Journal of Educational Psychology
2001, Vol. 93, No. 1, 55-64
Copyright 2001 by the American Psychological Association, Inc.
0O22-O663/01/S5.OO DOI: 10.1037//0022-0663.93.1.55
Academic Self-Efficacy and First-Year College Student
Performance and Adjustment
Martin M. Chemers, Li-tze Hu, and Ben F. Garcia
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
University of California, Santa Cruz
A longitudinal study of lst-year university student adjustment examined the effects of academic
self-efficacy and optimism on students' academic performance, stress, health, and commitment to remain
in school. Predictor variables (high school grade-point average, academic self-efficacy, and optimism)
and moderator variables (academic expectations and self-perceived coping ability) were measured at the
end of the first academic quarter and were related to classroom performance, personal adjustment, stress,
and health, measured at the end of the school year. Academic self-efficacy and optimism were strongly
related to performance and adjustment, both directly on academic performance and indirectly through
expectations and coping perceptions (challenge-threat evaluations) on classroom performance, stress,
health, and overall satisfaction and commitment to remain in school. Observed relationships corresponded closely to the hypothesized model.
Change can be unsettling. The transition from high school to
college can place significant demands on young adults (Tinto,
1982,1993). College life can be demanding and stressful for a new
student (Noel, Levitz, & Saluri, 1985) and requires higher levels of
independence, initiative, and self-regulation (Bryde & Milburn,
1990). It is the thesis of this article that confidence in one's
relevant abilities (i.e., self-efficacy) and optimism play a major
role in an individual's successful negotiation of challenging life
transitions. We present evidence to support a theoretical model of
the effects, both direct and indirect, of self-efficacy and optimism
on academic performance and personal adjustment of lst-year
college students. We first argue for, and then test, a model in which
moderator variables such as academic expectations and selfperceptions of coping ability mediate the effects of efficacy and
optimism beliefs. Tinto (1993) argued that the key determinant of
persistence and success at college is commitment. This emphasis
on intention or commitment is shared by many researchers in this
field (Anderson, 1985; Bean, 1990; Pascarella & Terenzini, 1980),
and researchers agree that both personal and environmental characteristics interact in the prediction of persistence (Anderson,
1985; Bean, 1985, 1990; Pascarella & Terenzini, 1980; RochaSingh, 1990; Russell & Petrie, 1992). Both Tinto (1993) and Bean
(1990) have talked about aptitudes and capabilities as contributing
to a sense of academic confidence or efficacy that helps to determine goal commitment. There are some very good reasons for
focusing attention more closely on academic self-efficacy as a
central determinant of the success of high school to university
transitions.
Self-Efficacy, Academic Persistence, and Success
Bandura (1997) described self-efficacy as "the belief in one's
capabilities to organize and execute courses of action required to
produce given attainments" (p. 3). Efficacy beliefs influence the
particular courses of action a person chooses to pursue, the amount
of effort that will be expended, perseverance in the face of challenges and failures, resilience, and the ability to cope with the
demands associated with the chosen course.
Self-efficacy has been related to persistence, tenacity, and
achievement in educational settings (Bandura, 1986; Schunk,
1981; Zimmerman, 1989). A meta-analysis of research in educational settings (Multon, Brown, & Lent, 1991) found that selfefficacy was related both to academic performance (r = .38) and
to persistence (r = .34). The contribution of self-efficacy to
educational achievement is based both on the increased use of
specific cognitive activities and strategies and on the positive
impact of efficacy beliefs on the broader, more general classes of
metacognitive skills and coping abilities.
The evidence that self-efficacy is able to improve performance
in specific cognitive areas is well developed, and it is also very
clear that self-efficacy is much more than the reflection of contentspecific ability. In studies of mathematics problem solving, children with high efficacy were found to persist longer (BouffardBouchard, Parent, & Larivee, 1991) and to use more efficient
problem-solving strategies (Collins, 1982) than low-efficacy
learners.
Even more impressive support for the independent contribution
of efficacy beyond ability is provided by studies that manipulate,
rather than measure, existing levels of efficacy. BouffardBouchard (1990) and Cervone and Peake (1986) manipulated
efficacy beliefs of students by providing fictitious performance
norms during feedback. Students in the positive feedback (i.e.,
high self-efficacy) condition set higher aspirations, showed greater
Martin M. Chemers, Li-tze Hu, and Ben F. Garcia, Division of Social
Sciences, University of California, Santa Cruz.
The authors would like to thank the Division of Student Affairs at the
University of California, Santa Cruz, for providing financial support for
this research.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Martin
M. Chemers, Division of Social Sciences, University of California, Santa
Cruz, Santa Cruz, California 95064. Electronic mail may be sent to
mchemers@zzyx.ucsc.edu.
55
56
CHEMERS, HU, AND GARCIA
strategic flexibility in the search for solutions, achieved higher
performance, and were more accurate in evaluating the level of
their performance than were students of equal ability who received
less positive feedback.
Mediating Processes of Self-Efficacy Effects
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
Cognitive Processes
Confidence in one's ability to complete a task or solve a problem contributes to a more calm and thoughtful approach. For
example, making decisions in complex environments requires integrating large amounts of diverse information, interpreting feedback, testing and revising knowledge, and implementing selection
options. In an extensive series of studies of decision making,
Bandura and his associates (Bandura & Jourden, 1991; Bandura &
Wood, 1989; Wood & Bandura, 1989; Wood, Bandura, & Bailey,
1990) found that participants (usually MB.A. students) who were
higher in decision-making self-efficacy, either through selfappraisal or through manipulated performance feedback, used
more thoughtful and skillful analytic strategies for improving
performance than did less efficacious participants.
Self-efficacy acts on a broader level through the more effective
use of metacognitive strategies, which involve planning and selfregulation—skills that become increasingly important as an individual progresses through educational levels to environments that
are less ordered and constrained (e.g., college or university life).
Metacognition involves the appraisal and control of one's cognitive activity (i.e., thinking about thinking) and making use of all
the resources available in the task and social environment to
achieve goal attainment (Zimmerman, 1995; Zimmerman &
Martinez-Pons, 1988). Students high in academic self-efficacy
make greater use of effective cognitive strategies in learning,
manage their time and learning environments more effectively, and
are better at monitoring and regulating their own effort. Academic
self-efficacy is related to students' confidence in mastering academic subjects, which in turn predicted grades in school.
Motivational Processes
Bandura (1997) argued that self-efficacy has its most powerful
motivational effects through the process of cognized goals. Goals
provide the basis for self-regulation of effort by providing a
standard for judging the adequacy and effectiveness of goalrelevant effort and strategy (Bandura & Cervone, 1983). Specific
and difficult (but not impossible) goals are strongly related to
performance in a wide variety of tasks and settings (Locke &
Latham, 1990). Self-efficacy leads to higher goals being set (Wood
et al., 1990; Zimmerman, Bandura, & Martinez-Pons, 1992), and
high goals increase the positive effects of self-efficacy by providing an evaluative context to aid self-regulation (Cervone, Jiwani,
& Wood, 1991). When goals provide a standard, highly efficacious
persons show a stronger relationship among self-evaluation, selfdirection, and performance (Bandura & Schunk, 1981). Goals, and
the broader category of positive expectations, are one type of
vehicle by which efficacy effects are manifested.
Affective Processes
Anxiety and negative emotions can be debilitating. Self-efficacy
has an impact on affect through its effects on attention and con-
strual of environmental demands, by the choice of actions taken,
and through its effect on the ability to control and manage negative
or potentially negative emotions.
Lazarus and Folkman (1984) argued that the way in which an
individual construes the demands placed by the environment can
have dramatic impact on his or her ability to cope with that
environment. They made a distinction between regarding demands
as "threats" versus "challenges." Bandura (1997) also argued that
a high sense of coping efficacy encourages individuals to adopt
courses of action designed to change hazardous environments.
People with high perceived efficacy are less likely to be immobilized by anxiety (Betz & Hackett, 1983; Krampen, 1988). For
example, Meece, Wigfield, and Eccles (1990) found that effects of
past performance on math anxiety and math performance were
mediated by personal efficacy beliefs. Pintrich and DeGroot
(1990) also reported that it was the efficacy beliefs, rather than
anxiety, that were predictive of academic achievement.
Self-efficacy beliefs are related to an enhanced ability to use
effective problem-solving and decision-making strategies, to plan
and manage one's personal resources more efficiently, to entertain
more positive expectations, and to set higher goals. Very central to
these self-efficacy effects seems to be the ability to manage the
stressors created in demanding situations by means of a more
positive analysis of extant risks and available coping resources,
which results in the tendency to see demanding situations as
challenges rather than threats.
Optimism and Positive Expectations
Optimism may also be a good candidate for a characteristic
affecting challenge-threat evaluations. Leadership self-efficacy
and general optimism have been shown to be related to superiors' judgments of effective performance in the leadership role
(Chemers, Watson, & May, 2000). Optimism is related to
psychological well-being in a broad variety of demanding situations (Scheier, Carver, & Bridges, 2000). Optimism is a
dispositional tendency to hold generalized positive expectancies even ". . .when people confront adversity or difficulty in
their lives" (Scheier et al., 2000, p. 3). More positive emotional
reactions and expectations—from excitement to eagerness—are
associated with the greater use of active, problem-focused coping rather than avoidance or withdrawal.
Positive expectancies also predict better reactions during transitions to new academic environments. Optimistic students report
lower levels of psychological stress and loneliness and higher
levels of social support and psychological and physical well-being
(Aspinwall & Taylor, 1992; Scheier & Carver, 1992). Optimistic
medical students suffer less depression and anxiety (Stewart et al.,
1997), and optimistic lst-year law school students evidence less
mood disturbance compared with less optimistic students (Segerstrom, Taylor, Kemeny, & Fahey, 1998). Effects of optimism
appear to be mediated by coping style. Both active (e.g., planning
and problem solving) and passive (e.g., control of negative emotions) coping mediate the effects of optimism on the outcome
variables (Segerstrom et al., 1998; Stewart et al., 1997).
Thus, optimism should play an important role in maintaining
positive expectations and reactions to lst-year college life. The
effects of optimism should be indirect; that is, they should operate
through the impact of optimism on judgments and expectations. In
57
SELF-EFFICACY IN UNIVERSITY ADJUSTMENT
particular, we expected generalized positive expectations of optimists to be related to the more specific academic expectations,
which we hypothesized to underlie classroom performance. Optimism should also have considerable influence on the perceptions
of extant demands and available resources that are at the core of
challenge and threat evaluations.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
Challenge-Threat Evaluations as Moderators of the
Self-Efficacy-Adjustment Relationship
The most extensive operationalization, elaboration, and extension of the challenge-threat concept has been offered by Blascovich and his associates (Blascovich & Tomaka, 1996; Tomaka,
Blascovich, Kelsey, & Leitten, 1993). Their work is particularly
relevant to the present study because of their focus on "motivated
performance situations," which are situations that are "goal relevant for performers and require instrumental cognitive-behavioral
responses by them" (Blascovich, Mendes, Lickel, & Hunter, in
press, p. 3). Transitions to university life do indeed involve goalrelevant performance requiring effective response across an extended time period.
The perception of a situation as challenging or threatening
depends on the individual's phenomenological experience of the
relationship between situational demands and coping resources.
Threat occurs when the individual experiences resources as insufficient to meet demands, and challenge occurs when resources are
felt to be adequate to demands. A considerable body of empirical
work has shown that the challenge-threat evaluation is strongly
related to affective responses and physiological reactivity, with
threat evaluations associated with potentially pernicious patterns
of cardiovascular responsivity.
Recently, Blascovich and Mendes (in press) more finely elucidated the factors that influence demand and resource evaluations.
Demand evaluations are based on perceptions of the amount of
required effort, danger, and uncertainty involved in the particular
performance situation. The 1st year of college might contain
elements of all three of these factors in varying amounts. Clearly,
estimates of required effort are very prominent in the new student's appraisal of the situation. Uncertainty about new friends,
living conditions, and finances is also likely to be a part of many
students' worries. The potential for academic failure, social embarrassment, or even physical threats (e.g., from sexual attack,
drug or alcohol availability, etc.) may also enter into a new
student's evaluations of situational demand.
Blascovich and Mendes (in press) described resource evaluations to include perceptions of one's knowledge and abilities
relevant to the task, availability of external support, and dispositional characteristics. Students who come from scholastically excellent high schools with a strong college-prepatory curriculum
may see themselves as possessing many resources. Available support networks of family, peers, faculty, or institutional structure
also enhance resource evaluations. In particular, the present research hypothesizes that dispositional characteristics related to
efficacy and optimism should have a very strong impact on resource perceptions. Students high in academic self-efficacy should
see themselves as more able to meet the demands of the situation
and should therefore be more likely to regard the 1st year of
college as a challenge rather than a threat. Optimism, associated
with generalized positive expectations and more active coping
styles, should be related both to higher expectations for success in
academic pursuits and to more positive expectations and reactions
to adversity or emotional demand (i.e., stress).
The Hypothesized Model
In the present study, we surveyed the lst-year class at a state
university. Measures of academic self-efficacy, optimism, and
challenge-threat evaluation were taken immediately after the completion of the first quarter of university work but before students
had received formal evaluation feedback. Measures of self-rated
academic performance, future academic expectations, stress,
health, and satisfaction were taken at the same time. In a follow-up
survey conducted near the end of the first academic year, measures
of academic performance (self-rated), academic expectations,
stress, health, and adjustment were repeated. Faculty ratings of
academic performance for all courses taken during the 1st year
were also collected.
On the basis of our interpretation of the efficacy literature, we
expected academic self-efficacy to have a profound impact on the
academic performance and personal adjustment of lst-year college
students as they navigate the demanding environment of university
life. Self-efficacy was expected to exert direct and mediated effects
on performance, health, and adjustment. Figure 1 displays the path
diagram for the hypothesized model.
Previous findings on the relationship of self-efficacy to academic and cognitive performance (e.g., Zimmerman, 1989) suggest that the calm and thoughtful demeanor encouraged by confidence should result in direct effects of academic self-efficacy on
classroom performance. Highly efficacious students should make
better use of analytic strategies and metacognitive skills for managing the learning environment, resulting in better learning and
better evaluations.
Given the importance of goals on perseverance and the effective
use of self-regulatory strategies, we also expected academic selfefficacy to affect performance through its impact on academic
expectations. However, we believe that expectations arise out of
broad evaluations of the situation and its demands, so we expected
an indirect path to expectations through challenge-threat evaluations. We predicted that self-efficacy and optimism would influence challenge-threat evaluations, which would in turn have an
effect on academic expectations, which would predict academic
performance.
The impact of self-efficacy on personal adjustment and health
was presumed to be moderated by challenge-threat evaluations.
The challenge-threat evaluation seems most closely related to
affective coping and stress management. We predicted that the
effects of dispositional characteristics, academic self-efficacy, and
optimism on perceived stress, health, and adjustment would be
moderated by challenge-threat evaluations. Note that high school
grade-point average (GPA) was included in the model as a
covariate.
Method
Overview
The participants in this study were members of the lst-year class at the
University of California, Santa Cruz. All lst-year students received a
questionnaire packet during the 1st week of the winter quarter. The
CHEMERS, HU, AND GARCIA
58
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
GPA
OPT
ADJUST
Figure 1. The path diagram for the hypothesized model. Squares are used to represent measured variables, and
the circle is used to represent latent variables (i.e., factors and errors). GPA = high school grade-point average;
ACAPERM = academic performance; ASR = self-rated academic performance; ACAEXP = academic
expectations; EVAL = faculty ratings of academic performance; ASE = academic self-efficacy; CHALL =
challenge-threat evaluations; OPT = optimism; HEALTH = health problems; ADJUST = adjustment.
University of California, Santa Cruz, campus has an unconventional grading policy involving written evaluations in place of formal grades, and at
this point in the school year, the students had experienced one quarter of
university-level work but had not yet received a detailed evaluation of their
performance. Participants received a second packet of questionnaires in the
last weeks of the spring quarter, close to the end of the academic year.
The questionnaires focused on academic and social adjustment during
the 1st year. The first questionnaire elicited student self-reports regarding
their perceived academic self-efficacy, social self-efficacy, and general
optimism as well as ratings of current and expected academic performance,
ratings of current and expected social adjustment and social support,
assessments of the level of stress-eliciting demand in their academic and
social environments and their abilities to cope with that demand (i.e.,
challenge-threat assessments), and ratings of stress and illness. The second
questionnaire repeated the measures that were included in the first administration, with the exception of self-efficacy and optimism. (The present
article reports the results of this study with respect to academic achievement and does not include results related to social adjustment. The effects
for social adjustment were based on a different model that was tested
separately.)
Questionnaires were mailed to 1,600 lst-year students at their campus
addresses in the eight residential colleges of the university. Each questionnaire was preceded by a letter from the college provost (the chief academic
officer of the college) encouraging participation in the study. These letters
were identical for all colleges. The provost's letter was followed by a letter
from the principal investigator, which explained the purposes of the study
(i.e., "an attempt to understand the psychological and social factors that
influence student adjustment to college") and included a plea for participation, release forms, and information regarding informed consent. As an
added incentive for participation in each administration of the survey, all
participants would become eligible for a lottery drawing for gift certificates
at the campus bookstore, including one $250 prize and five $50 prizes.
Approximately 1 week after each mailing, research assistants attempted to
call every student to encourage return of the questionnaire. At each contact,
students were informed that participation was completely voluntary and
that all responses would be kept anonymous and confidential.
Participants
The first questionnaire administration elicited complete responses from
373 (23%) students. The second questionnaire was mailed only to those
participating students, and of those, 256 (69%) responded again. Table 1
provides a breakdown of the samples by demographic characteristics.
Responders and nonresponders to the second administration were compared on data from the first administration, and very slight and nonsignificant differences between the two groups were found.
Measures
High school GPA. Participants' secondary school GPAs were obtained
from their university records (with permission).
Academic self-efficacy. An eight-item measure was developed for the
present study. Participants were asked to rate on 7-point Likert scales their
agreement with statements reflecting their confidence in their ability to
Table 1
Participants' Characteristics
Participant characteristics
Gender
Males
Females
Age
17
18
19
20+
Ethnicity
White
Hispanic
Asian
Other
Wave 1 (n = 373)
Wave 2 (n = 256)
78(21%)
295 (79%)
46 (18%)
210 (82%)
3 (0.8%)
217 (60%)
142 (38%)
7 (0.3%)
1 (0.4%)
147 (58%)
102 (40%)
5 (0.4%)
210 (56%)
54 (15%)
58 (16%)
51 (14%)
148 (58%)
38(15%)
42 (16%)
28(11%)
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
SELF-EFFICACY IN UNIVERSITY ADJUSTMENT
perform well academically. Following Bandura (1997), the measure was
designed to reflect a variety of specific skills pertinent to academic
achievement, including scheduling of tasks, note taking, test taking, and
researching and writing papers, and included general statements regarding
scholarly ability. Because the intent was to predict overall college performance, the self-efficacy measure did not focus on highly specific subjects
such as math, science, languages, and so on. Coefficient alpha was .81.
Optimism. The Life Orientations Test (Scheier & Carver, 1985) was
used as a measure of generalized optimism. Eleven items were rated on
5-point scales of agreement ranging from 1 (strongly agree) to 5 (strongly
disagree). High scores on the measure indicate that respondents "believe
that things usually work out well for them," "expect things to go their
way," "are always optimistic," and so on. Scheier and Carver (1985)
reported a coefficient alpha of .76 and test-retest reliability of .79 (at 4
weeks). For the present sample, the coefficient alpha was .80.
Challenge—threat. Using a procedure similar to that used by Blascovich and his colleagues (Blascovich & Tomaka, 1996), we asked participants to rate the "level of pressure and demand expected in your academic
work during the next year" on a 7-point scale ranging from 1 (not much at
all) to 7 (a very great deal). Following that response, we asked participants
to rate their ability to cope with the rated level of academic pressure and
demand (these ratings were made on the same 7-point scale). The
challenge-threat score was derived by subtracting the rating of demand
from the level of coping ability such that numbers larger than zero reflect
the participants' belief that coping ability is adequate (challenge situation),
and numbers below zero indicate that the participants perceive demand as
exceeding coping ability (threat situation).
Academic self-rating. Participants rated their recent academic performance on a 5-point scale ranging from 1 (not good) to 5 (excellent). This
measure was created for the present study.
Academic evaluations. The university has a grade-optional evaluation
policy. For every class, all students receive a narrative evaluation written
by the instructor. These evaluations are filed with the registrar and sent to
the students approximately 3 to 5 weeks after the end of the academic
quarter. Students may also request a grade in the course, and approximately
20% of the students choose that option. However, this percentage varies by
major. Because grades were not available for all participants, we chose to
use the narrative evaluations as the measure of classroom performance.
Raters were trained to convert the narrative evaluations to a quantitative
index. It is very common for narrative evaluations to follow a customary
form and language. The use of common keywords (e.g., outstanding,
excellent, satisfactory) makes them roughly comparable with levels of
performance indicated by grades. Raters were trained to use the keywords
to convert the evaluations to a quantitative score. The index ranged from 1
to 5. Interrater reliability for the evaluations averaged .85.
Academic expectations. Participants expressed their expectations for
future academic performance by responding, on 5-point agreement scales
(1 = strongly agree, 5 = strongly disagree), to four items concerning
performance in courses, getting good evaluations, meeting academic goals,
and generally performing well academically. This measure was created for
the present study. Unlike the measure of academic self-efficacy, which was
focused on abilities in the present, the academic expectations measure was
focused on outcomes (e.g., performance, continued enrollment) in the
future. The coefficient alpha for this measure was .77 and .76 for the first
and second administrations, respectively.
Stress. Experienced stress was measured with a scale developed for
this study. Participants responded on a 5-point scale (1 = never, 2 =
almost never, 3 = sometimes, 4 = fairly often, 5 = very often) eliciting the
frequency with which they experienced feeling of stress, loss of control, or
nervousness and irritability during the previous month. Examples include
"How often have you been upset because of something that happened
unexpectedly," "How often have you felt nervous or 'stressed'," "How
often have you felt you were unable to control the important things in your
59
life," and so on. Coefficient alpha for this measure was .87 for both
administrations.
Health. A 20-item scale (created for this study) asked participants to
rate on a 4-point scale (1 = rarely/none, 2 = some/little, 3 = occasionally,
4 = most/all) how often they had experienced a range of physical and
mental health symptoms or problems, including sleeping problems; headaches or dizziness; stomach problems; eating problems; feelings of shame,
loneliness, insecurity, panic, worthlessness, and depression; drug or alcohol overuse; and so on. Coefficient alphas for this measure were .90 for
both administrations.
Adjustment. Pascarella and Terenzini's (1980) college social support
scale includes subscales measuring satisfaction with academic progress
(Academic and Intellectual Development) and intention to persist at the
university (Institutional and Goal Commitment).
Items from these subscales were combined to create a measure of
satisfaction with academic progress and intention to continue at the university, which we labeled "adjustment." The resultant scale included eight
items rated on 5-point scales of agreement (1 = strongly agree, 5 =
strongly disagree). Examples of specific items include "I am satisfied with
the extent of my intellectual development since enrolling at the university,"
"I am satisfied with my academic experience at this university," "I am
confident that I made the right decision in choosing to attend this university," and "It is important for me to graduate from this college." Coefficient
alphas of .78 were found for both administrations of the measure.
Results
A structural equation modeling (SEM) approach was used to test
the adequacy of the hypothesized model (e.g., Bentler, 1980;
Joreskog & Sorbom, 1993). The EQS program was used for the
analyses. The maximum-likelihood (ML)-based Comparative Fit
Index (CFI) and the Standardized Root Mean Square Residual
(SRMR) were used to evaluate the extent to which the hypothesized model fit the observed data (Hu & Bentler, 1998, 1999). In
addition, the robust standard errors were used to evaluate the
significance of parameter estimates (Bentler & Dudgeon, 1996;
Hu, Bentler, & Kano, 1992). The quality of solution for the model
reported here was excellent (i.e., there was no convergence problem and no out-of-range parameter estimate).
Table 2 presents the means, standard deviations, and zero-order
correlations for all of the observed variables. Because female
students were overrepresented in our sample, we analyzed for
gender effects. Participant gender was dummy coded and correlated with each of the variables. There were no substantial relationships (rs ranged from .01 to .12), so gender was not included
as a variable in the model, and male and female students were
pooled for subsequent analyses.
For the hypothesized model, the SEM technique was used to
assess (a) the direct effect of self-efficacy on challenge-threat
evaluations, academic expectations, and academic performance
(measured by two indicators: self-rated academic performance and
faculty ratings of academic performance); (b) the direct effect of
optimism on self-efficacy, challenge-threat evaluations, and academic expectations; (c) the direct effect of challenge-threat evaluations on academic expectations and stress; (d) the direct effect of
academic expectations on academic performance; (e) the direct
effect of stress on health and adjustment; (f) the mediated effect of
self-efficacy on academic expectations, academic performance,
stress, health, and adjustment; and (g) the mediated effect of
optimism on challenge-threat evaluations, academic expectations,
academic performance, stress, health, and adjustment. The direct
CHEMERS, HU, AND GARCIA
60
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
Table 2
Design Variables
Variables
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
1. GPA
2. ASE
3. OPT
4. CHALL
5. ACAEXP
6. STRESS
7. ASR
8. EVAL
9. HEALTH
10. SATADJ
_
.29
.21
.12
.12
-.09
.24
.43
-.10
.04
—
.35
.32
.43
-.19
.51
.35
-.20
.18
—
.25
.32
-.17
.32
.15
-.18
-.00
—
.43
-.31
.21
.19
-.30
.12
—
-.29
.36
.23
-.22
.20
—
-.18
-.13
.66
-.25
—
.49
-.19
.13
3.57
0.36
2.57-4.40
5.40
0.82
2.57-7.00
3.45
0.69
1.67-5.00
6.39
1.77
1.00-12.00
4.08
0.55
2.00-5.00
2.71
0.67
1.10-4.90
3.28
1.04
1.00-5.00
M
SD
Range
8
9
10
—
-.06
.13
3.82
0.50
1.98-5.00
—
-.26
1.82
0.51
1.00-3.70
—
3.82
0.65
1.13-5.00
Note. GPA = grade-point average; ASE = academic self-efficacy; OPT = optimism; CHALL = challenge-threat evaluations; ACAEXP = academic
expectations; ASR = self-rated academic performance; EVAL = faculty ratings of academic performance; HEALTH = health problems; SATADJ =
satisfaction and adjustment.
effect of high school GPA on self-efficacy and academic performance and the direct effect of academic performance on levels of
stress and adjustment were also examined. Note that the inclusion
of GPA allowed us to examine the effects of self-efficacy and
optimism on various outcome variables after partialing out the
effect of GPA. (Ideally, we would want to use latent variables in
our structural equation model. This was not possible in the present
study because of sample size limitations and the lack of multiple
indicators for some of our variables. Therefore, some of the
relationships reported may be slightly inflated or deflated.)
Figure 2 displays the path diagram and the standardized parameter estimates for the hypothesized model. The ML-based CFI was
.97, and the ML-based SRMR was .057. These fit measures reveal
that there was a relatively good fit between the hypothesized
model and the observed data.
The factor loading of faculty ratings of academic performance
on the construct of academic performance (standardized factor
loading = .65) was substantial in magnitude and was significant at
p < .001. Note that the unstandardized factor loading for self-rated
academic performance was fixed to 1 for identification purposes
(see Figure 2).
There were significant and substantial direct effects of selfefficacy on challenge-threat evaluations (standardized coefficient = .27, p < .001), academic expectations (standardized
coefficient = .28, p < .001), and academic performance (standardized coefficient = .34, p < .001). Highly efficacious students
had higher challenge-threat evaluations (i.e., they perceived academic work demand to be more of a challenge than a threat),
greater academic expectations, and better academic performance.
(An analysis of the zero-order correlations between academic
self-efficacy and challenge-threat reveals that efficacy affected
evaluations of coping resources [r = .39, p < .001] rather than
evaluations of demands [r = —.01, ns].) Optimism had a moderate
effect on self-efficacy (standardized coefficient = .31, p < .001)
and a small effect on challenge-threat evaluations (standardized
coefficient = .16, p < .01) and academic expectation (standardized coefficient = . 15, p < .01). Highly optimistic students tended
to be more efficacious. They had more positive challenge-threat
evaluations and higher academic expectations. (Again, the effects
of optimism on challenge-threat evaluations, similar to academic
efficacy effects, were on perceptions of resources [r = .28, p <
.001] rather than on perceptions of demands [r = - . 0 8 , ns].) The
direct effects of challenge-threat evaluations on academic expectations (standardized coefficient = .30, p < .001) and stress
(standardized coefficient = —.26, p < .001) were significant,
indicating that students with higher challenge-threat evaluations
had higher academic expectations and experienced less stress. The
significant standardized path coefficient (.22, p < .001) between
academic expectation and academic performance indicates that
students with higher academic expectations had better academic
performance.
Students who experienced more stress tended to have greater
health problems (standardized coefficient = .68, p < .001) and
worse adjustment (standardized coefficient = — .20, p < .001).
Students with higher high school GPA were more efficacious
(standardized coefficient = .23, p < .001) and had better academic
performance (standardized coefficient = .45, p < .001). The direct
effects of academic performance on stress (standardized coefficient = —.19,p < .01) and adjustment (standardized coefficient =
.19, p < .01) were significant but small in magnitude. These
results suggest that students with better academic performance
experienced less stress and were better adjusted.
There were significant mediated effects of self-efficacy on academic expectations (standardized coefficient = .08, p < .001),
academic performance (standardized coefficient = .08, p < .01),
stress (standardized coefficient = — .16, p < .001), health (standardized coefficient = - . 1 5 , p < . 0 0 1 ) , and adjustment (standardized coefficient = .11, p < .001). Highly efficacious students had
higher challenge-threat evaluations, which in turn resulted in
greater academic expectations, which led to better academic performance. Higher levels of self-efficacy also resulted in (through
challenge-threat evaluations) less stress, which in turn resulted in
less health problems and better adjustment.
There were also significant mediated effects of optimism on
challenge-threat evaluations (standardized coefficient = .08, p <
.001), academic expectations (standardized coefficient = .16, p <
SELF-EFFICACY IN UNIVERSITY ADJUSTMENT
61
ASR
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
EVAL
OPT
Figure 2. The path diagram and the standardized parameter estimates for the hypothesized model. Squares are
used to represent measured variables, large circles are used to represent latent factors, and small circles with
numbers are residual variances. GPA = high school grade-point average; ACAPERM = academic performance;
ASR = self-rated academic performance; ACAEXP = academic expectations; EVAL = faculty ratings of
academic performance; ASE = academic self-efficacy; CHALL = challenge-threat evaluations; OPT =
optimism; HEALTH = health problems; ADJUST = adjustment.
.001), academic performance (standardized coefficient = .17, p <
.01), stress (standardized coefficient = -.10, p < .001), health
(standardized coefficient = —.06, p < .001), and adjustment
(standardized coefficient = .05, p < .001). Highly optimistic
students showed a positive effect (through self-efficacy) on
challenge-threat evaluations, which in turn had a positive effect on
academic expectations, which led to better academic performance.
Optimism led (through challenge-threat evaluations) to less stress,
which in turn led to less health problems and better adjustment.
Discussion
There was compelling support for the role of self-efficacy and
optimism in lst-year college students' success and adjustment.
Self-efficacy directly and indirectly showed powerful relationships
to academic performance and personal adjustment of these lstyear college students. Optimism, through its effects on challengethreat evaluations, was related to academic performance and adjustment. These results are especially meaningful given that the
SEM analysis was performed on a clearly specified, a priori
theoretical model and because the longitudinal design allowed for
the use of variables measured early in the academic year to predict
outcomes at the end of the year.
As predicted, academic self-efficacy was significantly and directly related to academic expectations and academic performance.
Also as predicted, academic expectations were related to performance. Students who enter college with confidence in their ability
to perform well academically do perform significantly better than
do less confident students. Likewise, students who have higher
expectations for academic success show higher performance.
Some of these effects may be caused by superior academic ability,
which could be related to both confidence and performance. However, after we have accounted for the effect of high school GPA,
which might be regarded as another reasonable measure of academic ability, confidence (i.e., self-efficacy) still plays a significant role in both performance and expectations for performance. In
other words, academic self-efficacy has predictive power above
and beyond more objective measures such as past performance on
academic tasks.
It must be acknowledged that high school GPA is itself related
to academic self-efficacy and that nigh school performance is
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
62
CHEMERS, HU, AND GARCIA
likely to have been affected by the levels of academic self-efficacy
that existed at the time. For this reason, our approach provides a
conservative test, because current levels of self-efficacy are probably correlated with academic self-efficacy during high school.
Removing the effects of GPA greatly strengthens the implications
for the role of contemporaneous self-efficacy to university lst-year
performance. The level of self-efficacy that the students reported
during the 1st year of university life is a powerful predictor of
expectations and performance.
In addition to the direct effects of self-efficacy on performance,
the indirect pathways are also informative. Self-efficacy was
strongly related to students' perceptions of their capacities for
responding to the demands of college life, and optimism also had
a significant, although weaker, relationship. Confident and optimistic students were more likely to see the university experience as
a challenge rather than a threat. As Blascovich, Mendes, Lickel, &
Hunter (in press) would predict, the impact of self-efficacy and
optimism were on the perceptions of available resources. Challenged students exhibited higher expectations, which were in turn
related to better performance. A challenge orientation also reduced
the students' experience of stress, with concomitant reductions in
reports of illness and more positive ratings of personal adjustment
to, and satisfaction with, college life. The fact that the effects of
self-efficacy and optimism on stress, health, and adjustment were
totally mediated by challenge threat (i.e., self-efficacy and optimism had no direct relationships to those variables) reveals the
powerful impact of challenge-threat evaluations.
The relationships among variables observed in this rather extensive data were quite consistent with our hypotheses in terms of
the direct and mediated effects of academic efficacy, optimism,
and challenge-threat evaluations. The variables chosen for the
analysis were designed to allow for as clear conclusions as possible. The use of high school GPA as a covariate, for example, helps
to make less tenable the possibility that the academic self-efficacy
and generalized optimism effects are merely a correlational byproduct of objective scholarly ability (i.e., that it is the ability
beliefs rather than the efficacy beliefs that are the major causal
influence on performance and adjustment). Also, the prospective
use of the predictor variables (i.e., self-efficacy, optimism,
challenge-threat) from the first administration of the survey to
predict the outcome variables (i.e., performance, stress, health, and
adjustment) taken from the later administration of the survey
reduces concerns about halo effects or method variance. One
caveat is in order, however. Although our sample size was quite
satisfactory, the response rate was only about 25% of the overall
population for the first administration and even less after the
second. We have no reason to believe that these rates are unusual
for this population or that they are a serious threat to generalizability, but subsequent replications would be helpful to establish
the validity of our findings.
We see that the psychological orientations that students bring to
the transition to university life are critical to their success in the
new setting. Confident and optimistic students view their worlds in
ways that are more likely to result in successful adjustment. Such
students hold higher expectations for themselves in part because
they trust in their capabilities and in part because they see the
world, and their ability to respond to it, as less threatening.
Because they are energized by the challenges of life rather than
frightened and immobilized by the threats, they are calmer, less
stressed, healthier, happier, and better adjusted.
We did not directly measure the specific attitudes and behaviors
that might mediate the more general relationships observed in our
study. For example, we do not know the nature of the direct effects
of academic self-efficacy on academic performance, but we do
know that confident students work harder, persist longer, and use
better learning and problem-solving strategies (e.g., BouffardBouchard, 1990; Bouffard-Bouchard et al., 1991; Cervone &
Peake, 1986) and that efficacious students manage the learning
environment more efficiently (e.g., Pintrich & Schrauben, 1992;
Zimmerman & Martinez-Pons, 1988). Future research might usefully examine the specific study habits, test-taking strategies, and
related behaviors of highly efficacious college students to test their
relationship to academic success. Similarly, our measures of academic expectations were more general and global than they were
measures of specific goals in specific courses or settings. By
measuring specific goals, future studies could elucidate the pathway for the effects of high expectations.
Most intriguing and deserving of future study is the powerful
role of challenge-threat evaluation in the moderation of selfefficacy and optimism effects. Challenge-threat played a role in
affecting positive academic expectations as well as the central role
in forming perceptions of the stressfulness of college life. Most of
the work by Blascovich and his associates has been accomplished
in careful laboratory experiments that have revealed that challenge
judgments are associated with self-reports of lower stress and
physiological measures of more beneficent cardiovascular reactions. The present longitudinal study indicated that challenge judgments in a long-term, real-world setting were also associated with
lower self-reports of stress and with less frequent reports of adverse health symptoms. The implied connection between less
beneficial reactions to potentially stress-inducing demands on
moment-to-moment bases and long-term measures of health and
adjustment calls for further validation. Physiological measures of
cardiovascular reactivity that could be related to long-term health
would be excellent additions to future studies.
The results of our study are strong and consistent with our
theoretical predictions, but a few caveats are in order regarding the
potential generalizability of our findings. The Santa Cruz campus
of the University of California differs from a typical university in
some respects. The campus has a reputation for a nontraditional
and experimental approach to education (as evidenced by the
evaluation system) and may attract somewhat less conventional
students. Furthermore, our sample, although large in absolute
numbers, included only about a quarter of the population surveyed
and overrepresented female students. There were no obvious differences found between the participants in our study and the
general student population or between the male and female participants. Also, constraints of sample size and measures chosen
reduced our ability to use latent variables in our model, adding
some error. Given the strength and clarity of our findings, the
problems with our study do not seem serious enough to drastically
reduce its meaningfulness. Nonetheless, some caution might be
exercised in drawing conclusions, and future research and replication are strongly warranted.
In fact, the validation of the role of confidence and optimism in
successful college adjustment is only the first step in addressing an
SELF-EFFICACY IN UNIVERSITY ADJUSTMENT
important phenomenon. Researchers need to establish the factors
that encourage the development and maintenance of positive selfperceptions and beliefs, particularly academic self-efficacy, from
the early years of preschool, elementary school, and secondary
school right through to postsecondary education. In particular, the
factors that influence the development of such efficacy beliefs
for educationally at-risk populations are worthy of careful study.
The results of the present research give us confidence that such
research is likely to yield important, meaningful, and useful
information.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
References
Anderson, E. (1985). Forces influencing student persistence and achievement. In L. Noel, R. Levitz, D. Saluri, & Associates (Eds.), Increasing
student retention: Effective programs and practices for reducing dropout rate (pp. 45-61). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Aspinwall, L. G., & Taylor, S. E. (1992). Modeling cognitive adaptation:
A longitudinal investigation of the impact of individual differences and
coping on college adjustment and performance. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 61, 755-765.
Bandura, A. (1986). The explanatory and predictive scope of self-efficacy
theory. Journal of Clinical and Social Psychology, 4, 359-373.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York:
Freeman.
Bandura, A., & Cervone, D. (1983). Self-evaluative and self-efficacy
mechanisms governing the motivational effects of goal systems. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 45, 1017-1028.
Bandura, A., & Jourden, F. J. (1991). Self-regulatory mechanisms governing the impact of social comparison on complex decision making.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60, 941-951.
Bandura, A., & Schunk, D. H. (1981). Cultivating competence, selfefficacy, and intrinsic interest through proximal self-motivation. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 41, 586-598.
Bandura, A., & Wood, R. E. (1989). Effect of perceived controllability and
performance standards on self-regulation of complex decision making.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56, 805-814.
Bean, J. P. (1985). Interaction effects based on class level in an exploratory
model of college student dropout syndrome. American Educational
Research Journal, 22, 35-64.
Bean, J. P. (1990). Why students leave: Insights from research. In D.
Hossler (Ed.), The strategic management of college enrollment (pp.
147-169). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Bentler, P. M. (1980). Multivariate analysis with latent variables: Causal
modeling. Annual Review of Psychology, 31, 419-456.
Bentler, P. M., & Dudgeon, P. (1996). Covariance structure analysis:
Statistical practice, theory, and directions. Annual Review of Psychology, 47, 563-592.
Betz, N. E., & Hackett, G. (1983). The relationship of mathematics
self-efficacy expectations to the selection of science-based college majors. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 23, 329-345.
Blascovich, J., & Mendes, W. B. (in press). Challenge and threat appraisals: The role of affective cues. In J. Forgas (Ed.), Feeling and thinking:
The role of affect in social cognition. New York: Cambridge University
Press.
Blascovich, J., Mendes, W. B., Lickel, B., & Hunter, S. B. (in press).
Stigma as threat in cooperative social interactions. In T. Heatherton, R.
Kleck, & J. G. Hull (Eds.), Stigma (pp. 307-333). New York: Guilford
Press.
Blascovich, J., & Tomaka, J. (1996). The biopsychosocial model of arousal
regulation. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 28, 1—51.
Bouffard-Bouchard, T. (1990). Influence of self-efficacy on performance
in a cognitive task. Journal of Social Psychology, 130, 353—363.
63
Bouffard-Bouchard, T., Parent, S., & Larivee, S. (1991). Influence of
self-efficacy on self-regulation and performance among junior and senior high-school age students. Instructional Journal of Behavioral Development, 14, 153-164.
Bryde, J. F., & Milburn, C. M. (1990). Helping to make the transition from
high school to college. In R. L. Emans (Ed.), Understanding undergraduate education (pp. 203-213). Vermillion, SD: University of South
Dakota Press.
Cervone, D., Jiwani, N., & Wood, R. (1991). Goal setting and the differential influence of self-regulatory processes on complex decisionmaking performance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61,
257-266.
Cervone, D., & Peake, P. K. (1986). Anchoring, efficacy, and action: The
influence of judgmental heuristics on self-efficacy judgments and behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50, 492-501.
Chemers, M. M., Watson, C. B., & May, S. (2000). Dispositional affect and
leadership effectiveness: A comparison of self-esteem, optimism, and
efficacy. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26, 267-277.
Collins, J. L. (1982, March). Self-efficacy and ability in achievement
behavior. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New York.
Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1998). Fit indices in covariance structure
modeling: Sensitivity to underparameterized model misspecification.
Psychological Methods, 3, 424-453.
Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indices in covariance
structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1-55.
Hu, L., Bentler, P. M., & Kano, Y. (1992). Can test statistics in covariance
structure analysis be trusted? Psychological Bulletin, 112, 351-362.
Joreskog, K. G., & Sorbom, D. (1993). L1SREL 8 user's reference guide.
Chicago: Science Software, Inc.
Krampen, G. (1988). Competence and control orientations as predictors of
test anxiety in students: Longitudinal results. Anxiety Research, 1, 185197.
Lazarus, R. S., & Folkman, S. (1984). Stress, appraisal, and coping. New
York: Springer.
Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (1990). A theory of goal setting and task
performance. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Meece, J. L., Wigfield, A., & Eccles, J. S. (1990). Predictors of math
anxiety and its influence on young adolescents' course of enrollment
intentions and performance in mathematics. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 82, 60-70.
Multon, K. D., Brown, S. D., & Lent, R. W. (1991). Relation of selfefficacy beliefs to academic outcomes: A meta-analytic investigation.
Journal of Counseling Psychology, 38, 30-38.
Noel, L., Levitz, R., & Saluri, D. (1985). Increasing student retention:
Effective programs and practices for reducing dropout rate. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Pascarella, E. T., & Terenzini, P. (1980). Predicting freshman persistence
and voluntary dropout decision from a theoretical model. Journal of
Higher Education, 51, 60-75.
Pintrich, P. R., & DeGroot, E. V. (1990, April). Quantitative and qualitative perspectives on student motivational beliefs and self-regulated
learning. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Boston.
Pintrich, P. R., & Schrauben, B. (1992). Students' motivational beliefs and
their cognitive engagement in classroom academic tasks. In D. Schunk
& J. Meece (Eds.), Student perception in the classroom: Causes and
consequences (pp. 149-183). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Rocha-Singh, I. A. (1990). Doctoral students' perceptions of stress and
social support: Implications for the retention of targeted students of
color. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of California, Santa
Barbara.
Russell, R. K., & Petrie, T. A. (1992). Academic adjustment of college
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
64
CHEMERS, HU, AND GARCIA
students: Assessment and counseling. In S. D. Brown & R. W. Lent
(Eds.), Handbook of Counseling Psychology (2nd ed., pp. 485-511).
New York: Wiley.
Scheier, M. F., & Carver, C. S. (1985). Optimism, coping, and health:
Assessment and implications of generalized outcome expectancies.
Health Psychology, 4, 219-247.
Scheier, M. F., & Carver, C. S. (1992). Effects of optimism on psychological and physical well-being: Theoretical overview and empirical
update. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 16, 201-228.
Scheier, M. F., Carver, C. S., & Bridges, M. W. (2000). Optimism,
pessimism, and psychological well-being. In E. C. Chang (Ed.), Optimism and pessimism: Implications for theory, research, and practice
(pp. 189-216). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Schunk, D. H. (1981). Modeling and attributional effects on children's
achievement: A self-efficacy analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 73, 93-105.
Segerstrom, S. C , Taylor, S. E., Kemeny, M. E., & Fahey, J. L. (1998).
Optimism is associated with mood, coping, and immune change in
response to stress. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74,
1646-1655.
Stewart, S. M., Betson, C , Lam, T. H., Marshall, I. B., Lee, P. W., &
Wong, C. M. (1997). Predicting stress in first year medical students: A
longitudinal study. Medical Education, 3, 163-168.
Tinto, V. (1982). Defining dropout: A matter of perspective. In E.T.
Pascarella (Ed.), Studying student attrition (pp. 3-16). San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
Tinto, V. (1993). Leaving college: Rethinking causes and cures of student
attrition (2nd ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Tomaka, J., Blascovich, J., Kelsey, R. M., & Leitten, C. L. (1993).
Subjective, physiological, and behavioral effects of threat and challenge
appraisal. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68, 616-624.
Wood, R. E., & Bandura, A. (1989). Impacts of conceptions of ability on
self-regulatory mechanisms and complex decision making. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 56, 407-415.
Wood, R. E., Bandura, A., & Bailey, T. (1990). Mechanisms governing
organizational performance in complex decision-making environments.
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 46, 181-201.
Zimmerman, B. J. (1989). A social-cognitive view of self-regulated academic learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 81, 329-339.
Zimmerman, B. J. (1995). Self-efficacy and educational development. In
A. Bandura (Ed.), Self-efficacy in changing societies (pp. 202-231).
Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Zimmerman, B. J., Bandura, A., & Martinez-Pons, M. (1992). Selfmotivation for academic attainment: The role of self-efficacy beiiefs and
personal goal-setting. American Educational Research Journal, 29,
663-676.
Zimmerman, B. J., & Martinez-Pons, M. (1988). Construct validation of a
strategy model of student self-regulated learning. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 80, 284-290.
Received January 19, 2000
Revision received August 10, 2000
Accepted August 10, 2000 •