankings. On the other hand, all of the OMS faculty mean interviewer ratings of applicants on the ARF were significantly associated with final rankings of the applicants (Friendliness r = -.51, p = .001; Motivation r = -.41, p = .006; Assertiveness r = -.52, p < .001; Confidence r = -.33, p = .032; and Stress Tolerance r = -.33, p = .032). Differences on personality measures by match status. To investigate the effects of match status, oneway ANOVAs were conducted on ACL and ARF variables. Applicants who matched at this site were found to be significantly more likely to elicit sympathy and emotional support from others based on their ACL succorance scores (F (1, 45) = 10.57, p = .002) and were rated by OMS faculty interviewers as being more assertive (Assertiveness F (1, 45) = 5.14, p =.028) than applicants who did not match at this site. Means and standard deviations by match status for ACL scales are presented in Table 2 (for ACL scales) and Table 3 (for ARF dimensions). Since match status is a categorical variable (i.e., match or did not match), a logistical regression was
conducted to determine if the combined effect of ACL, ARF, and ranking information could predict which applicants matched to this particular OMS residency site. Results from a logistical regression indicated that ACL, ARF, and ranking information did not predict whether or not an applicant was ultimately selected for this particular OMS residency site using the current residency matching process.
Discussion The present findings indicate that OMS candidates as a group cannot be clearly distinguished from the general population when their personality traits are measured using a dimensional measure such as the ACL. Results from previous studies that found variability in personality profiles among individuals seeking a career in dentistry and/or OMS may result from artifact due to the categorical nature of the MBTI, which “forces” individuals into discrete personality types rather than measuring the degree of personality attributes along several dimensions,10,1415 or from comparisons being made between dental students and medical students rather than comparing dental students to the general population.11 The present findings are consistent with most of the previous research, which has not identified a singular personality profile among individuals seeking a career in OMS or a related health care field. In addition, the overall personal adjustment score for the
Table 2. Adjective Checklist standardized T scores by match status ACL Scale
Matched Mean ± SD
Unmatched Mean ± SD
Number Checked Favorable Unfavorable Achievement Dominance Endurance Order Nurturance Affiliation Autonomy Aggression Change Succorance* Abasement Deference Self-Control Self-Confidence Personal Adjustment
47.14 ± 51.71 ± 45.00 ± 51.71 ± 55.43 ± 50.85 ± 53.71 ± 52.86 ± 48.86 ± 49.14 ± 53.57 ± 47.86 ± 51.71 ± 44.29 ± 53.71 ± 50.29 ± 56.14 ± 52.85 ±
43.68 ± 52.70 ± 43.33 ± 54.23 ± 56.85 ± 54.63 ± 52.00 ± 50.33 ± 50.73 ± 51.75 ± 52.33 ± 47.05 ± 42.76 ± 44.60 ± 49.43 ± 49.53 ± 56.38 ± 54.10 ±
9.40 9.81 5.48 6.07 4.72 7.65 5.79 4.76 12.80 5.55 8.14 6.96 4.57 5.68 9.11 7.09 8.76 9.46
7.00 7.20 4.52 6.80 6.72 6.72 7.31 7.45 8.57 7.12 7.97 9.27 6.98 6.53 6.79 7.23 7.50 7.76
*Matched applicants scored significantly higher, p = .002.
1256
Journal of Dental Education ■ Volume 67, Number 11
present sample was at the population mean. This finding is interesting in light of previous conflicting reports of increased suicide risk within the dental professions.16 Some significant gender effects were noted in our study. Male applicants were more likely than female applicants to enjoy teamwork and assume a submissive role when interacting with authority figures. OMS faculty interviewers perceived female applicants as less likely to cope with stress effectively. In contrast, female applicants seeking admission to medical school received higher interview ratings than their male counterparts.28 Findings from our study are consistent with the notion of possible bias against women in the field of OMS.8,24 Further examination of experiences unique to female OMS candidates is warranted to determine the extent to which gender bias is unique to the field of OMS. It was also found that female applicants may be less likely than males to be as friendly and deferent in their interactions with male authority figures. This personality approach may serve as a mechanism to avoid being perceived in a negative stereotypical fashion (e.g., such as being too warm and empathic for the rigor and challenge of OMS). Female applicants in our study, nonetheless, continued to be perceived as being unable to cope with stress effectively by OMS faculty. When compared to the general population, however, female applicants did not demonstrate evidence of difficulties with stress management. This discrepancy between female applicants’ actual coping capacity and perceived stress tolerance suggests that female candidates must also challenge perceptions that they are unable to cope with adversity despite having a self-awareness of adequate stress management skills. Our study also examined which personality characteristics (both rated and self-reported) were associated with faculty rankings and were more prevalent among applicants who matched at this OMS training site. The clearest finding was uniformly strong relationships obtained between faculty ratings of desirable personality traits and low (favorable) rankings of applicants. This finding was consistent with previous research that demonstrates the perceived importance of interviews in influencing ranking decisions made by faculty interviewers4 and OMS applicants.5 This emphasis on the role of the interview is supported by Walker’s29 finding that interview ratings were correlated with clinical skill ratings among dental school applicants. However, other researchers have noted that academic variables
November 2003
■
Journal of Dental Education
Table 3. Applicant rating form dimensions by match status Matched Assertiveness* Confidence Friendliness Motivation Stress Tolerance
5.73 ± 5.40 ± 5.44 ± 5.52 ± 5.40 ±
1.72 .63 .32 .42 .46
Unmatched 4.94 5.11 5.21 5.30 5.06
± ± ± ± ±
.58 .55 .41 .53 .46
*Matched applicants scored significantly higher, p = .028.
Table 4. Applicant rating form dimensions by gender Males Assertiveness Confidence Friendliness Motivation Stress Tolerance*
4.96 ± 5.19 ± 5.22 ± 5.30 ± 5.19 ±
.63 .58 .39 .54 .44
Females 4.94 4.92 5.32 5.42 4.70
± ± ± ± ±
.45 .42 .47 .44 .34
*
Males scored significantly higher, p = .004.
such as grade point average and scores on standardized admissions tests are the best predictors of medical or dental school performance,21,28 and Smith23 failed to find differences among medical school applicants who were accepted with or without a preadmission interview. Some promising findings were also obtained regarding match status. Successfully matched applicants were more likely to elicit sympathy and emotional support from others. It is likely that applicants with these characteristics appear to be more desirous of further training and encouragement; in essence, they are likely to present themselves as being more “teachable” than other applicants. Successfully matched applicants were also rated by OMS faculty interviewers as being more assertive than applicants who did not match. Interestingly, these findings appear to be inconsistent with other findings from our study that suggest male applicants were more likely to be submissive toward authority. One interpretation is that a successfully matched candidate would strike an appropriate balance between having a confident and secure self-presentation while simultaneously demonstrating sufficient respect and deference to authority figures as a mechanism to avoid being perceived as a “troublemaker.” Another possible explanation is that the male applicants who scored highest on deference on the ACL did not match with this site; instead, applicants who impressed OMS faculty interviewers by having other favorable personality characteristics—such as being friendly,
1257
eager to learn, and being a good team player—were more likely to match with this site. There have been no previous studies of personality differences between successfully matched and unmatched OMS candidates. However, previous research has explored characteristics theorized to be associated with the ideal OMS candidate. The present findings are consistent with Marciani et al.’s22 survey of OMS training sites, which also indicated that OMS applicants who appeared to be assertive, agreeable, and cooperative were highly desired. In terms of limitations, results from the present study should be interpreted cautiously due to the small sample size and overrepresentation of male applicants and applicants who did not match with this particular OMS residency site. Replications with a larger sample size across different OMS residency sites are recommended. While our study strived to avoid the pitfalls of categorical assessment of personality approaches, there are potential difficulties with the use of the ARF and ACL. The ARF focused exclusively on personality features considered germane to OMS applicant selection by faculty interviewers. While the dimensions selected are likely to be consistent with features desired by many OMS sites, further examination of the reliability and validity of the ARF is recommended. Our study also included an abbreviated version of the ACL. In general, the reliability and validity of each scale are likely to remain unchanged in our abbreviated format; yet, there is potential for unintended bias in selecting these personality features. Our study was also unable to examine how other key elements (including how each OMS applicant ranked this particular site and preinterview selection procedures) impacted candidate selection. Future studies that examine the degree to which personality ratings predict future performance in OMS residency are likely to add clarity concerning the benefit of incorporating formal or informal measures of applicant personality structure in the residency selection process. Additional studies can also explore the degree to which the findings of our study generalize to other areas of dentistry and/or medicine.
1258
REFERENCES 1. Spina AM, Smith TA, Marciani RD, Marshall EO. A survey of resident selection procedures in oral and maxillofacial surgery. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2000;58:660-6. 2. Crane JT, Ferraro CM. Selection criteria for emergency medicine residency applicants. Acad Emerg Med 2000;7:54-60. 3. Dean RE, Dean KB, Nicholas WR, Scholten DJ. The interviewing process as it relates to the selection of candidates for general surgical residency programs. Curr Surg 1987;44:1-6. 4. Gong H Jr, Parker NH, Apgar FA, Shank C. Influence of the interview on ranking in the residency selection process. Med Educ 1984;18:366-9. 5. Marciani RD, Smith TA, Kohn MW. Applicants’ opinions about the selection process for oral surgery programs. J Oral Surg 1977;35:648-51. 6. Laskin DM, Lesny RJ, Best AM. The residents’ viewpoint of the matching process, factors influencing their program selection, and satisfaction with the results. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2003;61:228-33. 7. Johnson EK, Edwards JC. Current practices in admission interviews at U.S. medical schools. Acad Med 1991;66:408-12. 8. Marciani RD, Smith TA, Heaton LJ. Applicants’ opinions about the selection process for oral and maxillofacial surgery programs. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2003;61:608-14. 9. Erskine CG, Westerman GH, Grandy TG. Personality styles of first-year dental students. J Dent Educ 1986;50:221-4. 10. Grandy TG, Westerman GH, Ocanto RA, Erskine CG. Predicting dentists’ career choices using the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator. J Am Dent Assoc 1996;127:253-8. 11. Manhold JH, Shatin L, Manhold BS. Comparison of interests, needs, and selected personality factors of dental and medical students. J Am Dent Assoc 1963;67:601-5. 12. McGreevy J, Wiebe D. A preliminary measurement of the surgical personality. Am J Surg 2002;184:121-5. 13. Schwartz RJ, Shenoy S. Personality factors related to career satisfaction among general practitioners. J Dent Educ 1994;58:225-8. 14. Silberman SL, Cain MJ, Mahan JM. Dental students’ personality: a Jungian perspective. J Dent Educ 1982;46:64651. 15. Silberman SL, Freeman I, Lester GR. A longitudinal study of dental students’ personality type preferences. J Dent Educ 1992;56:384-8. 16. Waldman HB. The turmoil of the dental practitioner. Prof Psych 1981;12:461-9. 17. Myers IB, McCaulley MH, Quenk NL, Hammer AL. MBTI manual: a guide to the development and use of the Myers Briggs type indicator. 3rd ed. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press, 1998.
Journal of Dental Education ■ Volume 67, Number 11
18. Lesny RJ. Discussion: a survey of resident selection procedures in oral and maxillofacial surgery. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2000;58:666-7. 19. Graves HA. Factors in dental aptitude I. Proceed Am Assoc Dental Schools 1942;19:252-7. 20. Thompson CE. Personality and interest factors in dental school success. Educational and Psychological Measurement 1944;4:299-306. 21. Chen MK, Podshadley DW, Shrock JG. A factorial study of some psychological vocational interest and mental ability variables as predictors of success in dental school. J Applied Psychol 1967;51:236-41. 22. Marciani RD, Smith TA, Kohn MW. Survey of residentselection procedures for oral surgery graduate programs. J Oral Surg 1976;34:784-8. 23. Smith SR. Medical school and residency performances of students admitted with and without an admission interview. Acad Med 1991;66:474-6.
November 2003
■
Journal of Dental Education
24. Risser MJ, Laskin DM. Women in oral and maxillofacial surgery: factors affecting career choices, attitudes, and practice characteristics. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 1996;54:753-7. 25. Clayton O Jr, Baird AC, Levinson RM. Subjective decision making in medical school admissions: potentials for discrimination. Sex Roles 1984;10:527-32. 26. Edwards JC, Johnson EK, Molidara JB. The interview in the admission process. Acad Med 1990;65:167-77. 27. Gough HG, Heilbrun AB Jr. The adjective check list. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press, 1983. 28. Elam CL, Andrykowski MA. Admission interview ratings: relationship to applicant academic and demographic variables and interviewer characteristics. Acad Med 1991;66(Sept suppl):S13-S15. 29. Walker JD, Killip DE, Fuller JL. The significance of the admission interview in predicting students’ performance in dental school. J Med Educ 1985;60:569-71.
1259
