Explores how personality traits and self-efficacy affect learning success in medical students, suggesting tailored training approaches.
Purpose Physical examination is central to undergraduate medical education, yet students may differ in how they experience group-based clinical skills training. This study investigated associations between personality traits, self-efficacy, comfort in group learning settings, and self-assessed learning success in a peer-led physical examination course with standardized patients. Methods Medical students completed an online survey before and after the course. Personality traits were assessed using the NEO Five Factor Inventory, and self-efficacy was measured with the General Self-Efficacy Scale. Custom-designed scales assessed comfort in group learning settings and self-assessed confidence in eight physical examination skills. Self-assessed learning success was defined as the individual change in confidence between the two measurement points. Results Comfort in group learning settings was positively associated with self-efficacy and negatively associated with neuroticism. After Bonferroni correction, no significant associations were found between comfort and extraversion, conscientiousness, agreeableness, or openness. neuroticism and self-efficacy were substantially negatively correlated. Comfort in group learning settings was positively associated with self-assessed learning success. Exploratory cluster analysis suggested two student profiles differing in neuroticism/self-efficacy, comfort, and self-assessed learning success. Conclusion The findings indicate that students’ experiences in group-based physical examination training are associated with individual psychological characteristics, particularly neuroticism and self-efficacy. Clinical skills training should foster psychological safety, structured feedback, scaffolded practice, and low-stakes learning opportunities to support students with different learner profiles. Future studies should include objective performance measures to complement self-assessed outcomes.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Lenes et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: