MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3088037955 · doi:10.1177/1521025120961012

Why Attachment Matters: First-Year Post-secondary Students’ Experience of Burnout, Disengagement, and Drop-Out

2020· article· en· W3088037955 on OpenAlexaff
Carly Bumbacco, Elaine Scharfe

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of College Student Retention Research Theory & Practice · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicAttachment and Relationship Dynamics
Canadian institutionsTrent University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDisengagement theoryBurnoutDrop outPsychologyPsychological interventionAttachment theoryStructural equation modelingAnxietySocial psychologyWork engagementStudent engagementClinical psychologyDevelopmental psychologyMedicineWork (physics)PedagogyGerontology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Despite considerable evidence that attachment theory is a valuable framework for understanding educational outcomes, associations between attachment representations, academic burnout, engagement, and drop-out have been largely overlooked. In this study, 290 first-year post-secondary students completed attachment, academic burnout, and academic engagement questionnaires; 15% of the 290 students did not return for their second year. Using Structural Equation Modelling, we were able to simultaneously test the associations among variables while controlling for measurement error which may attenuate or overestimate the associations between variables. We also tested whether the associations were similar when the decision to drop-out was added to the model. Attachment anxiety, but not attachment approach-avoidance, was found to be associated with higher burnout and lower engagement. Furthermore, higher burnout increased chances of drop-out. Implications of these findings for universities include consideration of attachment relationships when developing interventions to reduce student burnout, disengagement, and drop-out is discussed.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.270
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.061
GPT teacher head0.472
Teacher spread0.411 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations21
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of College Student Retention Research Theory & PracticeSame topicAttachment and Relationship DynamicsFrench-language works237,207