The Effects of Mattering on
Probationary Students’
Adaptation and Success in College
Esau Tovar, M.S.
Merril A. Simon, Ph.D.
Annual Conference for the California
Association for Institutional Research
Rohnert Park, CA
November 13, 2003
1
Presenter Contact Information
 Esau Tovar, M.S.
Faculty Leader/Counselor,
Assessment Center
Santa Monica College
1900 Pico Blvd.
Santa Monica, CA 90405
(310) 434-4012
tovar_esau@smc.edu
 Merril A. Simon, Ph.D.
Assistant Professor,
Department of Educational
Psychology and Counseling
CSU Northridge
18111 Nordhoff Street
Northridge, CA 91330-8265
(818) 677-2558
merril.simon@csun.edu
2
Program Abstract
The issue of retention and persistence are often studied in
community college settings, and students’ success and
decisions to stay or leave college are explained in terms
of academic and social integration. This research study
sought to further explain and measure the construct of
mattering and its relation to the above concepts. This was
accomplished through the development of a mattering
questionnaire, whose factorial structure, internal
consistency, and discriminant validity lend support to the
importance of the construct in explaining the experiences
of non-successful community college students.
Implications and future directions for mattering will be
emphasized.
3
Background
 Large number of probationary students at college:


35% of all first-time students are on probation at the
end of their first term.
54 - 73% success rate for first semester students
(based on ethnic breakdown)
 Persistence rate of 54% from semester one to
semester two.
 Research showing a significant lack of
engagement by community college students
compared to four-year university students.
4
Theoretical Background
Rosenberg and McCullough (1981)
 Mattering
as motive
Schlossberg (1989)
 Mattering
 Marginality
5
About Santa Monica College
 Spring
2003 Enrollment:

Population: 27,850 graded students

Gender: 57% female, 43% male

Status: 30% full-time; 10% F1-Visa

Race/Ethnicity: 37% White,
27% Latino, 20% Asian, 9% African
American, 4% Other, 3% Filipino
6
Study Sample
Students attending a probationary
student re-orientation: N = 344.




46% male, 54% female;
16% Asian, 15% African American, 43%
Latino, 17% White, and 9% other;
Age: ranged 17 and 73, with a mean of
22.68 years (SD = 7.26);
Attendance: 48% first year; 19% second
year; 33% third + years.
7
Instrument Characteristics
 Section 1: Demographic items, including:

Background characteristics, self and parent’s
educational goals, career decidedness, study
habits, reasons for probation.
 Section 2: Mattering Items:



22 items initially written and tested;
Items phrased positively and negatively;
Answered on a 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly
agree) Likert scale.
8
Factor Analysis for Mattering Items
.
(1 of 7)

Items subjected to:
 Principle Components Factor Analysis
 Varimax Rotation

Criteria for factor retention:




Initial Eigenvalues > 1
Scree Plot test
Item loading > .40
Theoretical justification of item loading on factor
9
Factor Analysis for Mattering Items
(2 of 7)
Extracted Communalities
Item
Extraction
Item
Extraction
Item
Extraction
Q13
Q14
Q17
Q18
Q19
Q20
Q21
0.64
0.71
0.54
0.68
0.50
0.31
0.44
Q22
Q23
Q25
Q27
Q28
Q29
Q30
0.52
0.55
0.49
0.51
0.67
0.52
0.60
Q32
Q33
Q34
Q15T
Q16T
Q24T
Q26T
Q31T
0.58
0.68
0.61
0.47
0.69
0.65
0.59
0.70
10
Factor Analysis for Mattering Items
(3 of 7)
Variance Explained
Component
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
…
Initial Eigenvalues
Total
% of
Cum. %
Variance
6.14
27.90
27.90
2.94
13.37
41.27
1.32
5.99
47.26
1.21
5.51
52.77
1.02
4.63
57.40
0.97
4.39
61.79
0.89
4.04
65.84
Rotation Sums of Squared Loadings
Total
% of
Cum. %
Variance
3.31
15.03
15.03
2.94
13.34
28.37
2.44
11.11
39.48
2.13
9.67
49.15
1.82
8.25
57.40
Note: additional 15 components extracted with eigenvalues of < 1.0
11
Factor Analysis for Mattering Items
(4 of 7)
Scree Plot
7
6
5
4
3
Eigenvalue
2
1
0
1
3
5
7
9
11
13
15
17
19
21
Component Number
12
Factor Analysis for Mattering Items
(5 of 7)
Item
1
Q16T
Q31T
Q24T
Q26T
Q15T
Q17
Q27
Q21
Q19
Q29
Q25
Q20
Q32
Q13
Q22
Q23
Q34
Q18
Q28
Q14
Q33
Q30
0.82
0.81
0.78
0.72
0.57
Component Rotation Matrix
2
Component
3
4
5
0.67
0.66
0.63
0.58
0.52
0.44
0.68
0.66
0.59
0.56
0.42
0.45
0.42
0.74
0.70
0.68

4 Factors &

18 items retained

Q16T, 31T,
Q24T, Q24T, &
Q15T were
reversed to being
positively stated.
0.41
0.73
0.67
13
Factor Analysis for Mattering Items
(6 of 7)
 Sense of Belongingness:


I sometimes feel alone and isolated because of my
gender.
My instructors sometimes ignore my comments or
questions.
 Interaction with Peers:


I have had adequate opportunities to get to know
other students at SMC.
I get support from my classmates when I need it.
14
Factor Analysis for Mattering Items
(7 of 7)
 Supportive Learning Environment:


The classroom atmosphere encourages me to speak
out in class.
When I speak in class, I feel my contributions make
a difference in class discussions.
 Mattering to Others:


I believe that who I am as person matters to my
academic counselor.
I believe that who I am as person matters to my
instructors.
15
Internal Consistency
for Mattering Scale
Internal Consistency for Full Mattering
Scale and Subscales
Scale
Items
alpha
Full Mattering Scale
Sense of Belongingness
Interaction with Peers
Supportive Learning Environment
Mattering to Others
18
5
6
4
4
.85
.82
.76
.73
.69
16
Discriminant Validity Assessment
 Initial validation for Ethnic Groups
 Assessed via MANOVA


Multivariate effect of ethnicity on mattering scales:
Wilk’s lambda, F(12,281) = 2.84,
p = .001, partial η2 = .04.
Univariate Effects:
Source
Full Mattering Scale
Sense of Belongingness
Interaction with Peers
Supportive Learning Environment
Mattering to Others
F
Sig.
Partial η2
3.68
4.38
3.56
4.51
0.08
.013
.005
.015
.004
.970
.04
.05
.04
.05
.00
17
Discriminant Validity Assessment
 Asian students in general experience lower degrees of
belongingness, interact less with peers, experience a
lesser supportive learning environment, and more
generally, indicate they matter less. The opposite is the
case for African Americans.
Scale
1. Asian
2. African
American
3. Latino
4. White
Full Mattering Scale
Sense of Belongingness
Interaction with Peers
Supportive Learning Environment
Mattering to Others
63.74*
18.60*,**
17.00*
13.70*,**
14.42
69.20*
20.02
19.11*
15.53**
14.53
67.67
20.72**
17.96
14.60
14.39
68.32
20.50*
17.98
15.23*
14.61
* p < .05, ** p < .01 *** p < .001
18
Construct Validity Assessment
(preliminary & exploratory)
(1 of 4)
Mattering Scales correlated with College
Student Inventory scales:
Total Mattering Scale:
 Attitude Toward
Educators: r = .75**
 Verbal Confidence: r = .50*
 Educational Stress: r = -.53*
 Academic Stress: r = -.50*
* p < .05, ** p < .01 *** p < .001
19
Construct Validity Assessment
(preliminary & exploratory)
(2 of 4)
Mattering Scales correlated with College
Student Inventory scales:
Sense of Belongingness subscale:









Opinion Tolerance: r = .67***
Receptivity to Social Enrichment : r = -.44*
Receptivity to Personal Counseling: r = -.51*
Receptivity to Institutional Assistance: r = -.48*
Attitude Toward Educators: r = .60**
Verbal Confidence: r = .54**
Math & Science Confidence: r = .49*
Academic Stress: r = -.64***
Educational Stress: r = -.52*
* p < .05, ** p < .01 *** p < .001
20
Construct Validity Assessment
(preliminary & exploratory)
(3 of 4)
Mattering Scales correlated with
College Student Inventory scales:
 Interaction with Peers subscale:



Academic Difficulty Likelihood: r = -.51*
Math & Science Confidence: r = .46*
Study Habits Motivation: r = .48*
 Mattering to Others subscale:

Family Emotional Support: r = .51*
* p < .05, ** p < .01 *** p < .001
21
Construct Validity Assessment
(preliminary & exploratory)
(4 of 4)
Mattering Scales correlated with College
Student Inventory scales:
 Supportive Learning Environment subscale:






Opinion Tolerance: r = .59**
Receptivity to Social Enrichment : r = -.54*
Receptivity to Personal Counseling: r = -.45*
Receptivity to Institutional Assistance: r = -.47*
Attitude Toward Educators: r = .58**
Verbal Confidence: r = .56**
* p < .05, ** p < .01,
*** p < .001
22
Non-Significant
.
Findings for Mattering
No significant findings for:
 Gender
 Age
 Degree
of Career Decidedness
 Length of College Attendance
23
Conclusions
Psychometric properties of the Mattering
Scale supported by sound:
 Factorial
structure;
 Moderate
levels of Internal Consistency;
 Construct Validation
by widely supported
College Student Inventory;
 Discriminant
Validity for ethnic groups
24
Current & Future Research
 Expansion of 22-item scale to 36 items;
 Given to other groups of community college
probationary students and freshmen university
students;
 Construct validation via Confirmatory Factor
Analysis and the Student Adaptation to College
Questionnaire;
 Degree to which mattering influences students’
retention, persistence, success, and engagement
in college.
25
Select References
Astin, A. W. (1993). What matters in college: Four critical years revisited.
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Rosenberg, M., & McCullough, B. C. (1981). Mattering: Inferred
significance to parents and mental health among adolescents.
In R. Simmons (Ed.), Research in Community and Mental
Health, vol. 2. Greenwich, CN: JAI Press.
Schlossberg, N. K. (1989a). Improving higher education for adults. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Schlossberg, N. K. (1989b). Marginality and mattering: Key issues in
building community. In D. C. Roberts (Ed.), Designing
campus activities to foster a sense of community (New
Directions for Student Services, No. 48, pp. 5-15). San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Schlossberg, N. K., LaSalle, A., & Golec, R. (1989). The Mattering Scale
for Adults. College Park, MD: University of Maryland.
26