J. COLLEGE STUDENT RETENTION, Vol.

13(1) 1-15, 2011-2012

MOTIVATION PREDICTORS OF COLLEGE STUDENT

ACADEMIC PERFORMANCE AND RETENTION

BARRY A. FRIEDMAN
State University of New York at Oswego
and Suleyman Sah University, Istanbul, Turkey

RHONDA G. MANDEL
State University of New York at Oswego

ABSTRACT

College student retention and performance in higher education are important

issues for educational institutions, educators, and students. The purpose
of this study was to determine if student needs for achievement, affiliation,
autonomy, and dominance measured by the Needs Assessment Questionnaire
(Heckert et al., 2000) could predict academic performance and retention
beyond traditional measures (high school grade point average and Scholastic
Aptitude Test scores) to predict college student academic performance and
retention. After controlling for demographics, high school grade point
average, and SAT scores, students’ needs for achievement and autonomy
at the start of college significantly predicted cumulative GPA at the end
of their first year. Students’ high school grade point average, SAT scores,
or motivation did not predict retention after 1 year. Study implications
are discussed with a focus on improving the prediction of positive college
student outcomes.

INTRODUCTION
College student retention and performance in higher education are important
issues for educational institutions, educators, and students since each institution
wants to attract and retain students who will be successful and ultimately graduate.

Ó 2011, Baywood Publishing Co., Inc.

doi: 10.2190/CS.13.1.a
http://baywood.com
2 / FRIEDMAN AND MANDEL

According to the American College Testing Program (2006), the average student
retention rates from freshman to sophomore years at U.S. colleges ranged from
66.4% to 70.0% for public 4-year colleges, and 60.9% to 74.8% for private 4-year
schools during 1983-2006. Only 63% of students who enrolled in college and
intended to earn an undergraduate degree in 1995-96 attained their degree within
6 years, even accounting for those that transferred to other institutions (NCES,
2005). Improving college retention and graduation rates are worth pursuing
considering the high cost to institutions and students. As poor academic per-
formance is one of the reasons that some students leave college following their
freshman year, it is also important to identify the variables that predict college
academic performance, especially in the first year.
Many researchers have studied student retention searching for the best
predictor variables (Astin, 1975; Bean, 1980, 1982, 1985; Cabrera & Nora,
1994; Creamer, 1980; Daempfle, 2004; DesJardins, Ahlburg, & McCall, 1998;
Gold, 1995; Heverly, 1999; Hummel & Steele, 1996; Mohr, Eiche, & Sedlacek,
1998; Moxley, Najor-Durack, & Dumbrigue, 2001; Porter, 2003; Reason, 2003;
Wohlgemuth, Whalen, Sullivan, Nading, Shelley, & Wang, 2006). Many studies
have tested the effects of college institutional variables on college student
academic performance. These variables included institutional size, student/faculty
ratios, and selectivity, student engagement with the institution (National Survey of
Student Engagement, 2005), and the effectiveness of specific programs designed
to improve student retention such as first year programs and learning communities
(Boudreau & Kromrey, 1994; Noble, Flynn, Lee, & Hilton, 2007). For example,
Noble et al. (2007) reported that a program implemented at the University of
South Alabama (ESSENSE) improved student achievement and graduation rates.
Other studies on student retention tested how well demographic, intellectual,
and academic preparation predicted college student retention. These variables
included such indicators as high school grade point average and the academic
program pursued in high school, as well as gender, socioeconomic status, and
parental educational attainment. One recent study by Wohlgemuth et al. (2006),
found that a combination of variables including demographic characteristics
(e.g., gender), ability (e.g., high standardized test scores), and active student par-
ticipation (e.g., sports) predicted college student retention.
Finally, there are studies that investigated the relationship between psycho-
logical variables on performance and retention (Friedman & Mandel, 2009-2010;
Harrison, 2006; Rayle & Chung, 2007; Rayle, Kurpius, & Arredondo, 2007;
Robbins, Allen, Casillas, Peterson, & Le, 2006). House (2000) reviewed the
research on psychological variables and student academic performance and con-
cluded that students’ positive self-beliefs about their academic and intellectual
abilities were positively correlated with their academic performance. Students’
initial self-beliefs in their abilities predicted college academic performance in
several disciplines, including psychology, English, education, and the health
sciences (House, 2000; House, Keeley, & Hurst, 1996; House & Prion, 1998).
 COLLEGE STUDENT PERFORMANCE AND RETENTION / 3

Gifford, Briceno-Perriott, and Mianzo (2006) found that college students with
internal locus of control achieved higher first year cumulative GPA than those
with external locus of control. Other theories have emphasized the importance
of student motivational variables such as self-efficacy and self esteem, and how
these variables interact with such things as academic persistence and performance
(Bean & Eaton, 2001). Self-efficacy theory and motivational theory both posit
that certain motivational variables lead students to select participation in certain
activities which then affect their performance inside and outside the classroom,
thus contributing to student success (Kuh, Kinzie, Buckley, Bridges, & Hayek,
2007). Davidson and Beck (2006) found that two academic orientations, efficacy
and apathy, significantly predicted students’ decision to return after their fresh-
man year. Efficacy was defined as “the belief in one’s ability to master academic
tasks and assignments and attain one’s academic goals,” and apathy was defined as
the “lack of interest in academic work and an inclination to do as little as possible.”
When compared to students with high academic efficacy and low academic
apathy, students who reported low academic efficacy or high academic apathy
were more likely to drop out of school (Davidson & Beck, 2007). Hsieh, Sullivan,
and Guerra (2007) found that students in good academic standing reported higher
self-efficacy and mastery goals (developing, demonstrating and improving ability)
than students on academic probation, but student retention was not explored.
Friedman and Mandel (2009-2010) used expectancy and goal setting theory
to predict college student performance and retention beyond the first year of
college. Goal setting theory states that individuals who set goals are more likely
to perform at higher levels than individuals who do not set goals. Expectancy
theory states that motivation is a function of the perceived probability that
effort will result in effective performance, and that effective performance will
result in desired outcomes (Issac, Wilfred, & Douglas, 2001; Porter & Lawler,
1968; Vroom, 1964). Used predominantly to study employee workplace moti-
vation, expectancy theory had not been tested extensively in looking at the
motivation, performance, and retention of college students (Issac et al., 2001).
Friedman and Mandel (2009-2010) found that students’ academic expectancy
motivation at the start of college significantly predicted first year cumulative
GPA. Compared to students who did not return following their first year of
college, students who returned for their sophomore year reported greater peer
competition with respect to academic goals, perceived good grades to be more
attractive, and reported more effort to get good grades.
Steers and Braunstein (1976) developed the Manifest Needs Questionnaire
(MNQ) to measure four motivational needs prevalent in the workplace: need
for achievement, affiliation, autonomy, and dominance. Building on past
research (McClelland, 1961; Murray, 1938), these authors developed a 20-item
behavioral questionnaire to measure motivational needs. As described by Heckert
et al. (2000), the need for achievement refers to the desire to achieve results
and improve performance, affiliation refers to the need to interact with others,
4 / FRIEDMAN AND MANDEL

autonomy is the need for self-direction, and the dominance need is the desire
to direct others. Following its development, the MNQ has been used extensively
(Dreher & Mai-Dalton, 1983). The MNQ has shown adequate psychometric
properties in some studies (Harvey & France, 1987, 1997; Steers & Braunstein,
1976), but lower reliabilities and internal consistency in others (Brief, Aldag,
Darrow, & Power, 1980; Heckert, Cuneio, Hannah, Adams, Droste, Mueller,
et al., 2000; Konovsky, Dalton, & Todor, 1986). Dreher and Mai-Dalton (1983)
reported adequate reliabilities only for the MNQ need for dominance subscale.
Heckert et al. (2000) improved upon the MNQ by factor analyzing MNQ items
with 40 new items. Based on their factor analytic results, these authors developed a
new 20-item Needs Assessment Questionnaire (NAQ) that improved the internal
consistency compared to the original MNQ developed by Steers and Braunstein
(1976). The internal consistencies of the NAQ subscales increased for each
subscale: .81 versus .61 for achievement, .77 versus .29 for affiliation, .60 versus
.32 for autonomy, and .77 versus .66 for dominance (Heckert at al., 2000).
The purpose of this study was to determine if student needs for achievement,
affiliation, autonomy, and dominance measured by the Needs Assessment Ques-
tionnaire (Heckert et al., 2000) could predict academic performance and retention
beyond traditional measures (high school grade point average and Scholastic
Aptitude Test scores) to predict college student academic performance and
retention. Additional demographic variables that have been shown to be related
to academic performance or persistence in college were included in the analysis
as control variables (Allen, 1999).
This study also tested the extent that motivation improved the prediction of
performance and retention after students’ demographics, SAT scores, and high
school GPA were controlled. The NAQ was used to measure student motivation.
The National Association for College Admission Counseling (NACAC) reports
that college admissions offices commonly use standardized tests such as the
Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT) and high school grade point average (HSGPA) for
selection purposes, and that these measures predict college GPA (Evans 2000;
Gifford et al, 2006; Hezlett, Kuncel, Vey, Ones, Campbell, & Camara, 2001; Maggio,
White, Molstad, & Kher, 2005; Sternberg, 2004; Stumpf & Stanley, 2002). To
improve student academic performance and retention, colleges require more
information beyond the traditional criteria such as standardized tests and HSGPA
used to select college students (Atkinson, 2001; Sireci, Zanetti, & Berger, 2003).

Research Hypotheses
Two hypotheses were tested in the present study concerning the prediction
of student retention and performance.
H1: First-year students that enter college with higher achievement, affili-
ation, autonomy and dominance motivation needs are more likely to achieve
higher cumulative GPAs at the end of the first year in college.
 COLLEGE STUDENT PERFORMANCE AND RETENTION / 5

H2: First-year students that enter college with higher achievement, affili-
ation, autonomy and dominance motivation needs are more likely to stay
in college beyond their first year.
Both hypotheses test to what degree student motivation is measured by the
NAQ predict performance at the end of the freshman year and retention for the
sophomore year of college when student demographical variables and tradi-
tional predictors (SAT and HSGPA) are controlled.

METHOD
Sample
All freshman students who entered a state college in northern New York during
the academic year 2006-2007 were asked to participate in a voluntary survey
within 3 weeks after the semester began. Students were informed that their
responses were confidential. The survey was administered online to all incoming
first-year students (N = 1,372) using the State University’s Intranet. A reminder
e-mail was sent to the students after 1 week had elapsed. After 3 weeks, 487 of
the incoming first-year students completed the survey (36%).
Sixty-eight percent of the respondents were female, 15% were minorities, and
58% of the responding students’ had a parent who had earned at least a college
degree. Students’ response rates differed with respect to their gender and reten-
tion status. Female and males response rates were 42% and 27%, respectively
(c2 = 33.88, p £ .001). Student response rates differed by retention status:
currently enrolled after their freshman year (38%), did not return (32%), and
academically disqualified (25%), (c2 = 9.80, p £ .01). Students were academ-
ically disqualified if their GPA failed to reach 1.01 in their first semester (15
credits), or 1.76 by the end of their first year (30 credits).

Data Analysis
The NAQ questions were factor analyzed to confirm the factor structure of
the motivational questionnaire reported in previous research (Heckert et al.,
2000). The principal component extraction and varimax rotation method identifies
factors that are orthogonal. Orthogonal factors are statistically independent of
each other, which eases interpretability (Rummel, 1970). Factor scores computed
using the regression method along with control variables were used in subsequent
analyzes. A multiple regression analysis ascertained the relationship between
students’ level of motivation upon entry as first-year students and their cumulative
college GPA after 1 year. The variables of race, gender, and parents’ education
were used as control variables based on previous research, as were SAT scores and
HSGPA.
An Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) was used to determine if students with
different retention outcomes varied with respect to their responses on the NAQ.
6 / FRIEDMAN AND MANDEL

One-way ANOVAs used retention as an independent variable with three levels:

stayed in school after their first year; academically disqualified; and left school
after their first year on their own volition.

RESULTS
Table 1 contains means and standard deviations for the NAQ items (items
were measured using a 7-point Likert scale, where 1 = “strongly disagree,”
4 = neither agree nor disagree,” and 7 = “strongly agree”). The means ranged
from 4.50 to 2.81. The result of a factor analysis on these items is found in
Table 2, which contains the rotated factor matrix. To facilitate interpretability
and clarity of the factor solution, items with cross loadings greater than or equal
to .30 were dropped from further analyses. The factor analysis resulted in four
factors, accounting for 62% of the item variance. The four factors corresponded
to the factors established in previous research: need for achievement, affiliation
autonomy and dominance (30%, 7%, 10%, and 15% of the variance in student
response variance, respectively). Standardized factor scores were used in sub-
sequent analyses. To test hypotheses one, gender, minority status, parents’ edu-
cation, SAT scores, and HSGPA (control variables), and the four factor scores
were regressed on students’ cumulative GPA after their first year of college.

Hypothesis 1
Hypothesis 1 stated that first-year students that enter college with higher
achievement, affiliation, autonomy, and dominance motivation needs are more
likely to achieve higher GPAs in their first year of college. Table 3 reports the
results of the hierarchical multiple regression analysis conducted with cumulative
college first year GPA regressed on the control variables and the four motivational
needs as measured by the NAQ. The control variables were first entered into
the equation followed by the standardized motivational factor scores.
The standardized beta coefficients and their corresponding t statistics were
significant for HSGPA but not for SAT scores or the other control variables.
High school GPA significantly predicted cumulative first year college GPA but
SAT scores were not statistically predictive of this same variable.
Table 3 also contains the hierarchical multiple regression results with the four
motivation factors entered into the regression equation after gender, minority
status, parents’ education, SAT scores, and HSGPA variables were controlled.
The increase in cumulative GPA variance accounted for by the control variables
alone increased from .12 to .18 (F = 7.32, p £ .001). Need for achievement (b =
.15, t = 3.56, p £ .001) was positively related to cumulative GPA at the end of the
first year of college. There was a significant inverse relationship between need
for autonomy and cumulative GPA (b = –.16, t = –3.76, p £ .001). Needs for
affiliation or dominance were not significantly related to cumulative GPA.
 COLLEGE STUDENT PERFORMANCE AND RETENTION / 7

Table 1. Means and Standard Deviations for Needs

Assessment Questionnairea (N = 487)

Standard
Mean Deviation

I try to perform my best at school 4.50 .65

I spend a lot of time talking to other people 3.88 .92
I would like to work with very little supervision 3.36 .86
I would enjoy being in charge of a project 3.30 .97
I am a hard worker 4.21 .72
I am a “people” person 4.00 .93
I plan my work and schedule myself 3.99 .87
I would rather receive orders than give them 2.81 .91
It is important to me to do the best work possible 4.33 .75
When I have a choice, I try to work in a group instead of
by myself 3.35 1.04
I would like to be my own boss 3.78 .93
I seek an active role in the leadership of a group 3.52 .92
I push myself to be “all that I can be” 4.07 .85
I prefer to do my own work and let others do theirs 3.70 .93
I like to work at my own pace 4.16 .71
I find myself organizing and directing the activities of others 3.17 .97
I try very hard to improve on my past performance 4.06 .78
I try by best to work alone on assignments 3.32 .99
In my projects, I try to be my own boss 3.64 .86
I strive to be “in command” when I am working in a group 3.06 .93
aItems were measured using a 7-point Likert scale, where 1 = “strongly disagree,”
4 = “neither agree nor disagree,” and 7 = “strongly agree.”

Hypothesis 2

Hypothesis 2 stated that the motivational factors are related to student retention.
One-way Analyses of Variance (ANOVA) were used to test whether the control
variables and the motivational factors differed between students who are currently
enrolled, those students who did not return to college on their own volition, or
students who were academically disqualified.
8 / FRIEDMAN AND MANDEL

Table 2. Rotated Factor Matrix of Needs Assessment

Questionnaire Itemsa
Factor

Achieve- Domi-
ment nance Affiliation Autonomy

It is important to me to do the best

work possible .81 .04 .06 .07

I am a hard worker .80 .16 –.01 –.04

I try to perform my best at school .76 .11 .05 .06

I push myself to be “all that I

can be” .75 .21 .06 .07

I try very hard to improve on my past

performance .70 .06 .09 .01

I plan my work and schedule

myself .58 .03 .23 .13

I strive to be “in command” when I

am working in a group –.06 .77 .23 .20

I seek an active role in the leadership

of a group .26 .74 .22 –.10

I would enjoy being in charge of a

project .26 .71 .05 –.11

I would rather receive orders than

give them –.04 –.66 .19 .19

I find myself organizing and

directing the activities of others .12 .62 .25 .17

I spend a lot of time talking to other

people .08 .12 .84 –.12

I am a “people” person .25 .23 .79 –.16

I try my best to work alone on

assignments .03 –.04 –.11 .82

I prefer to do my own work and let

others do theirs .17 .01 –.10 .81
aExtraction method: principal component analysis with varimax with Kaiser Normaliza-
tion rotation. Bold print denotes items that load on a particular factor.
 COLLEGE STUDENT PERFORMANCE AND RETENTION / 9

Table 3. Control Variables and Standardized Factor Scores Regressed on

Cumulative Grade Point Average After One Year of College (N = 452)

b t

Control variables
Gendera –.02 –.50
Minority statusa .06 1.45
Parents educationa .03 .88
Standardized aptitude test scores .03 .67
High school grade point average .26 5.15***

Standardized factor scores

Need for Achievement .15 3.56***
Need for Dominance –.04 –1.02
Need for Autonomy –.16 –3.76***
Need for Affiliation .06 1.42
aGender, minority status, and parents’ education were coded as dummy variables: gender
(1 = female, 0 = male), minority status (1 = non-minority, 0 = minority), and parents’
education (1 = at least one parent had a college education, 0 = no parent had a college
education).
***p £ .001
R = .42, (R2 = .17), F = 10.43, p £ .001.

The results of these analyses are presented in Table 4. Students in the three
retention groups did not significantly differ with respect to gender (c2 = 5.46,
p £ .06) or minority status (c2 = 2.49, p = .28). Students’ parent education was
significantly related to retention status (c2 = 6.21, p £ .05). Eighty-three percent
of the students whose parents had achieved a college education or better returned
following their freshman year. In contrast, only 74% of students whose parents
did not earn a college education returned to school. Neither SAT or HSGPA
predicted retention status. Table 4 also shows that the four motivation factors
did not differ with respect to the three student retention groups. Only need for
dominance approached marginal statistical significance (F = 2.55, p £ .07).

DISCUSSION

The prediction of student performance as measured by cumulative GPA

received partial support (hypothesis one). Not surprisingly, only HSGPA pre-
dicted cumulative GPA at the end of the first year of college. HSGPA and college
GPA both measure students’ ability to perform well in the classroom. The needs
for achievement and autonomy significantly predicted cumulative GPA after
 Table 4. Means, Standard Deviations, and F Tests for Students Who Returned After Their Freshman Year,
Did Not Return on Their Own Volition, and were Academically Disqualified

Currently enrolled Did not return Academic disqualified

(N = 362) (N = 56) (N = 35)

Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD F

10 / FRIEDMAN AND MANDEL

Aptitude Test Scores 1063.90 180.94 1039.64 126.62 1047.71 118.44 .57

High School Grade Point Average 88.69 6.70 88.14 4.33 86.60 4.72 1.81

Need for Achievementa –.01 .97 .16 .81 –.14 1.17 1.17

Need for Dominancea .02 .99 –.27 .99 .15 .99 2.55

Need for Autonomya –.01 .98 .02 1.04 .10 .96 .22

Need for Affiliationa .01 .98 –.01 .88 –.12 1.15 .31

aStandardized factor scores.

 COLLEGE STUDENT PERFORMANCE AND RETENTION / 11

controlling for students’ demographics, SAT scores, and HSGPA. Students who
are motivated to achieve positive results and improve upon their past performance
appear to do better academically than their peers that report less motivation to
perform well. The negative beta weight associated with the need for autonomy
factor suggests that students who preferred to work with others performed better
academically than students who preferred to work alone. In summary, when
compared to students with lesser achievement or greater autonomy needs, students
who are motivated to achieve results (need for achievement) and are not motivated
to work alone (low need for autonomy) are more likely to achieve higher grades.
While hypothesis one was partially supported, hypothesis two was not supported
as the four motivational needs failed to predict retention. Interestingly, students in
which one parent earned a college degree tended to return to school after their
freshman year compared to students where a parent did not graduate from college.
Parents’ academic achievement or simply parents’ status as college graduates may
motivate students to remain in college.
The NAQ can be used as a selection tool, and interviews can be designed to
measure achievement and affiliation needs. The NAQ can also be used as a
diagnostic tool that may identify at-risk students early in their freshman year.
Achievement and affiliation need measures can supplement traditional selection
methods (e.g., high school GPA and SAT scores) to improve student performance.
First-year student academic advisors with diagnostic motivational information
about students are in a favorable position to help students succeed. Advisors can
encourage academically at-risk students to seek school resources, such as tutors,
to increase academic performance. Beyond advisement, institutions can offer first
year interventions such as mentoring and tutoring intended to improve student
performance (Andrade, 2007; Barefoot, 2000; Hendel, 2007; Noble et al., 2007).
SAT scores, HSGPA, and the motivational needs measured by the NAQ
were not related to student retention in the present study. This research finding
underscores the difficulty and complexity of the predicting which students will
remain and which students will not return to school following their freshman year.
The psychological dynamics may differ depending on the underlying reason(s)
students fail to return to school, making prediction difficult.
Study limitations include response bias and generalizability to other academic
institutions. The 36% survey response rate is considered acceptable for surveys
administered online; however, this percent does indicate that the responses of
the majority of first-year students remain unknown. Similar to Friedman and
Mandel (2009-2010), females had a higher response rate than males, and students
who returned after their first year had a higher response rate than students who left
college after their first year. Response bias did not exist for minorities or students
with college educated parents. Future research should ascertain why gender
influences response rate, and what methods or incentives increase college
first-year student response rate. The present study was conducted at a moderately
sized New York state university (8,000 undergraduates). The extent that the
12 / FRIEDMAN AND MANDEL

findings generalize to other public and private institutions of various sizes and
locations is not possible from these data.
The prediction of student retention and achievement is important given the
unacceptable rate of students who do not return to college after their first year.
Future research should explore ways to improve the prediction of performance
and retention that supplement traditional selection measures such as HSGPA
and standardized test scores.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The authors wish to acknowledge the assistance of the State University of

New York at Oswego Institutional Research for their data collection assistance.

REFERENCES
Allen, D. (1999). Desire to finish college: An empirical link between motivation and
persistence. Research in Higher Education, 40(4), 461-485.
American College Testing Program. (2006). 2006 retention/completion summary tables.
Retrieved May 24, 2007 from http://www.act.org/path/policy/pdf/retain_trends.pdf
Andrade, M. (2007). Learning communities: Examining positive outcomes. Journal of
College Student Retention: Research, Theory and Practice, 9(1), 1-20.
Astin, A. (1975). Preventing students from dropping out. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Atkinson, R. C. (2001). Achievement versus aptitude in college admissions. Issues in
Science & Technology, 18(2), 31-37.
Barefoot, B. O. (2000). The first year experience. Are we making it any better? About
Campus, 4(6), 12-18.
Bean, J. (1982). Conceptual models for student attrition. In E. T. Pascarella (Ed.),
New directions for institutional research: Studying student attrition, 36, 17-28,
San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Bean, J., & Eaton, S. B. (2001). The psychology underlying successful retention practices.
Journal of College Student Retention: Research, Theory & Practice, 3(1), 73-89.
Bean, J. P. (1980). Dropouts and turnover: The synthesis and test of a causal model of
student attrition. Research in Higher Education, 12, 155-187.
Bean, J. P. (1985). Interaction effects based on class level in an explanatory model of
college student dropout syndrome. American Educational Research Journal, 22(1),
35-65.
Boudreau, C. A., & Kromrey, J. D. (1994). A longitudinal study of retention and academic
performance of participants in freshman orientation course. Journal of College Student
Development, 35(6), 444-449.
Brief, A. P., Aldag, R. J., Darrow, A. L., & Power, D. J. (1980). Examination of responses
of registered nurses to Manifest Needs Questionnaire. Psychological Reports, 46,
1233-1234.
Cabrera, A., & Nora, A. (1994). College students perceptions of prejudice and discrim-
ination and their feelings of alienation: A construct validity approach. Review of
Higher Education/Pedagogy/Cultural Studies, 16(3), 387-409.
 COLLEGE STUDENT PERFORMANCE AND RETENTION / 13

Creamer, D. (1980). Educational advising for student retention: An institutional per-

spective. Community College Review, 7(4), 11-18.
Daempfle, P. A. (2004). An analysis of the high attrition rates among first year
college science, math, and engineering majors. Journal of College Student Retention:
Research, Theory & Practice, 5(1), 37-52.
Davidson, W., & Beck, H. (2006). Survey of academic orientations scores and per-
sistence in college freshmen. Journal of College Student Retention: Research, Theory
and Practice, 8(3), 297-305.
Davidson, W. B., & Beck, H. (2007). Survey of academic orientation scores and persistence
in college freshman. Journal of College Student Retention, 8(3), 297-305.
DesJardins, S., Ahlburg, D., & McCall, B. (1998). An event history model of student
departure. Economics of Education Review, 18, 375-390.
Dreher, D. F., & Mai-Dalton, R. R. (1983). A note on the internal consistency of the
manifest needs questionnaire. Journal of Applied Psychology, 68(1), 194-196.
Evans, Z. L. (2000). Survey examines trends in college admission. NACAC Bulletin,
November, 10-13.
Friedman, B. A., & Mandel, R. G. (2009-2010). The prediction of college student academic
performance and retention: Application of expectancy and goal setting theories.
Journal of College Student Retention, 11(2) 227-246.
Gifford, D. D., Briceno-Perriott, J., & Mianzo, F. (2006). Locus of control: Academic
achievement in a sample of university first year students. Journal of College
Admission, 191, 18-25.
Gold, J. (1995). An intergenerational approach to student retention. Journal of College
Student Development, 36(2), 182-187.
Harrison, N. (2006). The impact of negative experiences, dissatisfaction and attachment
on first year undergraduate withdrawal. Journal of Further and Higher Education,
30(4), 377-391.
Harvey, B., & France, H. (1987). Needs expression. A basic aspect of career behaviour.
Canadian Journal of Counseling, 21(1), 42-48.
Harvey, B. C., & France, H. (1997). Manifest needs expression and job satisfaction in
school administrators. Guidance and Counseling, 12, 32-35.
Heckert, T. M., Cuneio, G., Hannah, A. P., Adams, P. J., Droste, H. E., Mueller, M. A.,
et al. (2000). Creation of a new needs assessment questionnaire. Journal of Social
Behavior and Personality, 15(1), 121-136.
Hendel, D. (2007). Efficacy of participating in a first-year seminar on student satisfaction
and retention. Journal of College Student Retention: Research, Theory and Practice,
8(4), 413-423.
Heverly, M. (1999). Predicting retention from students’ experiences with college
processes. Journal of College Student Retention: Research, Theory & Practice, 1(1),
3-11.
Hezlett, S., Kuncel, N., Vey, A., Ones, D., Campbell, J., & Camara, W. J. (2001). The
effectiveness of the SAT in predicting success early and late in college: A com-
prehensive meta-analysis. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National
Council of Measurement in Education, Seattle, WA.
House, J. D. (2000). Relationships between self-beliefs, academic background, and
achievement of undergraduate students in health science majors. International Journal
of Instructional Media, 27(4), 447-460.
14 / FRIEDMAN AND MANDEL

House, J. D., Keeley, E. J., & Hurst, R. S. (1996). Relationships between learner atti-
tudes, prior achievement, and performance in a general education course: A multi-
institutional study. International Journal of Instructional Media, 23, 257-271.
House, J. D., & Prion, S. K. (1998). Student attitudes and academic background as
predictors of achievement in college English. International Journal of Instructional
Media, 25, 29-42.
Hsieh, P., Sullivan, J. R., & Guerra, N. S. (2007). Closer look at college students:
Self-efficacy and goal orientation. Journal of Advanced Academics, 18, 454-476.
Hummel, M., & Steele, C. (1996). The learning community: A program to address
issues of academic achievement and retention. Journal of Intergroup Relations, 23(2),
28-33.
Isaac, R. Z., Wilfred, J. P., & Douglas, C. (2001). Leadership and motivation: The
effective application of expectancy theory. Journal of Managerial Issues, 13(2),
212-227.
Konovsky, M., Dalton, D. R., & Todor, W. D. (1986). On the psychometric properties of
the Manifest Needs Questionnaire. Psychological Reports, 58, 309-310.
Kuh, G. D., Kinzie, J. A., Buckley, J. A., Bridges, B. K., & Hayek, J. C. (2007).
Piecing together the student success puzzle. ASHE Higher Education Report, 32(5),
1-182.
Maggio, J. C., White, W. G., Molstad, S., & Kher, N. (2005). Prefreshmen summer
programs’ impact on student achievement and retention. Journal of Developmental
Education, 29(2), 2-9.
McClelland, D. C. (1961). The achieving society. New York: Van Nostrand.
Mohr, J., Eiche, K., & Sedlacek, W. (1998). So close yet so far: Predictors of attrition
in college seniors. Journal of College Student Development, 39(4), 343-354.
Moxley, D., Najor-Durack, A., & Dumbrigue, C. (2001). Keeping students in higher
education: Successful practices and strategies for retention. Virginia: Kogan Page.
Murray, H. A. (1938). Explorations in personality. New York: Oxford University
Press.
National Center for Educational Statistics (NCES). Retrieved October, 28, 2005 from
http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/2003/section3/indicator20.asp
National Survey of Student Engagement. (2005). Student engagement: Exploring dif-
ferent dimensions of student engagement. Bloomington: Center for Postsecondary
Research, Indiana University.
Noble, K., Flynn, N. T., Lee, J. D., & Hilton, D. (2007). Predicting successful college
experiences: Evidence from a first year retention program. Journal of College Student
Retention: Research, Theory & Practice, 9(1), 39-60.
Porter, S. R. (2003). Understanding retention outcomes: Using multiple data sources to
distinguish between dropouts, stopouts, and transfer-outs. Journal of College Student
Retention: Research, Theory & Practice, 5(1), 53-70.
Porter, L. W., & Lawler, E. E. (1968). Managerial attitudes and performance. Burr Ridge,
IL: Irwin.
Rayle, A. D., & Chung, K. (2007) Revisiting first-year college students’ mattering: Social
support, academic stress, and the mattering experience. Journal of College Student
Retention: Research, Theory & Practice, 9(1), 21-37.
Rayle, A. D., Kurpius, S. E. R., & Arredondo, P. (2007) Relationship of self-beliefs,
social support, and university comfort with the academic success of freshman college
 COLLEGE STUDENT PERFORMANCE AND RETENTION / 15

women. Journal of College Student Retention: Research, Theory & Practice, 8(3),
325-343.
Reason, R. D. (2003). Student variables that predict retention: Recent research and new
developments. NASPA Journal, 40(4), 172-191.
Robbins, S. B., Allen, J., Casillas, A., Peterson, C. H., & Le, H. (2006). Unraveling the
differential effects of motivational and skills, social, and self-management measures
from traditional predictors of college outcomes. Journal of Educational Psychology,
98(3), 598-616.
Rummel, R. J. (1970). Applied factor analysis. Evanston, IL: Northwestern University
Press.
Sireci, S. G., Zanetti, M. L., & Berger, J. B. (2003). Recent and anticipated changes in
post secondary admission: A survey of New England colleges and universities. The
Review of Higher Education, 26(3), 323-342.
Steers, R. M., & Braunstein, D. N. (1976). A behaviorally-based measure of manifest
needs in work settings. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 9, 251-266.
Sternberg, R. J. (2004). Theory-based university admissions testing for a new millennium.
Educational Psychologist, 39(3), 185-198.
Stumpf, H., & Stanley, J. C. (2002). Group data on high school grade point averages
and scores on academic aptitude tests as predictors of institutional graduation rates.
Educational & Psychological Measurement, 62(6), 1042-1053.
Vroom, V. C. (1964). Work and Motivation. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Wohlgemuth, D., Whalen, D., Sullivan, J., Nading, C., Shelley, M., & Wang, Y. (2006).
Financial, academic, and environmental influences on the retention and graduation
of students. Journal of College Student Retention: Research, Theory & Practice, 8(4),
457-475.

Direct reprint requests to:

Barry A. Friedman
State University of NY at Oswego
247 Rich Hall
Oswego, NY 13126
e-mail: friedman@oswego.edu