Journal of Educational Psychology

1973, Vol. 65, No. 3, 364-370

A MULTIVARIATE ANALYSIS OF ACADEMIC ABILITIES AND

STRATEGIES FOR SUCCESSFUL AND UNSUCCESSFUL COLLEGE
STUDENTS IN DIFFERENT MAJOR FIELDS1

ROY D. GOLDMAN 2 AND DAVID J. HUDSON

University oj California, Riverside

A sample of 256 freshmen college students, representing different

major fields of study, were compared on a set of ability measures and
a set of academic strategy measures. Multivariate analysis of variance
was employed to compare students in a 5 X 2 X 3 (Major Field X
Sex X Grade Point Average) design. There were significant main ef-
fects for major field and for sex on both ability and strategy measures.
There were significant differences in group centroids for grade point
average groups only for the strategy measures. A multivariate analysis
of covariance, using ability measures as covariates, yielded significant
main effects for strategy measures. The results strongly suggest that
there are major field differences in academic strategy, which are in-
dependent of ability differences. These major field differences are prob-
ably due to differences in the "task structure" of the different
curricula.

It has been demonstrated that often a ally determinate, then prediction of task
given task can be performed through the performance by ability measures should be
use of different operations (strategies) and quite good. The abilities necessary for suc-
that success on the task is partly deter- cessful task performance would be entirely
mined by the particular choice of a strategy task determined. Similarly, if a task were
(Bruner, Goodnow, & Austin, 1956). Fur- very indeterminate, prediction of perform-
thermore, the choice of a strategy deter- ance by abilities would be poor, since dif-
mines which abilities will be used on a ferent individuals could employ different
given task (French, 1965), and task struc- abilities to perform the task. Thus, the
ture determines the range of efficient strate- strategy employed in a given task may be
gies (Frederiksen, 1969). Frederiksen's determined by both task parameters (e.g.,
model can be used to explain many abil- the nature or "structure" of the task) and
ity-strategy relationships in terms of task by organismic parameters (including the in-_
structure. The model begins with the asser- dividual's ability profile).
tion that tasks that can be solved in more If college classes are considered as tasks,
than one way are "functionally indetermi- it is likely that they have different task
nate"; the wider the range of potentially structures. Different major fields present ,
effective strategies, the more indeterminate different types of problems to the student. \
the task. By selecting a strategy, the indi- Clearly, there is little surface resemblance I
vidual "restructures" the task; thus strate- between the solution of mathematical e q u a - J
gies serve as moderators between abilities tions and the writing of literary critiques.
and performance. If a task were function- When students from different major fields
of study have been compared, strategy dif-
1
This research was supported in part by U. S. ferences have often been detected (e.g.,
Public Health Service Grant MH-21119-01 from Biggs, 1970; Brown & Dubois, 1964; Cro-
the National Institute of Mental Health. pley & Field, 1969). In the Biggs study,
2
Requests for reprints should be sent to Roy
D. Goldman, Department of Psychology, Uni- science students were compared with liberal
versity of California, Riverside, California 92502. arts students on the study behavior ques-
364
 ABILITIES AND STRATEGIES OF COLLEGE STUDENTS
tionnaire. Science students were found to be
more intrinsically motivated and more dog-
matic but less tolerant than liberal arts stu-
dents. Brown and Dubois compared engi-
neering students with liberal arts students
on several scales from the Minnesota Mul-
tiphasic Inventory and found engineering
\students to be more hardworking, energetic,
Vnd tending toward conformity. In these
studies, the nature of the tasks facing the
students was cited as a possible explanatory
factor for the group differences in scholastic
strategies.
Elton and Rose (1967) employed discrim-
inant function analysis to compare stu-
dents in different fields. This multivariate
technique provides considerable advantage
over a series of univariate comparisons.
Often one series of univariate comparisons
is likely to magnify the differences between
groups, since dependent variables are likely
to be correlated. Such intercorrelation of
variables makes it difficult to interpret the
meaning of group differences. The multi-
variate comparison of group centrcnds pro-
vides an alpha level that is not increased by
the use of multiple dependent variables. Fur-
thermore, there is considerable heuristic
benefit in the use of multivariate methods,
for discriminant function analysis permits
the assessment of the loci of differences
among groups. It is also possible to employ
discriminant function analysis or "map" the
groups under study (Cooley & Lohnes,
1971). In a recent investigation Goldman
and Warren (1973) plotted group centroids
for physical science, biological science, so-
cial science, and humanities students in a
two-dimensional discriminant space. One
dimension, reflecting "formal" (mathemati-
cal-logical) reasoning, arrayed groups in a
science-nonscience continuum; whereas the
second function, which reflected "applied"
thinking, arrayed the groups differently.
This mapping of major fields in the hy-
perspace of student's study strategies is a
method for investigating the task structure
of those fields. Unfortunately this method is
indeterminate, since it leaves several ques-
tions unanswered. One such question con-
cerns the etiology of strategy differences be-
tween students in different major fields. It
365
is unclear whether students in different
fields employ different strategies because of
the nature of the tasks they face or because
of ability differences. This question can be
subdivided into a set of more specific ques-
tions.
1. Are there strategy differences between
major fields?
2. Are there ability differences between
major fields?
3. Is there an association between abili-
ties and strategies?
4. Do strategy differences between major
fields exist independently of ability differ-
ences?
Since the present investigation also dealt
with sex and grade point average, answers
to other questions could also be sought.
5. Are there male-female differences with
regard to strategies and/or abilities?
6. Are sex differences in strategies (if ]
any) independent of sex differences in abil- '
ities? I
7. Are there strategy differences between \
successful and unsuccessful (in grade point <
average) students? /
8. Are there ability differences between \
successful and unsuccessful students? —*"^
The above questions are amenable to in-
vestigation through the use of multivariate
analysis of variance and covariance as well
as canonical correlation analysis.
Another question that must be answered
concerns the interaction of academic success
with major field. This last question asks if
the differences between successful and un-
successful students are different (for differ-
ent fields of study).
The purpose of the present investigation
was to seek answers to the above questions,
and in this endeavor, provide a description
of the abilities and strategies of college stu-
dents.
METHOD
Subjects
Subjects were 256 freshman students at the Uni-
versity of California, Riverside. They were part of
a sample randomly selected from the registrar's
list and recruited by mail. Since subjects were paid
for their participation, there was a relatively high
rate of response to this method of recruitment
366 ROY D. GOLDMAN AND DAVID J. HUDSON
(approximately 70%). In terms of grade point
average, our sample was very similar to the entire
freshman class (2. 89 vs. 2.84).
Procedure
The design was correlational in nature with all
subjects receiving a battery of tests designed to
measure selected abilities and academic strategies.
Another measure was grade point average, com-
puted at the end of the second quarter of study.
Student grade point average was trichotomized to
yield a 5 X 2 X 3 design (Major Field X Sex X
Grade Point Average).
Ability Measures
The ability measures which were employed
were selected from the Kit of Reference Tests for
Cognitive Factors (French, Ekstrom, & Price,
1963). The tests that were used represented the
factors of vocabulary, syllogistic reasoning, general
mathematical reasoning, induction associative
memory, spatial scanning, and number facility.
The specific tests used to represent these factors
were Advanced Vocabulary Test (V-4), Inference
Test (Rs-3), Mathematic Aptitude Test (R-2),
Letter Sets Test (I-I), Object-Number Test (Ma-
2), Choosing a Path (Ss-2), and Division Test
(N-2).
Strategy Measures
The study techniques questionnaire (Gold-
man & Warren, 1973) was administered to all
subjects. Responses were used to form seven sub-
scales. These subscales were designed to reflect con-
ceptually focused dimensions that had resulted
from an earlier factor analytic study (Goldman &
Warren, 1972). Items that had high loadings on a
factor were included in the computation of the
new subscale. Thus, the subscales used in the
present study were not orthogonal. It was felt that
the above approach more closely reflects the reality
of study habits in that scholastic strategies seem
likely to be correlated. The seven subscales are
briefly described below. All items were answered
on a 5-point scale of agreement-disagreement.
Description of Subscales
~~ Clerical diligence (Scale 1). Clerical diligence
contains items that reflect considerable effort in
preparation for classes (e.g., I spend more time
studying than most people; I review my class
notes before each class session; I do research at
the library on class material even if it is not re-
quired).
Academic "savvy" (Scale 2). Academic savvy
contains items that reflect a sensitivity to the
academic "game" (e.g., I try to find out what the
instructor expects and study with that in mind;
I try to learn from errors on graded material; I
get individual help from the professor and TAs
[teaching assistant] whenever necessary).
Mnemonics (Scale 8). Mnemonics is defined by
items that indicate the use of memorization as a
strategy of study (e.g., I memorize specific facts
for use in exams, I use mnemonic devices [memory
tricks] with specific problems or terms).
Planfulness (Scale 4)- Planfulness contains items
that reflect concern for punctuality and fore-
planning (e.g., I take especially complete notes;
I attend all or nearly all class meetings; I keep up
with the assigned readings week by week; I do
most of the assigned reading at the end of the
quarter—in other words, I cram [scored in the
reverse direction]).
Formal thinking (Scale 6). Formal thinking
contains items related to logical and mathematical
thinking (e.g., I enjoy mathematical reasoning; I
try to find a logical reason for all information; I
am good at syllogistic [logical] reasoning). —
Note taking (Scale 6). Note taking is defined by
items that reflect the behavior of writing while
studying (e.g., I extract the important points from
the assigned reading and write them down; I out-
line the reading and review the outlines; I take
notes on the reading while doing the reading).
Transformation and application (Scale 7).
Transformation and application reflect active in-
tegration of scholastic information (e.g., I read
the same material from three or four different
sources and then combine all specific views into
one large view; I find interrelationships in the
material covered as a memory aid). This scale also
reflects application and relevance of scholastic
material (e.g., I try to find practical application
of the material I read; I try to find personal
relevance in lecture and reading material so I can
look at it subjectively rather than objectively).
In sum this scale reflects some altering by the in-
dividual of the original input of scholastic in-
formation into a more amenable form.
RESULTS
A multivariate analysis of variance was
performed, employing as dependent varia-
bles (a) ability measures, (b) strategy
measures, (c) ability measures with strat-
egy measures partialed out as covariates,
and (d) ability measures with strategies
partialed out. Cell sizes in the 5 x 2 X 3
design were not proportional with regard to
sex and major field. There were proportion-
ally fewer female science majors and male
humanities majors. To obtain conservative
F ratios, treatment sums of squares and
cross-products were calculated by subtrac-
tion in stepwise fashion. The following
method was used: Each treatment sum of
squares and cross-products (SSCP) matrix
of interest was obtained by subtraction
from the total treatment SSCP matrix after
 ABILITIES AND STRATEGIES OF COLLEGE STUDENTS 367

TABLE 1 also important discriminators between

COMPARISON OP MALES AND FEMALES
ON ABILITY MEASURES
major fields. Since only one discriminant
function was significant, only one set of dis-
criminant function coefficients is displayed
7
Discriminant
Variable Univariate F P function
coefficient
in Table 2.
Group Comparisons on Strategy Measures
Vocabulary <1 ns -.13
Inference <1 ns -.06 There were significant main effects due to
Math 15.28 .0002 .68 major field (F = 2.03, df = 28/792, p <
Induction <1 ns -.58 .001), sex (F = 3.36, df = 7/220, p < .002),
Spatial 24.9 .0001 .75 and grade point average (F = 2.03, df =
Memory
Division
1.76
2.86
.18
.09
-.25

Note. Multivariate F = 7.75, df = 7/220, p <

.09 14/440, p < .01). The loci of differences
between major field groups were centered in
planfulness and transformation-application
1
1.000. (see Table 3). The differences between
males and females were centered in note
subtracting the other SSCP treatment mat- taking, transformation-application, and
rices. This provides a conservative esti- formal reasoning (see Table 4). The differ-
mate of the significance of the difference
between group centroids. TABLE 3
Group Comparisons on Ability Measures COMPARISON OF MAJOR FIELDS ON
STRATEGY MEASURES
Using the .05 level of significance, there
were significant differences between cen- Univariate
Discrimi-
nant
troids due to sex (F = 7.75, df = 7/220, p Variable F P function
coefficient
< .0001) and major field (F = 1.51, df =
28/794, p < .04). There was no significant Diligence <1 ns -.10
effect due to grade point average nor were Savvy 1.75 .13 -.17
there significant two- or three-way interac- Mnemonics 1.76 .13 .01
tions. The loci of the difference between Planfulness 1.54 .19 -.07
Formal reasoning 6.29 .0001 1.15
sexes appears to be centered in mathemati- Note taking <1 ns .17
cal and spatial reasoning (see Table 1). Transformation 2.10 .08 -.62
The loci of the difference between major
field centroids are less clear, but the discrim- Note. Multivariate F = 2.03, df = 28/794, p <
.01.
inant analysis and pattern of univariate F
ratios shown in Table 2 seem to indicate
that numerical facility and vocabulary are ences between grade point average levels
occurred largely in the use of planfulness
TABLE 2 and formal reasoning (see Table 5). There
COMPARISON OP MAJOR FIELDS ON was also a significant interaction between
ABILITY MEASURES sex and major field, which would imply that
male-female differences in strategies are
Variable Univariate F *
Discriminant
function
moderated by major field.
coefficient
Covariation Between Sets of Ability
Vocabulary 1.05 .37 .57 and Strategy Measures
Inference <1 .51 .01
Math 2.00 .09 -.27
To assess the degree of association be-
Induction <1 .59 .12 tween ability and strategy measures, the
Spatial 2.24 .06 -.43 technique of canonical correlation was em-
Memory 1.36 .24 -.28 ployed. This technique describes both the
Division 3.42 .01 -.65
degree and the nature of the relationship.
Note. Multivariate F 1.51, df •= 28/794, p < The canonical correlation coefficient be-
.04. tween ability and strategy measures was .40
 368 ROY D. GOLDMAN AND DAVID J. HUDSON

TABLE 4 Group Comparisons on Strategy Measures

COMPARISON OF MALES AND FEMALES with Abilities Partialed Out
ON STRATEGY MEASURES
The multivariate analysis of covariance
Discrimi- using strategy measures as dependent var-
Variable Univariate nant iables and ability measures as covariates re-
F P function
coefficient vealed significant main effects for all fac-
tors (sex, major field, and grade point aver-
Diligence <1 ns .23
age). The discriminant function coefficients
Savvy <1 ns -.36
Mnemonics <1 ns -.16 for these contrasts are displayed in Tables
Planfulness <1 ns .15 7-9. No interactions were significant.
Formal reasoning 3.97 .04 .45
Note taking 8.51 .01 -.95 DISCUSSION
Transformation 2.47 .11 .60
Note. Multivariate F = 3.36, df = 7/220, p < Comparison of Major Field Groups
.01. Major field groups were found to differ
significantly in both abilities and strategies.
(x2- 86.24, df = 49, p < .001). Only one
canonical root was significant, indicating TABLE 6
only one common orthogonal dimension be- COMPAEISON OF MALES AND FEMALES ON
tween the two domains of measures. ABILITIES WITH STRATEGIES
PAHTIALED OUT
Group Comparisons on Ability Measures
Discriminant
with Strategy Measures Partialed Out Variable Univariate F P function
coefficient
The sex comparison on ability measures
with strategy measures removed as covar- Vocabulary 1.72 .19 -.22
iates (see Table 6) indicated a highly sig- Inference <1 ns -.09
Math 8.31 .01 .62
nificant difference between males and Induction 3.65 .05 -.6]
females (F - 6.73, df = 7/213, p < .0001). Spatial 18.64 .0001 .72
However, the ability differences between Memory 2.47 .11 -.27
major fields was not significant when Division 1.55 .21 .08
strategy measures were partialed out (F = Note. Multivariate F = 6.73, df = 7/213, p <
1.21, df = 28/769, p > .20). No other effects .0001.
,~.were significant.
Number facility was the best ability dis-
TABLE 5 criminator among major fields, while formal
COMPARISON OF Low- , MIDDLE- , AND HIGH- reasoning and transformation-application
GRADE-POINT-AVERAGE GROUPS ON were the best strategy discriminators. It ap-
STRATEGY MEASURES pears that the science majors excel in num-
Discrimi-
ber facility and make more use of formal
Variable Univariate
F P nant
function
reasoning, while nonscience fields make
coefficient more use of transformation-application. It
further appears that there is a significant
Diligence <1 ns .09 association between abilities and strategies,
Savvy 2.01 .13 -.07
Mnemonics <1 ns .30 as indicated by canonical correlation. When
Planfulness 4.20 .01 -.66 abilities are partialed out, the strategy dif-
Formal reasoning 4.27 .01 -.75 ferences between major fields become even
Note taking 1.57 .21 .44 clearer. However, when strategy measures
Transformation <1 ns .02 are partialed out, the ability difference be-
Note. Multivariate F = 2.03, df = 14/440, tween major fields is no longer significant.
< .01. These results suggest that strategy differ-
 ABILITIES AND STRATEGIES OF COLLEGE STUDENTS 369

ences between major fields exist independ- TABLE 8

ently of ability differences. The fact that COMPARISON OP MAJOR FIELDS ON STRATEGY
formal reasoning is the major discriminator MEASURES WITH ABILITIES PARTIALED OUT
suggests that this strategy may be consider- Discrimi-
ably more important in science (as opposed Variable Univariate
F P
nant
function
to nonscience) fields. Thus, students in sci- coefficient
ence fields make greater use of this tech-
nique of study. Thisjmggests that the struc- Diligence <1 ns .00
Savvy 1.72 .14 -.03
ture of science curricula presents problems Mnemonics 1.55 .18 -.05
that are most efficiently solved through for- Planfulness 1.60 .17 -.24
ttml-rcaaoningT- Formal reasoning 5.48 .001 1.12
Note taking <1 ns .15
Sex Differences Transformation 1.64 .16 -.52
It appears that males and females differ Note. Multivariate F = 1.71, df = 28/766, p <
in ability centroids. Most of this difference .01.
is manifested in mathematical and spatial
and (6) strategies with abilities partialed
TABLE 7 out, it was discovered that significant dif-
COMPARISON OF MALES AND FEMALES ON ferences remained. It appears, therefore,
STRATEGY MEASURES WITH ABILITIES that males and females differ in their use of
PARTIALED OUT study strategies independently of their dif-
ferences in abilities. The same may be said
Discrimi-
Variable Univariate
P nant for the sex difference in abilities.
P function
coefficient
Comparison of High-, Middle-, and
Diligence \ ns .22
Low-Grade-Point-Average Groups
Savvy I ns -.39 It appears that the grade point average
Mnemonics 1 ns .07 groups differed significantly on strategies
Planfulness 1 ns .20
Formal reasoning 1.68 .19 .21 but not on abilities. Planfulness and formal
Note taking 6.02 .01 -.99 reasoning best discriminated among grade
Transformation 2.87 .09 .72 point average groups. When abilities were
partialed out, the clarity of the difference
Note. Multivariate F = 2.56, df = 7/213, p <
.01. among grade point average groups was en-
hanced.
reasoning. The present results show sex dif- TABLE 9
ferences in ability, which were not simply COMPARISON OF Low- , MIDDLE- , AND HIGH-
an artifact of different numbers of males GRADE-POINT-AVERAGE GROUPS ON STRATEGY
and females in different major fields. The MEASURES WITH ABILITIES
PARTIALED OUT
method of calculating F contrasts precluded
such artifactual findings. When males and Discrimi-
females were compared on self-reported Variable Univariate nant
F P function
strategy measures, there were again signifi- coefficient
cant differences. These differences reflected
the reported use of note taking, formal rea- Diligence <1 ns .14
r Savvy 1.93 .14 .05
soning, and transformation-application. It Mnemonics <1 ns .26
, appears that males claim greater use of for- Planfulness 3.39 .03 -.72
mal reasoning and lesser use of transforma- Formal reasoning 3.94 .02 -.95
tion and note taking than do females. When Note taking <1 ns .16
Transformation <1 ns .28
multivariate analysis of covariance was
employed to compare males and females on Note. Multivariate F = 1.73, df 19/426, p <
(a) abilities with strategies partialed out .04.
 ' '
370 ROY D. GOLDMAN AND DAVID J. HUDSON
. The findings in the present study lend
support to the idea that strategies may be
more fundamental determinants of aca-
demic success than are abilities. This state-
ment is supported not only by the strategy
differences among grade point average
groups but also by the lack of ability differ-
ences. Naturally, the range of abilities rep-
resented in our sample is truncated by the
college selection process. It is possible that
a wider range of abilities would have pro-
duced strikingly different results. However,
it appears that there may be considerable
benefit to teaching study strategies to a
^college population.
There was an absence of interaction be-
tween grade point average and major field
; for either abilities or strategies. This finding
would suggest, in answer to the last ques-
tion posed earlier, that strategies necessary
for academic success are relatively consis-
tent across major fields.
' REFERENCES
BIGGS, J. Faculty patterns in study behaviour.
Australian Journal of Psychology, 1970, 22, 161-
174.
BROWN, F., & DCBOIS, T. Correlates of academic
success for high ability freshmen men. Personnel
and Guidance Journal, 1964, 42, 603-607.
BRUNER, J., GOODNOW, J., & AUSTIN, G. A study oj
thinking. New York: Wiley, 1956.
COOLEY, W., & LOHNES, P. Multivariate data analy-
sis. New York: Wiley, 1971.
CBOPLEY, A., & FIELD, T. Achievement in science
and intellectual style. Journal of Applied Psy-
chology, 1969, 53, 132-135.
ELTON, C., & ROSE, H. Significance of personality
in the vocational choice of college women. Jour-
nal of Counseling Psychology, 1967,14, 293-298.
FREDERIKSEN, C. Abilities, transfer and information
retrieval in verbal learning. Multivariate Be-
havioral Research Monographs, 1969, 2, 1-82.
FRENCH, J. Social class and the relationship of
problem solving styles to the factor composition
of tests. Educational and Psychological Measure-
ment, 1965, 25, 9-28.
FRENCH, J., EKSTROM, R., & PRICE, L. Kit of
reference tests for cognitive factors. Princeton,
N.J.: Educational Testing Service, 1963.
GOLDMAN, R., & WARREN, R. Configuration in dis-
criminant space: A heuristic approach to study
techniques. Paper presented at the meeting of
the Western Psychological Association, Portland,
April 1972.
GOLDMAN, R., & WARREN, R. Discriminant analysis
of study strategies connected with college grade
success in different major fields. Journal of Edu-
cational Measurement, 1973, 10, 39-47.
(Received September 21, 1972)