Intervention effects on college performance and retention as mediated by motivational, emotional, and social control factors: Integrated meta-analytic path analyses.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Using both organizational and educational perspectives, the authors proposed and tested theoretical models on the mediating roles that psychosocial factors (PSFs; motivational, emotional, and social control factors) play between college interventions (academic skill, self-management, socialization, and First-Year-Experience interventions) and college outcomes (academic performance and retention). They first determined through meta-analysis of 404 data points the effects of college interventions on college outcomes and on PSFs. These meta-analytic findings were then combined with results from S. B. Robbins et al.'s (2004) meta-analysis to test the proposed models. Integrated meta-analytic path analyses showed the direct and indirect effects (via PSFs) of intervention strategies on both performance and retention outcomes. The authors highlight the importance of both academic skill and self-management-based interventions; they also note the salience of motivational and emotional control mediators across both performance and retention outcomes. Implications from organizational and educational perspectives, limitations, and future directions are addressed.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.024 | 0.053 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.025 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".