Adaptive and maladaptive perfectionism in medical students: a longitudinal investigation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The personality of medical students may have an important impact on both their academic performance and emotional adjustment during medical school. There has been little systematic study of the impact of perfectionism on medical students. The present study sought to compare the perfectionism profile of medical students with that of a general arts student group and to examine the relationship among perfectionism, distress symptoms and academic expectations and satisfaction. DESIGN: Medical students (n=96) and arts students (n=289) completed a baseline assessment including two multidimensional perfectionism scales. The medical students also completed measures of distress symptoms, personality (neuroticism, conscientiousness) and questions about their perceptions of their academic performance. Of the medical students, 58 completed a second set of questionnaires 6 months later (time 2). SUBJECTS: First-, second- and third year medical students and first-year arts students. RESULTS: In comparison with arts students, the perfectionism profile of medical students showed higher personal standards, lower doubts about actions and lower maladaptive perfectionism scores. In the medical students adaptive perfectionism (achievement striving) was significantly correlated with baseline academic performance expectations and conscientiousness and was predictive of dissatisfaction with academic performance at time 2. Maladaptive perfectionism (excessive evaluative concerns) was significantly correlated with baseline distress symptoms and neuroticism and was predictive of symptoms of depression and hopelessness at time 2. CONCLUSIONS: Perfectionism in medical students differs systematically from perfectionism in general arts students. Distinguishing adaptive and maladaptive aspects of perfectionism is important in understanding the cross-sectional and longitudinal implications of perfectionism for medical students.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".