INTRODUCTION:

A personality trait is a relatively stable characteristic of people, which makes them behave uniquely. The trait approach is one of the major theoretical approaches to studying personality. Personality traits description are useful in predicting behaviour. However, human behavior is an outcome of the interaction between traits and situations. Hence, indicating the value of traits depends upon the situations chosen and how one can consistently respond to these situations.

The ‘Big Five’ personality traits described these dispositions in five broad categories that are extroversion, agreeableness, openness, conscientiousness, and neuroticism. The Big Five-factor model of personality developed basing analyzing factors of personality traits in large number. In 1970 Raymond Cattell developed the Big Five Personality trait model, which includes Cattell’s and Eysenck’s comprehensive list of personality traits. [1,2]

Differences in the levels of the "Big-Five" traits in people demonstrate variation in their adaptability in the different social situation. This fact evidenced by college students. In the previous studies evidenced that college students differ in levels of the "Big-Five" traits found with trait expression while playing different roles in a social context. This fact also supported by organismic theories of personality. Studies in the past had evidenced that variations among students in the ‘Big Five’ were predictable. Indeed, the degree of psychological authenticity sensed through these predicted variations in the diversity of student’s roles. [3]

Currently, most of the medical schools focus on student personality development that intends enriching professionalism and building up a successful career in budding doctors. Mending student’s personality also needs depth understanding regarding student personality. The expression of ‘Big 5’ personality traits determined by a complex configuration of personality characteristics expressed demonstrably in students. The variation of trait evidenced, that affects their academics. Thus various efforts have been extended studying student personality in different perspectives. [3] Developing awareness of own personality traits advantageous for students in their adaption of future challenges and learning processes. ‘Big Five’ model would be a helpful tool to get insight into the strengths of personality traits; this understanding can help students to choose a more rewarding

The concepts studied regarding traits are self-integration and true self also their high consistency of trait profiles across the student roles. The differences are in levels of each trait they examined, such as differentiation between low and high s currently, most of the medical schools focus on student personality development that intends enriching professionalism and building up a successful career in budding doctors. Mending student’s personality also needs depth understanding regarding student personality. The expression of ‘Big 5’ personality traits determined by a complex configuration of personality characteristics expressed demonstrably in students. The variation of trait evidenced, that affects their academics. Thus various efforts have been extended studying student personality in different perspectives. [3] Developing awareness of own personality traits advantageous for students in their adaption of future challenges and learning processes. ‘Big Five’ model would be a helpful tool to get insight into the strengths of personality traits; this understanding can help students to choose a more rewarding career/profession. In addition to this, they can also have a deeper understanding of themselves and their behavioral authenticity across role self-concept. [4]

Thus ‘Big Five’ model would help them to get insight into their strengths in personality traits, and this understanding can help them to choose a more rewarding career/profession, in addition to this they can also have a deeper understanding about themselves and their behavioral authenticity across roles. Personality traits are stable and enduring throughout people’s life. The gleaned views from the modern theories of personality, one that views people in terms of stable and enduring behavioral dispositions and one that views people in terms of a struggle for authenticity and self-expression. The Big 5 personality trait is - Extroversion/ Introversion, Neuroticism/Emotional stability, Agreeableness/Antagonism, Conscientiousness/Non-directedness Openness/Non-openness. The extroversion/introversion, neuroticism/emotional stability was introduced by trait theorists, in the recent year; vitalized rounded with "Big-Five" model of personality. [3] Extraverts described as sociable, talkative and communicative, and friendly. They are active, bold, assertive, exciting, and stimulating kind of personalities. Introverts are reserved less active and independent. [5] One of the literature studies appreciates the extraversion trait in predicting its positive association with academic success. [6] However, some other studies also demonstrated that extraversion, and its negative correlation with higher educational success.

The students with conscientiousness got the cognitive ability, and they value achievement in the educational area. [7] Additionally, shreds of evidence reveal trait conscientiousness, as purposeful, active, thorough, organized, disciplined, industrious, dependable and methodical [8] People with trait personality agreeableness are gentle and good-natured people. They express personality characteristics, i.e., co-operative, courteous, flexible, tolerant, generous, and sympathetic, and liked by other people. [11] They hold a better understanding of their interpersonal relationship and maintain characteristically kind, generous, selfless, and honest. [12] On the other hand, students with low in agreeable trait tend to be more aggressive and less cooperative. [12]

Neuroticism is an unstable emotion individual with a high score on this scale, tend to experience characteristically anxious, fearful, and sad. They express anger, disgust, and embarrassed easily.The characteristics of emotional intelligence are empathy, autonomy, and emotional control associated with emotional stability. Students with a lower score on the neuroticism scale do better in group learning. [6,13] The previous study evidences the negative association between a high score on the neuroticism scale and academic performances. [14,15] On the other hand, the evidence says there is no relationship between neuroticism and students’ academic achievement. [16] Openness to experience is another trait introduced in the Big 5 model of personality. People with this trait intensively feel good/bad in situations. [17] People with openness characterized by creativity, sophistication, and curiosity. [18] Thus learned creativity goes with cognitive ability, academic achievements predictable with openness traits of the Big Five model. One supporting study evidenced the edging of openness and academic achievement interpreted in terms of cognitive ability. [1] Students with openness trait are creative and curious by character, is supported by one of the previous literature, which evidences openness in students expressed aesthetic interest, creativity, intellectual, and inquisitiveness are closely associated with their academic achievement. [19]

The Big-Five model may not provide a complete description of the personality. However, ignoring traits like emotional stability with individual differences fails to describe the mechanisms that can promote stability in student personalities. Trait personality associated with student achievement learned through shreds of evidence. Still, the door opens for researches go into depth for better conceptualization. The significance learned in these studies indicated students with conscientiousness are persistently self-disciplined and achievement-oriented; these traits highly associated with academic achievement. [18,19] Understanding regarding the positive and negative impact of personality factors helps the students to be aware of their strength and weaknesses conscientiousness, openness, and neuroticism. [21]

The ‘Big Five’ personality factors related to extraversion, conscientiousness, and openness go hand in hand with education. Based on the prior discussion, hypothesized The Big Five personality traits are significantly associated with the student’s academic achievement. The current study had focused on academic scores to find the association with Big five personality, which also contributes to other areas of academic achievement. It’s also learned that understanding about big five personality traits can help the students to fore view about their career.

People are assumed to have contextual influences on personality dispositions that are highly stable over time, situations, and social roles such as student role in academics. Since the Big-Five personality traits focus on stability or consistency; which criticized for neglecting the significant aspect of social and contextual influences on personality by researchers in the past. [22] The current study has taken interest to measure the stabilized enduring pattern of medical student’s personality and finding out its association with their academic achievement. Personality formation of individuals gets completed by age 18 to 21 they are merging into adulthood. [23] Personality changes take place better with age. [24]

The objectives of the study, to assess big five personality traits, and the second objective is to find the association between big five personality traits of students with their academic scores.

MATERIALS AND METHODS:

A cross-sectional study, participants are 122 medical students of year one and two studying at University Sultan Zainal Abidin (UniSZA), Malaysia. The researchers used a convenient sampling method in the selection of the study sample. The demographic data and the information of personality traits of the students were collected using the USM personality inventory (USMaP-i). This instrument is validated to assess Malaysian students’ personality. It was validated in with multi-ethnic, multi-religion and multi-cultural sample with the Cronbach’s alpha reliability value of 0.723 which indicated a high level of internal consistency [25] The Cronbach’s alpha value for each dimension ranged from 0.634 to 0.831[25,26]

It measures students’ personality traits from the aspect of five basic personality dimensions such as extraversion, conscientiousness, agreeableness, neuroticism, and openness. The inventory consists of 60 items, and the respondents rated each item on a 5-point Likert-type scale from 0 to 4. The rating of 0 assigned to “very inaccurate” and 4 to “very accurate” in each positive statement.

In contrast, the reverse score rating applied in each negative statement. Each domain, the scores added up to categorize them into 2 levels, i.e., low and high levels of scores 0.00 –17.99 and 18.00 –24.00 respectively.

Before the data collection, the details about the research, a brief description of the big five personality inventory, and confidentiality explained to all students. Then written informed consent taken, and the inventory administered to the students. Those who failed to answer all questions and absence at the time of data collection excluded from the study. The academic scores of professional exams collected from the academic office. Data entry analysis was done using IBM SPSS version 22 for statistical analysis [27]. The frequencies (%) presented for the categorical variables.

The data distributions of the continuous variables examined, then the variables expressed as mean and standard deviation (SD) or as the median and interquartile range (IQR). Pearson chi-square test applied to determine the distribution of the students’ personality, regards to their demographic characteristics multiple linear regression was applied to determine the associated factors of academic achievements (in the form of professional exam score) with regards to their personality traits. Variables having a p-value of less than or equal to 0.25 in univariable analysis were included to proceed for further multivariable analysis. The level of significance of the study set at 0.05. The results presented as crude, adjusted regression coefficients with 95% confidence interval (CI) and their corresponding p-value. The ethical approval obtained from UniSZA Human Research Ethic Committee (UHREC) to conduct the study.

RESULTS:

The study included a total of 122 medical students of first (54.1%) and second year (45.9%) from UniSZA. The demographic data and the personality of all students depicted in Table (1). Most of the participant's females (62.3%), and the majority were Malay (71.3%).

Table 2: Distribution of the students’ personality with regards to their demographic characteristics (n =122)

Variables	Year of the study		P-value*	Ethnicity		P-value*	Gender		P-value*
Variables	Year 1 n (%)	Year 2 n (%)	P-value*	Malay	Non-Malay	P-value*	Male	Female	P-value*
Extraversion
Low	24 (36.4)	25 (44.6)	0.353	36 (41.4)	13 (37.1)	0.666	16 (34.8)	33 (43.4)	0.346
High	42 (63.6)	31 (55.4)		51 (58.6)	22 (62.9)		30 (65.2)	43 (56.6)
Conscientiousness
Low	24 (36.4)	25 (44.6)	0.353	36 (41.4)	13 (37.1)	0.666	16 (34.8)	33 (43.4)	0.346
High	42 (63.6)	31 (55.4)		51 (58.6)	22 (62.9)		30 (65.2)	43 (56.6)
Agreeableness
Low	24 (36.4)	25 (44.6)	0.353	36 (41.4)	13 (37.1)	0.666	16 (34.8)	33 (43.4)	0.346
High	42 (63.6)	31 (55.4)		51 (58.6)	22 (62.9)		30 (65.2)	43 (56.6)
Neuroticism
Low	38 (57.6)	30 (53.6)	0.657	48 (55.2)	20 (57.1)	0.843	29 (63.0)	39 (51.3)	0.206
High	28 (42.4)	26 (46.4)		39 (44.8)	15 (42.9)		17 (37.0)	37 (48.7)
Openness
Low	24 (36.4)	25 (44.6)	0.353	36 (41.4)	13 (37.1)	0.666	16 (34.8)	33 (43.4)	0.346
High	42 (63.6)	31 (55.4)		51 (58.6)	22 (62.9)		30 (65.2)	43 (56.6)

*Pearson chi-square test

Table 2 depicts the students’ personality traits with regards to their demographic data. Their personality traits found no significant differences with regards to their year of the study, gender and ethnicity. After univariable analysis using simple linear regression, all five personal domains were found to be statistically significant, unadjusted, associated with final exam marks. Having high categories of extraversion (p <0.001), conscientiousness (p <0.001), agreeableness (p <0.001), and openness (p <0.001) were found to have a positive association with final exam marks whereas having a high category of neuroticism had a negative association with final exam marks (p<0.001). The socio-demographic characteristics of the respondents had no association with final exam marks (Table 3).

After multivariable analysis, only neuroticism was found to be adjusted, significant, negatively associated with final exam marks (P<0.001). Those with high neuroticism trait would have 9.87 score lower than those with low category of neuroticism trait (Table 4).

Table 3: Uni-variable analysis for association between socio-demographic profile, their personality traits and final exam scores by simple linear regression (n = 122)

Variables

Crude b (95% CI)

t statistics

P-value*

Year of the study

Year 1

Year 2

0.77 (-1.95, 3.50)

0.562

0.575

Ethnicity

Malay

Non-Malay

-1.25 (-4.24, 1.75)

-0.823

0.412

Gender

Male

Female

-2.63 (-5.39, 0.14)

-1.883

0.062

Extraversion

Low

High

9.2 (6.98, 11.42)

8.208

<0.001

Conscientiousness

Low

High

9.20 (6.98, 11.42)

8.208

<0.001

Agreeableness

Low

High

9.20 (6.98, 11.42)

8.208

<0.001

Neuroticism

Low

High

-9.87 (-11.95,-7.80)

-9.420

<0.001

Openness

Low

High

9.20 (6.98, 11.42)

8.208

<0.001

*Simple linear regression

Table 4: Multi-variable analysis for association between social demographic profile, their personality traits and final exam scores by Multiple linear regression (n =122)

Variable	SLR^a		MLR^b
Variable	*Crude b^c(95% CI)*	P value	*Adj b^d(95% CI)*	P-value
Neuroticism	-9.87 (-11.95, -7.80)	<0.001	-9.87 (-11.95, -7.80)	<0.001

^a.Simple linear regression ^b.Multiple linear regression by forward method, R²= 0.425

^c.Crude regression coefficient ^d.Adjusted regression coefficient

DISCUSSION:

Research indicates no significance in the personality traits of a medical student’s gender and ethnicity. Socio-demographic data showed average scores depicted in table one. Trait neuroticism demonstrated negative impact on student score when observed individually in Big Five traits. Other than neuroticism, the extraversion, the conscientiousness, the agreeableness, and the openness showed no significance though there is a positive impact on student’s performance.

Big Five traits combination, the extent of which displays high/low levels of specific traits patterned in person. One previous study had revealed traits are the consistent patterns of thoughts, feelings, motives, and behaviors that a person exhibits across situations. [29] People vary in the psychological state as they vary in trait scores high and low. Gender and ethnicity influence on varying personality traits. The current study has taken these two demographic aspects of the study. Forgoing literature on gender differences in personality traits had demonstrated which gender has higher scores on that trait, women are often found to be more agreeable than men, and this fact has no match with the current study. It may be due to other factors like age, staying in the university, togetherness in studies practice work, time spent in various study aspect, and so on. [30]

Gender differences in personality traits in different levels both at the level of Big Five traits and sublevel of two aspects within each Big Five domain proved in the literature. Examined literature showed replication findings women score higher in Big Five Extraversion, Agreeableness, and Neuroticism scores than men. [31] Studies demonstrated, Extraversion, Openness, and Conscientiousness, the gender differences found diverge at the aspect level, undetectable at the Big Five level. These literature findings clarify the nature of gender differences in personality and highlight the utility of measuring personality this level, which found to be compatible with our study. [31] In the current study results, the study population not shown the significance in personality traits with regarding gender.

The various personal factors such as ethnicity, gender, and age can impact the big five traits. The various personal factors such as ethnicity, gender, and age can impact the big five traits. Examined studies, discovered the trait level globally, the differences found between the countries Extraversion, Neuroticism, and Agreeableness traits. Ethnicity and personality traits are most predictive of student performance, Conscientiousness, and Neuroticism. But the current study has shown no significance with this regard, also not shown negative scores. [32]

The analysis of the data revealed all five personal domains were found to be statistically significant, unadjusted, associated with final exam marks. Having high categories of extraversion, conscientiousness, agreeableness, and openness, positively associated with final exam marks; whereas high category neuroticism negatively associated. In the current study, socio-demographic characteristics of the respondents were not found to be associated with final exam marks. Though in the previous literature examined; that gender and ethnicity influence on varying personality traits and patterning but it did not affect their exam scores. Though in the previous literature examined; that gender and ethnicity influence on varying personality traits and patterning but it did not affect their exam scores.

The current study reveals neuroticism scores has statistical significance, its negative effect on academic performance depicted in the table above, which supported by a previous study [33]. The previous literature had revealed personality traits expressed in learning styles, which are, in turn, reflected in learning strategies and eventually produce a learning outcome ^[33].Academic learning style gets integrated into students’ personality, which expressed in their achievement. The current study results reveal all the traits related to academic performance, but the high score neuroticism has expressed its negative effect on students’ academic scores. In the current study, neuroticism showed significance, has a negative relation to academic performance. The study also shows there is no significant association between academic performance and extroversion. The literature evidence as partially supported the current study result. Previous studies revealed neuroticism and extroversion was significantly and negatively related to academic achievement. [34] Though it was compatible with the current study, there was no significance found. The five-factor model of personality found useful for examining the relationship between personality constructs and students’ academic performance in the medical course.

Among the five personality traits, the agreeableness has weak relationships with academic scores. This trait has a strong relationship with interpersonal interactions, such as helping and cooperating with others. Other traits like openness, conciseness, and agreeableness not having any significance in affecting academic performance. The current study has not explored its effect on other areas of academics other than academic scores.

These traits are more related to coping and interpersonal skills than the academic score. The conciseness is related to self-discipline and organizing things important for medical students for their overall achievement [35] are replicated in other research studies. Agreeableness is a warm and friendly personality trait that improves student’s interpersonal relationships. [35] Open-mindedness authority and the challenge is a trait expression of openness in the big five personality model; useful for students to walk with challenging personality. [35]

Though these traits are not directly affected the academic score, which indirectly influences may need more exploration. One of the past researches had revealed that conscientiousness emerged as a partial mediator of the relationship between intrinsic motivation to accomplish, and grade points. [36] After multivariable analysis, only neuroticism was found to be adjusted, significant, negatively associated with final exam marks in this study results. The high category of neuroticism trait [9.87] was lower than the low category neuroticism trait depicted in Table 3.

The examined literature had also publicized an understanding of the students’ personality traits will benefit both students and teachers. There is a forgoing attempt in the past to explore the predictability of academic performance in the medical course by well-established personality measures of the five-factor model.[37] There is a forgoing attempt in the past to explore the predictability of academic performance in the medical course by personality measures of five-factor model [37]. The literature revealed that the five-factor model of personality provides a useful framework for examining the relationship between personality constructs and students’ performance in the medical course.

The results of this study support the hypothesis that personality is significantly related to academic performance.[38,39] The current study, regression analysis reveals, openness and neuroticism are the predictors of students ‘academic performance, than conscientiousness and agreeableness and is inconsistent with the study by Mohammed. [40] Also, there is a positive but not statistically significant correlation between students’ academic achievement and the psychological type of extraversion supported by previous literature. [40] Extraverted students are social and impulsive in other activities and spent a few hours a day studying. Previous researches revealed neuroticism predictor of academic performance,[41,42] these studies indicate the neuroticism association with anxiety characteristics of neurotic personalities.

Literature evidences conscientiousness important correlate and predictor of academic performance. [33, 38] Perhaps in the current study, it has shown correlation but no statistical significance. Studies have revealed that positive association between academic performance, and conscientiousness attributed to the hard-working, organized and ambitious nature conscientious trait in individuals. [33] A neuropsychological study reveals dorsolateral prefrontal contributes to human intelligence. Openness trait reflects the increased level of dopaminergic function. Openness trait reflects the increased level of dopaminergic function related to the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex. Thus current study conceptualizes that this personality trait directly or indirectly impacts student’s academics. [43] One of the previous literatures revealed the association link between openness and IQ, the researcher in this study suggested further, research in this area needed to examine the effects of personality traits on students’ performance. [44]

The previous study on Big Five personality traits revealed performance in academic and occupational settings has the impact of trait conscientiousness which has its expressions such as competence, order, dutifulness, achievement striving, self-discipline, and deliberation are related to success in these fields.^[45] It stated in the previous literature, personality and performance go hand in hand. Using personality inventories given importance in the academic selection process, since individual differences in personality have shown educational relevance in higher learning programs. The personality traits in this study considered independently in the prediction of performance in medical students. One of the previous studies revealed personality variables not explain all of the variances in grades. Further, it states the thought-provocation to venture other factors important.

CONCLUSION:

The ‘Big Five’ personality traits found to have an independent role in predicting academic performance in medical students. Personality and performance are closely related, which depicted in the current study by observing the association of Big Five traits with academic scores. There is no statistical significance between big five personality traits with exam scores, except the trait neuroticism. The previous study reveals Big Five personality traits related to performance in academic and occupational settings. The impact of trait conscientiousness expressed as competence, order, dutifulness, achievement striving, self-discipline, and deliberation are related to success in these fields. Clearly, academic performance and personality variables do not explain all of the variances in grades, thus interesting to speculate what other factors important with this regard. In the current study, the trait neuroticism had shown significance with an academic score of students. Other traits demonstrated no significance but found with an average association with academic scores. Indeed, traits like conscientiousness, agreeableness, which indirectly affects students’ academic achievements, such as their motivation, creativity flexibility, self-discipline that is important for medical professionals. The study also suggests that future research may want to assess the impact of family factors, school environment, peer influences, and personality factors not studied here. These could include behavioral traits of self-discipline, motivation, intellectual engagement, and self-perceived ability that are associated with Big Five traits.

LIMITATIONS:

It is a cross-sectional study, which has an inherent limitation. Since the sample size is small, i.e., 114, it is quite difficult to generalize the study findings for the whole country. On the other hand, students’ genetic and intellectual aspects also contribute to their adult learning skills. These areas not explored in this study because of the limited time and research fund allocated. Thus, future researches with this regard are advocated to promote and produce more

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS:

We thank our Medical students of University Sultan Zainal Abidin (UniSZA), who participated in this study. The authors of this study extend their sincere thanks to all members of UniSZA Human Research Ethical Committee (UHREC) for the timely approval. This research was supported by University Grant [UniSZA/2017/DPU/32(R0018-R336)]. Last but not the least we would also like to show our gratitude to University Sultan Zainal Abidin (UniSZA) for granting using us this DPU grant. Ethical Approval: UHREC Code (UniSZA/UHREC/2018/43).

DISCLOSURE:

The authors report no conflicts of interest in this work.

REFERENCES:

1. Cattell, R.B., Eber H.W., and Tatsuka, M.M. The handbook of the sixteen-personality factor questionnaire. Champaign, I L: Institute for Personality and Ability Testing. (1970).

2. Eysenck, H J. Dimensions of personality: criteria for a taxonomic paradigm. Personality and Individual Diff, (1991). 12: 773-90.

3. Mc Crae R, John OP. (1992). An Introduction to the Five‐Factor Model and Its Applications; Wiley Online Library Pages: 175-215 First Published: June

4. Sheldon, K.M., Ryan, R.M., Rawsthorne, L.J., and Ilardi, B. (1997). Trait self and true self: Cross-role variation in the Big-Five personality traits and its relations with psychological authenticity and subjective well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73(6), 1380-1393. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1037/0022-3514.73.6.1380

5. Costa, T and Mc Crae, R.R. Normal personality assessment in clinical practice: The NEO Personality Inventory. Psychological Assessment (1992) 4, 5-13.

6. Schniederjan, Marc J; Kim, Eyong B; Relationship of student undergraduate achievement and personality characteristics in a total web-based environment: An empirical study, J of Innovative Education (2005), vol 3, number 2; PP 205-221.

7. Mount, M and Barrick, M. The Big five personality dimensions: Implications for research and practice in human resource management. Research in Personnel and Human Resource Management (1995). 13, 153-200.

8. Howard, J and Howard, M. An introduction to the five-factor model of personality for human resource professionals. (1998). Available on: www.centacs.com/quik-pt3.htm, site accessed 7.6.1999.

9. Entwistle, N. Motivational factors in students’ approaches to learning in: Learning strategies and learning styles. In R.R. Schmeck (Ed) New York: Plenum Press. pp. (1988) 21-49.

10. Entwistle, N and Tait, H. Approaches and study skills inventory for students. Centre for Research on Learning and Instruction. University of Edinburgh. (1996).

11. Hogan. A psychoanalytic perspective on the five-factor model of personality. In J. S. Wiggins (Ed.), the five-factor model of personality (pp. 163-179). New York: Guildford Press. (1996).

12. Goldberg, L. R. The Development of markers for the big five-factor structure, psychological Assessment, (1992). 4, 26-42.

13. Karen, K; Thisjs M; Schakel, L The relationship of emotional intelligence with academic intelligence and the Big- Five, European j of Personality, (2002). vol. 16, number 2, March/April

14. Bhagat V, Nayak RD. Neuroticism and academic performance of medical students. Int J Humanit Soc Sci Invent. 2014; 3(1): 51–55.

15. Bhagat et al. Study on personality dimension negative emotionality affecting academic achievement among Malaysian medical students studying in Malaysia and overseas. Advances in Medical Education and Practice.11 June 2016 Volume 2016: 7 Pages

16. Musgrave- Marquart, D., Broomley, S.P., and Dalley, M.B. Personality, academic attribution and substance use as predictors of academic achievement in college students. J of Social Behaviour and Personality, (1997) 12, 501-511.

17. Cooper, S.E., and Miller, J.A. MBTI learning style-teaching style discongruencies, Educational and Psychological Measurement, (1991).51, 699-707.

18. Barrick, M.R. and Mount, M.K. The Big Five personality dimensions and job performance: A meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology (1991) 44, 1-26.AS

19. O’Connor, M., and Paunonen, S. Big Five personality predictors of post-secondary academic performance. Personality and Individual Differences, (2007) 43, 971–990.

20. Chamorro-Premuzic, T, and Furnham, A. A possible model for explaining the personality-intelligence interface. British J of Psychology (2004), 95, 249–264.

21. De Raad, B. and Schouwenburg, C. Personality in learning and education: a review. European J of Personality, (1996) 10, 303-336.

22. Veroff. J (1983) Contextual Determinants of Personality, Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin University of Michigan, SAGE Journals, Volume: 9 issue (3): 331-343 https://doi.org10.1177/0146167283093002/

23. Your primary care is our primary concern. Wayne State University Physician Group 2011

24. Personality changes for the better with age, American Psychological Association. First St. NE, Washington. July/August 2003, Vol 34, No. 7 Print version: page 14. 2019

25. Yusoff MS, Rahim AF, Aziz RA, Pa MN, Mey SC, Ja'afar R, Esa AR. The validity and reliability of the USM Personality Inventory (USMaP-i): Its use to identify personality of future medical students. International Medical Journal. 2011 Dec 1;18(4): 283-7.

26. Yusoff MS, Abdul Rahim AF, Baba AA, Ismail SB, Mat Pa MN, Esa AR. The impact of medical education on psychological health of students: A cohort study. Psychology, health and medicine. 2013 Aug 1; 18(4): 420-30.

27. Nie NH, Bent DH, Hull CH. SPSS: Statistical package for the social sciences. New York: Mc Graw-Hill; 1975.

28. Mitchelson JK, Wicher EW, Le Breton JM, Craig SB. Gender and ethnicity differences on the Abridged Big Five Circumplex (AB5C) of personality traits: A differential item functioning analysis. Educational and Psychological Measurement. 2009 Aug; 69(4): 613-35.

29. Fleeson W, Gallagher P. The implications of Big Five standing for the distribution of trait manifestation in behavior: Fifteen experience-sampling studies and a meta-analysis. Journal of personality and social psychology. 2009 Dec; 97(6):1097.

30. Costa Jr PT, Terracciano A, McCrae RR. Gender differences in personality traits across cultures: robust and surprising findings. Journal of personality and social psychology. 2001 Aug; 81(2):322.

31. Weisberg YJ, DeYoung CG, Hirsh JB. Gender differences in personality across the ten aspects of the Big Five. Frontiers in psychology.2011: 2; 178.

32. Brown GS, Englert P, Sisarich H. Differences in personality traits across ethnic groups within New Zealand and across an international sample. New Zealand Journal of Psychology.2005: 34(2); 77.

33. De Raad B, Schouwenburg HC. Personality in learning and education: A review. European Journal of personality. 1996:10(5); 303-36.

34. Hakimi S, Hejazi E, Lavasani MG. The relationships between personality traits and students’ academic achievement. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences.2011: 29; 836-45.

35. Musson DM, Sandal G, Helmreich RL. Personality characteristics and trait clusters in final stage astronaut selection.Aviation, space, and environmental medicine. 2004: 75(4); 342-9.

36. Komarraju M, Karau SJ, Schmeck RR. Role of the Big Five personality traits in predicting college students' academic motivation and achievement. Learning and individual differences. 2009: 119(1); 47-52.

37. Blickle G. Personality traits, learning strategies and performance. European Journal of personality.1996: 10(5); 337-52.

38. Goff M, Ackerman PL. Personality-intelligence relations: Assessment of typical intellectual engagement. Journal of Educational Psychology.1992: 84(4); 537.

39. Chowdhury M. Students' Personality Traits and Academic Performance: A Five-Factor Model Perspective. College Quarterly.2006: 9(3); n3.

40. Cattell RB, Kline PE. The scientific analysis of personality and motivation. Academic Press; 1977.

41. Furnham A, Mitchell J. Personality, needs, social skills and academic achievement: A longitudinal study. Personality and Individual Differences.1991:12(10); 1067-73.

42. Schretlen DJ, van der Hulst EJ, Pearlson GD, Gordon B.A neuropsychological study of personality: Trait openness in relation to intelligence, fluency, and executive functioning. Journal of clinical and experimental neuropsychology. 2010: 32(10); 1068-73.

43. De Young, Peterson and Higgins. Sources of Openness/Intellect: Cognitive and Neuropsychological Correlates of the Fifth Factor of Personality, Journal of Research in Personality, 2005:73; 825-258.

44. Mount MK, Barrick MR. The Big Five personality dimensions: Implications for research and practice in human resources management. Research in personnel and human resources management.1995:13(3); 153-200.

Received on 18.06.2018 Modified on 16.07.2018

Research J. Pharm. and Tech 2019; 12(9):4189-4196.

DOI: 10.5958/0974-360X.2019.00721.2

Variables	Frequency (%)	Mean (SD)	Minimum	Maximum
Year of the study Year 1 Year 2	66 (54.1) 56 (45.9)
Ethnicity Malay Non-Malay	87 (71.3) 35 (28.7)
Gender Male Female	46 (37.7) 76 (62.3)
Extraversion Low High	49 (40.2) 73 (59.8)
Conscientiousness Low High	49 (40.2) 73 (59.8)
Agreeableness Low High	49 (40.2) 73 (59.8)
Neuroticism Low High	68 (55.7) 54 (44.3)
Openness Low High	49 (40.2) 73 (59.8)
Final exam marks		55.69 (7.55)	42.00	82.00