Personality and Academic Performance of Three Cohorts of Veterinary Students in South Africa
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To aid in selecting students for admission to undergraduate veterinary training, admissions procedures often take into account students' previous academic performance as well as the results of an interview. The study reported here investigated the relationship between personality and academic success. Students from three entry cohorts to the second year of study of a six-year BVSc program at the University of Pretoria completed the 16 Personality Factor Questionnaire. A meta-analytic approach was used to estimate the relationship between academic performance in two major final-year subjects and academic performance on entry, an interview score, and the personality factors. The study confirmed the value of previous academic performance and the interview in selecting students for the veterinary degree program. The findings also indicate that the inclusion of a measure of intellectual ability could be of value. The value of various personality characteristics in predicting good study habits and examination performance is highlighted by the study results: students were more successful if they were conscientious, emotionally stable, socially adept, self-disciplined, practical rather than imaginative, and relaxed rather than anxious. It appears worthwhile to consider including an appropriate personality questionnaire in the selection process to improve the accuracy of predictions of students' success. A sound personality make-up will not only increase the likelihood of academic success but should also be beneficial in the successful management of a veterinary practice and in enjoying veterinary science as a career.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".