Business Students' Hardiness and Its Role in Quality of University Life, Quality of Life, and Learning Performance

Education + Training
Business students’ hardiness and its role in quality of university life, quality of
life, and learning performance
Nguyen Dinh Tho,
Article information:
To cite this document:
Nguyen Dinh Tho, (2019) "Business students’ hardiness and its role in quality of university life,
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF NEW ENGLAND (AUS) At 04:44 27 March 2019 (PT)
quality of life, and learning performance", Education + Training, Vol. 61 Issue: 3, pp.374-386, https://
doi.org/10.1108/ET-03-2018-0068
Permanent link to this document:
https://doi.org/10.1108/ET-03-2018-0068
Downloaded on: 27 March 2019, At: 04:44 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 45 other documents.
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-
srm:320271 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald
for Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission
guidelines are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company
manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as
well as providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and
services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the
Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for
digital archive preservation.
*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
www.emeraldinsight.com/0040-0912.htm
ET
61,3 Business students’ hardiness
and its role in quality of
university life, quality of life,
374 and learning performance
Received 19 March 2018
Revised 30 July 2018
Nguyen Dinh Tho
11 January 2019 University of Economics HCM City, Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam and
21 February 2019
Accepted 3 March 2019
Western Sydney University, Sydney, Australia
Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to investigate the impact of the hardiness of university business
students. Overall hardiness, and its individual components of commitment, control and challenge, were all
explored in relation to students’ quality of university life, quality of life and learning performance.
Design/methodology/approach – A sample of 722 Vietnamese business students was surveyed to collect
the data. Structural equation modeling (SEM) was used to determine whether hardiness and/or its
components enhanced students’ quality of university life, quality of life and learning performance. Necessary
condition analysis (NCA) was then employed to explore the levels of hardiness and its components necessary
for each of the key areas.
Findings – SEM results revealed that overall hardiness had a positive effect on all three key areas. In terms
of individual components, commitment, control and challenge were found to have positive impacts on
learning performance; however, control did not affect quality of university life, and challenge had no effect on
quality of life. NCA results show that these components of hardiness had varying degrees necessary for
students to experience success in these areas.
Practical implications – Findings suggest that university administers should consider the role which
student hardiness, and its individual components, can play in relation to student success at university.
Specifically, universities should practice hardiness training and assessment programs to equip their students
with hardy attitudes and skills.
Originality/value – This study is one of the first to examine of the levels of the components of hardiness
(i.e. commitment, control and challenge) necessary for students to achieve success in the quality of university
life, quality of life and learning performance.
Keywords Control, Vietnam, Commitment, Challenge, Necessary condition analysis
Paper type Research paper
Introduction
Hardiness is a concept that has received considerable attention from researchers around the
world over the past several years (e.g. see a meta analysis by Eschleman et al., 2010). The
concept of hardiness comprises three attitudes which pertain to the levels of commitment,
control and challenge, individuals exercise during their lives (Britt et al., 2001; Fyhn et al.,
2016; Kobasa, 1979; Maddi, 2002). Commitment refers to “a tendency to involve oneself in
(rather than experience alienation from) whatever one is doing or encounters.” Control is
defined as “a tendency to feel and act as if one is influential (rather than helpless) in the face
of the varied contingencies of life.” Challenge is described as “the belief that change rather
than stability is normal in life and that the anticipation of changes are interesting incentives
to growth rather than threats to security” (Kobasa et al., 1982, pp. 169-170). Hardy
individuals will have an ability to integrate commitment, control and challenge to handle
problems during their lives (Abdollahi et al., 2015; Kobasa et al., 1982; Maddi, 2013). This is
Education + Training because these aspects of hardiness help individuals to believe that it is important to stay
Vol. 61 No. 3, 2019
pp. 374-386
© Emerald Publishing Limited This work was supported by a grant from the UEH International School of Business under Grant
0040-0912
DOI 10.1108/ET-03-2018-0068 No. UEH.ISB.16.002.
involved with whatever is happening (commitment), that they are able to take actions to Business
influence outcomes (control), and that accepting difficult situations and turning them into students’
opportunities to develop reflect an adventurous way of living (challenge) (Bartone et al., hardiness
2016; Maddi, 2013).
Note that there is a conceptual overlap between hardiness and resilience; however, they
are distinct. Resilience is a state-like characteristic (Luthans et al., 2015) whereas hardiness
is a part trait and part state personality (Bartone et al., 2016), which is a pathway to 375
resilience, that is, “the hardiness attitudes and strategies facilitate resilience under stress”
(Maddi, 2013, p. 7). Prior research has reported that hardiness can play a role in enhancing
individuals’ health and performance when coping with stressful conditions (Maddi, 1999;
Stoppelbein et al., 2017), and converting stressful situations into common problems to be
handled (Bartone et al., 2016; Bartone et al., 2009; Maddi, 1999; Sezgin, 2009), or opportunities
for growth and development (Kobasa and Puccetti, 1983). Thus, an individual’s hardiness
has been perceived as a necessary drive for performance and quality of life (Alfred et al.,
2014; Bartone et al., 2009; Cash and Gardner, 2011; Johnsen et al., 2017; Kelly et al., 2014;
Wiebe and McCallum, 1986).
In the context of university students, to be considered psychologically hardy, students must
be able to overcome the psychological problems generated by stress which may affect their
ability to study, and/or manage their lives effectively (Nguyen et al., 2012). A number of studies
have examined the role of hardiness in the attitudes and behaviors of university students. Cole
et al. (2004) investigated the role of hardiness in students’ attitudes toward motivated learning,
and found that students’ hardiness affects initial learning, and post-learning, motivation.
Research by Abdollahi et al. (2015) and Abdollahi et al. (2018) revealed that hardiness can help
prevent stress and suicidal ideation among undergraduate students, and can assist them with
moderating the interrelationships between their problem-solving skills and their perception of
stress. Research on the levels of hardiness and its components that are necessary for university
students to experience success at university remains an unexplored area, however. For this
reason, the overarching aim of this study is to employ a necessary condition analysis (NCA) to
decipher these necessary conditions. The remainder of the paper presents a literature review on
hardiness, quality of university life, quality of life and learning performance, followed by
research questions, methods, results and discussion and implications.
Hardiness, quality of university life, quality of life and learning performance

The quality of teaching and learning in higher education plays a crucial role in the
development of a nation’s ability to compete socially/economically on a global scale (Ly et al.,
2015; Tho, 2017). Universities in every nation are therefore tasked with ensuring that their
students are able to meet expected university-based outcomes, and upon graduation,
successfully contribute to society. The term university-based outcomes, refers to outcomes
which students are expected to achieve during their time at university. Three key university-
based outcomes evident within existing literature include university students experiencing
success in achieving their desired: quality of life, quality of university life, and learning
performance (Arslan and Akkas, 2014; Cummins, 2010; Nguyen and Nguyen, 2010; Noble and
McGrath, 2014; Sirgy et al., 2007; Young et al., 2003). This study focuses on these outcomes.
The quality of life refers to students’ overall satisfaction with their lives, while quality of
university life concerns students’ satisfaction with the experiences and opportunities available
to them through their chosen higher education institution (Nguyen et al., 2012; Sirgy et al.,
2007; Vaez et al., 2004). Learning performance is defined as “students’ self-assessment of their
overall knowledge gained, their skills and abilities developed, and the effort they expanded in
a particular class relative to other classes” (Young et al., 2003, p. 131).
Prior research has explored the factors affecting university-based outcomes in the
developed world, as well as in developing economies. For example, research by Arslan and
ET Akkas (2014) showed that satisfaction with social aspects has a strong relationship with
61,3 quality of university life among Turkish university students. Schnettler et al. (2017) reported
that intangible elements such as family support and satisfaction with family life affect
students’ quality of life in Chile. Chow (2005) identified several that factors such as
socio-economic status, experience with prior education, and living conditions have positive
effects on quality of life for Canadian students. Cha (2003) found that optimism and
376 self-esteem positively influence the quality of life among Korean students. Castillo-Merino
and Serradell-López (2014) reported several factors affecting learning performance among
Spanish university students, including, students’ levels of motivation and prior work
experience. However, research on the role of hardiness in students experiencing success
with quality of university life, quality of life and learning performance is still limited.
Previous literature concerning the hardiness of university students has indicated that
studying at university can be a source of stress for students (Chambel and Curral, 2005; Cole
et al., 2004; Schnettler et al., 2017) due to the need for students to fulfill educational
requirements involving assignments and examinations, potentially whilst also managing
matters such as personal finances, employment and social activities (Nguyen et al., 2012).
As an individual’s level of hardiness has the potential to assist with his/her ability to handle
stressful situations (Bartone et al., 2009, 2016; Maddi, 1999; Sezgin, 2009), it is likely that
hardiness also influences a student’s ability to experience success in achieving desired levels
of quality of university life, quality of life and learning performance (Cole et al., 2004;
Nguyen et al., 2012).
The theory of hardiness (e.g. Maddi, 2002; Kobasa, 1979) posits that highly hardy people
are more likely to find stressful situations stimulating; and as a result, have the tendency to
respond to such situations as opportunities resulting in higher levels of satisfaction with
health and life. Applying this argument to the case of university business students, this
study explores the relationships between hardiness and three core university-based
outcomes for university business students within the context of the transitioning economy
of Vietnam. This is achieved by answering the following research questions:
RQ1. Does hardiness, conceptualized as a multidimensional construct (comprising
commitment, control and challenge) enhance the quality of university life, quality
of life and learning performance of business students?
RQ2. What are the required levels of commitment, control and challenge for business
students to successfully achieve their desired: quality of university life, quality of
life and learning performance?
Method
Research context
The continuing transformation of the Vietnamese economy from a centrally planned
economy into a market-oriented economy has created both opportunities and threats for
Vietnamese firms (Nguyen et al., 2012). Vietnamese firms now face greater competition due
to the presence of multinational enterprises within the market (Nguyen and Nguyen, 2010).
Among several weaknesses, such as low product quality and safety, a lack of knowledge
about doing business in a market economy is perhaps the most crucial issue which
Vietnamese firms need to address. Understanding the need for competent graduates in the
business sector, business schools in Vietnam have attempted to enhance the quality of their
business education programs by raising the performance standards which are expected of
students/graduates. From the student perspective, the educational outcomes are more likely
to be achieved when students’ quality of university life, quality of life and learning
performance, are enhanced (Nguyen et al., 2012). For this reason, Vietnamese business
schools, with recently updated performance standards, may benefit from considering the Business
factors which contribute to their students successfully achieving university-based students’
outcomes. Consequently, Vietnam is an appropriate country for the study of the role of hardiness
student hardiness in relation to students’ perceived quality of university life, quality of life
and learning performance.
Procedure and sample 377

Existing research on the role of hardiness in students’ university-based outcomes focuses
solely on the net effects through the use of conventional statistical tools such as multiple
regression analysis or structural equation modeling (SEM) (e.g. Abdollahi et al., 2018;
Cole et al., 2004; Nguyen et al., 2012). However, such traditional statistical approaches do not
explore the causal complexities of business phenomena (Ragin, 2008). This study
investigated not only the net effect of student hardiness, but also the level of each
component of hardiness that are necessary for students’ successful achievement of quality
of university life, quality of life and learning performance. SEM was first used to test the net
effects of overall hardiness, and the individual components of hardiness on quality of
university life, quality of life and learning performance. NCA (Dul, 2016a) was then
employed to investigate the levels of each of the three components of hardiness
(commitment, control and challenge) necessary for students to experience the desired:
quality of university life, quality of life and learning performance.
This study used the survey data to answer the two main research questions. In total,
800 business students from eight university business schools in Ho Chi Minh City were invited
to participate in the survey. Partial self-administered surveys, in which questionnaires were
distributed to students and then collected by the interviewer after checking for missing values,
were employed in this study. This process was undertaken by a group of five interviewers
who were employed and trained by the researcher of this study. The interview took about
10 min. Among 800 questionnaires distributed to students, 722 were collected yielding a
response rate of 90.3 percent. The sample included 479 (63.3 percent) female students and
343 (33.7 percent) male students. A total of 373 (51.7 percent) students were enrolled in the first
or second year of their degree, while the remaining 349 (48.3 percent) students were enrolled
within the third or fourth year of their degree.
Measures
Four constructs were investigated, namely, students’: overall hardiness, quality of
university life, quality of life and learning performance. Hardiness was explored as a
multidimensional construct comprising three key components: commitment, control and
challenge. Each hardiness component was measured by three items adopted from Bartone
et al. (1989), which were adapted specifically for the higher education context. The quality of
university life was measured by four items developed by Sirgy et al. (2007). These four items
reflect students’ overall perception of their quality of university life whilst studying. The
quality of life was measured by four items taken from the instrument used by Peterson and
Ekici (2007). Finally, learning performance was measured by four items designed to reflect
students’ self-assessment of their overall knowledge, skills and abilities obtained during
their time at university. These items were based upon Young et al. (2003), and were
previously modified and tested with Vietnamese business students in a study by Nguyen
and Nguyen (2010).
With the exception of quality of university life which was measured by a five-point
semantic differential scale, all other items were measured by a five-point Likert scale
anchored by 1: strongly disagree and 5: strongly agree. The questionnaire was originally
prepared in English and was translated into Vietnamese by an academic fluent in both
languages. Back translation was conducted to ensure meaning remained consistent across
ET the two languages so as to not disadvantage any students based on their language
61,3 proficiency. Items were randomly assigned into the questionnaire with an aim of mitigating
the agreement tendency bias (Podsakoff et al., 2003). The questionnaire was piloted by a
group of eight business students at the University of Economics Ho Chi Minh City to ensure
clarity of meaning for each of the questionnaire items (Appendix contains the scale items
used within the survey).
378
Results
Measure validation
Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was used to validate the measure. The study first tested
the scale measuring hardiness (a second-order construct) and then, incorporated this scale into
the measures of quality of university life, quality of life and learning performance
( first-order constructs) to form the final measurement model (saturated model). The maximum
likelihood estimation method was used to estimate the parameters in the measurement and
structural models because the screening process showed that all univariate kurtoses and
skewnesses were within the range of [−1, 1] (Muthen and Kaplan, 1985).
The CFA results indicated that the measurement model of hardiness received a suitable
fit to the data: w2½24 ¼ 70.79 ( p ¼ 0.000), GFI ¼ 0.979, CFI ¼ 0.951 and RMSEA ¼ 0.052. In
addition, all factor loadings were sufficient and significant (λ ⩾ 0.50, p o 0.001). The CFA
results of one-factor model provided a poorer to the data when compared to the three-factor
model: w2½27 ¼ 170.35 ( p ¼ 0.000), GFI ¼ 0.947, CFI ¼ 0.850 and RMSEA ¼ 0.086. A χ2
differential test also showed a significant difference between the two models, which led to
the selection of the three-factor model as providing the representation of the
multidimensionality of hardiness (Dw2½2724 ¼ 99.56 ( p o 0.001); GFI ¼ 0.979;
CFI ¼ 0.951; and RMSEA ¼ 0.052). The final measurement model (the saturated model)
also received an acceptable fit to the data: w2½178 ¼ 419.71 ( p ¼ 0.000); GFI ¼ 0.947;
CFI ¼ 0.942; and RMSEA ¼ 0.043. The factor loading scores for all items were found to be
substantial and significant (λ ⩾ 0.50, p o 0.001). The composite reliability scores for
commitment, control and challenge were 0.64, 0.55 and 0.58, respectively. The average
variance extracted scores for commitment, control and challenge were 0.38, 0.29 and 0.31,
respectively. The composite reliability score for quality of university life was 0.81 with an
average variance extracted of 0.52; the composite reliability score for quality of life was
0.75 with an average variance extracted score of 0.43; the composite reliability score for
learning performance was 0.79 with an average variance extracted score of 0.49. Finally, the
correlation between any pair of constructs was smaller than the square root of the average
variance extracted score for each construct in the pair, therefore supporting the discriminant
validity among hardiness, quality of university life, quality of life and learning performance
(Fornell and Larcker, 1981).
Common method bias

It is recognized that a cross-sectional data set collected from a single respondent may raise
the possibility of common method biases (Podsakoff et al., 2003). To counteract this, the
items measuring the constructs in the model were randomly assigned to the questionnaire.
In the analysis phase, two statistical procedures were undertaken to assess the possibility of
common method bias. First, a CFA Harman’s single factor model test was employed.
The CFA one-factor model received a very poor fit to data [w2ð184Þ ¼ 1,511.88 ( p ¼ 0.000),
GFI ¼ 0.800, CFI ¼ 0.684 and RMSEA ¼ 0.100], when compared to the trait factor model
[w2½178 ¼ 419.71 ( p ¼ 0.000); GFI ¼ 0.947; CFI ¼ 0.942; and RMSEA ¼ 0.043]. An unmeasured
latent variable test was conducted by allowing the latent variable to load on each item in the
trait model. The results indicated that the loadings within the measurement model both with
and without the presence of the unmeasured latent variable were almost identical (in size
and statistical significance). All loadings of the items on the unmeasured latent variable Business
were found to be insignificant. These test results indicated that there was no bias in the students’
findings due to common method variance (Podsakoff et al., 2003). hardiness
Structural model: testing the net effects of hardiness
To answer the first research question (i.e. the net effects of hardiness), this study employed SEM
to investigate the impact of hardiness – overall as well as its components – on quality college 379
life, quality of life and learning performance. The results produced by SEM showed that the
proposed model received an acceptable fit to the data: w2½196 ¼ 445.12 ( p ¼ 0.000); GFI ¼ 0.946;
CFI ¼ 0.941; and RMSEA ¼ 0.042. Table I presents the estimates of the structural paths
proposed within the model. A closer examination of the structural paths revealed that hardiness
had a significant impact on quality of university life ( p o 0.001; R2 ¼ 30.8 percent), quality of
life ( po0.001; R2 ¼ 9.2 percent) and learning performance ( po0.001; R2 ¼ 31.6 percent).
Student gender served as a control variable, with results indicating that student gender did not
explain variance scores for quality of university life, quality of life and learning performance.
When examining the impact of each component of hardiness separately, the SEM results
showed that the proposed model received a poorer fit when compared to the model in which
hardiness was a second-order construct; however, results still fell within an acceptable
range: χ2[176] ¼ 673.17 (p ¼ 0.000); GFI ¼ 0.918; CFI ¼ 0.882; and RMSEA ¼ 0.063.
Table II presents the estimates of the structural paths proposed in this model. A closer
examination of the structural paths revealed that commitment and challenge had positive
effects on quality of university life ( po 0.001 and p o0.01, respectively), however, control
did not (p ¼ 0.653). These components explained 31.0 percent of the variance of quality of
university life. In terms of quality of life, the results showed that commitment and
control had positive impacts on quality of life ( p o0.01 and p o0.001, respectively;
Structural path B SE β CR p
Hardiness → Quality of university life 0.70 0.086 0.56 8.10 0.000

Hardiness → Quality of life 0.41 0.079 0.30 5.21 0.000
Hardiness → Learning performance 0.82 0.100 0.56 8.22 0.000
Control variable Table I.
Student gender → Quality of university life 0.00 0.047 0.00 −0.04 0.97 Effects of hardiness
Student gender → Quality of life 0.00 0.057 0.00 −0.07 0.95 on quality college life,
Student gender → Learning performance −0.11 0.056 −0.07 −1.87 0.062 quality of life and
Notes: B, unstandardized estimate; β, standardized estimate; CR, critical ratio; p, p-value learning performance
Structural path B SE β CR p
Commitment → Quality of university life 0.64 0.077 0.54 8.39 0.000

Control → Quality of university life 0.03 0.057 0.02 0.45 0.653
Challenge → Quality of university life 0.13 0.049 0.13 2.61 0.009
Commitment → Quality of life 0.21 0.068 0.16 3.00 0.003
Control → Quality of life 0.26 0.075 0.21 3.44 0.000
Table II.
Challenge → Quality of life 0.10 0.059 0.09 1.67 0.095
Effects of components
Commitment → Learning performance 0.50 0.076 0.37 6.57 0.000 of hardiness on
Control → Learning performance 0.16 0.071 0.12 2.20 0.028 quality college life,
Challenge → Learning performance 0.37 0.068 0.33 5.43 0.000 quality of life and
Notes: B, unstandardized estimate; β, standardized estimate; CR, critical ratio; p, p-value learning performance
ET R2 ¼ 7.8 percent); however, challenge did not ( p ¼ 0.095). Finally, all three components of
61,3 hardiness (commitment, control and challenge) were found to affect learning performance
( p o0.001, po 0.05 and p o0.001, respectively; R2 ¼ 25.4 percent).
NCA results: degrees of necessity of hardiness components

To address the second research question (i.e. the levels of commitment, control and
380 challenge that are necessary for the desired quality of university life, quality of life and
learning performance), this study utilized NCA. This is an analysis method that assists
researchers in identifying the degree of a necessary (but not sufficient) condition for the
occurrence of an outcome. In order to examine the level of necessary conditions, NCA
determines the ceiling line, the line that separates the area with observations from the area
without observations (Dul, 2016a). Two common techniques used for determining the ceiling
line are the ceiling envelopment technique (a piecewise linear line) with free disposal hull
(CE-FDH) and the ceiling regression (a straight line) with free disposal hull (CR-FDH)
because they are more flexible (Dul, 2016a). The NCA results produced by the NCA package
(Dul, 2016b) included the CE-FDH and CR-FDH ceiling lines and bottleneck tables.
The ceiling lines and bottlenecks, produced by the NCA package, showing the degrees of
necessity of commitment, control and challenge for quality of university life are presented in
Figure 1 and Table III, respectively. In Table III, the degrees of all necessary conditions
NCA Plot: Commitment – QCL NCA Plot: Control – QCL NCA Plot: Challenge – QCL
5 OLS
CE-FDH 5 OLS
CE-FDH
5 OLS
CE-FDH
CR-FDH CR-FDH CR-FDH
4 4 4
QCL
QCL
QCL
3 3 3
2 2 2
Figure 1. 1 1 1
Ceiling lines of 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
necessary conditions Commitment Control Challenge
for quality of
university life Notes: QCL, quality of university life; lower solid line, OLS regression line; upper solid line,
CR-FDH ceiling line; dashed line, CE-FDH ceiling line
CE-FDH CR-FDH
Quality of university life Commitment Control Challenge Commitment Control Challenge
0 NN NN NN NN NN NN
10 NN NN NN NN 0.2 NN
20 NN 16.7 NN NN 3.1 NN
30 NN 16.7 NN NN 6.1 NN
40 NN 16.7 NN NN 9.1 NN
50 NN 16.7 8.3 NN 12.0 0.9
60 16.7 25.0 8.3 3.3 15.0 2.4
Table III. 70 16.7 25.0 8.3 6.7 18.0 3.9
Bottleneck table: 80 16.7 25.0 8.3 10.0 20.9 5.4
required minimum
90 16.7 25.0 8.3 13.3 23.9 6.9
levels of commitment,
control and challenge 100 16.7 25.0 8.3 16.7 26.9 8.3
for different desired d 0.083 0.182 0.047 0.042 0.122 0.023
levels of quality of Notes: CE-FDH, ceiling envelopment-free disposal hull; CR-FDH, ceiling regression-free disposal hull;
university life (%) d, effect size; NN, not necessary
(commitment, control and challenge) were determined through their bottlenecks, Business
expressed as percentage of the range of observed values (0 percent ¼ lowest value, students’
100 percent ¼ highest value, i.e., the value collected by a five-point scale were transformed hardiness
into percentage). See Dul (2016b) for a full explanation of the procedure. On closer
examination of the bottleneck results one can see that these variables exhibited different
levels of necessity. However, the effect size of two – commitment and challenge – were small
(o 0.1) in both techniques (CE-FDH and CR-FDH). Only one condition (control) played a 381
necessary condition for the outcome (quality of university life). For example, at the level of
20 percent of quality of university life, it is necessary that control should at least be
16.7 percent. At this level of quality of university life, commitment and challenge were not
necessary conditions. Only when quality of university life was at the 60 percent level, all
three conditions (commitment, control and challenge) were necessary conditions (CE-FDH:
commitment ¼ 16.7 percent, control ¼ 25.0 percent and challenge ¼ 8.3 percent; CR-FDH:
commitment ¼ 3.3 percent, control ¼ 15.0 percent and challenge ¼ 2.4 percent; Table III).
Similarly, Figures 2 and 3 display the ceiling lines presenting the degrees of necessity of
commitment, control and challenge for quality of life and learning performance,
respectively. Tables IV and V evidence the bottlenecks showing the degrees of necessity
of commitment, control and challenge for quality of life and learning performance,
respectively. As in the case of quality of university life, control received the strongest effect
size (dCE-FDH ¼ 0.255; Table IV ) in serving as a necessity condition for the occurrence of
quality of life. Commitment, however, was a necessary condition for the occurrence of
learning performance that received the strongest effect size (dCE-FDH ¼ 0.229; Table V ).
NCA Plot: Commitment – QoL NCA Plot: Control – QoL NCA Plot: Challenge – QoL
5 OLS
CE-FDH 5 OLS
CE-FDH
5 OLS
CE-FDH
4 4 4
QoL
QoL
QoL
3 3 3
2 2 2
1 1 1
1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 Figure 2.
Commitment Control Challenge Ceiling lines of
necessary conditions
Notes: QoL, quality of life; lower solid line, OLS regression line; upper solid line, CR-FDH for quality of life
ceiling line; dashed line, CE-FDH ceiling line
NCA Plot: Commitment – Learning peformance NCA Plot: Control – Learning peformance NCA Plot: Challenge – Learning peformance
OLS
5 OLS
CE-FDH 5 OLS
CE-FDH
5 CE-FDH
Learning peformance
Learning peformance
4 4 4
Learning peformance
3 3 3
2 2 2
1 1 1 Figure 3.
1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 Ceiling lines of
Commitment Control Challenge necessary conditions
for learning
Notes: Lower solid line, OLS regression line; Upper solid line, CR-FDH ceiling line; dashed line, performance
CE-FDH ceiling line
ET CE-FDH CR-FDH
61,3 Quality of life Commitment Control Challenge Commitment Control Challenge
0 NN NN NN NN NN NN
10 NN NN NN NN NN NN
20 8.3 16.7 NN NN NN NN
30 8.3 16.7 NN 4.1 1.6 NN
382 40 25.0 16.7 NN 9.8 9.8 NN
50 25.0 16.7 NN 15.6 18.0 NN
60 25.0 33.3 8.3 21.4 26.3 NN
Table IV. 70 25.0 33.3 8.3 27.2 34.5 7.2
required minimum
90 41.7 66.7 41.7 38.7 51.0 27.9

levels of quality Notes: CE-FDH, ceiling envelopment-free disposal hull; CR-FDH, ceiling regression-free disposal hull; d,
of life (%) effect size; NN, not necessary
CE-FDH CR-FDH
Learning peformance Commitment Control Challenge Commitment Control Challenge
0 NN NN NN NN NN NN
30 8.3 NN NN NN NN NN
40 8.3 NN NN 3.4 NN NN
50 8.3 NN NN 13.5 NN NN
60 25.0 16.7 NN 23.6 7.7 NN
Table V. 70 41.7 25.0 16.7 33.7 19.6 4.8
required minimum
90 50.0 50.0 33.3 53.9 43.5 22.6
levels of learning Notes: CE-FDH, ceiling envelopment-free disposal hull; CR-FDH, ceiling regression-free disposal hull;
performance (%) d, effect size; NN, not necessary
Discussion, implications and directions for future research

Recognizing the role that hardiness plays in the university-based outcomes of students, this
study investigates the net effect of hardiness, overall as well as its individual components
(i.e. commitment, control and challenge), on quality of university life, quality of life and learning
performance of business students. The study also explores the degrees of commitment, control
and challenge that are necessary for quality of university life, quality of life and learning
performance. The results reveal that overall hardiness has a positive effect on these areas. In
terms of individual components, commitment, control and challenge have a positive impact on
learning performance, however, control does not affect the quality of university life and
challenge has no effect on quality of life. In addition, these components have varying degrees
required for successful achievement of quality of university life, quality of life and learning
performance. These findings offer a number of implications for theory, research and practice.
In terms of theory and research, the findings of this study reconfirm the net effects of
hardiness, overall as well as its components, on quality of university life, quality of life and
learning performance and suggest their degrees of necessity. During the past several years,
studies have investigated the net effect of hardiness in work and university-based outcomes.
This study is one of the first to examine of the levels the components of hardiness Business
(i.e. commitment, control and challenges) that are necessary for desired levels of quality of students’
university life, quality of life and learning performance. This may assist researchers in better hardiness
understanding the role of the level of each hardiness component necessary for the
achievement of key university-based outcomes of business students. For example, the study
findings reveal that, to achieve a desired level of a university-based outcome, commitment,
control and challenge should reach required minimum but at varying degrees. In so doing, the 383
study sheds light on a new way of research on psychological resources in general and
hardiness in particular, especially in transitioning markets like Vietnam.
In terms of practice, findings suggest certain ways in which universities might be able to
enhance the achievement of quality of university life, quality of life and learning performance
of business students. Note that hardiness was originally conceptualized as a personality trait
which is considerably stable over time. Recent research shows that hardiness is a part trait
and part state, and therefore is open to change and development (Bartone et al., 2016).
This gives opportunities for hardiness assessment and training programs and several
programs designed to cultivate hardy attitudes and skills have been successfully implemented
in the USA (Maddi, 2002). Vietnamese business schools should be aware of such hardiness
assessment and training programs and apply them to their business training programs. Note
also that, as found in this study, business schools should pay attention not only to the net
effect but also to the required minimum degree of each hardiness component in their
assessment and training programs. By practicing such programs, Vietnamese business
schools might be able to equip their students with hardy attitudes and skills, assisting
business students in enhancing their quality of university life, quality of life and learning
performance. Such hardiness assessment and training programs can be organized as credit
courses or non-credit courses, such as specialized workshops, to help increase students’ hardy
attitudes and skills (Nguyen et al., 2012). In doing so, Vietnamese business schools may reach
their educational standards to satisfy the need of qualified business graduates.
In conclusion, the literature on hardiness has emphasized the role of hardiness in university-
based outcome and research on the area has mainly focused on its net effect. This study is
among the first attempts to decipher the levels of hardiness components that are necessary for
the achievement of a desired level of university-based outcomes, introducing a complementary
method of doing research in the area. This study has a number of limitations. First, this study
focuses on undergraduate business students in key business schools in Ho Chi Minh City.
Further research should be conducted with post-graduate business students as well as with
students in different disciplines to compare and contrast the level of hardiness components
necessary for their quality of university life, quality of life and learning performance. Second,
this model only examines the sole role of hardiness in assisting students with the achievement
of a desired level of quality of university life, quality of life and learning performance. Several
other psychological resources may interact with hardiness to enhance the quality of university
life, quality of life and learning performance of business students, such as optimism,
self-efficacy, hope and personality traits (e.g. the Big Five) which deserve for future research.
References
Abdollahi, A., Talib, M.A., Yaacob, S.N. and Ismail, Z. (2015), “The role of hardiness in decreasing
stress and suicidal ideation in a sample of undergraduate students”, Journal of Humanistic
Psychology, Vol. 55 No. 2, pp. 202-222.
Abdollahi, A., Talib, M.A., Carlbring, P., Harvey, R., Yaacob, S.N. and Ismail, Z. (2018),
“Problem-solving skills and perceived stress among undergraduate students: the moderating
role of hardiness”, Journal of Health Psychology, Vol. 23 No. 10, pp. 1321-1331.
Alfred, G.C., Hammer, J.H. and Good, G.E. (2014), “Male student veterans: hardiness, psychological
well-being, and masculine norms”, Psychology of Men & Masculinity, Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 95-99.
ET Arslan, S. and Akkas, O.A. (2014), “Quality of college life (QCL) of students in Turkey: students’ life
61,3 satisfaction and identification”, Social Indicators Research, Vol. 115 No. 2, pp. 869-884.
Bartone, P.T., Valdes, J.J. and Sandvik, A. (2016), “Psychological hardiness predicts cardiovascular
health”, Psychology, Health & Medicine, Vol. 21 No. 6, pp. 743-749.
Bartone, P.T., Ursano, R.J., Wright, K.M. and Ingraham, L.H. (1989), “The impact of a military air
disaster on the health of assistance workers: a prospective study”, Journal of Nervous and
384 Mental Disease, Vol. 177 No. 6, pp. 317-328.
Bartone, P.T., Eid, J., Johnsen, B.H., Laberg, J.C. and Snook, S.A. (2009), “Big five personality factors,
hardiness, and social judgment as predictors of leader performance”, Leadership & Organization
Development Journal, Vol. 30 No. 6, pp. 498-521.
Britt, T.W., Adler, A.B. and Barton, P.T. (2001), “Deriving benefits from stressful events: the role of
engagement in meaningful work and hardiness”, Journal of Occupational Health Psychology,

Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 53-63.
Cash, M.L. and Gardner, D. (2011), “Cognitive hardiness, appraisal and coping: comparing two
transactional models”, Journal of Managerial Psychology, Vol. 26 No. 8, pp. 646-664.
Castillo-Merino, D. and Serradell-López, E. (2014), “An analysis of the determinants of students’
performance in e-learning”, Computers in Human Behavior, Vol. 30, January, pp. 476-484.
Cha, K.-H. (2003), “Subjective well-being among college students”, Social Indicators Research, Vol. 62
No. 1, pp. 455-477.
Chambel, M.J. and Curral, L. (2005), “Stress in academic life: work characteristics as predictors of
student well‐being and performance”, Applied Psychology, Vol. 54 No. 1, pp. 135-147.
Chow, H.P.H. (2005), “Life satisfaction among university students in a Canadian prairie city:
a multivariate analysis”, Social Indicators Research, Vol. 70 No. 2, pp. 139-150.
Cole, M.S., Field, H.S. and Harris, S.G. (2004), “Student learning motivation and psychological
hardiness: interactive effects on students’ reactions to a management class”, Academy of
Management Learning and Education, Vol. 3 No. 1, pp. 64-85.
Cummins, R.A. (2010), “Subjective wellbeing, homeostatically protected mood and depression: a
synthesis”, Journal of Happiness Studies, Vol. 11 No. 1, pp. 1-17.
Dul, J. (2016a), “Necessary condition analysis (NCA): logic and methodology of ‘necessary but not
sufficient’ causality”, Organizational Research Methods, Vol. 19 No. 1, pp. 10-52.
Dul, J. (2016b), “Necessary condition analysis: R package version 2.0”, available at: http://cran.r-project.
org/web/packages/NCA/ (accessed December 18, 2017).
Eschleman, K.J., Bowling, N.A. and Alarcon, G.M. (2010), “A meta-analytic examination of hardiness”,
International Journal of Stress Management, Vol. 17 No. 4, pp. 277-307.
Fornell, C. and Larcker, D.F. (1981), “Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable
variables and measurement error”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 39-50.
Fyhn, T., Fjell, K.K. and Johnsen, B.H. (2016), “Resilience factors among police investigators:
hardiness-commitment a unique contributor”, Journal of Police and Criminal Psychology, Vol. 31
No. 4, pp. 261-269.
Johnsen, B.H., Espevik, R., Saus, E.R., Sanden, S., Olsen, O.K. and Hystad, S.W. (2017), “Hardiness as a
moderator and motivation for operational duties as mediator: the relation between operational
self-efficacy, performance satisfaction, and perceived strain in a simulated police training
scenario”, Journal of Police and Criminal Psychology, Vol. 32 No. 4, pp. 331-339.
Kelly, D.R., Matthews, M.D. and Bartone, P.T. (2014), “Grit and hardiness as predictors of performance
among West Point cadets”, Military Psychology, Vol. 26 No. 4, pp. 327-342.
Kobasa, S.C. (1979), “Stressful life events, personality, and health: an inquiry into hardiness”, Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 37 No. 1, pp. 1-11.
Kobasa, S.C. and Puccetti, M.C. (1983), “Personality and social resources in stress resistance”, Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 45 No. 4, pp. 839-850.
Kobasa, S.C., Maddi, S.R. and Kahn, S. (1982), “Hardiness and health: a prospective study”, Journal of Business
Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 42 No. 1, pp. 168-177. students’
Luthans, F., Youssef-Morgan, C.M. and Avolio, B.J. (2015), Psychological Capital and Beyond, hardiness
Oxford University Press, New York, NY.
Ly, C.T.M., Margaret, V.H. and Fernandez, S. (2015), “Master of Business Administration (MBA) student
outcomes in Vietnam: graduate student insights from a qualitative study”, Education + Training,
Vol. 57 No. 1, pp. 88-107.
385
Maddi, S.R. (1999), “Comments on trends in hardiness research and theorizing”, Consulting Psychology
Journal: Practice & Research, Vol. 51 No. 2, pp. 67-71.
Maddi, S.R. (2002), “The story of hardiness: twenty years of theorizing, research and practice”,
Consulting Psychology Journal, Vol. 54 No. 3, pp. 175-185.
Maddi, S.R. (2013), Hardiness: Turning Stressful Circumstances into Resilient Growth,
Springer, New York, NY.
Muthen, B. and Kaplan, D. (1985), “A comparison of some methodologies for the factor analysis of
non-normal Likert variables”, British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, Vol. 38
No. 2, pp. 171-189.
Nguyen, T.D., Shultz, C.J. and Westbrook, M.D. (2012), “Psychological hardiness in learning and quality
of college life of business students: evidence from Vietnam”, Journal of Happiness Studies,
Vol. 13 No. 6, pp. 1091-1103.
Nguyen, T.T.M. and Nguyen, T.D. (2010), “Determinants of learning performance of business students
in a transitional market”, Quality Assurance in Education, Vol. 18 No. 4, pp. 304-316.
Noble, T. and McGrath, H. (2014), “Well-being and resilience in education”, in David, S.A., Boniwell, I. and
Ayers, A.C. (Eds), The Oxford Handbook of Happiness, Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 563-578.
Peterson, M. and Ekici, A. (2007), “Consumer attitude toward marketing and subjective quality of life in
the context of a developing country”, Journal of Macromarketing, Vol. 27 No. 4, pp. 350-359.
Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B., Lee, J.-Y. and Podsakoff, N.P. (2003), “Common method biases in
behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies”, Journal of
Applied Psychology, Vol. 88 No. 5, pp. 879-903.
Ragin, C. (2008), Redesigning Social Inquiry, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL.
Schnettler, B., Miranda-Zapata, E., Grunert, K.G., Lobos, G., Denegri, M., Hueche, C. and Poblete, H.
(2017), “Life satisfaction of university students in relation to family and food in a developing
country”, Frontiers in Psychology, available at: doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.015221522
Sezgin, F. (2009), “Relationships between teacher organizational commitment, psychological hardiness
and some demographic variables in Turkish primary schools”, Journal of Educational
Administration, Vol. 47 No. 5, pp. 630-651.
Sirgy, M.J., Grzeskowiak, S. and Rahtz, D. (2007), “Quality of college life of students: developing and
validating a measure of well-being”, Social Indicators Research, Vol. 80 No. 2, pp. 343-360.
Stoppelbein, L., McRae, E. and Greening, L. (2017), “A longitudinal study of hardiness as a buffer for
posttraumatic stress symptoms in mothers of children with cancer”, Clinical Practice in Pediatric
Psychology, Vol. 5 No. 2, pp. 149-160.
Tho, N.D. (2017), “Using signals to evaluate the teaching quality of MBA faculty members: fsQCA and
SEM findings”, Education + Training, Vol. 59 No. 3, pp. 292-304.
Vaez, M., Kristenson, M. and Laflamme, L. (2004), “Perceived quality of life and self-rated health among
first-year university students: a comparison with their working peers”, Social Indicators
Research, Vol. 68 No. 2, pp. 221-234.
Wiebe, D.J. and McCallum, D.M. (1986), “Health practices and hardiness as mediators in the stress-
illness relationship”, Health Psychology, Vol. 5 No. 5, pp. 425-438.
Young, M.R., Klemz, B.R. and Murphy, J.W. (2003), “Enhancing learning outcomes: the effects
of instructional technology, learning styles, instructional methods, and student behaviour”,
Journal of Marketing Education, Vol. 25 No. 2, pp. 130-142.
ET Appendix. The scale items
61,3
Learning performance
LP1. I gain a lot of knowledge from this course.
LP2. I develop a lot of skills from this course.
LP3. I am able to apply the knowledge and skills gained in this course to practice.
LP4. Overall, I learn a lot from this course.
386
Hardiness
Commitment
CM1. Most of my university-related activities and assignments are worthwhile.
CM2. I find most of my academic work exciting.

CM3. I really look forward to most things at university.
Control
CO1. Most people can be taught to be a good student.
CO2. Planning ahead helps me avoid most university-related problems.
CO3. I am in control of most things that happen to me at university.
Challenge
CH1. I enjoy the challenge of learning new material in my courses.
CH2. I like courses that are unpredictable.
CH3. Changes in routine are interesting to me.
Quality of life
QL1. The conditions of my life are excellent.
QL2. I am satisfied with my life.
QL3. So far I have gotten the important things I want in life.
QL4. If I could live my life over, I would change almost nothing.
Quality of university life

QC1. In general, how satisfied are you with your academic and social life on campus? (very dissatisfied/
very satisfied)
QC2. In general, how satisfied are your friends and other classmates with their academic and social life
on campus? (very dissatisfied/very satisfied)
QC3. Considering all things, how happy are you with your study at this university? (very unhappy/
very happy)
QC4. Considering all things, how happy are your friends and other classmates with their study
at this university? (very unhappy/very happy)
About the author

Nguyen Dinh Tho is Chair of Research and Doctoral Programs, International School of Business,
University of Economics HCM City, Vietnam, and Adjunct Professor, Western Sydney University,
Australia. His works have been published in Applied Research in Quality of Life, Education + Training,
International Business Review, Journal of Business Research, Journal of Happiness Studies, Journal of
International Marketing, Journal of Knowledge Management, Journal of Macromarketing, among
others. Nguyen Dinh Tho can be contacted at: ndtho@ueh.edu.vn
For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com

Business Students' Hardiness and Its Role in Quality of University Life, Quality of Life, and Learning Performance

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Business Students' Hardiness and Its Role in Quality of University Life, Quality of Life, and Learning Performance

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Education + Training

*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

Hardiness, quality of university life, quality of life and learning performance

Procedure and sample 377

Common method bias

Hardiness → Quality of university life 0.70 0.086 0.56 8.10 0.000

Commitment → Quality of university life 0.64 0.077 0.54 8.39 0.000

NCA results: degrees of necessity of hardiness components

necessary conditions Commitment Control Challenge

90 41.7 66.7 41.7 38.7 51.0 27.9

Discussion, implications and directions for future research

engagement in meaningful work and hardiness”, Journal of Occupational Health Psychology,

CM2. I find most of my academic work exciting.

Quality of university life

About the author

You might also like