Assessment 1 – Evaluating Scientific Merit
Due in 24 hours.
RESEARCH MATRIX
Overview
This week, you were introduced to literature mapping as part of the preparation for a literature review. As you collect articles, the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP) Tool [PDF] can be used to evaluate their scientific merit.
This assignment consists of a research matrix. This matrix includes research concepts that can be found and connected to preselected published scholarly research.Five research articles related to the topic of first-generation college students and resilience at a four-year university have been chosen for you. Some of the content areas have been filled in; you will need to complete the rest.
Assignment Instructions
Fill out this providedResearch Matrix [DOCX] withresearch concepts that can be found and connected to these five articles related to the topic of first-generation college students and resilience at a four-year university. The first article has been completed for you as an example.
Garriott, P. O., Hudyma, A., Keene, C., & Santiago, D. (2015).Social cognitive predictors of first and non-first-generation college students academic and life satisfaction.Journal of Counseling Psychology,62(2), 253263.
Johnson, S. R., & Stage, F. K. (2018).Academic engagement and student success: Do high-impact practices mean higher graduation rates? Journal of Higher Education,89(5), 753-781.
Olive, T. (2014).Desire for higher education in first-generation Hispanic college students enrolled in a graduate counseling program.Journal of Phenomenological Psychology,45(1), 7291.
Schelbe, L., Swanbrow Becker, M., Spinelli, C., & McCray, D. (2019).First generation college students perceptions of an academic retention program.Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning,19(5), 6176.
Smith, K. J., Emerson, D. J., Haight, T. D., Mauldin, S., & Wood, B. G. (2019).An examination of the psychometric properties of the Connor-Davidson resilience scale – 10 (CD-RISC10) among accounting and business students.Journal of Accounting Education, 47, 4862.
Additional Requirements
Refer to the assignment scoring guide to make sure you meet the requirements of this assessment.
Competencies Measured
By successfully completing this assignment, you will demonstrate your proficiency in the following course competencies and assignment criteria:
Competency 1:Analyze the methodology used in scientific research.
Identify the study sample in the chosen research.
Identify the methodology used in the chosen research.
Competency 2:Evaluate the characteristics, purposes, benefits, strengths, and weaknesses of research methods.
Identify the main themes in the chosen research.
Identify the research question or questions in the chosen research.
Describe the theoretical framework of the chosen research study.
Describe the findings in the chosen research.
Competency 3: Evaluate ethical issues in research studies.
Describe the ethical considerations in the chosen research.
Competency 6: Communicate in a manner that is scholarly, professional, and consistent with the expectations for members in the identified field of study.
Communicate in a manner that is scholarly, professional, and consistent with the expectations for members of an identified field of study, using APA style and formatting.
7860 Week 2 Assignment
Research Matrix
Please note that the first row of data is meant as an example.
Source
Main Themes
Research Question
Theoretical Framework
Sample Population
Methodology
Findings
Ethics
Garriott, P. O., Hudyma, A., Keene, C., & Santiago, D. (2015). Social cognitive predictors of first and non-first-generation college students academic and life satisfaction. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 62(2), 253-263. doi: https://doi.org/10.1037/cou0000066
Academic Progress, academic satisfaction, college outcome expectations, college life efficacy, environmental supports, life satisfaction, positive affect
What are the predictors of
students academic and life satisfaction?
Lents model of normative well-being
N=414
Students from 2
4-year universities
Quantitative Quasi-Experimental
Multiple
Measures
Results suggested the hypothesized model provided an adequate fit to the data while hypothesized relationships in the model were partially supported. Environmental supports predicted college self-efficacy, college outcome expectations, and academic satisfaction. Furthermore, college self-efficacy predicted academic progress while college outcome expectations predicted academic satisfaction. Academic satisfaction, but not academic progress predicted life satisfaction
Ethical considerations or challenges were not addressed in this study
1
2 CASP Checklist: 10 questions to help you make sense of a Systematic Review
How to use this appraisal tool: Three broad issues need to be considered when appraising a
systematic review study:
Are the results of the study valid? (Section A)
What are the results? (Section B)
Will the results help locally? (Section C)
The 10 questions on the following pages are designed to help you think about these issues
systematically. The first two questions are screening questions and can be answered quickly.
If the answer to both is yes, it is worth proceeding with the remaining questions. There is
some degree of overlap between the questions, you are asked to record a yes, no or
cant tell to most of the questions. A number of italicised prompts are given after each
question. These are designed to remind you why the question is important. Record your
reasons for your answers in the spaces provided.
About: These checklists were designed to be used as educational pedagogic tools, as part of a
workshop setting, therefore we do not suggest a scoring system. The core CASP checklists
(randomised controlled trial & systematic review) were based on JAMA ‘Users guides to the
medical literature 1994 (adapted from Guyatt GH, Sackett DL, and Cook DJ), and piloted with
health care practitioners.
For each new checklist, a group of experts were assembled to develop and pilot the checklist
and the workshop format with which it would be used. Over the years overall adjustments
have been made to the format, but a recent survey of checklist users reiterated that the basic
format continues to be useful and appropriate.
Referencing: we recommend using the Harvard style citation, i.e.: Critical Appraisal Skills
Programme (2018). CASP (insert name of checklist i.e. Systematic Review) Checklist. [online]
Available at: URL. Accessed: Date Accessed.
CASP this work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial-
Share A like. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-
sa/3.0/ www.casp-uk.net
Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP) part of Oxford Centre for Triple Value Healthcare Ltd www.casp-uk.net
2
Section A: Are the results of the review valid?
1. Did the review address a
clearly focused question?
Yes HINT: An issue can be focused In terms of
the population studied
the intervention given
the outcome considered
Cant Tell
No
Comments:
2. Did the authors look for the
right type of papers?
Yes HINT: The best sort of studies would
address the reviews question
have an appropriate study design
(usually RCTs for papers evaluating
interventions)
Cant Tell
No
Comments:
Is it worth continuing?
3. Do you think all the
important, relevant studies
were included?
Yes HINT: Look for
which bibliographic databases were
used
follow up from reference lists
personal contact with experts
unpublished as well as published studies
non-English language studies
Cant Tell
No
Comments:
Paper for appraisal and reference:……………………………………………………………………………………………
3
4. Did the reviews authors do
enough to assess quality of
the included studies?
Yes HINT: The authors need to consider the
rigour of the studies they have identified.
Lack of rigour may affect the studies
results (All that glisters is not gold
Merchant of Venice Act II Scene 7)
Cant Tell
No
Comments:
5. If the results of the review
have been combined, was it
reasonable to do so?
Yes HINT: Consider whether
results were similar from study to study
results of all the included studies are
clearly displayed
results of different studies are similar
reasons for any variations in results are
discussed
Cant Tell
No
Comments:
Section B: What are the results?
6. What are the overall results of the review? HINT: Consider
If you are clear about the reviews
bottom line results
what these are (numerically if
appropriate)
how were the results expressed (NNT,
odds ratio etc.)
Comments:
4
7. How precise are the results?
HINT: Look at the confidence intervals, if
given
Comments:
Section C: Will the results help locally?
8. Can the results be applied to
the local population?
Yes
HINT: Consider whether
the patients covered by the review
could be sufficiently different to your
population to cause concern
your local setting is likely to differ much
from that of the review
Cant Tell
No
Comments:
9. Were all important outcomes
considered?
Yes
HINT: Consider whether
there is other information you would
like to have seen Cant Tell
No
Comments:
10. Are the benefits worth the
harms and costs?
Yes
HINT: Consider
even if this is not addressed by the
review, what do you think? Cant Tell
No
Comments: Social Cognitive Predictors of First- and Non-First-Generation College
Students Academic and Life Satisfaction
Patton O. Garriott, Aaron Hudyma, Chesleigh Keene, and Dana Santiago
University of Denver
The present study tested Lents (2004) social cognitive model of normative well-being in a sample (N
414) of first- and non-first-generation college students. A model depicting relationships between: positive
affect, environmental supports, college self-efficacy, college outcome expectations, academic progress,
academic satisfaction, and life satisfaction was examined using structural equation modeling. The
moderating roles of perceived importance of attending college and intrinsic goal motivation were also
explored. Results suggested the hypothesized model provided an adequate fit to the data while hypoth-
esized relationships in the model were partially supported. Environmental supports predicted college
self-efficacy, college outcome expectations, and academic satisfaction. Furthermore, college self-efficacy
predicted academic progress while college outcome expectations predicted academic satisfaction. Aca-
demic satisfaction, but not academic progress predicted life satisfaction. The structural model explained
44% of the variance in academic progress, 56% of the variance in academic satisfaction, and 28% of the
variance in life satisfaction. Mediation analyses indicated several significant indirect effects between
variables in the model while moderation analyses revealed a 3-way interaction between academic
satisfaction, intrinsic motivation for attending college, and first-generation college student status on life
satisfaction. Results are discussed in terms of applying the normative model of well-being to promote
first- and non-first-generation college students academic and life satisfaction.
Keywords: academic satisfaction, life satisfaction, well-being, first-generation college students, college
adjustment
Supplemental materials: http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/cou0000066.supp
Despite rising university costs and recent debates regarding the
value of higher education, obtaining a bachelors degree remains
one of the most critical pathways to economic and social mobility
in the United States (U.S.). A recent national study showed that
among the so-called Millennial generation, college graduates
provided higher ratings than their non-college-going peers on
multiple indicators of economic and job satisfaction (Pew Re-
search Center, 2014). Furthermore, engaging learning experiences
and environmental supports have been shown to predict higher
subjective well-being among college students (Gallup, Inc., 2014).
These data suggest that achieving a bachelors degree is criti-
cally important to economic, job, and life satisfaction and that
positive college experiences are associated with well-being. How-
ever, more research is needed to determine predictors of well-
being among diverse college students, particularly those at higher
risk of not completing postsecondary education. Indeed, due to the
economic and social costs of not achieving a bachelors degree,
universities have seen increases in enrollments of historically
underrepresented students, including first-generation college stu-
dents (Engle & Tinto, 2008; Kena et al., 2014). While research
points to how first-generation students are characteristically dif-
ferent from their peers, few studies have examined predictors of
these students academic and life satisfaction. Such research is
needed given first-generation students unique experiences and
disproportionate nonpersistence rates in higher education (Chen &
Carroll, 2005).
First-Generation College Students Academic
and Life Satisfaction
First-generation college students include those students whose
parents or guardians have not achieved a bachelors degree. This
definition was adopted for the present study, since it is the most
commonly used among admissions officers; parents completing
bachelors degrees are typically able to provide their children with
more social capital related to attending and succeeding in college;
and parents or guardians with bachelors degrees tend to achieve
more prestigious careers compared to those who do not (Davis,
2012). Researchers have estimated that first-generation students
comprise approximately 43% to 50% of students attending post-
secondary institutions (Chen & Carroll, 2005; Choy, 2001; Na-
tional Center for Education Statistics (NCES), 2007; Nuez &
Cuccaro-Alamin, 1998). First-generation college students are be-
coming more visible on campuses and researchers have demon-
strated a vested interest in understanding this unique student group
given distinct challenges they may face.
This article was published Online First March 2, 2015.
Patton O. Garriott, Aaron Hudyma, Chesleigh Keene, and Dana Santi-
ago, Department of School and Counseling Psychology, University of
Denver.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Patton O.
Garriott, Department of School and Counseling Psychology, University of
Denver, 201A Ruffatto Hall, Denver, CO 80208. E-mail: [emailprotected]
T
hi
s
do
cu
m
en
t
is
co
py
ri
gh
te
d
by
th
e
A
m
er
ic
an
P
sy
ch
ol
og
ic
al
A
ss
oc
ia
ti
on
or
on
e
of
it
s
al
li
ed
pu
bl
is
he
rs
.
T
hi
s
ar
ti
cl
e
is
in
te
nd
ed
so
le
ly
fo
r
th
e
pe
rs
on
al
us
e
of
th
e
in
di
vi
du
al
us
er
an
d
is
no
t
to
be
di
ss
em
in
at
ed
br
oa
dl
y.
Journal of Counseling Psychology 2015 American Psychological Association
2015, Vol. 62, No. 2, 253263 0022-0167/15/$12.00 http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/cou0000066
253
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/cou0000066.supp
mailto:[emailprotected]
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/cou0000066
Many first-generation college students experience higher edu-
cation differently than their non-first-generation peers (Davis,
2012). Several studies have identified unique characteristics of
first-generation students that may influence their educational ex-
perience. Specifically, first-generation students tend to be: enrolled
in college part-time, lower-income, less active in extracurricular
activities, and less academically prepared than their peers (Bui,
2002; Nuez & Cuccaro-Alamin, 1998; Terenzini, Springer, Yae-
ger, Pascarella, & Nora, 1996).
Associated challenges facing first-generation college students
include: the struggle of navigating higher education without the aid
of intergenerational information (Pascarella, Piersen, Wolniak, &
Terenzini, 2004), managing feelings of guilt and confusion related
to surpassing the educational attainment of family members and
friends (Lohfink & Paulsen, 2005), ambivalence about college
attendance (Davis, 2012), and cultural challenges (Lohfink &
Paulsen, 2005). For example, many first-generation college stu-
dents transition from communities and families that are directed by
norms of interdependence. First-generation students may experi-
ence a cultural mismatch with the norms of independence that are
prevalent in college environments and thus, may struggle with
college curricula, institutional policies, and teaching practices
(Stephens, Fryberg, Markus, Johnson, & Covarrubias, 2012). The
convergence of these factors, alongside deficits in environmental
(i.e., social capital) and internal resources (i.e., self-efficacy),
influences first-generation students academic and life satisfaction
while attending college. Therefore, environmental supports, both
on and off-campus, have been identified as critical to first-
generation college students success and overall well-being (Davis,
2012).
Theoretical Framework
Existing research indicates that first-generation college stu-
dents unique experiences in higher education may differentiate
them from non-first-generation students. However, few studies
have used existing theoretical frameworks to examine first-
generation students academic and life satisfaction. This is unfor-
tunate, given the need for research that moves beyond descriptive
comparisons of the characteristics of first- and non-first-generation
college students and examines psychological aspects of their ad-
justment (Pascarella et al., 2004). To address these shortcomings in
the literature, this study examined the utility of Lents (2004)
hypothesized model of normative well-being to predict the aca-
demic and life satisfaction of first- and non-first-generation college
students. The model proposes that global life satisfaction is pre-
dicted by individual personality characteristics, social-cognitive
variables, as well as goal pursuit and progress in specific life
domains (Lent, 2004).
Personality variables in the model may include features such as
trait positive and negative affect and are hypothesized to predict
environmental supports and resources, self-efficacy expectations,
domain-specific satisfaction, and overall life satisfaction (see paths
1 through 4 in Figure 1). Environmental supports and resources
include goal-related resources, modeling, and encouragement and
are hypothesized to predict self-efficacy expectations (path 5),
outcome expectations (path 6), and domain-specific satisfaction
(path 7). Environmental supports are also hypothesized to predict
goal-directed progress (path 8). Domain-specific self-efficacy and
outcome expectations are, in turn, hypothesized to predict goal-
directed progress (paths 9 and l0) and domain satisfaction (paths
Positive
Affect
Supports
Self-
Efficacy
Outcome
Expectations
Academic
Progress
Academic
Satisfaction
Life
Satisfaction
.53
.34
.45
.09
.28
.58
.02
.39 .25
.02
.30
.43
.01
.33
.04
.17
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
(9)
(10)
(11)
(12)
(13)
(14)
(15)
(16)
Figure 1. Results of the final structural model. Solid lines represent statistically significant paths (p .001)
in the model. Dashed lines represent nonsignificant (p .05) paths in the model.
T
hi
s
do
cu
m
en
t
is
co
py
ri
gh
te
d
by
th
e
A
m
er
ic
an
P
sy
ch
ol
og
ic
al
A
ss
oc
ia
ti
on
or
on
e
of
it
s
al
li
ed
pu
bl
is
he
rs
.
T
hi
s
ar
ti
cl
e
is
in
te
nd
ed
so
le
ly
fo
r
th
e
pe
rs
on
al
us
e
of
th
e
in
di
vi
du
al
us
er
an
d
is
no
t
to
be
di
ss
em
in
at
ed
br
oa
dl
y.
254 GARRIOTT, HUDYMA, KEENE, AND SANTIAGO
11 and 12). Self-efficacy is also proposed to predict outcome
expectations (path 13). Goal-directed progress is hypothesized to
predict domain-specific (path 14) and overall life satisfaction (path
15) while domain satisfaction is hypothesized to predict life sat-
isfaction (path 16).
Cross-sectional research has supported hypothesized relation-
ships in the model. Specifically, environmental supports, self-
efficacy, and goal progress have been shown to predict domain-
specific satisfaction and domain satisfaction has been shown to
predict life satisfaction. Furthermore, positive affect has been
shown to predict environmental supports, self-efficacy, domain
satisfaction, and life satisfaction (Lent et al., 2005; Lent, Singley,
Sheu, Schmidt, & Schmidt, 2007). Longitudinal research has also
provided support for relationships in the model (Singley, Lent, &
Sheu, 2010). However, support for the relationships between out-
come expectations, domain progress, and domain satisfaction has
been mixed. Some studies have even omitted outcome expecta-
tions from tests of the model given lack of support for its relation-
ship with other variables in past research (Singley et al., 2010).
In addition to research that may help confirm or dispute some of
the inconsistent findings of past studies testing the normative
model of well-being, more research is needed that examines prop-
ositions of the full model with underrepresented and underserved
groups. In studies that have tested the model, none have examined
experiences of first-generation college students. However, it is
possible the model could serve as an adequate representation of
first-generation students academic and life satisfaction, given its
focus on variables noted in prior literature (Davis, 2012) as critical
to their academic adjustment (e.g., self-efficacy, positive outcome
expectations) and well-being (e.g., environmental supports). No-
table exceptions in terms of examination of the model in under-
represented and understudied groups include studies with Mexican
American (Ojeda, Flores, & Navarro, 2011), Portuguese (Lent,
Taveira, Sheu, & Singley, 2009), Taiwanese, and Singaporean
(Sheu, Chong, Chen, & Lin, 2014) college students, each of which
generally provided support for the models hypotheses. Thus, this
study also served as a response to calls in the literature to test the
model in more diverse samples (Sheu & Lent, 2009).
Mediators and Moderators
Lent (2004) also proposed a number of mediation and moder-
ation hypotheses in the normative model of well-being. Hypothe-
sized indirect effects include environmental supports to domain
satisfaction through self-efficacy and outcome expectations, self-
efficacy to goal progress through outcome expectations, and per-
sonality variables to domain and life satisfaction through self-
efficacy and environmental supports. Studies examining these
proposed indirect effects are limited; however, researchers have
found support for the proposed indirect links between positive
affect to domain satisfaction as well as life satisfaction through
self-efficacy (Ojeda et al., 2011; Sheu et al., 2014) and environ-
mental supports to domain satisfaction through self-efficacy and
outcome expectations (Sheu et al., 2014). Given the small number
of studies examining indirect effects in the model, more research
with diverse samples is needed to test these hypotheses.
Lent (2004) also posited that the relationships between domain
progress and satisfaction as well as domain satisfaction and life
satisfaction would be moderated by an individuals perceived
importance of the domain under investigation as well as intrinsic
goals. To date, only one study has tested the hypothesis that
perceived importance may moderate relationships between vari-
ables in the model and no studies have examined the role of
intrinsic goal motivation. Research findings examining the role of
perceived importance have failed to support moderation hypothe-
ses (Lent et al., 2005).
Literature suggests first-generation college students may per-
ceive achieving a bachelors degree as less valuable or important
compared to their peers (Davis, 2012; Higher Education Research
Institute, 2007). Thus, the relationships between academic prog-
ress and academic satisfaction as well as academic progress and
life satisfaction might be stronger at high levels of perceived
importance for non-first-generation college students. Differences
have also been found between first- and non-first-generation col-
lege students related to motivation to attend college and academic
outcomes, with motivation serving as a stronger predictor for
first-generation college students (Prspero & Vohra-Gupta, 2007).
Thus, the relationship between academic progress and satisfaction
might be stronger at high levels of intrinsic motivation for first-
generation students. Researchers have also suggested that attend-
ing, and even succeeding in college, may not always result in
increased life satisfaction for first-generation college students (Da-
vis, 2012). For example, first-generation students may feel discon-
nected or even judged by family and friends as a result of reaching
high educational aspirations (Davis, 2012). Thus, it is possible the
relationship between academic and life satisfaction might be stron-
ger at high levels of motivation for non-first-generation college
students. Based on previous literature and these conceptual links,
three-way interactions with first-generation student status added to
moderation hypotheses in the normative model of well-being were
tested.
Purpose of the Present Study
The purpose of the present study was to extend the literature on
the utility of Lents (2004) normative model of well-being in
predicting the academic and life satisfaction of college students.
This goal was achieved in several ways: (a) the full model was
tested to replicate past findings with previous samples, (b) mod-
eration hypotheses related to perceived importance of attending
college and intrinsic motivation to attend college were tested, (c)
mediation hypotheses were tested to examine proposed indirect
links between variables in the model, and (d) hypotheses were
tested in a sample of first- and non-first-generation college stu-
dents to examine potential differences between these two groups.
Hypotheses included:
Hypothesis 1: The structural model would provide an ade-
quate fit to the data and variables would relate as hypothesized
in the normative model of well-being (Lent, 2004).
Hypothesis 2: Self-efficacy and outcome expectations would
mediate relationships between variables as hypothesized in the
model.
Hypothesis 3a: Perceived importance of college would mod-
erate, and specifically enhance, the relationship between aca-
demic progress and academic satisfaction as well as academic
satisfaction and life satisfaction.
T
hi
s
do
cu
m
en
t
is
co
py
ri
gh
te
d
by
th
e
A
m
er
ic
an
P
sy
ch
ol
og
ic
al
A
ss
oc
ia
ti
on
or
on
e
of
it
s
al
li
ed
pu
bl
is
he
rs
.
T
hi
s
ar
ti
cl
e
is
in
te
nd
ed
so
le
ly
fo
r
th
e
pe
rs
on
al
us
e
of
th
e
in
di
vi
du
al
us
er
an
d
is
no
t
to
be
di
ss
em
in
at
ed
br
oa
dl
y.
255ACADEMIC AND LIFE SATISFACTION
Hypotheses 3b: Intrinsic motivation for attending college
would moderate, and specifically enhance, the relationship
between academic progress and academic satisfaction as well
as academic satisfaction and life satisfaction.
Potential variation in relationships among variables in the model
by first-generation student status was also explored. Given that this
was the first study to test the normative model of well-being in
first- and non-first-generation college students, no specific hypoth-
eses were made regarding differences in the model between these
two groups of students. Similarly, three-way interactions on aca-
demic and life satisfaction were considered exploratory.
Method
Participants and Procedure
Participants were 414 college students recruited from two 4-year
universities in the Rocky Mountain (26.8%, n 111) and Mid-
western (73.2%, n 303) regions of the U.S. Approximately 52%
(n 215) of the sample identified as a first-generation college
student while 48% (n 199) were non-first-generation. In terms
of gender, 77.3% (n 320) of participants identified as female,
21.5% (n 89) identified as male, and 0.5% (n 2) identified as
transgender. Three students (0.7%) did not provide this informa-
tion. By class rank, participants identified as freshman (20.3%,
n 84), sophomore (21.7%, n 90), junior (25.1%, n 104),
and senior (31.4%, n 130). Six participants (1.4%) did not
provide this information. The sample was predominantly White
(80.4%, n 333), with Latina/o (10.2%, n 30), Native Amer-
ican (5.3%, n 22), Multiracial (2.4%, n 10), Asian/Asian
American (1.2%, n 5), and African American (0.7%, n 3)
students also represented in the sample. Eleven (2.7%) students
identified as other. Average self-reported GPA for the sample
was 3.27 (SD .51).
Following institutional review board approval as well as ap-
proval from campus administrators, e-mail invitations to partici-
pate in the study were sent to campus-wide student listservs
accompanied by a link to complete the survey. Surveys took
approximately 1520 minutes to complete and students were able
to enter a raffle for one of 10 $25 gift cards as incentive for
participation.
Measures
Demographic form. Participants completed items regarding
their gender, race/ethnicity, class rank, grade point average (GPA),
and parental education levels. Participants were specifically asked
whether either of their parents had achieved a bachelors degree.
Those participants who responded no to this item were identified
in later analyses as first-generation college students.
Academic goal progress. Perceived academic goal progress
was assessed with a seven-item scale used in prior research (Lent
et al., 2005). Participants were asked to rate their progress on
academic goals using a Likert scale ranging from 1 (no progress at
all) to 5 (excellent progress). A sample item is, Excelling at your
academic major. Scores are averaged with high scores indicative
of high ratings of progress toward academic goals. The scale has
been shown to correlate in expected directions with measures of
college self-efficacy, outcome expectations, environmental sup-
ports, and academic satisfaction (Lent et al., 2005). Coefficient
alphas for scale scores in past studies with college students have
ranged from .84 to .90 (Lent et al., 2005). Coefficient alpha for
scale scores in the present study was .87.
Academic satisfaction. Academic satisfaction was measured
with a seven-item scale used in prior research (Lent et al., 2005).
Participants rated their level of satisfaction with their academic
experience on a Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to
5 (strongly agree). A sample item is, I am generally satisfied with
my academic life. Scores are averaged with high scores indicative
of high academic satisfaction. The scale has been shown to cor-
relate in expected directions with measures of academic and life
satisfaction (Lent et al., 2005). Coefficient alphas for scale scores
in past studies with college students have ranged from .80 to .90
(Lent et al., 2005). Coefficient alpha for scale scores in the present
study was .88.
College outcome expectations. The College Outcome Expec-
tations Questionnaire (Flores, Navarro, & DeWitz, 2008) was used
to assess participants ratings of possible outcomes of attending
college. Nineteen items are rated on a Likert scale ranging from 1
(strongly disagree) to 10 (strongly agree). A sample item is, If I
get a college education, then I will do well in life. Items are
averaged with high scores indicative of positive expectations for
receiving a college education. The scale has been shown to cor-
relate in expected directions with college self-efficacy and inter-
ests (Robitschek & Flores, 2007). Internal consistency estimates
for scale scores have ranged from .90 to .94 (Flores et al., 2008;
Ojeda et al., 2011). Coefficient alpha for scale scores in the present
study was .93.
College self-efficacy. The College Self-Efficacy Inventory
(Solberg, OBrien, Villareal, Kennel, & Davis, 1993) was used to
measure participants confidence in their ability to complete tasks
and demands associated with attending college. Twenty-one items
are rated on a Likert scale ranging from 0 (not at all confident) to
10 (very confident) wi
