Table 3 Summary of analyses
1. (2-27-2020) CUSM descriptive statistics (all applicants interviewed) |
 1. N, range, minimum, maximum, mean, standard error of the mean, standard deviation, and variance calculated for each NEO trait and subcategories |
2. (2-27-2020) Mercer descriptive statistics (class of 2006 and 2007) |
 1. N, range, minimum, maximum, mean, standard error of the mean, standard deviation, and variance calculated for each NEO trait and subcategories |
3. (2-27-2020) CUSM vs Mercer Comparisons (One way ANOVA) |
 1. One way ANOVA was used to compare the means of each trait to see if there was any statistically significant difference in traits between CUSM and Mercer students |
 2. Reported statistics: sum of squares, df, mean square, F, significance (both between groups and within groups) |
 3. An alpha value of 0.05 was considered significant |
  1. A (agreeableness), A6 (tender-mindedness) were stat sig |
4. (3-2-2020) Mercer performance data |
 1. All NEO traits and subtraits compared using an independent sample t-test for equality of means |
 2. Mercer performance data was broadly divided into the following: |
  1. Good vs poor performance (latter group included students who: repeated a year, took a LOA, or quit) |
   1. Only 14 in the poor performance group (not enough power?) |
   2. Group 0 = Good performance (N = 102) |
   3. Group 1 = Bad performance (N = 14) |
   4. None of the traits had significant differences |
  2. Good vs LOA or quit t-test |
   1. Group 0 = Good performance (N = 102) |
   2. Group 2 = LOA + quit (N = 5) |
   3. E5 (excitement-seeking) stat sig |
  3. LOA vs quit t-test |
   1. Group 2 = LOA (N = 4) |
   2. Group 3 = quit (N = 1) |
   3. E2 (gregariousness) stat sig |
  4. Repeat year vs LOA t-test |
   1. Group 1 = Repeat year (N = 9) |
   2. Group 2 = LOA (N = 4) |
   3. No stat sig |
  5. Repeat year vs Quit t-test |
   1. Group 1 = Repeat year (N = 9) |
   2. Group 3 = quit (N = 1) |
   3. E5 (excitement-seeking) stat sig |
5. (3-15-2020) CUSM Accepted vs Rejected Analyses (2022 and 2023) |
 1. All NEO traits and subtraits compared using an independent sample t-test for equality of means |
 2. CUSM Accepted Year 1 and 2 |
  1. 1AY = ℅ 2022 accepted (N = 65) |
  2. 2AY = ℅ 2023 accepted (N = 98) |
  3. N, O, N3, N4, E6, O2, A1, A6 stat sig |
 3. CUSM All Accepted vs Rejected |
  1. AY = All accepted N = 163 |
  2. RY = All rejected N = 811 |
  3. N, N1, N2, N3, N4, N5, N6 stat sig |
 4. CUSM Year 1 Accepted vs Rejected |
  1. 1AY = ℅ 2022 accepted (N = 65) |
  2. 1RY = ℅ 2022 rejected (N = 361) |
  3. O6 stat sig |
 5. CUSM Year 2 Accepted vs Rejected |
  1. 2AY = ℅ 2023 accepted (N = 98) |
  2. 2RY = ℅ 2023 rejected (N = 450) |
  3. N, N1, N2, N3, N4, N5, N6 stat sig |
6. (3-15-2020) Mercer vs CUSM Accept vs Reject Comparisons |
 1. All NEO traits and subtraits compared using an independent sample t-test for equality of means |
 2. Mercer vs CUSM All Accepted |
  1. MERCER N = 116 |
  2. CUSM N = 163 |
  3. N, O, A, C, N1-N6, E1, E2, E4, E6, O2, O4, O5, O6, A1-A6, C1, C3-C6 stat sig |
 3. Mercer vs CUSM All Rejected |
  1. MERCER N = 116 |
  2. CUSMREJ N = 811 |
  3. NOAC, N1-6, E1, E2, E4, E6, O2,O4-6, A1-6, C1-6 stat sig |
 4. Mercer vs CUSM Year 1 Accepted |
  1. MERCER N = 116 |
  2. 1AY = CUSM Year 1 Accepted N = 65 |
  3. NOA, N1-6, E1, E4, O2, O4-6,A1-6, C1, C3-6 stat sig |
 5. Mercer vs CUSM Year 1 Rejected |
  1. MERCER N = 116 |
  2. 1RY = CUSM Year 1 Rejected N = 361 |
  3. NOAC, N1-6, E1, E2, E4, E6, O2, O4-6, A1-6, C1, C3-6 stat sig |
 6. Mercer vs CUSM Year 2 Accepted |
  1. MERCER N = 116 |
  2. 2AY = CUSM Year 2 Accepted N = 98 |
  3. NOAC, N1-6, E1, E2, E6, O2, O4-6, A1-6, C1-6 |
 7. Mercer vs CUSM Year 2 Rejected |
  1. MERCER N = 116 |
  2. 2RY = CUSM Year 2 Rejected N = 450 |
  3. NOAC, N1-6, E1-2, E4, E6, O2, O4-6, A1-6, C1-6 |
7. (3-22-2020) CUSM NEO trait correlations |
 1. Pearson Bivariate Correlations (2-tailed) |
  1. An alpha value of 0.05 was considered significant. An alpha value of 0.01 was considered significantly higher. |
 2. All NEO traits and subtraits correlation calculated and charted as a matrix |
8. (3-22-2020) CUSM Class Rank Trait Correlations 2022 and 2023 |
 1. Pearson Bivariate Correlations (2-tailed) |
 2. Rank correlated with all NEO traits and subtraits for 2022 and 2023 and charted as a matrix |
 3. Rank values: |
  1. 1 = Bottom 10% |
  2. 2 = Middle 80% |
  3. 3 = Top 10% |
9. (4-24-2020) CUSM Premed vs NEO on performance 2022 and 2023 |
 1. Pearson Bivariate Correlations (2-tailed) |
  1. An alpha value of 0.05 was considered significant. An alpha value of 0.01 was considered significantly higher. |
 2. One version truncated that includes correlations between premed metrics (MCAT, CGPA, BCPM) and medical school performance metrics averaged (NBME AVG, MCQ AVG, LAB AVG, CP AVG, IRAT AVG, OSCE AVG, CRS AVG) |
 3. Truncated correlations between NEO traits and subtraits with averaged med school performance metrics |
 4. Complete version that correlates premed or NEO traits to medical school performance in each individual class |
10. (5-22-2020) M vs F Accepted vs Rejected |
 1. All NEO traits and subtraits compared using an independent sample t-test for equality of means |
  1. Year 1 = Class of 2022; Year 2 = Class of 2023 |
 2. Year 1 Accepted M vs F |
 3. Year 1 Accepted vs Rejected |
 4. Year 1 Rejected M vs F |
 5. Year 1 and 2 Accepted M vs F |
 6. Year 1 and 2 Accepted vs Rejected |
 7. Year 1 and 2 Rejected M vs F |
 8. Year 2 Accepted M vs F |
 9. Year 2 Accepted vs Rejected |
 10. Year 2 Rejected M vs F |