Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Wiley Open Access Collection logoLink to Wiley Open Access Collection
. 2025 Apr 10;72(2):e70015. doi: 10.1111/1440-1630.70015

Differences in personality and character traits of occupational therapy researchers and non‐researchers: A cross‐sectional study

Clara Leong 1, Kristie J Harper 1,2,3,✉, Shuang Shuang Han 1, Leyla Osborne 1, Georgia Alcock 1, Susan L Taylor 4
PMCID: PMC11983089  PMID: 40205890

Abstract

Introduction

Despite a high level of interest in research, many occupational therapists are not engaged in research activities. Understanding how occupational therapists' personality and character traits influence research engagement is crucial to designing effective research capacity building strategies. This study aimed to identify and compare personality and character traits of occupational therapy researchers and non‐researchers across Australia.

Methods

An exploratory cross‐sectional study was conducted using modified versions of the Honesty‐Humility, Emotionality, eXtraversion, Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, and Openness to Experience Personality Inventory‐Revised‐60 (HEXACO‐PI‐R‐60) and the Values in Action Inventory of Strengths‐72 (VIA‐IS‐72) questionnaires. Differences in personality and character traits between researchers and non‐researchers and correlations with research engagement were explored. Factor analysis was used to test the psychometric properties of the modified questionnaires.

Results

Forty‐seven researchers and 78 non‐researchers participated in the online survey. There were significant differences between groups for traits of love of learning (P = 0.01), curiosity (P = 0.03), and creativity (P = 0.02). These traits were significantly associated with research engagement. Participants in the non‐researcher group scored higher for traits of perfectionism and organisation; however, the results were not statistically significant. Factor analysis demonstrated that the modified personality questionnaires achieved similar psychometric properties and factor matrixes compared to the original versions.

Conclusion

Occupational therapists' research engagement is influenced by their personality and character traits, specifically love of learning, curiosity, and creativity. It is, therefore, imperative to consider intrinsic values when developing future research capacity building strategies to increase research engagement and support professional practice.

Consumer and Community Involvement

Clinicians were involved in the development stage with five clinicians providing feedback on the survey tool.

PLAIN LANGUAGE SUMMARY

Research is like being a detective. You start with something you want to learn more about, or a problem you want to solve, like a mystery. Researchers uncover new knowledge through gathering clues, people's opinions, and other types of information. They put it all together to find answers. Clinical research can help health professionals, like occupational therapists, find answers to understand the types of treatments that will help their clients the most. The issue is, many occupational therapists do not know how to do research and often do not do it. In our study, we wanted to understand why this is. We found out that if an occupational therapist has a love of learning, curiosity, and creativity, they are more likely to be interested in doing research. We plan to use our findings to develop research strategies that can help occupational therapists undertake more research, because research and new knowledge helps the therapist, their workplace and their clients. In the future, we aim to design research activities that engage therapists' love of learning, curiosity, and creativity. Because after all, a little bit of detective work done collaboratively can go a long way to improving care and the wider health‐care system.

Keywords: capacity building, character, occupational therapy, personality, research

Key Points for Occupational Therapy.

  • Occupational therapists' love of learning, curiosity, and creativity can positively influence research engagement.

  • The modified HEXACO‐PI‐R‐60 and VIA‐IS‐72 supported trait identification.

  • Future research capacity building strategies should consider an individual's personality and character traits.

1. INTRODUCTION

In general, health‐care clinicians, including occupational therapists, are found to have a high level of interest in research engagement (Matus et al., 2018; Pighills et al., 2013). Research engagement is important for the occupational therapy profession as it supports clinicians in improving care outcomes and providing quality, efficient, and cost‐effective service delivery (Matus et al., 2018). However, research capacity is often limited due to extrinsic (e.g., time, workload, and funding) and intrinsic factors (e.g., values, motivation, and perceptions of capabilities) (Alison et al., 2017; Cordrey et al., 2022; Dwyer et al., 2023; Graham et al., 2013; Pighills et al., 2013; Wenke et al., 2020).

Research activities can be divided into three different levels: (1) foundational (e.g., finding, appraising, and applying literature findings to inform practice), (2) participation (e.g., designing research questions, participant recruitment, data collection, and analysis), and (3) leadership (e.g., developing research protocols, obtaining funding, writing, and submitting ethics and grant applications) (Matus et al., 2018). Progression along the continuum of research activities can help occupational therapists build fundamental research skills and competency (Pighills et al., 2013). Clinician participation in research is crucial for improving health‐care outcomes for clients and service users. Clinician research engagement fosters a culture of continuous learning and innovation, enhancing the quality, safety, and effectiveness of care provided.

Research capacity building is a process of supporting individuals and organisations to develop essential skills and abilities to produce high‐quality research (Matus et al., 2018). Our previous work explored the implementation of evidence‐informed strategies to support research engagement (Harper et al., 2022). Strategies included supporting clinicians through mentorship, investing in health‐care academic partnerships, additional research education, training and resources, and supporting flexible work arrangements. Our evaluation using the Research Capacity and Culture Tool (Holden et al., 2012) found improvements at the organisation and team levels but not at the individual level (Harper et al., 2022). The findings were similar to previous research exploring other allied health professionals, whereby higher level research skills and self‐reported success at the organisation and team levels were found compared to the individual level (Alison et al., 2017; Matus, Wenke, Hughes, et al.,  2019). Despite adequate strategies and resource provision, many occupational therapists still do not engage in research activities (Crombie et al., 2021). This highlights a need to better understand how to support occupational therapists at an individual level and to explore intrinsic factors, including the impact of personality and character traits on research engagement and research capacity building strategies (Crombie et al., 2021; Matus, Wenke, & Mickan, 2019).

A systematic review completed by D'Arrietta et al. (2022) found that research engagement was based on the type of value (utility, intrinsic, and attainment) health professionals attached to research. This was based on the Expectancy‐Value‐Cost (EVC) motivation theory where individuals are more likely to pursue an activity if they expect to do well and value the activity (Eccles & Wigfield, 2002). The model further differentiates task value into three components: attainment value (i.e., importance of doing well, producing new knowledge, and gaining recognition), intrinsic value (i.e., personal enjoyment, broadening personal scope of career, and identifying solutions to clinical problems), and utility value (i.e., perceived usefulness for future goals, advancing clinical knowledge, and improving care health outcomes) (D'Arrietta et al., 2022). The systematic review by D'Arrietta et al. (2022) explored the facilitators and barriers to health professionals' motivation to undertake research, however, did not directly focus on individual level barriers or the impact of personality and character traits.

Despite an emerging research culture among occupational therapists, there are still limited occupational therapists in Australia engaged in research as clinician‐researchers (D'Arrietta et al., 2022). Understanding how occupational therapists' personality and character traits influence research engagement is crucial to designing effective research capacity building strategies and to support clinicians on their research journey. This study sought to explore the correlation between occupational therapists' personality and character traits and research engagement. Using D'Arrietta et al.'s (2022) work on the role of personal characteristics and the three research values (i.e., intrinsic, attainment, and utility values) as a frame of reference, (Aluri & Li, 2022; McGrath et al., 2020; Sleep et al., 2021), we mapped the values against relevant concepts within two standardised personality assessment tools: (1) The Honesty‐Humility, Emotionality, eXtraversion, Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, and Openness to Experience Personality Inventory‐Revised‐60 (HEXACO‐PI‐R‐60) and (2) Values in Action Inventory of Strengths‐72 (VIA‐IS‐72) (Aluri & Li, 2022; Ashton & Lee, 2009; Peterson & Seligman, 2004). Both standardised personality tools are used to conceptualise personality traits and predict how each contributes to function and behavioural outcomes. Therefore, this study selected HEXACO‐PI‐R‐60 and VIA‐IS‐72 to explore whether occupational therapists' personality and character traits align with the aforementioned research values and their correlations with research engagement.

Overall, the study aimed to identify and compare personality and character traits of occupational therapy researchers and non‐researchers and the impact on research engagement. We hypothesised that there would be differences in personality and character traits between the two groups. Furthermore, we anticipated a correlation between personality and character traits and research engagement.

Although several studies have explored occupational therapists' level of involvement in research activities, including perceived barriers and strategies to promote research engagement, no studies have examined individual personality and character traits of occupational therapy researchers and non‐researchers (Alison et al., 2017; D'Arrietta et al., 2022; Wenke et al., 2020). The study findings could support the development of more individualised strategies that address intrinsic personality factors to improve research engagement in the occupational therapy profession.

2. METHODS

The study used an exploratory cross‐sectional approach via an online survey. The survey included demographic‐related questions, and relevant personality questions extracted from the two standardised personality assessment tools (HEXACO‐PI‐R‐60 and VIA‐IS‐72) (Ashton & Lee, 2009; Peterson & Seligman, 2004). The study was conducted nationally and open to all states and territories across Australia between November 2022 and June 2023 using an online Research Electronic Data Capture (REDCap) survey (Harris et al., 2019).

2.1. Participants

Purposive sampling was used to recruit occupational therapy researchers and non‐researchers within Australia by advertising the study through peak bodies, state and national occupational therapy associations, Facebook occupational therapy interest groups, and occupational therapy schools within Australian universities.

The inclusion criteria for participants included all occupational therapists practising within Australia, within any practice areas and settings, and with any clients. Occupational therapists were eligible if they were working full‐time, part‐time, or in a combination of roles (i.e., leadership, academic, or clinical). Participants were excluded if they were not registered with the Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency (Ahpra). Research engagement levels were measured based on participants' self‐reported participation in the three levels of research activities—foundational, participation, or leadership (Matus et al., 2018). These three levels were used to allocate participants into the researcher (participation or leadership) and non‐researcher (foundational level or no engagement in research) groups.

2.2. Materials

An electronic survey was developed using REDCap and piloted between November 2022 and December 2022. The draft survey was reviewed by five occupational therapists (three working in a tertiary hospital setting and two from a university setting) with feedback incorporated prior to participant recruitment. The survey included 14 demographic questions, including professional background, sociodemographic characteristics, professional qualifications, clinical experience, current research engagement, and affiliations with research organisations. Definitions were included throughout the survey to support completion (See Data S1). Twenty‐eight questions were included from the HEXACO‐PI‐R‐60 and VIA‐IS‐72 (see Data S2 and S3 for definitions of personality and character traits and survey questions) to identify and explore personality and character traits that shared a similar construct as the three research values (intrinsic, utility, and attainment) (D'Arrietta et al., 2022; Eccles & Wigfield, 2002). Through iterative discussions between all authors, the three research values explored by D'Arrietta et al. (2022) were mapped to questions in the HEXACO‐PI‐R‐60 and VIA‐IS‐72 for relevance. Author's selected personality and character trait questions that shared a similar construct as the research values.

HEXACO‐PI‐R‐60 and VIA‐IS‐72 are standardised personality assessments from the Honesty‐Humility, Emotionality, eXtraversion, Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, and Openness to Experience (HEXACO) model and Peterson and Seligman's Character Strengths and Virtues (CSV) framework, respectively (Ashton & Lee, 2009;Littman‐Ovadia et al., 2021; Peterson & Seligman, 2004). The HEXACO‐PI‐R‐60 assesses personality traits that correlate to an individual's socialising, functioning, and emotions. It has six facets: (1) honesty‐humility, (2) emotionality, (3) extraversion, (4) agreeableness, (5) conscientiousness, and (6) openness to experience, which are represented and measured by a total of 24 items (Ashton & Lee, 2009). The items of social self‐esteem and diligence were deemed relevant to the research value of attainment, while the items of patience, organisation, and perfectionism relevant to the research value of utility (See Supporting information: 2 and 3).

The VIA‐IS‐72 measures character traits in six domains: (1) wisdom, (2) courage, (3) humanity, (4) transcendence, (5) justice, and (6) temperance, with a total of 24 subsets of character traits that contribute to the development of the six main virtues (Littman‐Ovadia et al., 2021; Peterson & Seligman, 2004). Following the same iterative process of mapping research values to questions in the VIA‐IS‐72, all authors deemed that the domains of wisdom and transcendence contain characters of love of learning, curiosity, and creativity, were deemed relevant to the intrinsic research value. Domains of wisdom, courage, and justice contain traits of critical thinking, perseverance, leadership, and teamwork, which match the research value of utility (See Data S2 and S3).

Two standardised personality measures were selected for this study to provide a comprehensive understanding of occupational therapists' personalities and their relationship with research engagement. The internal consistency of HEXACO‐PI‐R‐60 is between Cronbach's alpha of 0.73 to 0.80, while VIA‐IS‐72 yields internal consistency of Cronbach's alpha of 0.75, which are both acceptable levels (Ashton & Lee, 2009; Peterson & Seligman, 2004). The test–retest reliability of VIA‐IS‐72 is greater than 0.70, while the HEXACO‐PI‐R‐60 is at 0.76, indicating both assessment tools have good reliability (Henry et al., 2022; Peterson & Seligman, 2004). The validity coefficient for both the VIA‐IS‐72 and HEXACO‐PI‐R‐60 demonstrates good convergent and discriminant validity (Henry et al., 2022; Peterson & Seligman, 2004).

To reduce participant burden, support survey completion, and keep the personality and character traits variables in this study specific and relevant to the three research values, a total of 10 personality and character traits from HEXACO‐PI‐R‐60 and VIA‐IS‐72 were measured: (1) love of learning, (2) curiosity, (3) creativity, (4) zest, (5) social self‐esteem, (6) diligence, (7) critical thinking, (8) perseverance, (9) perfectionism, and (10) organisation. Each personality or character trait was measured by their respective questions, which utilised Likert scale questions with scores from 1 (Strongly disagree) to 5 (Strongly agree), where higher scores indicated higher levels of personality trait possession. Mean scores for each of the 10 personality traits were calculated by summing up the scores of each question and dividing the sum by the total number of questions relevant to each trait. As the personality assessment tools were modified, we undertook factor analysis to determine if the psychometric properties were similar to the original versions.

2.3. Procedures

Emails containing the study flyer, and the online REDCap survey link, were sent widely to the Western Australian (WA) Occupational Therapy Association, Occupational Therapy Australia, and occupational therapy schools of universities in Australia. A project description was also posted to various Facebook occupational therapy interest groups with permission from the administrators. Known occupational therapists were also invited to participate. G‐power analysis was conducted with the alpha value set to 0.05, which determined a minimum of 90 participants needed to detect a moderate effect size of 0.15, with a power of 0.80 at a significance level of 0.05, while including 10 personality and character trait variables in the model.

2.4. Data analysis

SPSS version 26 software (IBM Corporation, Armonk, NY, USA) and Jamovi version 2.3.28 software (The Jamovi Project, Sydney, Australia) were used to analyse data collected from both participant groups, and a P‐value of ≤0.05 was selected to indicate a significant association in all statistical tests. Descriptive statistics, including frequency and percentage counts, were used for response rates, demographic data, work roles, professional qualifications, and exploring clinicians' previous research engagement. Pearson chi‐square statistics were used to identify significant differences between groups for demographic items.

Between group differences in personality and character trait scores were assessed using two‐way independent samples t‐tests. Normality of distribution was checked using the Shapiro–Wilk test and z‐scores of skewness and kurtosis, and the homogeneity of variance was checked using Levene's test. Z‐values above +3.29 or below −3.29 were used to identify outliers, while P‐values of >0.05 for the Shapiro–Wilk test indicated normal data distribution. A P‐value <0.05 for Levene's test was used to indicate a violation of statistical assumption for homogeneity of variance. A binominal logistic regression was completed to determine associations between personality and character traits and research engagement. The personality and character traits were selected as the primary outcome and dependent variables in the regression model, with the researcher and non‐researcher group allocation being the independent variable. Odds ratio (OR), 95% confidence intervals (CI) and P‐values were calculated to determine the levels of correlation between research engagement and personality and character traits. Further stepwise binominal logistic regression was completed to determine whether research engagement levels could be predicted based on the personality and character traits of the participants. Exploratory factor analysis with Varimax rotation and Kaiser normalisation was used to determine if the psychometric properties of the modified personality assessments used in this study were similar to the two original assessment tools.

2.5. Ethical considerations

Ethics approval was obtained from the Curtin University Human Research Ethics Committee (HRE2023‐0061). All participants were provided with a study information sheet, and electronic informed consent was obtained from all participants as part of the online survey before participation. The surveys were completed anonymously, with no individual identifiers labelled to the data. Information from uncompleted surveys was not used.

2.6. Positionality statement

The six research team members all have backgrounds in occupational therapy. Four researchers were occupational therapy honours students, now early career therapists. One senior researcher works in allied health policy development. One senior clinician researcher works as a research coordinator in an acute care tertiary hospital and has an academic and clinical role. All team members value research to develop the occupational therapy profession and were interested in better understanding what makes therapists engage in research and if understanding this could support research capacity building strategies.

3. RESULTS

A total of 125 participants completed the online survey and were included in analysis. Forty‐seven participants (38%) were allocated to the researcher group and 78 participants (62%) to the non‐researcher group based on their self‐reported participation in research activities. Three participants were excluded from analysis because they submitted incomplete survey responses, and one participant did not meet the inclusion criteria. There were no statistically significant differences between groups for gender and employment status (Table 1). There were significant differences between age groups for participants aged between 18 and 25 (P = 0.02), 26 and 30 (P = 0.01) and 56 and 60 (P < 0.01) years old. Twenty‐six participants in the researcher group were employed by universities, compared to eight participants in the non‐researcher group (P < 0.01).

TABLE 1.

Sociodemographic characteristics of participants.

Researcher group (n = 47) Non‐researcher group (n = 78) P‐value †
n % n %
Gender 0.13
Female 42 89 75 96
Male 5 11 3 4
Age (years)
18–25 2 4 14 18 0.02*
26–30 3 6 18 23 0.01*
31–35 8 17 14 18 0.90
36–40 7 15 7 9 0.31
41–45 11 23 15 19 0.58
46–50 5 11 4 5 0.25
51–55 5 11 5 6 0.40
56–60 5 11 0 0 <0.01*
≥61 1 2 1 1 0.72
Employment status
Full‐time 30 64 41 53 0.22
Part‐time 14 30 23 29 0.97
Casual 1 2 1 1 0.72
Contract 1 2 3 4 0.60
Self‐employed 1 2 9 12 0.06
Other
Maternity leave 0 0 1 1 0.44
Employer organisations ‡
Public sector (government) 21 45 46 59 0.12
Not‐for‐profit organisations 1 2 8 10 0.09
University 26 55 8 10 <0.01*
Private 6 13 20 26 0.09
Research institution 1 2 0 0 0.20
Other
Sole trader 0 0 1 1 0.44
Public health mental health division 1 2 0 0 0.20
Self‐employed (services funded under government sector) 0 0 1 1 0.44
Currently delivering clinical services as an occupational therapist <0.01*
Yes 24 49 69 88
No 23 51 9 12
Years of experience as an occupational therapist 2 4 5 6 0.61
Less than a year 1 2 14 18 <0.01*
1–3 years 1 2 13 17 0.01*
4–6 years 5 11 11 14 0.57
6–10 years 38 81 35 45 <0.01*
10 years and above 2 4 5 6 0.61
Research degree
No, I do not have a research degree 14 30 50 64 <0.01*
Yes, I have an honours degree 5 11 17 22 0.11
Yes, I have a master degree by research 12 26 11 14 0.11
Yes, I have a PhD 16 34 0 0 <0.01*
Open in a new tab

Note:

*

Statistically significant, P < 0.05.

†

Chi‐square P‐value.

‡

Participants could select multiple options; therefore, percentages do not add up to 100%.

3.1. Professional qualifications and clinical experience

Sixty‐four percent (n = 50) of participants in the non‐researcher group did not have a research degree, compared to 30% (n = 14) of participants in the researcher group (P < 0.01) (Table 1). Almost half of the participants (49%, n = 24) in the researcher group were delivering clinical services, compared to 69 participants (88%) in the non‐researcher group (P < 0.01). More than three‐quarters (81%, n = 38) of participants in the researcher group had 10 years or more experience working as an occupational therapist, compared to 45% (n = 35) of participants in the non‐researcher group (P < 0.01). Gerontology, neurology and acquired brain injury (ABI), and rehabilitation were the most common practice areas that occupational therapy researchers and non‐researchers worked in. There were more non‐researchers working in practice areas such as disability or within the National Disability Insurance Scheme, paediatrics, environmental modifications, mental health, and musculoskeletal conditions (Table S1).

3.2. Research experience and research organisation affiliations

Participants in the researcher group were distributed between levels of research engagement for participation (53%, n = 25) and leadership (47%, n = 22) (Table S2). There were 69% (n = 54) of participants in the non‐researcher group who self‐reported undertaking a foundational level of research engagement and 31% (n = 24) of participants reported ‘none’. Table S2 shows the level of involvement of all participants in research or quality improvement projects, in which 17 (9%) participants from the non‐researcher group were not involved in any. Chart audits, surveys and questionnaires, and systematic or scoping reviews were the most common research activities completed, or quality improvement projects undertaken by participants from both groups. Sixty‐six participants (85%) in the non‐researcher group had no affiliations to any research organisations, compared to 15 participants (32%) from the researcher group. Universities were the most common research organisations that participants were affiliated with, followed by public hospital research departments.

3.3. Differences in personality and character traits

Table 2 outlines the 10 personality trait scores for both groups. There were statistically significant differences between groups for traits of love of learning (t(123) = −2.40, M = 3.67, SD = 0.67 [researchers], compared with M = 3.33, SD = 0.81 [non‐researchers], P = 0.01), curiosity (t(123) = −2.16, M = 3.88, SD = 0.60 [researchers], compared with M = 3.65, SD = 0.57 [non‐researchers], P = 0.03) and creativity (t(123) = −2.07, M = 3.74, SD = 0.53 [researchers], compared with M = 3.49, SD = 0.70 [non‐researchers], P = 0.02). Although participants in the non‐researcher group scored higher for traits of perfectionism and organisation, the results were not statistically significant. No further significant differences were observed for other traits.

TABLE 2.

Differences in personality and character traits.

Group t statistic Mean Mean difference Test statistic (df) SD P‐value
Love of learning † Non‐researcher −2.40 3.33 −0.34 123.00 0.81 0.01*
Researcher 3.67 0.67
Curiosity † Non‐researcher −2.16 3.65 −0.23 123.00 0.57 0.03*
Researcher 3.88 0.60
Creativity † , ‡ Non‐researcher −2.07 3.49 −0.25 116.52 0.70 0.02*
Researcher 3.74 0.53
Zest † Non‐researcher −1.20 3.40 −0.16 123.00 0.73 0.23
Researcher 3.56 0.69
Social self‐esteem § Non‐researcher 1801.50 3.83 0.000 0.78 0.87
Researcher 3.84 0.65
Diligence § Non‐researcher 1568.50 4.19 −0.00 0.62 0.16
Researcher 4.36 0.51
Critical thinking § Non‐researcher 1732.50 4.21 −0.00 0.55 0.60
Researcher 4.27 0.48
Perseverance § Non‐researcher 1550.00 3.51 −0.000 0.66 0.14
Researcher 3.62 0.85
Perfectionism † Non‐researcher 0.32 3.74 0.04 123.00 0.69 0.75
Researcher 3.70 0.71
Organisation § Non‐researcher 1762.00 3.78 0.00 0.85 0.71
Researcher 3.71 0.90
Open in a new tab

Note: Please refer to Data S1 for the list of survey questions.

†

Independent t‐test was used for love of learning, curiosity, creativity, zest and perfectionism as the z‐values of skewness and kurtosis did not exceed 3.29 and normality test (Shapiro–Wilk) P‐values were >0.01.

‡

The creativity trait was calculated using Welch's t‐test as the homogeneity of variances test (Levene's) P‐value was <0.05.

§

Mann–Whitney U test was used for social self‐esteem, diligence, critical thinking, perseverance, and organisation as either z‐values of skewness or kurtosis exceed 3.29 and the normality test (Shapiro–Wilk) P‐values were <0.01.

*

Statistically significant, P < 0.05.

3.4. Correlation between personality and character traits, and research engagement

Stepwise binominal logistic regression identified the personality and character traits that significantly contributed to research engagement (Table S3). The intrinsic values of love of learning, curiosity, and creativity significantly correlated with occupational therapists identifying as researchers. While the remaining personalities and character traits of zest, social self‐esteem, diligence, critical thinking, perseverance, perfectionism, and organisation did not significantly correlate to the research engagement levels. Occupational therapists with higher levels of curiosity were 105% more likely to engage in research (OR 2.05; 95% CI 1.05–4.00, P = 0.03). In addition, higher levels of creativity contributed to an 87% increase in likelihood of occupational therapists' engagement in research (OR 1.87, 95% CI 1.01–3.44, P = 0.04). Occupational therapists with higher levels of love of learning were also 82% more likely to engage in research (OR 1.82, 95% CI 1.10–3.03, P = 0.021).

3.5. Factor analysis results for the modified HEXACO and VIA

Principal component analysis with Varimax rotation and Kaiser Normalisation was performed on the modified personality questionnaire. As shown in Table 3, the Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin measure of sample adequacy was 0.71, which indicated that the sampling was adequate for factor analysis and strong correlation between variables (Kaiser, 1960). The Bartlett's Test of Sphericity was significant at p < 0.01, further supporting the plausibility to conduct factor analysis (Bartlett, 1950).

TABLE 3.

Factor analysis results for the modified HEXACO and VIA.

Components Total variance explained
Initial eigenvalues Extraction sum of squared loadings Rotation sums of squared loadings
Total % of variance Cumulative % Total % of variance Cumulative % Total % of variance Cumulative %
1 2.87 28.73 28.73 2.87 28.73 28.73 2.20 21.95 21.95
2 1.46 14.63 43.36 1.46 14.63 43.36 2.07 20.70 42.64
3 1.35 13.50 56.86 1.35 13.50 56.86 1.42 14.22 56.86
4 0.96 9.58 66.44
5 0.78 7.75 74.19
6 0.72 7.23 81.42
7 0.55 5.47 86.89
8 0.50 4.96 91.84
9 0.47 4.66 96.50
10 0.35 3.50 100.00
Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin measure of sampling adequacy 0.71
Bartlett's test of sphericity Approximate chi‐square 240.38
df a 45
Significance P < 0.01
Open in a new tab

Note: Extraction method used was principal component analysis. The data in this table were reported to two decimal places to ensure that the cumulative % of variance accurately reflected the sum of the total % of variance at 100%.

As shown in Table S4, three components were generated with eigenvalues exceeding 1 (eigenvalues = 2.87, 1.46, and 1.35), accounting for 57% of variance of research engagement. Three personality and character traits (organisation, social self‐esteem, and perseverance), which loaded on component one with loadings ≥0.64, accounted for 22% of total variance. Another three personality and character traits that correlated to the intrinsic values (creativity, curiosity, and love of learning) loaded on component two with loadings ≥0.64, with 21% of total variance explained. In addition, two personality and character traits that correlated to utility values (perfectionism and critical thinking) loaded on component three with loadings ≥0.61, with 14% of total variance explained.

4. DISCUSSION

This study aimed to explore occupational therapy researchers' and non‐researchers' personality and character traits and examine whether certain traits were associated with engagement in research. No statistical difference was found for personality and character traits related to utility and attainment values. However, occupational therapy researchers were found to have higher levels of intrinsic values consisting of three distinct traits when compared to non‐researchers: (1) love of learning, (2) curiosity, and (3) creativity, which were significantly correlated with increased levels of research engagement.

Our findings are in line with previous studies (Bahrami & Hosseini, 2023; Boyd et al., 2019), which have demonstrated a link between intrinsic values, that is, higher curiosity levels and increased research engagement, with one study including occupational therapists (Harvey et al., 2016). An individual's research engagement has been shown to be greater when intrinsic motivation is linked with personal interest and curiosity (Katoh et al., 2021; Zhou et al., 2022). Zhou et al. (2022) completed a qualitative study using semi‐structured interviews (n = 32) in China with research academics working in tourism and hospitality. They also reported intrinsic motivators for research engagement consisted of curiosity, creativity, and enjoyment of problem‐solving (Zhou et al., 2022).

Feng et al.'s (2024) research on personality traits highlighted the significant role of openness to experience in enhancing research performance, aligning with our observations on the impact of intrinsic curiosity and creativity on research engagement. Feng et al. (2024) investigated how researchers' personalities influence their research performance within a public university in China (n = 189), focusing on the Big Five personality traits (openness to experience, conscientiousness, extraversion, agreeableness, and neuroticism). While the study did not specify the professional backgrounds of the faculty participants, the findings revealed correlations between certain personality traits and research performance (Feng et al., 2024). Specifically, conscientiousness, characterised by diligence and reliability, and openness to experience, which reflects curiosity and creativity, were positively correlated with higher research performance. In contrast, traits associated with neuroticism, such as emotional instability, and certain social attributes, like excessive agreeableness, showed a negative correlation. These results align with our findings, further emphasising the role of openness to experience in fostering research engagement, as it reflects an individual's intrinsic curiosity and creative problem‐solving abilities. Understanding these personality‐performance linkages is crucial for developing strategies to support research engagement in clinicians.

In our study, personality and character traits related to utility and attainment values were not statistically different between researchers and non‐researchers. In contrast, previous literature using semi‐structured interviews has identified enabling factors for research engagement related to attainment value including enhancing career status, increasing job satisfaction, and addressing problems in clinical practice (Harper et al., 2022; Harvey et al., 2016; Matus, Wenke, Hughes, et al., 2019). These studies involved interviews with clinicians to explore research integration and capacity building, rather than exploring personality and character traits, which might explain the differing results.

More than half of the participants who identified as researchers in this study were employed by Australian universities as opposed to health‐care settings. It is feasible to suggest that these individuals were drawn to pursue work opportunities in academic settings due to limited positions and career pathways in clinical settings (Harper et al., 2022; Parsons et al., 2024; Trusson et al., 2019). One study reported that allied health professionals wanting to pursue research felt health services undervalued research, and those engaged in dual roles had difficulties balancing both research and clinical duties and were therefore compelled to choose between a clinical career or divert to a research career in a university setting (Brandenburg & Ward, 2022). Approximately 20% of our participants were from private settings. Previous research has highlighted that allied health professionals in private health‐care organisations perceive less than adequate levels of support compared to their public counterparts (Rathi et al., 2023).

Levels of research experience varied between groups in this study. Almost half of the non‐researchers (47%) identified as novice researchers and 46% of this group reported having no experience. There are several possible explanations for these results. A lack of exposure to research may contribute to a lack of confidence and motivation to undertake research activities (Di Bona et al., 2017; Graham et al., 2013). Individuals may be less likely to participate in activities that they have little confidence in or are not motivated by Zhao et al. (2021). Additionally, participants self‐reported their research participation. Although, the survey included definitions and examples to support accurate data collection of research engagement, research activity and research skills can be under‐recognised by clinicians. Clinicians can underestimate their contributions to research by failing to recognise the levels of research participation, low confidence can reduce perceptions of engagement and perceived low value can impact on reporting (de Groot et al., 2021; National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC), 2021).

More than three‐quarters of non‐researchers in this study had engaged in a foundational level of research, though they had not progressed towards a more advanced level of research engagement (i.e., participation and leadership levels). These results suggest that non‐researchers have acquired the knowledge and skills to undertake a basic level of research. These results align with previous studies that found occupational therapists felt more confident engaging in foundational research activities such as finding and critically appraising literature (Alison et al., 2017; Pighills et al., 2013). However, they felt intimidated to pursue more advanced levels of research, namely, writing for publication in peer‐reviewed journals, submitting ethics and grant applications, and securing funding (Alison et al., 2017). One study considered that occupational therapy is a research emergent discipline and found it unsurprising that clinicians had minimal experience and lacked the skills to undertake research (Pighills et al., 2013). This continues to highlight the need for workplaces and professional organisations to support the integration of research into everyday occupational therapy practice supporting skill and capacity building.

4.1. Implications and future research

In the UK ambitions have been expressed to increase research capacity significantly by 2030 from the current 0.1% of allied health professionals engaged in clinical research to 1% for allied health professionals employed in clinical academic posts (Karimakwenda, 2023). The findings of this study affirm that there is a difference in personality and character traits between occupational therapy researchers and non‐researchers. This suggests that an individual's traits play a role in facilitating research engagement and further emphasises the need to explore other personality traits that could potentially impact research engagement. The study findings could support better development of tailored, individualised strategies to improve research capacity and capability, for example, assessment of a clinician's personality and character traits to better understand their own values and motivation for research with strategies and research activities selected to align with individual strengths and interests. Additionally, it could support longer term motivation and enthusiasm for research engagement. Further research could develop and add personality‐informed strategies to the Research Capacity Building toolkit (Matus, Wenke, & Mickan, 2019) and test the validity and effectiveness of the strategies to improve research capacity and culture at an individual level.

4.2. Strengths and limitations

This was the first known study in Australia that investigated occupational therapy researchers' and non‐researchers' personalities and character traits. The recruitment was open to all Ahpra‐registered occupational therapists in Australia; however, only participants who had access to the Internet and those who had connections with the organisations that the research team approached during the recruitment completed the survey. There was a higher proportion of occupational therapy non‐researchers (n = 78, 62%) than researchers (n = 47, 38%) who participated in this study. However, this is likely reflective of the current work roles in the profession. Workforce analysis from Ahpra (2020) reported that 78.4% of registered occupational therapists in Australia (89.1% of employed occupational therapists) defined their principal role as a clinician. The study sample did not represent all areas of practice scope as most of the participants were from ABI and gerontology, which minimises the overall generalisability of the findings and potentially introduces voluntary response biases. Self‐reported bias was evident as respondents' self‐reported level of research engagement did not reflect their research experience. Participants could classify their research engagement status based on their interpretation and perception of what a researcher is. However, definitions were provided in the survey tool, and this was reviewed by the researchers to ensure correct group allocation.

Peer‐observation report has been developed to manage self‐reported and social desirability biases in personality assessment tools (Henry et al., 2022); however, it was not feasible to incorporate them into a big sample size within study time frames, and therefore, a survey design was selected as the most efficient way to collect data from various occupational therapists across Australia. To reduce self‐report biases, we applied reversed‐scoring personality questions to detect and potentially screen out samples that demonstrated inconsistent responses (Ashton & Lee, 2009). Only 10 personality traits were explored in this study. A more comprehensive exploration of other personality traits is required to determine if personality or character traits influence someone becoming an occupational therapy researcher.

Factor analysis revealed that 57% of the total variance in research engagement was explained using the modified HEXACO‐PI‐R‐60 and VIA‐IS‐72 tools, exceeding the 50% threshold considered acceptable in health sciences research (Beavers et al., 2019). This suggests that the modified tools effectively captured key personality traits and character strengths influencing research engagement. Additionally, our modified assessment tools yielded similar psychometric properties and factor matrixes to the two original personality assessment tools (HEXACO‐PI‐R‐60 and VIA‐IS‐72) (Lee & Ashton, 2004; McGrath et al., 2018). These findings highlight the validity of the modifications.

This study explored the impact of personality and character traits on research engagement. Occupational therapy researchers had higher levels of love of learning, curiosity, and creativity. There is a need for future research exploring how targeted capacity building strategies can cultivate occupational therapists' intrinsic motivation for research. This research supports a better understanding of the impact of personality and character traits at an individual level and could support the tailoring of individualised strategies for clinician research engagement.

AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS

All authors made substantial contributions to the design and completion of the research. All authors were involved drafting the manuscript and revising it critically for intellectual content. All authors are in agreement with all aspects of the work.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST STATEMENT

The authors have no conflict of interest to declare.

Supporting information

Table S1: Most common practice areas that occupational therapy researchers and non‐researchers work in.

Table S2: Research Experience, Involvement, and Research Organisation Affiliations.

Table S3a: Correlation Between Personality and Character Traits and Research Engagement (Curiosity).

Table S3b: Correlation Between Personality and Character Traits and Research Engagement (Creativity).

Table S3c: Correlation Between Personality and Character Traits and Research Engagement (Love of Learning).

Table S4: Factor Loadings for the Rotated Three Factors for the 10 Personality and Character Traits on Research Engagement.

AOT-72-0-s001.docx (623.7KB, docx)

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Thank you to the therapists who supported the survey development and to all the participants for their valuable contributions to this research.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Open access publishing facilitated by Curtin University, as part of the Wiley ‐ Curtin University agreement via the Council of Australian University Librarians.

Leong, C. , Harper, K. J. , Han, S. S. , Osborne, L. , Alcock, G. , & Taylor, S. L. (2025). Differences in personality and character traits of occupational therapy researchers and non‐researchers: A cross‐sectional study. Australian Occupational Therapy Journal, 72(2), e70015. 10.1111/1440-1630.70015

Funding information This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not‐for‐profit sectors.

DATA AVAILABILITY STATEMENT

The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

REFERENCES

  1. Alison, J. A. , Zafiropoulos, B. , & Heard, R. (2017). Key factors influencing allied health research capacity in a large Australian metropolitan health district. Journal of Multidisciplinary Healthcare, 10, 277–291. 10.2147/JMDH.S142009 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Aluri, J. T. , & Li, K. C. (2022). Personality and character: A comparative qualitative analysis of trait descriptions in NEO‐PI‐3 and character strengths and virtues. Journal of Happiness Studies, 23(6), 3055–3094. 10.1007/s10902-022-00535-0 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  3. Ashton, M. C. , & Lee, K. (2009). The HEXACO–60: A short measure of the major dimensions of personality. Journal of Personality Assessment, 91(4), 340–345. 10.1080/00223890902935878 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency (Ahpra) . (2020). Occupational therapy workforce analysis. https://www.ahpra.gov.au/documents/default.aspx?record=WD22%2F32051&dbid=AP&chksum=TovMabwMPTQyRCxyuLuztA%3D%3D
  5. Bahrami, V. , & Hosseini, M. (2023). Individual differences in teacher research involvement? Factoring in language teachers' big five personality traits and motivation to conduct research. Journal of Teacher Education, 74(1), 85–100. 10.1177/00224871221105799 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  6. Bartlett, M. S. (1950). Tests of significance in factor analysis. British Journal of Psychology, 3, 77–85. 10.1111/j.2044-8317.1950.tb00285.x [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  7. Beavers, A. S. , Lounsbury, J. W. , Richards, J. K. , Huck, S. W. , Skolits, G. J. , & Esquivel, S. L. (2019). Practical considerations for using exploratory factor analysis in educational research. Practical Assessment, Research, and Evaluation, 18(1), 6. 10.7275/qv2q-rk76 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  8. Boyd, M. , Gall, S. B. , Rothpletz‐Puglia, P. , Parrott, J. S. , King, C. , & Byham‐Gray, L. (2019). Characteristics and drivers of the registered dietitian nutritionist's sustained involvement in clinical research activities: A mixed methods study. Journal of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics, 119(12), 2099–2108. 10.1016/j.jand.2019.03.018 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Brandenburg, C. , & Ward, E. C. (2022). “There hasn't been a career structure to step into”: A qualitative study on perceptions of allied health clinician researcher careers. Health Research Policy and Systems, 20, 1–17. 10.1186/s12961-021-00801-2 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Cordrey, T. , King, E. , Pilkington, E. , Gore, K. , & Gustafson, O. (2022). Exploring research capacity and culture of allied health professionals: A mixed methods evaluation. BMC Health Services Research, 22(1), 85. 10.1186/s12913-022-07480-x [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Crombie, A. , Borkowski, D. , Gardner, M. , Masman, K. , & Howlett, O. (2021). Understanding the research capacity and culture of a regional allied health workforce. Australian Journal of Primary Health, 27(5), 397–403. 10.1071/PY20260 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. D'Arrietta, L. M. , Vangaveti, V. N. , Crowe, M. J. , & Malau‐Aduli, B. S. (2022). Rethinking health professionals' motivation to do research: A systematic review. Journal of Multidisciplinary Healthcare, 15, 185–216. 10.2147/JMDH.S337172 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. de Groot, E. , Baggen, Y. , Moolenaar, N. , Stevens, D. , van Tartwijk, J. , Damoiseaux, R. , & Kluijtmans, M. (2021). Clinician scientists in and between research and practice: How social identity shapes brokerage. Minerva, 59(1), 123–137. 10.1007/s11024-020-09420-7 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Di Bona, L. , Wenborn, J. , Field, B. , Hynes, S. M. , Ledgerd, R. , Mountain, G. , & Swinson, T. (2017). Enablers and challenges to occupational therapists' research engagement: A qualitative study. British Journal of Occupational Therapy, 80(11), 642–650. 10.1177/0308022617719218 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Dwyer, C. P. , Keane, A. , Casey, D. , Rogers, F. M. , & Hynes, S. M. (2023). A qualitative investigation of influences on occupational therapists' research involvement in Ireland. British Journal of Occupational Therapy, 86(4), 320–330. 10.1177/03080226221136812 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  16. Eccles, J. S. , & Wigfield, A. (2002). Motivational beliefs, values, and goals. Annual Review of Psychology, 53(1), 109–132. 10.1146/annurev.psych.53.100901.135153 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Feng, R. , Xie, Y. , & Wu, J. (2024). How is personality related to research performance? The mediating effect of research engagement. Frontiers in Psychology, 14, 1257166. 10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1257166 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Graham, F. , Robertson, L. , & Anderson, J. (2013). New Zealand occupational therapists' views on evidence‐based practice: A replicated survey of attitudes, confidence and behaviours. Australian Occupational Therapy Journal, 60(2), 120–128. 10.1111/1440-1630.12000 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. Harper, K. J. , Taylor, S. L. , Jepiuh, M. , Mino, P. , Huynh Tran, A. , Tam, W. Y. , & Harris, C. (2022). An observational cohort study to determine the impact of research capacity building strategies implemented in an Australian metropolitan hospital occupational therapy department. Australian Occupational Therapy Journal, 69(2), 190–204. 10.1111/1440-1630.12782 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. Harris, P. A. , Taylor, R. , Minor, B. L. , Elliott, V. , Fernandez, M. , O'Neal, L. , McLeod, L. , Delacqua, G. , Delacqua, F. , & Kirby, J. (2019). The REDCap consortium: Building an international community of software platform partners. Journal of Biomedical Informatics, 95, 103208. 10.1016/j.jbi.2019.103208 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. Harvey, D. , Plummer, D. , Nielsen, I. , Adams, R. , & Pain, T. (2016). Becoming a clinician researcher in allied health. Australian Health Review, 40(5), 562–569. 10.1071/AH15174 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. Henry, S. , Thielmann, I. , Booth, T. , & Mõttus, R. (2022). Test‐retest reliability of the HEXACO‐100—And the value of multiple measurements for assessing reliability. PLoS ONE, 17(1), e0262465. 10.1371/journal.pone.0262465 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  23. Holden, L. , Pager, S. , Golenko, X. , & Ware, R. S. (2012). Validation of the research capacity and culture (RCC) tool: Measuring RCC at individual, team and organisation levels. Australian Journal of Primary Health, 18(1), 62–67. 10.1071/PY10081 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  24. Kaiser, H. F. (1960). The application of electronic computers to factor analysis. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 20(1), 141–151. 10.1177/001316446002000116 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  25. Karimakwenda, B. (2023). Research capacity and culture within allied health professions in the United Kingdom: A scoping review. Research Square. 10.21203/rs.3.rs-3358545/v1 [DOI]
  26. Katoh, S. , Aalbers, R. , & Sengoku, S. (2021). Effects and interactions of researcher's motivation and personality in promoting interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary research. Sustainability, 13(22), 12502. 10.3390/su132212502 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  27. Lee, K. , & Ashton, M. C. (2004). Psychometric properties of the HEXACO personality inventory. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 39(2), 329–358. 10.1207/s15327906mbr3902_8 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  28. Littman‐Ovadia, H. , Dubreuil, P. , Meyers, M. C. , & Freidlin, P. (2021). VIA character strengths: Theory, research and practice. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 653941. 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.653941 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  29. Matus, J. , Walker, A. , & Mickan, S. (2018). Research capacity building frameworks for allied health professionals: A systematic review. BMC Health Services Research, 18, 1–11. 10.1186/s12913-018-3518-7 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  30. Matus, J. , Wenke, R. , Hughes, I. , & Mickan, S. (2019). Evaluation of the research capacity and culture of allied health professionals in a large regional public health service. Journal of Multidisciplinary Healthcare, 12, 83–96. 10.2147/JMDH.S178696 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  31. Matus, J. , Wenke, R. , & Mickan, S. (2019). A practical toolkit of strategies for building research capacity in allied health. Asia Pacific Journal of Health Management, 14(2), 5–18. 10.24083/apjhm.v14i2.261 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  32. McGrath, R. E. , Greenberg, M. J. , & Hall‐Simmonds, A. (2018). Scarecrow, tin woodsman, and cowardly lion: The three‐factor model of virtue. Journal of Positive Psychology, 13(4), 373–392. 10.1080/17439760.2017.1326518 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  33. McGrath, R. E. , Hall‐Simmonds, A. , & Goldberg, L. R. (2020). Are measures of character and personality distinct? Evidence from observed‐score and true‐score analyses. Assessment, 27(1), 117–135. 10.1177/10731911177380 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  34. National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) . (2021). Investigating clinician researcher career pathways project: Telephone interviews summary report. https://www.nhmrc.gov.au/about-us/publications/investigating-clinician-researcher-career-pathways
  35. Parsons, D. , Ross, R. , Glasgow, C. , Robinson, L. , McCarron, L. , & O'Brien, L. (2024). Research capacity and culture among hand therapists in Australia: A cross‐sectional survey. Journal of Hand Therapy, 37, 662–669. 10.1016/j.jht.2023.12.004 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  36. Peterson, C. , & Seligman, M. E. (2004). Character strengths and virtues: A handbook and classification (Vol. 1). Oxford University Press. [Google Scholar]
  37. Pighills, A. C. , Plummer, D. , Harvey, D. , & Pain, T. (2013). Positioning occupational therapy as a discipline on the research continuum: Results of a cross‐sectional survey of research experience. Australian Occupational Therapy Journal, 60(4), 241–251. 10.1111/1440-1630.12057 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  38. Rathi, S. , Resuggan, R. , & Parsons, D. (2023). Assessing the research capacity and culture of allied health workforce in a national private healthcare organisation. Australian Health Review, 47(4), 509–517. 10.1071/AH23058 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  39. Sleep, C. E. , Lynam, D. R. , & Miller, J. D. (2021). A comparison of the validity of very brief measures of the big five/five‐factor model of personality. Assessment, 28(3), 739–758. 10.1177/1073191120939160 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  40. Trusson, D. , Rowley, E. , & Bramley, L. (2019). A mixed‐methods study of challenges and benefits of clinical academic careers for nurses, midwives and allied health professionals. BMJ Open, 9(10), e030595. 10.1136/bmjopen-2019-030595 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  41. Wenke, R. , Noble, C. , Weir, K. A. , & Mickan, S. (2020). What influences allied health clinician participation in research in the public hospital setting: A qualitative theory‐informed approach. BMJ Open, 10(8), e036183. 10.1136/bmjopen-2019-036183 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  42. Zhao, Y. , Zheng, Z. , Pan, C. , & Zhou, L. (2021). Self‐esteem and academic engagement among adolescents: A moderated mediation model. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 690828. 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.690828 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  43. Zhou, T. , Law, R. , & Lee, P. C. (2022). “What motivates me?” motivation to conduct research of academics in teaching‐oriented universities in China. Journal of Hospitality, Leisure, Sport & Tourism Education, 31, 100392. 10.1016/j.jhlste.2022.100392 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Supplementary Materials

Table S1: Most common practice areas that occupational therapy researchers and non‐researchers work in.

Table S2: Research Experience, Involvement, and Research Organisation Affiliations.

Table S3a: Correlation Between Personality and Character Traits and Research Engagement (Curiosity).

Table S3b: Correlation Between Personality and Character Traits and Research Engagement (Creativity).

Table S3c: Correlation Between Personality and Character Traits and Research Engagement (Love of Learning).

Table S4: Factor Loadings for the Rotated Three Factors for the 10 Personality and Character Traits on Research Engagement.

AOT-72-0-s001.docx (623.7KB, docx)

Data Availability Statement

The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

Articles from Australian Occupational Therapy Journal are provided here courtesy of Wiley

RESOURCES