TABLE B-1
Studies of Relationship with College | Studies Assessing the Competency | Constructs Assessed in These Studies | Assessment Instruments | Studies Reporting Reliability (for 1 or more instruments) |
---|---|---|---|---|
Behaviors Related to Conscientiousness | ||||
7 | 15 | Self-regulated learning/effort Motivation Intended learning behaviors | 19 (13 self-report, selected response [SRSR]) | Reliability: 5 (range 0.67-0.98) |
Duckworth et al. (2016) | Self-regulated learning/effort |
|
||
Fitch et al. (2012) | Self-regulated learning |
|
||
Haynes et al. (2008) | Motivation |
|
✔ |
Landau et al. (2014, Study 1) | Intended learning behaviors |
|
||
Landau et al. (2014, Study 2) | Self-regulation |
|
||
Landau et al. (2014, Study 3) | Intended academic behaviors |
|
||
Liu et al. (2012) | Motivation |
|
✔ | |
Morisano et al. (2010) | Motivation |
|
Studies of Relationship with College | Studies Assessing the Competency | Constructs Assessed in These Studies | Assessment Instruments | Studies Reporting Reliability (for 1 or more instruments) |
---|---|---|---|---|
Schecter et al. (2011, Study 1) | Self-regulation |
|
||
Senko and Harackiewicz (2005) | Motivation |
|
✔ | |
Struthers and Perry (1996) | Motivation |
|
✔ | |
Vansteenkiste et al. (2004a, Study 1) | Self-regulation |
|
✔ | |
Walton et al. (2012) | Motivation-related behaviors in math |
|
Yeager et al. (2014, Study 3) | Self-regulation |
|
||
Yeager et al. (2014, Study 4) | Self-regulation |
|
||
Academic Self-Efficacy | ||||
2 | 2 | 8 (7 SRSR) | Reliability: 2 (range 0.76-0.95) | |
Betz and Schifano (2000) | Self-efficacy in “realistic” activities (e.g., using tools) |
|
✔ |
Studies of Relationship with College | Studies Assessing the Competency | Constructs Assessed in These Studies | Assessment Instruments | Studies Reporting Reliability (for 1 or more instruments) |
---|---|---|---|---|
Luzzo et al. (1999) | Math/science self-efficacy |
|
✔ | |
Growth Mindset | ||||
17 | 12 | Malleability beliefs Academic expectations Attributions Perceived performance | 20 (20 SRSR) | Reliability: 2 (range 0.63-0.88) |
Aronson et al. (2002) | Malleability beliefs |
|
|
||||
Boese et al. (2013) | Academic expectations Attributions |
|
||
Cohen et al. (1999) | Malleability beliefs |
|
||
Hall et al. (2004) | Attributions; perceived performance |
|
✔ | |
Hall et al. (2006) | Academic expectations attributions |
|
✔ |
Studies of Relationship with College | Studies Assessing the Competency | Constructs Assessed in These Studies | Assessment Instruments | Studies Reporting Reliability (for 1 or more instruments) |
---|---|---|---|---|
Hamm et al. (2014) | Attributions and related emotions |
|
||
Menec et al. (1994, Study 1) | Expectations |
|
||
Menec et al. (1994, Study 2) | Attributions Expectations |
|
||
Perry and Magnusson (1989) | Perceived performance |
|
Perry et al. (2010) | Attributions Attribution-related emotions |
|
||
Ruthig et al. (2004) | Perceived performance |
|
||
Wilson and Linville (1982) | Perceived performance Expectations |
|
||
Intrinsic Goals/Interest | ||||
3 | 2 | Intrinsic motivation/interest | Reliability: 1 (range 0.72) | |
Hamm et al. (2014) | Intrinsic motivation |
|
✔ | |
Vansteenkiste et al. (2004a, Study 1) | Intrinsic motivation Intrinsic interest |
|
Studies of Relationship with College | Studies Assessing the Competency | Constructs Assessed in These Studies | Assessment Instruments | Studies Reporting Reliability (for 1 or more instruments) |
---|---|---|---|---|
Positive Future Self | ||||
5 | 3 | Domain identification Identity processes Possible future self | 5 (5 SRSR) | Reliability: 3 (range 0.60-0.92) |
Harrison et al. (2006) | Domain identification |
|
||
Schwartz et al. (2005) | Self-constructive identity processes |
|
||
Self-discovery identity processes |
|
best alternative, (e) list pros and cons of the worst alternative, and (f) identify the alternative they would select) (SRSR) |
||||
Self-actualization |
|
|||
Walton and Cohen (2007, Study 2) | Possible future self |
|
✔ | |
Prosocial Goals/Values | ||||
2 | 0* | 0 | ||
Sense of Belonging | ||||
8 | 8 | Collective threat Sense of belonging/academic fit Social integration | 25 (21 SRSR) | Reliability: 6 (range 0.63-0.93) |
Brady et al. (2016) | Sense of belonging |
|
✔ |
Studies of Relationship with College | Studies Assessing the Competency | Constructs Assessed in These Studies | Assessment Instruments | Studies Reporting Reliability (for 1 or more instruments) |
---|---|---|---|---|
Cohen and Garcia (2005) | Collective threat (opposite end of spectrum from sense of belonging) |
|
✔ |
Hausmann et al. (2009) | Sense of belonging/academic fit |
|
✔ | |
Stephens et al. (2014) | Social/academic integration |
|
✔ | |
Collective threat |
|
Studies of Relationship with College | Studies Assessing the Competency | Constructs Assessed in These Studies | Assessment Instruments | Studies Reporting Reliability (for 1 or more instruments) |
---|---|---|---|---|
Walton and Cohen (2007, Study 2) | Sense of belonging/academic fit |
|
✔ |
Walton and Cohen (2011) | Collective threat |
|
||
Sense of belonging/academic fit |
|
|||
Walton et al. (2012, Study 1) | Sense of belonging in math |
|
✔ |
Studies of Relationship with College | Studies Assessing the Competency | Constructs Assessed in These Studies | Assessment Instruments | Studies Reporting Reliability (for 1 or more instruments) |
---|---|---|---|---|
Walton et al. (2015) | Sense of belonging among women in engineering |
|
Utility Goals/Values | ||||
15 | 4 | Utility value Situational interest | 7 (7 SRSR) | Reliability: 3 (range 0.78-0.93) |
Durik et al. (2015, Study 1) | Situational interest |
|
✔ | |
Hulleman et al. (2010, Study 1) | Utility value Situational interest |
|
✔ | |
Hulleman et al. (2010, Study 2) | Utility value Situational interest |
|
✔ |
Studies of Relationship with College | Studies Assessing the Competency | Constructs Assessed in These Studies | Assessment Instruments | Studies Reporting Reliability (for 1 or more instruments) |
---|---|---|---|---|
Schechter et al. (2011) | Utility value Situational interest |
|
NOTES: Instruments shown in quotations are existing instruments developed by a prior author(s). SRSR = self-report, selected response format. No studies reported evidence of fairness analysis. Only one study reports evidence of validity (Cohen and Garcia, 2005).
✔ = study reports reliability.
* Although none of the 61 studies meeting the committee’s criteria assessed prosocial goals/values, Yeager and colleagues (2014) includes a study (Study 1) that assessed this competency using an instrument with SRSR format including three items on self-transcendent motives for attending college (α = 0.75), three items on intrinsic-oriented motives (α = 0.70), and three items on self-oriented motives (α = 0.50).
Table B-2 Format Totals from Table B-1
TABLE B-1 Format Totals from Table B-1
Competency | Instruments | SRSR | Other Formats |
---|---|---|---|
Behaviors related to conscientiousness | 19 | 13 |
|
Academic Self-efficacy | 8 | 7 |
|
Growth Mindset | 20 | 20 | |
Intrinsic Goals/Interest | 3 | 2 |
|
Positive Future Self | 5 | 4 |
|
Prosocial Goals/Values | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Sense of Belonging | 25 | 21 |
|
Utility Value | 7 | 7 | |
Totals | 87 | 74 | 13 |
This page intentionally left blank.