The Relationship between Motivation and Academic Performance in Chiropractic Students
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study aimed to investigate the relationship between motivation and academic performance in chiropractic students. This was a cross-sectional study. Three hundred and sixty-two students were recruited from the 1st and 3rd quarters during the 2017-2018 academic year. Out of 362 students, 305 completed the Inventory of School Motivation (ISM). Total scores from the 1st quarter General Anatomy course and the 3rd quarter Immunology/Endocrinology course were used to measure the 1st quarter and 3rd quarter academic performance, respectively. The mean total motivation score for all students was 28.40 ± 3.79 (mean ± SD). There was no signi?cant difference in total motivation score between students in the two quarters (p > .05). The mean of the 1st quarter praise scores was statistically significantly higher than those of the 3rd quarter (p < .05). The means of three motivation subscale scores for females were signi?cantly higher than that for males (task, effort, and praise, p < .05) while the mean competition score for males was signi?cantly higher than that for females (p < .01). The linear analysis demonstrated a weak but statistically significant correlation of task (r = .11, p < .05) and effort (r = .13, p < .05) with academic performance indicating that task and effort were minor predictors of academic outcome (p < .05).There was a weak, but statistically significant positive correlation between the three motivation subscales and academic performance. Female students scored significantly higher on three motivation subscales while males scored higher on one.
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 | 0.003 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".