Establishing StrengthsFinder Norms for Veterinary Medical Students

Kenneth D. Royal^1, , Betsy Taylor², Rivers Baker³, Jeffrey Huckel³ and Keven Flammer¹

¹Department of Clinical Sciences, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC, USA

²Office of Academic Affairs, North Carolina State University College of Veterinary Medicine, Raleigh, NC, USA

³Education Support Services, North Carolina State University College of Veterinary Medicine, Raleigh, NC, USA

Cite this paper:
Kenneth D. Royal, Betsy Taylor, Rivers Baker, Jeffrey Huckel and Keven Flammer. Establishing StrengthsFinder Norms for Veterinary Medical Students. American Journal of Educational Research. 2018; 6(2):152-157. doi: 10.12691/education-6-2-11

Abstract

The Clifton StrengthsFinder 2.0 is an online assessment administered by the Gallup organization. The assessment is intended to help individuals identify their greatest talents, and once identified, use that information to further develop one’s predominant strengths. Colleges and universities routinely administer the StrengthsFinder to students, but to date there is sparse literature presenting any results. Interestingly, academic disciplinary differences has been identified as the single most differentiating factor regarding members of an academic community. This is due to the strong influence of disciplinary norms, cultures and values that both attract individuals to a community and sustain members once a part of the community. Thus, the use of a standardized assessment with well-evidenced psychometric properties could be particularly useful for making comparisons about students’ attributes across these communities. This study sought to create a new line of research inquiry by exploring StrengthsFinder results and establishing an initial set of norms for students in the field of veterinary medicine. Substantive results found veterinary students’ most predominant strengths were Achiever and Learner, followed by Restorative, Input, Relator, Harmony and Responsibility. The five least common Signature Themes were Self-Assurance, Connectedness, Activator, Command, and Maximizer. Results from this study may be used to compare and contrast students’ predominant strengths and talents in other programs, particularly those in the medical and health professions.

Keywords:
medical education health professions education veterinary education evaluation measurement student attributes academic disciplines

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

References:

[1]	Seligman, M. E. P., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. “Positive psychology: An introduction.” American Psychologist, 55(1): 5-14, 2000.
[2]	Clifton, D. O., & Harter, J. K. (2003). “Strengths investment.” In K. S. Cameron, J. E. Dutton, & R. E. Quinn (Eds.), Positive organizational scholarship. (pp. 111-121). San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler, 2003.
[3]	Gallup, Inc. About us. Available at: https://www.gallupstrengthscenter.com/Home/en-US/About. Accessed on November 20, 2017.
[4]	Alpert, D. “Performance and paralysis: The organizational context American research university.” Journal of Higher Education, 56: 241-81, 1985.
[5]	Becher, T. “Disciplinary shaping of the profession.” In B. R. Clark (Ed.), The academic profession: National, disciplinary, and institutional settings. Los Angeles, CA: University of California Press, 1987.
[6]	Clark, B. R. Academic culture. New Haven, CT: Higher Education Research Group, Yale University, 1980.
[7]	Ladd, E. C., & Lipset, S. M. Technical Report: 1975 Survey of the American professorate. Storrs, CT: The University of Connecticut, Social Science Data Center, 1975.
[8]	Lee, J. J. “Comparing institutional relationships with academic departments: A study of five academic fields.” Research in Higher Education, 45(6) 603-624, 2004.
[9]	Smart, J. C., Feldman, K. A., & Ethington, C. A. Academic disciplines: Holland's theory and the study of college students and faculty. Nashville, TN: Vanderbilt University Press, 2000.
[10]	Angelo, T. A., & Cross, K. P. Classroom assessment techniques: A handbook for college teachers (2nd ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1993.
[11]	Asplund, J., Agrawal, S., Hodges, Y., Harter, J., & Lopez, S. J. “The Clifton StrengthsFinder 2.0 Technical Report: Development and Validation”. 2014. Available at: http://www.thecliftonfoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/Clifton-StrengthsFinder-Technical-Report-2015.pdf. Accessed on August, 17, 2017.
[12]	Royal, K. D., Flammer, K., Borst, L., Huckle, J., Barter, H., &Neel, J. G. “A comprehensive wellness program for veterinary medical education: design and implementation at North Carolina State University.” International Journal of Higher Education, 6(1): 74-83, 2017.
[13]	Royal, K. D. “Clarifying the instructional role of faculty in medical and health professions programs.” Education in Medicine Journal, 9(2), 75-77, 2017.
[14]	Weidman, J. C., & Stein, E. L. “Socialization of doctoral students to academic norms.” Research in Higher Education, 44(6): 641-656, 2003.
[15]	Clark, S. M., & Corcoran, M. “Perspectives on the professional socialization of women faculty.” Journal of Higher Education, 57(1): 20-43, 1986.
[16]	Austin, A. E. “Preparing the next generation of faculty: Graduate school as socialization to the academic career.” Journal of Higher Education, 73(1): 94-122, 2002.
[17]	Royal, K. D. Four tenets of modern validity theory for medical education assessment and evaluation. Advances in Medical Education & Practice, 3(8): 567-570, 2017.