International Journal of Adolescence and Youth

ISSN: 0267-3843 (Print) 2164-4527 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rady20

Grit, self-efficacy, achievement orientation goals,

and academic performance in University students

Amal Alhadabi & Aryn C. Karpinski

To cite this article: Amal Alhadabi & Aryn C. Karpinski (2019): Grit, self-efficacy, achievement
orientation goals, and academic performance in University students, International Journal of
Adolescence and Youth, DOI: 10.1080/02673843.2019.1679202

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/02673843.2019.1679202

© 2019 The Author(s). Published by Informa

UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis
Group.

Published online: 18 Oct 2019.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 34

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rady20
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ADOLESCENCE AND YOUTH
https://doi.org/10.1080/02673843.2019.1679202

Grit, self-efficacy, achievement orientation goals, and academic

performance in University students
Amal Alhadabi and Aryn C. Karpinski
School of Foundations, Leadership, and Administration, Evaluation and Measurement, Kent State University,
College of Education, Health, and Human Services, Kent, OH, USA

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

The current study investigated the relationships between grit, self- Received 28 August 2019
efficacy, achievement orientation goals, and academic performance in Accepted 8 October 2019
parallel and serial mediation models. University student participants (N KEYWORDS
= 258) responded to an online survey containing demographic items and Grit; academic performance;
scales measuring the non-cognitive factors noted above. The results self-efficacy; achievement
demonstrated that ‘grit’ (i.e. perseverance of effort and consistency of orientation goals
interest) positively associates with academic performance through
a sequential pathway of mediators including self-efficacy and achieve-
ment orientation goals. Findings supported the positive relationships
between mastery, approach goals, and academic performance, as well
as the negative association between avoidance goals and academic per-
formance. The model revealed that self-efficacy may play supportive and
protective roles by increasing the positive effect of mastery and perfor-
mance-approach goals and reducing the negative effect of avoidance
goals on academic performance, respectively. These novel findings sup-
port the contribution of ‘grit’ in predicting various academic outcomes.

Introduction
Grade Point Average (GPA) is a common measure of students’ academic achievement, which is
considered as a reflection of academic success and achieving the pedagogical goals. In a recent
review of academic success, approximately 55% of the selected articles from over 20 peer-reviewed
journals reported that the most frequently used indicator of academic success was academic
achievement, or more concretely, GPA (York, Gibson, & Rankin, 2015). Although academic achieve-
ment is regularly operationalized as GPA, followed distantly by ‘Grades,’ these cognitive domain
variables (i.e. involving knowledge and the development of intellectual skills; Bloom, Engelhart, Furst,
Hill, & Krathwohl, 1956) are too narrow. For example, students may have similar measurable out-
comes (e.g. GPA), yet their learning experiences may vary considerably. Overall, the definitions of
academic achievement largely neglect that academic success can be shaped not only by cognitive
variables but also non-cognitive variables.
As an example, there are two students pursuing a Bachelor’s degree in the field of Chemistry. Both
students excel in their studies and achieve a similar GPA. However, Student A obtains the degree in
order to score the highest grade, and to be valued by his/her family and peers (i.e. surface learning;
Duff, 2004). Student B obtains the degree to master applied and theoretical techniques to remedy
environmental and/or health problems. Thus, the degree can help him/her to provide beneficial,
valid, and trustworthy contributions to the field of Chemistry and beyond (i.e. deep learning; Lau &
Lee, 2008).

CONTACT Amal Alhadabi aalhadab@kent.edu

© 2019 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group.
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/),
which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
2 A. ALHADABI AND A. C. KARPINSKI

Related to the hypothetical example, multiple non-cognitive factors in the affective domain such
as achievement goals, self-efficacy, and grit can shape a Chemistry major’s desired academic out-
comes (e.g. Cooper, 2014; Duckworth, Peterson, Matthews, & Kelly, 2007). That is, students have
different reasons for approaching academic experiences and learning. Student A’s motivations (i.e.
obtaining the highest grades and an elite status) are different from Student B’s motivations (i.e.
understanding the subject deeply to perform competently). The degree of engagement in learning
Chemistry is defined by their achievement goals, which can impact their overall GPA. Elliot and
Church (1997) identified three main achievement goals that include mastery (MGs, e.g. Student B),
performance-approach (PAGs; e.g. Student A), and performance-avoidance (AGs; e.g. student who
avoid learning due to fear of failure and unfavourable competency judgements).
Literature has provided an ample body of evidences that substantiates the associations between
academic achievement and three achievement goals, as follows (1) Positive strong association with
MGs (Dull, Schleifer, & McMillan, 2015), (2) Positive, though, weaker association with PAGs compared
to MGs (Mattern, 2005), which can be nonsignificant as shown in some studies (Cooper, 2014; Dull
et al., 2015), and (3) Negative association with AGs (Cooper, 2014). For instance, Mattern (2005) found
significant differences between students who adopted MGs and PAGs in their academic achieve-
ment. Meaning, students who adopted PAGs had lower grades relative to students who were
mastery-oriented. The weaker association between PAGs and achievement relative to MGs can be
attributed to two reasons. First, performance-oriented students tend to embrace surface learning.
This learning is characterized by more memorization (Duff, 2004) and less effort to deeply under-
stand the learning material (i.e. deep learning). In contrast, deep learning, which frequently appears
among student who are mastery-oriented (i.e. understanding), probably lasts longer and raises the
quality of students learning. The second considerable reason emphasizes that students with PAGs
reduced the effort in the face of failure and showed low task enjoyment during difficult learning tasks
(Bodmann, 2008).
Many factors can impact students’ preferences for specific types of achievement goal orienta-
tions. Some of these factors include the personal reflections of university students (e.g. self-efficacy),
combined with copious amounts of grit, which can determine various academic paths. More
specifically, intrinsic beliefs and dogged perseverance can also influence the approaches and/or
strategies implemented along a number of paths that involve academic tasks and outcomes (i.e.
achievement goals and GPA; Carmona, Buunk, Dijkstra, & Peiro, 2008). As such, it is important to
examine the contribution of students’ non-cognitive qualities in shaping desirable academic
outcomes.
Achievement orientation goals and self-efficacy have widely been examined; however, grit has
been relatively understudied compared to their other two non-cognitive and cognitive counterparts.
Grit, as one example of a non-cognitive characteristic, appears throughout the literature as an
important predictor of general well-being and academic outcomes (e.g. Datu, Valdez, & King,
2016; Duckworth et al., 2007; Eskreis-Winkler, Shulman, Beal, & Duckworth, 2014). Henceforth, the
current study aimed to determine the associations between grit (i.e. the dimensions of grit), self-
efficacy, achievement orientation goals, and academic performance. In particular, the direct and
indirect associations between the abovementioned variables and GPA among university students
were explored in a parallel and serial mediation model.

Literature review
Academic performance
Extensive research has examined the factors that impact university students’ academic performance
as defined by GPA. For example, an international study of 26 countries revealed that sociodemo-
graphic factors (e.g. age, family income, and social support), health behaviours (e.g. fibre consump-
tion, physical activity, illicit drug and alcohol use), and mental health (e.g. sleep problems and
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ADOLESCENCE AND YOUTH 3

depression) were significantly correlated with self-reported academic performance (Peltzer &
Pengpid, 2014). These factors (and others) determine student retention. The National Centre for
Education Statistics (NCES; Snyder, de Brey, & Dillow, 2016) revealed that only 32.5% of all students
completed a Bachelor’s degree or higher in the United States (U.S.) despite the relative increase in
student enrolment from 2004 to 2014. That is, degree completion and student retention are not at
optimal levels despite growth in enrolment.
Considering this, research has shown that the factors impacting academic outcomes can vary
from more general contextual variables (e.g. Socioeconomic Status [SES] and parents’ highest level of
education), to more individualistic qualities. These qualities comprise cognitive indicators such as
standardized test scores and high school GPA and non-cognitive (affective) characteristics like
motivation and learning goals. One meta-analysis indicated that these cognitive factors explained
only 25% of the variance in the academic performance (Robbins, Lauver, Le, Davis, Langley, &
Carlstrom, 2004). Therefore, other non-cognitive factors could account for the remaining unex-
plained variance. As a result, studies have examined blended models (i.e. combining cognitive and
non-cognitive variables to predict academic outcomes), which have explained a substantial amount
of variance in performance (Cooper, 2014; Robbins et al., 2004). Of course including additional
variables in these predictive models explains more variance; however, selecting the appropriate
predictors is critical when accounting for variance in students’ performance. That is, the quality and
not the quantity of the variables involved in predictive modelling (e.g. using multiple regression,
structural equation models) should be paramount, with theory and literature supporting their
inclusion (Schumacker & Lomax, 2010).
The current study aimed to examine the association between non-cognitive predictors (i.e. grit,
self-efficacy, and goals orientation) and academic performance. Considerable research exists detail-
ing the relationship between self-efficacy, goal orientation, and academic performance. Yet, few
studies have considered non-cognitive variables alone, and specifically, the role of grit in these
models. The following paragraphs include a brief review of the literature involving the impact of
affective variables on academic performance – Grit, Achievement Goal Orientations (AGOs), and Self-
Efficacy (SE).

Grit
Duckworth et al. (2007) defined grit as behaving passionately and assiduously to achieve long-term
targets despite difficulties. In other words, people with greater levels of grit are more determined
when trying to overcome obstacles. These people also persist in maintaining interest in order to
achieve their targets despite failure, difficulties, and/or lack of support (Arslan et al., 2013). The
growing body of psychological literature demonstrates grit’s associations with academic, personal,
and behavioural constructs. Academically, previous studies have indicated that grit is positively
associated with a range of outcomes such as freshman year retention and GPA (Arouty, 2015),
academic engagement, self-reported grades (Buller, 2012; Datu et al., 2016; Duckworth et al., 2007),
and post-secondary aspirations (Gorman, 2015).
The abovementioned relationships are catalysed by the theoretical predictive influence of grit.
Students who want higher grades (i.e. by psychologically adopting a performance-approach learning
orientation) have more grit relative to a student who avoids learning (i.e. by espousing avoidance
goal orientations; Akin & Arslan, 2014). That is, grittier students practised significantly more self-
regulated learning strategies such as valuing the learned material (i.e. the importance and utility of
learned content; Wigfield & Eccles, 2000), bolstering their self-efficacy, and employing cognitive and
motivational study strategies (Wolters & Hussain, 2015). Concurrently, these students also procras-
tinated less (Wolters & Hussain, 2015).
The construct of grit consists of two dimensions: (1) Perseverance of effort (G-PE), and (2)
Consistency of interest (G-CI). G-PE refers to the extent to which individuals exert durable effort in
facing challenges. Whereas G-CI pertains to the tendency to adopt a similar array of interests for an
4 A. ALHADABI AND A. C. KARPINSKI

extended period of time. The current study examines the influence of these dimensions of grit on
students’ self-efficacy and achievement orientation goals. Specifically, the probability of adopting
positive learning goals (i.e. mastery goals and performance-approach goals) is greater for students
who have more interest and exert greater effort during the learning process. Conversely, students
with lower levels of interest and less persevere during academic difficulties are more likely to avoid
learning by adopting performance-avoidance goals.
Thus, the two dimensions of grit are hypothesized to influence academic performance indirectly.
Meaning, students who perceive themselves as more interested and persistent when learning, will
have more self-efficacy. This, in turn, heralds the adoption of positive learning goal orientations
resulting in higher GPAs. Analysing the sequential order of these indirect effects can determine if the
dimensions of grit precede self-efficacy in predicting learning goals and grades.
The literature is unclear regarding which of the two predictors (i.e. grit dimensions and self-
efficacy) holds temporal precedence. No consensus exists in the literature as to the order or direction
of the variables. For instance, Hwang (2017) indicated that grit plays a role as a complete or a partial
mediator between language proficiency and three sub-scales of self-efficacy. However, Wolters and
Hussain (2015) found that self-regulated learning with its multiple dimensions (including self-
efficacy) were mediators in the relationship between grit and academic achievement. More specific
to the current study, Cooper (2014) illustrated that self-efficacy mediated the relationship between
perseverance of effort and academic performance. Considering these mixed results, this study
positioned the grit dimensions as the beginning of the abovementioned sequential indirect effect.
To support the above model sequence, literature has indicated that grit is a stable characteristic
(e.g. personality), which influences an individual’s attitudes and behaviours (Duckworth & Quinn,
2009; Kleiman, Adams, Kashdan, & Riskind, 2013; Wolter & Hussain, 2015). Returning to the example
comparing Chemistry Student A and B, Student A may want to use his/her knowledge in the field to
reduce environmental pollution; however, this student may have lower self-efficacy in his/her ability
to accomplish this mission. If this student has a higher level of grit (i.e. perseverance of effort), the
student may conduct experiments to provide environmentally friendly solutions to pollution despite
his/her initial perceived abilities and lower self-efficacy. On the other hand, low self-efficacy may
reduce the relationship between the grit dimensions and achievement goals. Studies have shown
that self-efficacy mediates the relationship between non-cognitive predictors including grit and
academic success outcomes (Cooper, 2014; Wolter & Hussain, 2014). Additionally, extensive literature
supports the relationship between self-efficacy and achievement goals. Very little research, if any,
has explored the relationship between grit and achievement goals (Cooper, 2014).

Academic goal orientations (AGOs)

The literature has demonstrated that a student’s approach to learning determines his/her attitudes,
engagement, and strategies in accomplishing learning tasks related to overall GPA. One of the
constructs that explains approaches to learning is achievement goal orientation. Elliot and Church
(1997) defined the construct as an individual’s beliefs that reveals the reasons why he/she
approaches and engages in academic tasks. Also, it represents specific types of goals that shape
the framework for how individuals interpret, experience, and perform their achievement pursuits.
The achievement goal orientation literature has evolved over time (Adesope, Gress, & Nesbit,
2008). Initially, Dweck and Leggett (1988) proposed a dichotomous framework of achievement goals,
which is comprised of mastery and performance goals. In the late 1990s, the dichotomous model was
expanded to a trichotomous framework that includes mastery, performance-approach, and perfor-
mance-avoidance goals (Elliot, 1999; Elliot & Church, 1997). Following the three-category model,
a four-factor model emerged consisting of two types of mastery goals (i.e. mastery-approach and
mastery-avoidance) and two of performance goals (i.e. performance-approach and performance-
avoidance; Pintrich, 2000; for review, see Al-Harthy, 2016). Recently, a five-factor model has been
developed in an attempt to explain the variability in the students’ mastery behaviour (i.e. mastery
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ADOLESCENCE AND YOUTH 5

intrinsic, mastery-extrinsic, performance-approach, performance-avoidance, and avoidance goals;

Niemivirta, 2002).
The present study adopted the trichotomous framework for the following reasons. A meta-
analysis (N = 125 studies examining AGOs) revealed that the majority of existing research has
adopted the three-factor model (n = 72 studies), whereas a smaller number of studies investigated
the two-factor model (n = 52) and the four-factor model (n = 24; Huang, 2016). More critically,
literature has demonstrated clear conceptual distinctions between the three models. Huang (2016)
has argued that empirical differentiations among these models had not been fully supported (i.e.
discriminant validity). However, a more recent line of research has illustrated that an individual can
embrace diverse goals simultaneously (Luo, Paris, Hogan, & Luo, 2011), making it less plausible and
practical to investigate the four-factor or the newer five-factor model in the current study.
The current study adopted the trichotomous framework. Mastery goal (MGs) orientation is
defined as a desire to develop competence, master a skill, and understand the learning material.
Individuals who are mastery goal-oriented usually show persistence even in failure and have high
task enjoyment (Elliot & Church, 1997). Studies have shown that mastery goals correlate positively
with an intrinsic motivation to learn, an adaptive pattern of attribution, and deep cognitive engage-
ment (Greene, Miller, Crowson, Duke, & Akey, 2004; Lau & Lee, 2008). Other research has revealed
that mastery goals positively influence enjoyment and negatively relate to anxiety and boredom
throughout the academic year (Ranellucci, Hall, & Goetz, 2015). Overall, literature strongly evidences
the positive correlation between mastery goals and academic performance (Dull et al., 2015).
Within performance goals, there are two different types – performance-approach goals and
performance-avoidance goals (Elliot & Church, 1997). Performance-approach goals (PAGs) include
attaining favourable judgements of competence. That is individuals who are performance goal-
oriented focus on demonstrating competence by attempting to accomplish tasks better than others.
These individuals acquire only a surface level of understanding (i.e. related to rote learning and
memorization; Duff, 2004). The literature provides contradicting evidence on the relationship
between performance-approach goals and academic performance. As one example, Hsieh,
Sullivan, and Guerra (2007) indicated that PAGs are not significantly correlated with GPA. Whereas
other studies have shown a significant, positive association between PAGs and GPA (Durik, Lovejoy,
& Johnson, 2009). More recently, research has demonstrated the conditional nature of the relation-
ship. Students have found that PAGs were a significant, positive predictor of academic performance;
however, this relationship was predicated on the inclusion of other goals (e.g. mastery goals,
avoidance goals) in a blended model (Cooper, 2014; Dull et al., 2015).
As indicated by Dull et al. (2015), individuals with PAGs adopt both learning processes and
activities (Duff, 2004) including surface and strategic learning (i.e. aimed at maximizing academic
performance), supporting the hypothesized positive relationship between performance goals and
GPA. In addition, individuals with performance goals reduce the effort in the face of failure and have
low task enjoyment (Bodmann, 2008). This substantiates the positive correlation between perfor-
mance-approach and avoidance goals (Linnenbrink-Garcia et al., 2012; Ranellucci et al., 2015).
By contrast, performance-avoidance goals (AGs) are centred on evading unfavourable compe-
tency judgements. Unsurprisingly, performance-avoidance goals are characterized by fears of failure
and expectations of low competence, which leads to self-protective behaviours, feelings of helpless,
and poor academic outcomes (Lau & Lee, 2008). Thus, the literature favours a negative correlation
between performance-avoidance goals and academic performance (Cooper, 2014; Hsieh et al., 2007;
Ranellucci et al., 2015).

General self-efficacy (SE)

Self-efficacy is a critical component of Bandura’s Social Cognitive Theory, in which SE is defined as
the ‘ . . . people’s judgment of their capabilities to organize and execute courses of action required to
attain designated types of performance’ (Bandura, 1986, p. 391). In their review, Honicke and
6 A. ALHADABI AND A. C. KARPINSKI

Broadbent (2016) demonstrated that SE is moderately correlated with academic performance. This
association was noted across multiple educational levels including primary, secondary, and post-
secondary populations (Robbins et al., 2004). Research has evidenced that numerous mediators and
moderators influence the relationship between SE and academic performance including effort
regulation, deep processing strategies, and goal orientation (Honicke & Broadbent, 2016).
Behaviourally, higher SE affords students the skills and attitudes that promote success and
achievement. For instance, research has demonstrated that SE is correlated with self-regulatory
learning strategies (Honicke & Broadbent, 2016). In more detail, self-regulated learning involves four
processes/phases (i.e. setting goals, monitoring, control, and reaction and reflection) and four areas
(i.e. cognition, motivation, behaviour, and context) in which students regulate their learning
(Pintrich, 2004). For instance, in Phase 1 (i.e., setting goals), the student cognitively identifies his/
her goals (e.g. deep learning of Chemistry). As a result, the student adopts the appropriate goal
orientation (e.g. mastery goal orientation). Hence, the required time and effort needed to achieve the
mastery goal are identified. However, the final model area (i.e., context) does play a role through the
student’s perceptions of task importance and context significance. That is, if there is increased
importance attributed to uncovering new Chemistry-based solutions for serious issues (e.g. investi-
gating cures for specific diseases), then a commensurate rise in effort (and time) is expected. That is,
the types of decisions and actions the student takes at each phase determines the quality of self-
regulated learning.
Mohammadyari (2012) expressed that SE directly influences students’ amount of effort invested in
the learning, persistence, types of learning tasks, and ultimately, achievement. Explicitly, Zimmerman
(1989, p. 329) stated that, ‘Such students personally initiate and direct their own efforts to acquire
knowledge and skill rather than relying on teachers, parents or other agents of instruction.’ This
acknowledges the complementary nature of the three major components: (1) Self-regulated learning
strategies, (2) SE, and (3) Commitment to learning goals. Research has shown that highly efficacious
students manage their work-time better, derive more pleasure and enjoyment from tasks, and
employ deeper cognitive processing (Vantieghem, Vermeersch, & Van Houtte, 2014). Related to
achievement goal theory, students with high SE tend to set mastery goals, do more challenging
tasks, and obtain better grades (Schnell, Ringeisen, Raufelder, & Rohrmann, 2015). Hence, the current
study hypothesized that gritty people with high SE have lofty academic expectations and are more
likely to adopt mastery goals. As SE decreases, the tendency to adopt performance-approach and
avoidance goals increases.

Study model
From the literature, the model (i.e. from left to right) depicts the sequential relationships between
grit and the other study variables in a chronological pathway. The previous research below suggests
that grit may be a valuable direct and indirect indicator of other affective variables in relation to
academic performance. Wolters and Hussain (2015) illustrated that grit (specifically G-PE) is
a consistent and adaptive predictor for indicators of self-regulated learning, which includes SE.
Sumpter (2017) categorized students into four groups based on their level of grit and self-control.
Results showed a significant interaction effect between group and achievement goals. For the low
grit/self-control group, there were no significant differences between the three achievement goals
(MGs, PAGs and AGs). On the other hand, students in the high grit/self-control group rated mastery
goals higher relative to the other two performance goals. Cooper (2014) demonstrated that G-PE is
a significant predictor of academic performance, and G-CI is uncorrelated with academic outcomes.
The previous research collectively suggests that grit may have valuable effects on other affective
variables that can enhance (or with less grit, can diminish) student academic performance.
In the intermediate part of the model (i.e. the association between SE and the three achievement
goals), individuals with MG and PAG orientations have higher SE relative to those who avoid failure
by adopting an AG orientation (Carmona et al., 2008). A meta-analysis of 148 studies evidenced that
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ADOLESCENCE AND YOUTH 7

SE has strong to moderate correlations with MGs, moderate to low with PAGs, and lower negative
correlations with AGs (Huang, 2016). In another study, SE demonstrated a significant direct effect on
MGs, but not on PAGs or AGs (Al-Harthy & Was, 2013). Further investigation of SE’s impact on the
three achievement goals is needed in combination with other affective factors such as grit to clarify
the combined effect of non-cognitive components on academic performance.
The final relationships in the model are between the three achievement goals and academic
performance. Studies have shown that MGs are positively (Dull et al., 2015) and AGs are negatively
related to academic performance (Cooper, 2014; Ranellucci et al., 2015). However, the third achieve-
ment goal’s (PAG) relationship with various academic outcomes is inconsistent in the literature.
Therefore, examining the impact of these goals on academic achievement in addition to other non-
cognitive variables (i.e. grit and SE) is warranted.
As a whole, the literature is a mixed-bag of models with different variables used in isolation or in
combination. Some studies have investigated the relationship between SE and achievement goals
(Al-Harthy & Was, 2013; Carmona et al., 2008; Huang, 2016). However, other studies have addressed
the associations between achievement goals, general motivational constructs and grit (Akin & Arslan,
2014; Leung, Chen, & Chen, 2014). Scant research exists examining the relationship between grit and
SE (Wolter & Hussain, 2009).
After an exhaustive literature search, only one study has investigated all four variables simulta-
neously (i.e. grit, SE, AGO, and academic performance; Cooper, 2014). No other studies have
examined the impact of grit on the remaining study variables. This gap highlights the importance
of addressing the direct and indirect effects, the mediating role of SE, and influences of achievement
goals on the relationships between grit’s dimensions and academic performance.
Most importantly, the purpose of the current study is to test this sequential model, and in
particular, grit’s theoretical location as the first predictor in the sequential pathway. Given that,
moving from more stable (i.e. under the student’s direct and personal control) to mutable variables
(i.e. student achievement goals) is one of the fundamental reasons for building the model. That is,
grit is a stable characteristic that influences the development of strategies needed to achieve long-
term goals including self-control strategies and achievement goals (Duckworth & Quinn, 2009;
Kleiman et al., 2013; Wolter & Hussain, 2014). Furthermore, multiple studies support the mediation
role of SE as a mediator between grit and achievement goals (Cooper, 2014; Wolters & Hussain,
2014).
Combining the above, the stability of grit and mediating role of SE (between grit and achieve-
ment goals) justifies heir placement in the model. Following this, the selection of certain achieve-
ment goals depends on the level of both grit and SE (Al-Harthy & Was, 2013; Carmona et al., 2008;
Sumpter, 2017). Consequently, students having higher levels of grit and positive perceptions of their
abilities will select productive learning goals that enhance academic achievement. Therefore,
a conceptual model was examined (see Figure 1) using a series of hypotheses (H) detailed below.

Figure 1. Conceptual model (i.e. initial model).

8 A. ALHADABI AND A. C. KARPINSKI

Hypotheses
(H1) Direct and Indirect Hypotheses:
(H1A)Grit’s Consistency of Interest (G-CI) and Perseverance of Effort (G-PE) dimensions have
positive, indirect effects on Mastery Goals (MGs) and Performance-Approach Goals (PAGs).
(H2B)Grit’s dimensions have negative, indirect effects on Performance-Avoidance Goals (AGs).
(H3C)Self-Efficacy (SE) mediates the relationship between Grit’s dimensions and Achievement
Goal Orientations (AGOs).
(H4D)Mastery (MGs) and Performance-Approach Goals (PAGs) have positive, direct effects on
academic performance (GPA).
(H5E)Performance-Avoidance Goals (AGs) have a negative, direct effect on academic perfor-
mance (GPA).
(H6F)Self-Efficacy (SE) has a positive, direct effect on Performance-Approach (PAGs) and Mastery
Goals (MGs).
(H7G)Self-Efficacy (SE) has a negative, direct effect on -Avoidance Goals (AGs).
(H2) Parallel Mediation Hypothesis (i.e. an Independent Variable [IV or X] influences a Dependent
Variable [DV or Y] through two or more mediator variables [M1, M2, . . .] concurrently; Hayes, 2013):
(H2A) The IV (X: Self-Efficacy; SE) has an indirect effect on the DV (Y: GPA) through all three
mediator variables (Achievement Goal Orientations [AGOs]: M1 = MGs, M2 = PAGs, and M3 = AGs).
(H3) Serial Mediation Hypothesis:
(H3A)Grit’s dimensions have indirect effects on academic performance (GPA) through multiple
mediators including Self-Efficacy (SE) and Achievement Goal Orientations (AGOs).

Methods
Participants
After IRB approval, university students in the U.S. were invited to participate via emails and social
media posts. Recruitment emails and posts were sent to departments and colleges at one, large,
public Midwestern university. The sample included 258 undergraduate students, and represented
diverse majors (e.g. Sociology, Nutrition, Accounting, Aeronautics, Art, History, Chemistry,
Communication Studies, Computer Science, Psychology, Geology, etc.).

Measures
The online survey consisted of four sections including: (1) Demographic and academic information,
(2) The modified Achievement Goal Orientation (AGO) scale (Elliot & Church, 1997), (3) The modified
Self-Efficacy Scale (Sherer et al., 1982), and (4) The Short Grit Scale (Grit-S; Duckworth & Quinn, 2009).
Demographic information included gender, age, nationality, and undergraduate or graduate student
status. Students also reported their cumulative Grade Point Average (GPA) as a measure of academic
performance.
The first measure was the modified AGO scale (Elliot & Church, 1997). This scale consists of 18
items and three dimensions including (1) Performance-Approach Goals (PAG), (2) Mastery Goals
(MG), and (3) Performance-Avoidance Goals (AG). Items are rated on a 7-point Likert scale ranging
from ‘Not Like Me at All’ (Coded 1) to ‘Very True of Me’ (Coded 7). Principal Components Analysis
(PCA) in a sample of Psychology undergraduates (N = 204) evidenced three components, with all
items loading higher than .40 on their primary factor. Internal consistency reliabilities (Cronbach’s α)
were high for all three dimensions (MG: α = .91, PAG: α = .89, and AG: α = .77; Elliot & Church, 1997).
In the current study, the response structure for the items was modified from a 7-point to
a 5-point Likert scale. Previous studies using the 5-point Likert scale had higher response rates
and quality, which was attributed to reduce respondents’ frustration with the online-format survey
(Buttle, 1996). That is, the current study survey had more than 43 items in total (i.e. eight items for
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ADOLESCENCE AND YOUTH 9

the grit scale, 18 items for the AGO scale, and 17 items for the general SE scale). Each group of
items had different Likert scale response options, which might have required more time and effort
from participants. Thus, the AGO scale was modified to be a 5-point Likert scale. Additionally, the
original AGO measure has been modified in other studies by adding a mastery-avoidance dimen-
sion and changing the response scale from seven to five response options (Elliot & Murayama,
2008). In the current study, only the number of response options were modified. Internal consis-
tency reliability coefficients were high and comparable to previous studies for the three dimen-
sions of MG, PAG, and AG (Cronbach’s α = .90, .87, and .80, respectively).
The second measure, the Self-Efficacy (SE) Scale (Sherer et al., 1982), has two dimensions – General
SE (17 items) and Social SE (6 items). The current study administered the 17 items representing
General SE. Eleven items were negatively coded. All items are rated on a 5-point Likert scale ranging
from ‘Strongly Disagree’ (Coded 1) to ‘Strongly Agree’ (Coded 5). The original psychometric study
reported high internal consistency reliability (Cronbach’s α = .86) for General SE, and a comparable
level was demonstrated in the current sample (Cronbach’s α = .89).
The Grit-S scale consists of eight items reflecting a range of grit features. The Grit-S uses a 5-point
Likert scale ranging from ‘Not Like Me at All’ (Coded 1) to ‘Very Much Like Me’ (Coded 5). The scale
contains two dimensions – Consistency of Interest (G-CI; i.e. four items reversely coded) and
Perseverance of Effort (G-PE; i.e. four items positively coded). Across four different samples, the
reliability coefficients for G-CI (i.e. Cronbach’s α ranging from .73 to .79) were higher than G-PE (i.e.
Cronbach’s α ranging from .60 to .78; Duckworth & Quinn, 2009). In the current study, the grit
dimensions had nearly equivalent reliability coefficients (i.e. G-CI and G-PE Cronbach’s α = .79 and
.74, respectively).

Data analysis
Path Analysis (PA) was used to analyse the data in the current study. PA has five model steps: (1)
Specification, (2) Identification, (3) Estimation, (4) Testing, and (5) Modification. In the first step, the
model was specified using the existing literature and other empirical evidence as noted in previous
sections. For the second step, Schumacker and Lomax (2010) state that the model should be over-
identified or just-identified. That is, the number of distinct values in the sample matrix S should be
greater or equal to the number of free parameters estimated in the model. In this study, there are 28
distinct values in the matrix S and 15 free parameters. This indicates that the model has been
identified properly and is over-identified.
In the third step, a model estimation method is selected after examining the descriptive statistics
for each variable. Data screening (e.g. missing data, outliers, etc.), descriptive statistics, and Pearson
correlations were analysed in Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) for Windows Version 24.0
before conducting PA. Based on the above information, Maximum Likelihood (ML) was selected as
the estimation method (Schumacker & Lomax, 2010). LISREL 9.0 was used to test the model, identify
the fit indices, and calculate the direct and indirect relationships.
Prior to model testing, the adequacy of the sample size was examined. Kline (1998) suggested
that the sample size should be 10 to 20 times as many participants as parameters and at least 200
cases to have sufficient power. Additionally, Hoyle (1995) recommended a minimum sample size of
100 to 200 to ensure confidence in the Goodness-of-Fit (GoF) statistics. The current study had 15
parameters, which indicates that the current sample exceeds Kline’s and Hoyle’s recommendations.
In the testing step, several GoF indices were examined to evaluate the model’s fit to the data.
These indices included Chi-Square (i.e. or the ratio of Chi-Square divided by the degree of freedom;
χ2/df), Root-Mean-Square-Error of Approximation (RMSEA), Goodness-of-Fit Index (GFI), Adjusted
Goodness-of-Fit Index (AGFI), Normed Fit Index (NFI), and Standardized Root-Mean-Residual (SRMR).
According to Kremelberg (2009), a χ2 (i.e. divided by the df) value of five or less is indicative of
good model fit. For the RMSEA, if values are ≤ .05, then the model fit is considered good. Above .05,
RMSEA values ranging to .08 are considered acceptable (Schumacker & Lomax, 2010). Comparatively,
10 A. ALHADABI AND A. C. KARPINSKI

the SRMR should be < .05 to demonstrate a good model fit. The GFI, AGFI, and NFI fit indices have the
same criterion where 1 represents perfect fit and 0 indicates no fit. Models with values ≥ .90 are
considered acceptable and values ≥ .95 are good (Hu & Bentler, 1999). In addition to the above
indices, statistically significant direct and indirect effects (p < .05) were interpreted. Finally, the last
step in the process is modification, in which poorly fitting models are revised if there are non-
significant paths or marginal to poor model fit indices (Schumacker & Lomax, 2010).
Examining the direct, indirect and total effects assists the identification of mediation types (i.e.
mediation and suppression). Despite the great similarity between the two types, literature has
supported the differences between the two types in the path analysis model. That is, mediation
analysis aims to examine whether the intermediate variable attenuates the association between the
predictor and the outcome (i.e. resulting in a mediation effect) or strengthens the association
between the predictor and the outcome (i.e. resulting in a suppression effect; MacKinnon,
Fairchild & Fritz, 2007). That is, the suppressor variable is ‘a variable which increases the predictive
validity of another variable (or set of variables) by its inclusion in a regression equation. Thus,
a situation in which the magnitude of the relationship between an independent variable and
a dependent variable becomes larger when a third variable is included would indicate suppression.’
(MacKinnon, Krull, & Lockwood, 2000, p. 175).
The effect of the mediation/suppression can be assessed using: (1) the technique of difference
between the direct and total effect (τ-τ’; Baron and Kenny, 1986), and (2) the multiplication technique
(αβ). MacKinnon and colleagues (2000) illustrated in great depth the criteria of identifying the
mediation/suppression effect using Baron and Kenny’s traditional approach and multiplication.
Yet, there are many valid concerns related to the difference technique (Rosopa, & Stone-Romero,
2008). Therefore, the current study judged the type of mediation using multiplication technique (αβ,
provided by LISREL output) guided by MacKinnon and colleagues (2000) criteria.

Results
The current study aimed to investigate the parallel and serial mediation model of three non-
cognitive variables (i.e. Grit, SE, and AGOs) on academic performance. In particular, nine hypotheses
were tested using PA. The following section contains demographic descriptive statistics, statistical
assumption tests for PA, initial model characteristics, and final model results.

Demographic descriptive statistics

From the total sample (N = 261), the final analysis sample contained 258 participants after three
outliers were removed (see next paragraph). The analysis sample consisted of students from one,
large, public Midwestern university in the U.S. There were 69 (26.7%) males and 189 (73.3%) females.
The mean age of the sample was 25.48 (SD = 8.77). Likewise, a large portion of participants were
undergraduates (n = 173; 67.1%), 57 (22.1%) were Master’s students, and the remaining were
Doctoral students (n = 28; 10.8%).

Main variable descriptive statistics, correlations, and assumptions checking

Descriptive statistics (see Table 1) were examined in addition to outliers (z ± 2.58) on the four main
variables. The normality assumption was checked after removing outliers, with all variables approx-
imating a normal distribution. Additionally, all hypothesized correlations (see Table 2) were in the
expected direction and statistically significant (p < .05 for all) except four relationships.

Initial model
Results of the initial PA model demonstrated a significant Chi-square (χ2[12] = 22.12, p = .040),
indicting unacceptable model fit. The RMSEA and SRMR were .06 and .05, and the GFI, AGFI, and NFI
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ADOLESCENCE AND YOUTH 11

Table 1. Descriptive statistics for the path analysis model variables (N = 258).
Variables M SD Min Max
GPA 3.53 .46 2.00 4.00
Performance-Approach Goals 3.23 .95 1.00 5.00
Mastery Goals 4.27 .65 2.17 5.00
Performance-Avoidance Goals 3.44 .90 1.17 5.00
Self-Efficacy 3.73 .58 2.06 4.94
Consistency of Interest 3.16 .81 1.00 5.00
Perseverance of Effort 3.94 .65 2.25 5.00

Table 2. Pearson correlation coefficients for the path analysis model variables (N = 258).
Variables 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1. GPA - .102 .261** −.193** .224** .191** .162*
2. Performance-Approach Goals - .092 .147* .144** .015 .165*
3. Mastery Goals - −.114 .309** .140* .238**
4. Performance-Avoidance Goals - −.365** −.329** −.163**
5. Self-Efficacy - .590** .621**
6. Consistency of Interest - .424**
7. Perseverance of Effort -
Note. *p< .05, **p < .01, ***p< .001.

Figure 2. Initial model with standardized estimates.

were .98, .94, and 94, respectively. All indices indicated relatively acceptable model fit, and all paths
were significant (see Figure 2). The model was modified by adding a covariance between PAG and
AG as suggested by the modification indices and supported by previous research (Linnenbrink-
Garcia et al., 2012; Ranellucci et al., 2014).

Final model
The final PA model results demonstrated a good fit (see Table 3). There was no difference between
the observed and expected matrices (χ2 [11] = 9.95, p = .530). The RMSEA and SRMR were less than
.05. The GFI, AGFI, and NFI ranged from .97 to .99. Thus, all indices demonstrated good model fit. All
paths were significant and in the expected directions (p < .05). The largest positive standardized path
coefficients (see Figure 3) were between G-PE and SE (β = .48) and between G-CI and SE (β = .38). SE
had a negative effect on AGs (β = −.36) and AGs had a negative impact on academic performance
(GPA; β = −.18).
Conversely, SE had a positive impact on MGs (β = .33) and PAGs (β = .14). MGs and PAGs had
a positive impact on GPA (β = .23 and .12, respectively). Finally, there were 11 significant indirect
effects including: (1) a positive effect of G-CI on GPA, PAGs, MGs, and a negative effect on AGs, (2)
12 A. ALHADABI AND A. C. KARPINSKI

Table 3. Final mediation model: maximum likelihood (standardized) estimates and selected fit
indices.
Description Estimates t-values
Direct Paths
G-CI → SE .38*** 7.83
G-PE → SE .48*** 9.90
SE → AG −.36*** −6.25
SE → PAG .14* 2.30
SE → MG .33*** 5.54
AG → GPA −.18** −2.96
PAG → GPA .12* 1.96
MG → GPA .23*** 3.86
PAG → AG .20** 3.53
Indirect Paths
G-CI → SE → AG → GPA .06* 3.93
G-CI → SE → PAG .05* 2.21
G-CI → SE → MG .12* 4.59
G-CI → SE → AG −.13* −4.59
G-PE → SE → AG → GPA .07* 4.13
G-PE → SE → PAG .07* 2.24
G-PE → SE → MG .16* 4.83
G-PE → SE → AG −.16* −4.92
SE → AG → GPA .15* 4.54
SE → PAG → AG .03* 1.93
Equation Error Variances
GPA .10*** 11.31
PAG .02*** 11.31
MG .11*** 11.31
AG .15*** 11.31
SE .53*** 11.31
Selected Fit Indices
X2 9.95
Root-Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) .000
Standardized Root-Mean-Square Residual (SRMR) .04
Goodness-of-Fit Model (GFI) .99
Adjusted Goodness-of-Fit Model (AGFI) .97
Normed Fit Index (NFI) .97
Note. Grit-Consistency of Interest = G-CI, Self-Efficacy = SE, Grit-Perseverance of Effort = G-PE,
Avoidance-Goals = AG, Performance-Approach Goals = PAG, Mastery Goals = MG, Grade Point
Average = GPA, *p< .05, **p < .01, ***p< .001.

Figure 3. Final model with standardized path coefficients.

 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ADOLESCENCE AND YOUTH 13

a positive effect of G-PE on GPA, PAGs, MGs, and a negative effect on AGs, (3) a positive effect of SE
on GPA, and a small effect on AGs, and (4) a negative effect of PAGs on GPA through AGs.
The total effects of G-CI and G-PE on GPA through SE and three AGOs (β = .06 and β = .07,
respectively) were significant. According to MacKinnon and colleagues (2000) criteria, these results
demonstrated an indirect impact of grit on academic performance (i.e. Serial Mediation). Similarly, SE
had a positive and significant total effect on GPA through three AGOs (β = .08; i.e. Parallel Mediation).
This total effect was significant even with a negative direct effect on AGs. That is, SE’s influence on
GPA was stronger than the negative mediating impact of AGs. Overall, the serial and parallel
mediation models were supported (H2A and H3A), including the direct and indirect relationships
hypothesized in H1A through H1G (see Table 4).

Discussion
Personal characteristics such as grit and self-efficacy were influential in forming students’
approaches towards learning experience. In other words, these qualities shaped students’ aca-
demic purists and AGOs (Akin & Arslan, 2014). As a result, achievement goals are related to
students’ academic performance. The current study hypothesized a path model based on existing
literature (see Figure 1). The primary model suggested that grit dimensions correlate positively
with students’ self-efficacy, which was hypothesized to influence student goal orientations and
academic performance. Self-efficacy, in the second part of the model, established a supportive role
by positively impacting mastery and performance-approach goals and a protective role by redu-
cing the negative impact of avoidance goals on academic performance indirectly.
Lastly, mastery and performance goals enhanced academic performance while avoidance goals
had a negative impact on GPA. This hypothesized model was tested using PA, in which several indices
were obtained to evaluate model fit. The initial model illustrated some unacceptable fit indices, and
was modified by adding a relationship between performance and avoidance goals. The indices of the
modified model demonstrated a good model fit. These findings provided a theoretical framework for
the direct and indirect effects between study variables in the context of higher education.
In detail, the study results showed that grit’s dimensions have a direct effect on SE along with
indirect effects on MG, PAG, and AG. As expected, both dimensions correlate positively with MG,
PAG, and GPA as well negatively with AG. The strength of these influences differed across the two

Table 4. Mediation model: total, direct, and indirect effects.

Variables Direct Effect (τ’) Indirect Effect (αβ) Total Effect (τ)
G-CI → GPA 0 .06* .06*
G-CI → PAG 0 .05* .05*
G-CI → MG 0 .12* .12*
G-CI → AG 0 −.13* −.13*
G-CI → SE .38*** 0 .38***
G-PE → GPA 0 .07* .07*
G-PE → PAG 0 .07* .07*
G-PE → MG 0 .16* .16*
G-PE → AG 0 −.16* −.16*
G-PE → SE .48*** 0 .48***
PAG → GPA .12* −.04* .08*
PAG → AG .20** 0 .20**
MG → GPA .23*** 0 .23***
AG → GPA −.18** 0 −.18**
SE → GPA 0 .15* .15*
SE → PAG .14* 0 .14*
SE → MG .33*** 0 .33***
SE → AG −.36*** .03* −.33***
Note. Grit-Consistency of Interest = G-CI, Self-Efficacy = SE, Grit-Perseverance of Effort = G-PE,
Avoidance-Goals = AG, Performance-Approach Goals = PAG, Mastery Goals = MG, Grade Point
Average = GPA, *p< .05, **p < .01, ***p< .001.
14 A. ALHADABI AND A. C. KARPINSKI

dimensions. In particular, perseverance of effort was more influential on the study variables com-
pared to consistency of interest. These results extend pervious research findings, suggesting perse-
verance of effort impacts student academic purposes and regulated-learning strategies (Akin &
Arslan, 2014; Buller, 2012; Duckworth et al., 2007).
As Wolters and Hussain (2015) illustrated, gritty students adopt more self-regulated learning
strategies such as valuing the learning process, bolstering self-efficacy, and adopting motivational
study strategies. Given that, these students tend to adopt positive orientation goals such as mastery
goals, and to a lesser extent, performance-approach goals. Therefore, the strength of grit dimen-
sions’ effects were greater on mastery goals compared to approach goals.
Obviously, the negative effect of the grit dimensions on avoidance goals was another critical
finding, similar to Akin and Arslan (2014) findings. Cross-culturally, the grit dimensions influence
individuals to varying degrees, demonstrating that perseverance of effort is more salient in collecti-
vist cultures (Datu et al., 2016) compared to individualistic cultures as in the U.S. The current study
demonstrates that perseverance of effort has stronger associations with the study variables, implying
the importance of encouraging perseverance of effort among students in individualistic cultures.
This study also revealed that SE is positively associated with MG, PAG, and negatively influences
AG. These results support Huang’s (2016) meta-analysis, and differs from the results presented by Al-
Harthy and Was (2013). Students’ SE is associated with students’ strategies for learning and commit-
ment (Zimmerman, 1989). Students learning strategies are a projection of their goals and motives for
learning. This means that students with higher self-efficacy tend to adopt more productive study
strategies, organize their time properly, derive more pleasure through learning and apply deeper
cognitive processing (Vantieghem et al., 2014). Hence, such students are more eager to learn and
they show less procrastination and other detrimental learning strategies like avoidance goals
(Mohammadyari, 2012; Pintrich, 2004). One related problematic issue in higher education is aca-
demic dishonesty. Studies have shown that dishonest academic behaviours like cheating is asso-
ciated with low self-efficacy (Alt, 2015; Marsden, Carroll, & Neill, 2005). Hence, the current study
provides evidence that reinforcing students’ self-efficacy may induce double the benefits – promot-
ing constructive learning goals and reducing the likelihood of academic dishonesty.
Third, MG and PAG facilitate higher academic achievement while AG leads to lower grades.
Interestingly, the current study clarified that performance goals positively impact avoidance goals.
Stated another way, students who are eager to learn for extrinsic purposes such as getting praise or
performing better than their peers have a higher likelihood of adopting avoidance goals, specifically
during pressure-filled learning environments. Bodmann (2008) substantiated these results by identi-
fying students who adopt performance approach goals. That is, these students show a greater
tendency to withdraw effort in case they fail as a self-protection mechanism. This was also supported
by Linnenbrink-Garcia et al. (2012) who verified the presence of moderate to large associations (i.e.
greater than .50) between PAG and AG.

Implications and limitations

The current study resulted in several conceptual important findings. Educators aim to have
a successful generation of students personally and academically. However, many uncontrolled
factors can hinder this progress. One direct way is to empower students’ non-cognitive attributes.
Therefore, learning in the classroom transitions to student-centred learning, where the main respon-
sibility for progress is on the student. However, if students have destructive learning goals, a low
perception of their capabilities, a short interest in the academic task, and limited effort, their learning
outcomes will suffer. Considering this, investigating the impact of non-cognitive variables leads to
some evidence-based recommendations, which fosters students’ control of their learning. Thus, the
leaning outcomes are satisfactory when adopting mastery goals, exerting effort despite difficulties,
and strengthening self-efficacy.
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ADOLESCENCE AND YOUTH 15

In addition to the theoretical contributions, current study findings have practical applications as
well. Faculty members can help students to perform better by strengthening their grit and self-
efficacy. Meaning, creating learning atmosphere that promote grit and believing in the personal
capacities can lead directly to adopt more advantageous learning strategies and goals as well as
indirectly higher academic performance. Designing working session and establishing a conversation
with faculty members about importance of grit dimensions can sustain students’ path towards
success. These educational sessions should also be oriented to students because the main units of
progress and positive change are the students themselves. Yet, this study also has limitations. The
study sample was all traditional colleges’ students from a single public university in the Midwestern
U.S., which limits generalizability to other environments. Furthermore, the data was collected by self-
reported measures, which increase the likelihood of response bias that could be attributed to variety
of reasons, including misunderstanding and socially desirable responses (Rosenman, Tennekoon, &
Hill, 2011).

Conclusion
In conclusion, the goal of collegiate educators is to foster high academic achievement. However,
students approach learning experiences differently by adopting various achievement orientation
goals. Some goals can facilitate academic achievement like mastery and approach goals. Avoidance
goals, however, lead to lower grades. Moreover, the academic trajectory is not always easy. Thus,
some setbacks and obstacles induce a negative impact on academic progress. The current study
showed that personal qualities such as grit and self-efficacy oppose such negative influences. In fact,
those qualities indirectly influence achievement orientation goals and academic performance.
Specifically, perseverance of effort in more strongly influential compared to consistency of interest.
Thus, establishing a learning atmosphere that promotes grit and self-efficacy can be a valuable
addition to faculty members’ instructional efforts.

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Notes on contributors
Amal Alhadabi (ABD) is a doctoral student at Kent State University, in Evaluation and Measurement program. Currently,
she is working as a research assistant at College of Education, Health and Human Services. Her main research areas are
growth models, mixture modeling, motivation, Structure Equation modeling, Hierarchical Linear Modeling, Item
Response Theory, scale construction and psychometric assessment. Address: 6600 Alpha Drive 240 Kent Ohio 44240;
E-mail: aalhadab@kent.edu; Telephone: USA: +1 330389283, Oman: +968 99593244.
Aryn C. Karpinski. Ph.D, is currently an Associate Professor in the Evaluation and Measurement program. Her research
interests include the intersection of technology and communication in education (e.g., Social Networking Site [SNS])
use) among undergraduate and graduate university students, medical students, and in clinical settings and other
health-related professions. Her technical areas of interest include Item Response Theory, Factor Analysis, and
Hierarchical Linear Modeling. Address: 316 B White Hall, Kent, OH, 44240, USA; E-mail: akarpins@kent.edu; Phone:
330- 672-0687.

ORCID
Amal Alhadabi http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2228-3761
16 A. ALHADABI AND A. C. KARPINSKI

References
Adesope, O. O., Gress, C. L., & Nesbit, J. C. (2008, May). Validating the psychometric properties of achievement goal
questionnaire using item response theory. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Canadian Society for the
Study of Education, Vancouver, Canada.
Akin, A., & Arslan, S. (2014). The relationships between achievement goal orientations and grit. Education and Science
Tedmem, 39(175), 267–274.
Al-Harthy, I. (2016). Contemporary motivation learning theories: A review. International Journal of Learning Management
Systems, 4(2), 1–6. doi: 10.18576/ijlms/040205
Al-Harthy, I., & Was, C. (2013). Knowledge monitoring, goal orientations, self-efficacy, and academic performance: A path
analysis. Journal of College Teaching & Learning, 10(4), 263–278.
Alt, D. (2015). Assessing the connection between self-efficacy for learning and justifying academic cheating in higher
education learning environments. Journal of Academic Ethics, 13(1), 77–90.
Arouty, D. (2015). Does character matter? The role of grit and resilience in predicting academic success. (Doctoral
dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database (UMI No. 3734780).
Arslan, S., Akin, A., & Citemel, N. (2013). The predictive role of grit on metacognition in turkish university students. Studia
Psychologica, 55(4), 311–320. doi:10.21909/sp
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Bloom, B., Engelhart, M., Furst, E., Hill, W., & Krathwohl, D. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives: The classification of
educational goals. New York, NY: David McKay Company.
Bodmann, S. (2008). Achievement goal systems: Implications for research and educational policy. (Doctoral dissertation).
Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (UMI No. 334849).
Buller, E. (2012). The relationship between grit and academic, military and physical performance at the United States
Military Academy. (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database (UMI No.
3539971).
Buttle, F. (1996). SERVQUAL: Review, critique, research agenda. European Journal of Marketing, 30(1), 8–32.
Carmona, C., Buunk, A. P., Dijkstra, A., & Peiro, J. M. (2008). The relationship between goal orientation, social comparison
responses, self-efficacy, and performance. European Psychologist, 13(3), 188–196.
Cooper, A. (2014). Exploring the use of non-cognitive factors in predicting college academic outcomes. (Unpublished
master thesis). The University of Tennessee at Chattanooga, Chattanooga, Tennessee.
Datu, J., Valdez, J., & King, R. (2016). Perseverance counts but consistency does not! Validating the short grit scale in
a collectivist setting. Current Psychology, 35, 121–130.
Duckworth, A., Peterson, C., Matthews, M., & Kelly, D. (2007). Grit: Perseverance and passion for long-term goals. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 9(6), 1087–1101.
Duckworth, A. L., & Quinn, P. D. (2009). Development and validation of the short grit scale (Grit-s). Journal of Personality
Assessment, 91(2), 166–174.
Duff, A. (2004). Understanding academic performance and progression of first-year-accounting and business economics under-
graduates: The role of approaches to learning and prior academic achievement. Accounting Education, 13(4), 409–430.
Dull, R., Schleifer, L., & McMillan, J. (2015). Achievement goal theory: The relationship of accounting students’ goal
orientations with self-efficacy, anxiety, and achievement. Accounting Education, 24(2), 152–174.
Durik, A., Lovejoy, C., & Johnson, S. (2009). A longitudinal study of achievement goals for college in general: Predicting
cumulative GPA and diversity in course selection. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 34(2), 113–119.
Dweck, C., & Leggett, E. (1988). A social-cognitive approach to motivation and personality. Psychological Review, 95(2), 256–273.
Elliot, A. (1999). Approach and avoidance motivation and achievement goals. Educational Psychologist, 34(3), 169–189.
Elliot, A., & Church, M. (1997). A hierarchical model of approach and avoidance achievement motivation. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 72(1), 218–232.
Elliot, A., & Murayama, K. (2008). On the measurement of achievement goals: Critique, illustration, and application.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 100(3), 613–628. doi: 10.1037/0022-0663.100.3.613
Eskreis-Winkler, L., Shulman, E., Beal, S., & Duckworth, A. (2014). The grit effect: Predicting retention in the military, the
workplace, school and marriage. Frontiers in Personality Science and Individual Differences, 5(36), 1–12.
Gorman, R. (2015). An examination of academic grit in urban high schools. (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from
ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (UMI No. 10029744).
Greene, B., Miller, R., Crowson, H., Duke, B., & Akey, K. (2004). Predicting high school students’ cognitive engagement and
achievement: Contributions of classroom perceptions and motivation. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 29(4), 462–482.
Hayes, A. (2013). Methodology in the social sciences. Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process
analysis: A regression-based approach. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Honicke, T., & Broadbent, J. (2016). The influence of academic self-efficacy on academic performance: A systematic
review. Educational Research Review, 17, 63–84.
Hoyle, R. (1995). Structural equation modeling. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Hsieh, P., Sullivan, J., & Guerra, N. (2007). A closer look at college students: Self-efficacy and goal orientation. Journal of
Advanced Academics, 18(3), 454–476.
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ADOLESCENCE AND YOUTH 17

Hu, L., & Bentler, P. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new
alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6(1), 1–55.
Huang, C. (2016). Achievement goals and self-efficacy: A meta-analysis. Educational Research Review, 19, 119–137.
Hwang, M. (2017). A study on the relations between grit, self-efficacy, and language proficiency among Korean high
school students. Pan-Korea English Teachers Association, 29(2), 145–164.
Kleiman, E., Adams, L., Kashdan, T., & Riskind, J. (2013). Grateful individuals are not suicidal: Buffering risks associated
with hopelessness and depressive symptoms. Personality and Individual Differences, 55(5), 595–599.
Kline, R. (1998). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. New York, NY: The Guilford Press.
Kremelberg, D. (2009). Practical statistics. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications Inc.
Lau, K., & Lee, J. (2008). Validation of a Chinese achievement goal orientation questionnaire. British Journal of Educational
Psychology, 78(2), 331–353.
Leung, K., Chen, T., & Chen, G. (2014). Learning goal orientation and creative performance: The differential mediating
roles of challenge and enjoyment intrinsic motivations. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 31(3), 811–834.
Linnenbrink-Garcia, L., Middleton, M., Ciani, K., Easter, M., Keefe, P., & Zusho, A. (2012). The strength of the relation
between performance-approach and performance-avoidance goal orientations: Theoretical, methodological, and
instructional implications. Educational Psychologist, 47(4), 281–301.
Luo, W., Paris, S., Hogan, D., & Luo, Z. (2011). Do performance goals promote learning? A pattern analysis of Singapore
students’ achievement goals. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 36(2), 165–176.
MacKinnon, D., Fairchild, A., & Fritz, M. (2007). Mediation analysis. Annual Review of Psychology, 58(1), 287–1104.
doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.58.110405.085542
Marsden, H., Carroll, M., & Neill, J. (2005). Who cheats at university? A self-report study of dishonest academic behaviours
in a sample of Australian university students. Australian Journal of Psychology, 57(1), 1–10.
Mattern, R. (2005). College students’ goal orientations and achievement. International Journal of Teaching and Learning
in Higher Education, 17(1), 27–32.
Mohammadyari, G. (2012). Comparative study of relationship between general perceived self-efficacy and test anxiety
with academic achievement of male and female students. Procedia- Social and Behavioral Sciences, 69, 2119–2123.
Niemivirta, M. (2002). Motivation and performance in context: The influence of goal orientations and instructional
setting on situational appraisals and task performance. Psychologia, 45(4), 250–270.
Peltzer, K., & Pengpid, S. (2014). Health behaviour and self-reported academic performance among university students:
An international study. Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences, 5(27), 998–1005.
Pintrich, P. (2004). A conceptual framework for assessing motivation and self-regulated learning in college students.
Educational Psychology Review, 16(4), 385–407.
Ranellucci, J., Hall, N. C., & Goetz, T. (2015). Achievement goals, emotions, learning, and performance: A process model.
Motivation Science, 1(2), 98–120.
Robbins, S., Lauver, K., Le, H., Davis, D., Langley, R., & Carlstrom, A. (2004). Do psychosocial and study skill factors predict
college outcomes? A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 130(2), 261–288. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.130.2.261
Rosenman, R., Tennekoon, V., & Hill, L. (2011). Measuring bias in self-reported data. International Journal of Behavioural &
Healthcare Research, 2(4), 320–332.
Rosopa, P., & Stone-Romero, E. (2008). Problems with detecting assumed mediation using the hierarchical multiple
regression strategy. Human Resource Management Review, 18(4), 294–310. doi:10.1016/j.hrmr.2008.07.009
Schnell, K., Ringeisen, T., Raufelder, D., & Rohrmann, S. (2015). The impact of adolescents’ self-efficacy and self-regulated
goal attainment processes on school performance - Do gender and test anxiety matter? Learning and Individual
Differences, 38, 90–98.
Schumacker, R., & Lomax, R. (2010). A beginner’s guide to structural equation modeling (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Taylor &
Francis Groups.
Sherer, M., Maddux, J., Mercandante, B., Prentice-dunn, S., Jacobs, B., & Rogers, R. (1982). The self-efficacy scale:
Construction and validation. Psychological Reports, 51(2), 663–671.
Snyder, T., de Brey, C., & Dillow, S. (2016). Digest of education statistics 2015 (NCES 2016-014). Washington, DC: National
Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.
Sumpter, A. (2017). Grit and self-control: Independent contributors to achievement goal orientation and implicit theories of
intelligence (Electronic Thesis). Retrieved from https://etd.ohiolink.edu/
Vantieghem, W., Vermeersch, H., & Van Houtte, M. (2014). Transcending the gender dichotomy in educational gender
gap research: The association between gender identity and academic self-efficacy. Contemporary Educational
Psychology, 39(4), 369–378.
Wigfield, A., & Eccles, J. S. (2000). Expectancy–Value theory of achievement motivation. Contemporary Educational
Psychology, 25(1), 68–81.
Wolters, C., & Hussain, M. (2015). Investigating grit and its relations with college students’ self-regulated learning and
academic achievement. Springer Science & Business Media, 10(3), 293–311.
York, T., Gibson, C., & Rankin, S. (2015). Defining and measuring academic success. Practical Assessment, Research and
Evaluation, 20(5), 1–20.
Zimmerman, B. (1989). Social cognitive theory and self-regulated learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 81(3), 329–339.