Psychological Well-being in Doctoral Students: Investigating the Effects of Self-efficacy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Despite considerable research on the role of research self-efficacy and its links to scholarly productivity, there exists little research on the effects of research self-efficacy on doctoral students’ emotional and psychological well-being. The present empirical study examined the relationship between research self-efficacy and psychological well-being in doctoral students. Participants ( N = 636) recruited internationally from a total of 36 countries across 41 disciplines and completed an online questionnaire consisting of several self-report measures including self-efficacy for research, emotional well-being, and global psychological adjustment (burnout, depression, intention to quit, impostor syndrome). Hierarchical regression analyses controlling for the effect of age, gender, discipline, Ph.D. year, and Ph.D. stage revealed significant beneficial effects of self-efficacy on both failure-related and epistemic emotions with students reporting higher self-efficacy levels concerning their graduate training also reporting better levels of intention to quit, burnout, depression, and impostor syndrome. These findings show self-efficacy to play a significant role in the emotional lives and well-being of doctoral students in depicting higher self-efficacy to predict more positive emotions and lower negative emotions concerning program performance, as well as better levels across critical mental health indicators in this population.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".