The Journal of General Psychology

ISSN: 0022-1309 (Print) 1940-0888 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/vgen20

Academic Achievement in Early Adolescence: The

Influence of Cognitive and Non-Cognitive Variables

Alejandro Veas, Juan-Luis Castejón, Raquel Gilar & Pablo Miñano

To cite this article: Alejandro Veas, Juan-Luis Castejón, Raquel Gilar & Pablo Miñano (2015)
Academic Achievement in Early Adolescence: The Influence of Cognitive and Non-Cognitive
Variables, The Journal of General Psychology, 142:4, 273-294

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00221309.2015.1092940

Published online: 09 Dec 2015.

Submit your article to this journal

View related articles

View Crossmark data

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

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=vgen20

Download by: [University of Alicante], [Alejandro Veasº] Date: 10 December 2015, At: 02:17
 The Journal of General Psychology, 2015, 142(4), 273–294
Copyright C 2015 Taylor & Francis Group, LLC

Academic Achievement in Early

Adolescence: The Influence of Cognitive
Downloaded by [University of Alicante], [Alejandro Veasº] at 02:17 10 December 2015

and Non-Cognitive Variables

ALEJANDRO VEAS
JUAN-LUIS CASTEJÓN
RAQUEL GILAR
PABLO MIÑANO
University of Alicante

ABSTRACT. The present study examined the predictive effects of intellectual ability,
self-concept, goal orientations, learning strategies, popularity and parent involvement on
academic achievement. Hierarchical regression analysis and path analysis were performed
among a sample of 1398 high school students (mean age = 12.5; SD = .67) from eight
education centers from the province of Alicante (Spain). Cognitive and non-cognitive
variables were measured using validated questionnaires, whereas academic achievement
was assessed using end-of-term grades obtained by students in nine subjects. The results
revealed significant predictive effects of all of the variables. The model proposed had a
satisfactory fit, and all of the hypothesized relationships were significant. These findings
support the importance of including non-cognitive variables along with cognitive variables
when predicting a model of academic achievement.
Keywords: academic achievement, cognitive variables, motivational variables, popularity,
parent involvement

ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT HAS BEEN WIDELY STUDIED in the edu-

cational psychology field during the last few decades, and different cognitive,
motivational, and contextual variables have been included as predictors (Castejón
& Navas, 1992; Guay, Boivin, & Hodges, 1999; Inglés, Martı́nez-Monteagudo,
Garcı́a-Fernández, Valle, & Castejón, 2014; Jeynes, 2005; Linnenbrink-Garcı́a,
Tyson, & Patall, 2008; Zuffianò, Alessandri, Gerbino, & Luengo, 2013). The anal-
ysis of the interaction of these components through various statistical methods

Address correspondence to Alejandro Veas, Department of Developmental Psychol-

ogy and Didactics, University of Alicante, 03080, Alicante, Spain; alejandro.veas@ua.es
(e-mail).
Color versions of one or more of the figures in the article can be found online at
www.tandfonline.com/vgen.

273
 274 The Journal of General Psychology

has focused on understanding the influence of academic achievement, including

cognitive and non-cognitive variables (Karbach, Gottschling, Spengler, Hegewald,
& Spinath, 2013; Miñano & Castejón, 2011). Some recent studies find that non-
cognitive variables could predict school achievement incrementally better than
cognitive variables (Lu, Weber, Spinath & Shi, 2011; Spinath, Spinath, Harlaar,
& Plomin, 2006); however, there are few studies in which cognitive and non-
Downloaded by [University of Alicante], [Alejandro Veasº] at 02:17 10 December 2015

cognitive variables are included in the same predicting model, especially with
contextual variables such as popularity or parent involvement. We analyzed the
influence of certain cognitive, motivational, and contextual variables on academic
achievement; most variables were analyzed using different explanatory models
of academic achievement (Drew & Watkins, 1998; Ruban & McCoach, 2005;
Swalander & Taube, 2007).
It is well known that intellectual ability is the most commonly studied cog-
nitive variable used to predict academic achievement (Colom & Flores-Mendoza,
2007; Chamorro-Premuzic & Furnham, 2006; Lu, Weber, Spinath, & Shi, 2011;
Watkins, Lei & Canivez, 2007). However, its level of contribution has some
variability, showing medium and high predicting values (Navas, Sampascual, &
Santed, 2003). For this reason, recent studies have included motivational variables,
which contribute to an increase in explained variance in academic performance.
Furthermore, when motivational variables are included, intellectual ability ac-
counts for a smaller percentage of the variance (Miñano & Castejón, 2011).
Self-concept has been included as one of the major constructs of motivation
by the scientific community (Guay, Ratelle, Roy, & Litalien, 2010; Marsh, 1990;
Marsh & Martin, 2011; Weiner, 1990). In the educational field, academic self-
concept and academic achievement are often highly correlated, even more so than
other self-concept or self-esteem domains (Green et al., 2012). Huang (2011), in
a recent meta-analysis, confirmed medium to longitudinal relations between self-
concept and academic achievement, as have additional previous long-term studies
(Marsh, 2007). High levels of self-concept imply willingness to invest in learning
and openness to experiences related to achievement (Hattie, 2009).
Goal orientation, another motivational variable, has a clear influence on aca-
demic achievement (Inglés et al., 2014; Roebken, 2007; Rogers, Theule, Ryan,
Adams, & Keating, 2009). Although different classification models have been pro-
posed (Alonso, 1991; Elliot, 2005), several studies note the value of two types of
goal orientation, namely learning and achievement goals. The latter is subdivided
into two sub-types, according to the most important achievement goal theories:
performance goals and reinforcement goals (Elliot, 1999; Hayamizu & Weiner,
1991; Meece, Anderman, & Anderman, 2006). People with learning goals are tra-
ditionally more adaptive, as these subjects typically have more interest in obtaining
new skills and knowledge even if they make mistakes (Cabanach, Arias, Pérez, &
González-Pienda, 1996; Csikszenthmihalyi & Nakamura, 1989). On the contrary,
subjects with performance goal orientation try to avoid the negative evaluation of
their achievement by taking on easier tasks (Cabanach et al, 1996; Inglés et al,
 Veas et al. 275

2014). However, recent publications do not support the learning goals perspec-
tive, and they note that achievement goals can be seen as complementary and not
exclusive; therefore, the same person could have both learning and achievement
orientations (Roebken, 2007; Valle et al., 2003).
Another cognitive variable that contributes to academic achievement is learn-
ing strategies (Fenollar, Román, & Cuestas, 2007; Wolters, 1999). A subject who is
Downloaded by [University of Alicante], [Alejandro Veasº] at 02:17 10 December 2015

actively applying learning processes is normally considered to be self-competent,

using meta–cognitive strategies, which include self-regulating learning (Pintrich
& De Groot, 1990) and turning the academic content into significant content while
being responsible about his/her learning objectives. Therefore, an adequate use
of learning strategies has been positively related to higher academic achievement
(Miñano & Castejón, 2011).
With respect to contextual variables, significant relations have been estab-
lished between popularity and academic achievement (Véronneau, Vitaro, Brend-
gen, Dishion, & Tremblay, 2010; Wentzel, 1991; Wentzel, Elliot, & Dweck, 2005).
Some indicators have been used to examine these behaviors better, such as peer
acceptance, friendships, or popularity. The first two indicators try to evaluate the
quality or the level in which a child is socially accepted, implying that positive
relationships at school led to a positive feeling of belongingness, which is the key
to academic success (Schwartz, Gorman, Nakamoto, & McKay, 2006). Popularity
refers to one’s relative prestige within the peer group and could be associated
not only with prosocial behaviors but also with aggressive or dominant behav-
iors, which can negatively affect academic achievement (Schwartz et al, 2006). In
this sense, although peer acceptance could be considered a more limited concept
(Wentzel & Caldwell, 1997), popularity can provide more varied information as a
socio-metrical measurement of status, including more mixed patterns of attributes
(LaFontana & Cillesen, 1998).
The last contextual variable included in our model is parent involvement (PI).
There is not a unique definition due to a lack of consensus about this construct,
varying from inclusive definitions to more specific ones. Nevertheless, we can
define it as a set of parent behaviors in the home and school that support their
children’s educational progress (El Nokali, Bachman, & Votruba-Drzal, 2010).
Although this variable is less studied in comparison with others, multiple au-
thors indicate its significant contribution to academic achievement (Phillipson
& Phillipson, 2012; Rogers et al., 2009). Furthermore, a recent meta-synthesis
of nine major meta-analyses indicated a positive relationship between PI and
academic achievement, irrespective of the definition of PI used (Wilder, 2014).
However, its statistical impact has been widely discussed, as some researchers in-
dicate that good parental practices do not predict better academic performance (El
Nokali et al., 2010; Okpala, Okpala, & Smith, 2001). We relied on a multidimen-
sional framework (Lorenz & Wild, 2007), which holds three basic assumptions
of PI. First, it is related to home-based learning involving direct parent-child in-
teractions. Second, PI includes a wide range of activities that can be considered
 276 The Journal of General Psychology
Downloaded by [University of Alicante], [Alejandro Veasº] at 02:17 10 December 2015

FIGURE 1. Hypothetical model. IQ: Intellectual ability; ACADEMIC SC:

Academic self-concept; POPULARITY: Popularity; LEAR GOALS: Learning
goals; PERF GOALS: Performance goals; EXPECT: Expectation; PERC S:
Perception of support, organization and interest in educational process;
CENT S: Center relationship; TIME S: Time of support with home-
work; DEV S: Developmental scale; PERS S: Personalization scale; MET S:
Metacognition scale; ACHIEVEMENT: Academic achievement.

relevant. Third, PI is related not only to direct instructional interactions but also
to the development of effective study habits and positive attitudes toward learning
and education (Ryan & Deci, 2000). Fan and Chen (2001) find a small to moderate
relationship between parental achievement and academic achievement. In a more
recent study, Hill and Tyson (2009) found a highly significant effect of parent
involvement on student achievement. More quantitative contributions are needed
to clarify the level of influence of parent involvement on student achievement and
other related variables.
Academic achievement gives, in general terms, a great value to adolescent-
aged students; therefore, the identification and study of personal, motivational and
contextual predictors are crucial to improve school practices. However, analyzing
the most recent achievement models (Bandalos, Finney, & Geske, 2003; Fenollar,
Román, & Cuestas, 2007; Swalander & Taube, 2007) reveals that they do not
include variables related to students’ environments. Hence, it becomes necessary
to (1) test the extent to which popularity and parent involvement contribute to
explaining academic achievement beyond cognitive and motivational variables,
and (2) test at which level individual and contextual variables mediate the effect
of the former on performance.
In Figure 1, the initial theoretical model is shown based on the model of
Miñano, Castejón, and Gilar (2012). The hypotheses are (1) all of the variables
 Veas et al. 277

have a direct effect on academic achievement, with the exception of expecta-

tions, learning goals and performance goals, and (2) these three variables have an
indirect effect through other variables. Furthermore, intellectual ability and aca-
demic self-concept are correlated. (3) Focusing on indirect effects, academic self-
concept affects learning goals and performance goals (Valle, Cabanach, Núñez,
Rodrı́guez, & Piñeiro, 1999). (4) Therefore, this will have a positive effect on
Downloaded by [University of Alicante], [Alejandro Veasº] at 02:17 10 December 2015

the use of learning strategies (Fenollar et al., 2007; Muis & Franco, 2009). (5)
Popularity is expected to have a positive effect on academic achievement (Oberle
& Schonert-Reichl, 2013). (6) Finally, with respect to parent involvement, high
scores for perception of support, organization, and interest in the educational pro-
cess, expectations and center relationship will have positive effects on academic
achievement, whereas the amount of time of support with homework will have
negative direct effect (Tan & Goldberg, 2009).

Method

Participants

Random cluster sampling was used to select the sample, using the school as
the sampling unit. Eight high schools with different socioeconomic and cultural
environments in the province of Alicante (Spain), took part in the survey, two of
which were state-assisted private schools and six were state schools.
A total of 1456 students in their first and second year of compulsory secondary
education participated in this study. Of these, 58 students were excluded due to
errors or omissions in their answers, or because they did not have a sufficient
command of Spanish.
Of the 1398 students that took part, 732 were enrolled in their first year
(52.4%), and the remaining 666 were in their second year (47.6%). 53% of the
sample were male and 47% were female, ranging from 11 to 15 years of age (M
= 12.5, SD = 0.67). The majority of participants (1137, 81.4%) studied at a state
school, whereas 261 (18.6%) studied at a private school. Because of the racial
and ethnic homogeneity of the country, the majority of children were Caucasian
(98%). Childhood socioeconomic status (SES) was indexed according to parental
occupation. There was a wide range of socioeconomic status with a predominance
of middle class children.1

1This classification was based on the level of incomes and the level of studies of the families. The

regional education counselors determined the childhood socioeconomic statuses (SES) through a ques-
tionnaire registered with the responses of the students. The variables used were: parents. professions,
professional situation and level of studies, number of books at home, cultural and sporting activities
and availability of technological means at home.
 278 The Journal of General Psychology

Measures

Measures of intelligence, self-concept, goal orientations, learning strategies,

popularity and parent involvement were collected during the second quarter of the
academic year 2011–2012.
To measure intellectual ability, we utilized scale 2 of the Factor G test by
Cattell and Cattell (1994), adapted into Spanish by TEA Ediciones. This scale
Downloaded by [University of Alicante], [Alejandro Veasº] at 02:17 10 December 2015

produces an intelligence quotient (IQ) that measures fluid general intelligence.

The reliability, obtained by the two-halves method and corrected by the Spearman-
Brown formula, was .78 in first-year participants and .69 in second-year partici-
pants.
To evaluate self-concept, we used the ESEA-2 [Self-concept evaluation scale
for adolescents] as expanded by González-Pienda et al. (2002). This questionnaire
is a Spanish adaptation of the SDQ-II [Self-Description Questionnaire] by Marsh
(1990), validated in a study with 503 students in compulsory secondary education.
It is composed of 70 items measuring 11 specific self-concept dimensions, to
which students must answer on a Likert scale from 1 to 6 depending on the extent
to which they agree or disagree with each statement. In the authors’ evaluation,
all Cronbach’s alpha values were between .73 and .91. For this study, we only
selected verbal, math and academic self-concept factors with Cronbach’s alpha
values of .84, .90 and .75, respectively.
We evaluated goal orientation through the CMA [Academy Goal Question-
naire] (Garcı́a et al., 1998). This self-report instrument is a Spanish adaptation
of the AGTD [Achievement Goal Tendencies Questionnaire] made by Hayamizu
and Weiner (1991). The instrument contains 20 items and measures three types
of goal orientations identified through factor analysis: learning goals, perfor-
mance goals and reinforcement goals. Students must answer on a Likert scale
from 1 to 5 depending on the frequency of performance with each statement
(1 = never; 5 = always). The psychometric properties of the CMA have been an-
alyzed with Spanish students at the primary, secondary and university levels, and
have good levels of reliability and construct validity (González-Pienda et al., 2000;
Navas, González, & Torregrosa, 2002). In our sample, the Cronbach’s alpha values
were .75 for learning goals, .72 for reinforcement goals and .85 for performance
goals.
To measure learning strategies, we used the CEA [Learning Strategies Ques-
tionnaire], produced by Beltrán, Pérez, and Ortega (2006). The test evaluates
four large scales, from which only the development, personalization, and meta-
cognitive scales were used in this study. To obtain the scores for these three scales,
students answered a total of 50 items indicating the extent to which each formu-
lated strategy was true on a Likert scale from 1 to 5, and we obtained sample
Cronbach’s alpha values of .87, .77 and .77 for the three scales, respectively.
The variable popularity was evaluated with the BULL-S as elaborated by
Cerezo (2000). It is a computerized instrument correction that detects different
 Veas et al. 279

coexisting profiles: acceptation, rejection, victimization and isolation. The test

follows the methodological line of sociometry using the peer nomination technique
and analyzes the internal structure of the classroom. It is composed of 15 items,
although we have only used the first four items related to sociometric questions.
The test has two versions: P for parents and A for students. We only used version
A, and an index of peer acceptance named popularity was extracted for the purpose
Downloaded by [University of Alicante], [Alejandro Veasº] at 02:17 10 December 2015

of this study.
Parent involvement was measured by the CIF [Parent Involvement Ques-
tionnaire], which was developed by our research group (see Appendix). This
questionnaire is aimed at students who value the perception of involvement of
their parents in the educational process, their monitoring and the level of impor-
tance of the educational process to themselves. The instrument is structured as 20
items that evaluate 4 factors: perception of support, organization and interest in the
educational process, expectations (professional future) and the center relationship
and time of support with homework. Students must answer on a Likert scale from
1 to 5 depending on the frequency they do each statement (1 = never or hardly
ever; 5 = always or mostly). An example of an item is: “My parents help me
organize my homework.” In our study, we obtained Cronbach’s alpha values of .70
for the first factor, .65 for the second, .65 for the third and .71 for the last factor.
School grades were used as an indicator of academic achievement. Teachers
provided full-term grades from nine subjects, and the average grades were calcu-
lated on continuous scales ranging from 0 to 10. The scores of the subjects of each
course present a high reliability, with Cronbach’s alpha values of .93 for the first
course participants and .94 for the second course participants.

Procedure

The data were obtained in the classroom and during school hours. The vol-
unteer students participated with the informed consent of their parents or legal
guardians, and with a guarantee of confidentiality. The tests were conducted in the
various schools by several specialists who received prior general training on how
to apply the various instruments. The study was conducted during the academic
year 2011–2012 from November to March over four sessions that each lasted an
hour.

Data Analysis

First, we used a predictive correlational study design in which hierarchi-

cal regression procedures were performed as a technical analysis with the SPSS
software package version 21.0. Academic achievement was used as the criterion
variable, and six steps were included to understand whether intellectual ability,
self-concept, goal orientation, learning strategies, popularity and parent involve-
ment have a significant and unique contribution to explaining the variance.
 280 The Journal of General Psychology

Secondly, path analysis was used with AMOS 21.0, following the maximum
likelihood (ML) estimation method. The objective was to test a set of explana-
tory relationships between the variables, which, according to a certain theoretical
framework, have a significant influence on students’ school achievement in cog-
nitive and motivational terms.
Downloaded by [University of Alicante], [Alejandro Veasº] at 02:17 10 December 2015

Results

Descriptive Statistics and Correlations

Preliminary analyses were conducted to ensure compliance of the properties

of the hierarchical regression analysis. The normal distribution of the residuals,
linearity, multicollinearity, heteroscedacity and independence of errors assumption
were not violated (Hair, Anderson, Tatham, & Black, 2006).
Table 1 presents the descriptive analyses of each variable and the correlation
matrix between all of the dimensions of the variables of interest. Positive and
significant correlations were found among a majority of the dimensions. We can
also report some negative and significant correlations between achievement goals
and the time of support with homework and intellectual ability, as well as between
achievement goals and reinforcement goals.
Before applying path analysis, it was necessary to understand the conditions of
normality and linearity. All of the models were analyzed under the assumption of a
multivariate normal distribution, as skewness and kurtosis values for the variables
were in a range of ±1, with the exception of variables expectations (kurtosis
= 1.571) and performance goals (kurtosis = 4.075). However, the method of
maximum likelihood used in AMOS 21.0 is robust for departures from normality,
especially if the sample is large and the skewness and kurtosis values are not
extreme, i.e., skewness values > |2| and kurtosis values > |7| (West, Finch, &
Curran, 1995).

Hierarchical Linear Regression Analysis

We conducted a hierarchical linear regression analysis (see Table 2) in which

intellectual ability was entered in the first step; followed by three dimensions of
self-concept in the second step (math, verbal and academic); three dimensions of
goal orientation in the third step (learning, reinforcement and performance); three
dimensions of learning strategies in the fourth step (development, personalization
and meta-cognitive scales); popularity in the fifth step; and four dimensions of
parent involvement in the sixth step (perception of support, organization and
interest in the educational process; expectations; center relationship; and time of
effective support with homework).
Model 1 was significant [R2 = .19, F (1, 1396) = 337.847], and thus, intellectual
ability predicted academic achievement [β = .44, p < .001]. In the second step
 Downloaded by [University of Alicante], [Alejandro Veasº] at 02:17 10 December 2015

TABLE 1. Correlation Matrix Between Variables and Descriptive Statistics

M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

1. Intellectual ability 107.06 14.93 —

2. Math self-concept
3. Verbal self-concept
4. Academic self-concept
5. Learning goals
6. Reinforcement goals
7. Performance goals
8. Developmental scale
9. Personalization scale
10. Metacognition scale
11. Popularity
12. Perception of support,
organization and interest
in educational process
13. Expectations
14. Centre relationship
15. Time of support with
homework
16. Academic achievement
3.62 1.45 .23a —
3.82 1.13 .07a .21a —
4.46 1.18 .27a .45a .50a —
5.05 2.29 −.04 .21a .21a .23a —
2.21 1.86 −.00 .03 −.01 −.01 −.06b —
5.11 1.61 −.11a −.03 .07a .07a .44a −.14a —
57.46 11.30 .12a .24a .33a .37a .27a .03 .03 —
70.93 13.7 .08a .27a .30a .34a .29a .08a .07a .84a —
37.39 6.57 .16a .25a .31a .41a .22a −.00 .02 .64a .59a —
a a
5.89 4.09 .09 .07 .09a .17a .01 −.02 .03 .09a .08a .13a —
21.14 3.32 .10a .157a .17a .27a .13a −.05 .02 .27a .22a .28a .08a —
20.88 3.71 .21a .25a .29b .42a .16a .05b .07a .35a .33a .32a .12a .44a —
a
18.96 3.89 .04 .12 .16a .20a .16a .04 .05b .36a .35a .28a .06b .40a .38a —
16.04 4.79 −.11a .07a .06b .04 .19a .09a .11a .24a .25a .15a −.02 .44a .20a .48a —
6.30 1.78 .44a .39a .39a .66a .11a −.04 −.06b .30a .22a .39a .28a .24a .39a .17a −.11a —

Notes. aCorrelation is significant at the .01 level (2-tailed). bCorrelation is significant at the .05 level (2-tailed).
Veas et al.
281
 282 The Journal of General Psychology

TABLE 2. Hierarchical Regression Analysis Summary Table With Academic

Achievement as Dependent Variable

Step and predictor

variable B SE B β R2 R2
Downloaded by [University of Alicante], [Alejandro Veasº] at 02:17 10 December 2015

Step 1 .195b —
Intellectual ability .05 .003 .44b
Step 2 .532b .337b
Math self-concept .108 .025 .088b
Verbal self-concept .17 .033 .108b
Academic .75 .036 .497b
self-concept
Step 3 .541b .009b
Learning goals .003 .017 .004
Reinforcement goals −.05 .018 −.052a
Performance goals −.10 .023 −.09b
Step 4 .558b .017b
Developmental scale .016 .006 .101a
Personalization scale
Meta-cognition scale −.022 .004 −.167b
.038 .007 .139b
Step 5 .582b .024b
Popularity .068 .008 .157 b

Step 6 .61b .028b

Perception of support, .028 .011 .053b
organization and
interest in
educational process
Expectations
Center relationship .039 .01 .081b
.035 .01 .076b
Time of support with
homework
−.069 .008 −.186b

Notes. bp < .01. ap < .001

(Model 2), all of the dimensions of self-concept significantly predicted academic

achievement beyond the effects of intellectual ability [R2 = .532, F (3.1393) =
395.82, p < .001], and the change between models 1 and 2 was statistically
significant [R2 change = .337, F (3, 1393) = 334.448, p < .001]. In the third step
(Model 3), two of the three dimensions of goal orientation were statistically
significant yet predicted negative academic achievement: concretely reinforcing
goals [β = −.052, p < .01] and the performance of goals [β = −.09, p < .001].
The change between Models 3 and 2 was also statistically significant [R2 change
 Veas et al. 283

= .54, F (3, 1390) = 9.08, p < .001]. In the fourth step (Model 4), the elaboration
and meta-cognition scale predicted positive academic achievement [β = .101,
p < .001; β = .139, p < .01], whereas the personalization scale predicted negative
academic achievement [β = −.167, p < .01]. The change between Models 4 and
3 was statistically significant [R2 change = .017, F (3, 1387) = 18.3, p < .001]. In
the fifth step (Model 5), we can see that popularity positively predicts [β = .157,
Downloaded by [University of Alicante], [Alejandro Veasº] at 02:17 10 December 2015

p < .001] a significant increment of the model [R2 change = .028, F (1, 1386) =
78.79), p < .001]. Finally, in the sixth step (Model 6), the predictions of the first
three dimensions of parent involvement were positive and statistically significant,
whereas the last dimension, time of support with homework, predicted negative
academic achievement [β = −.186, p < 001]. This model explained 61% of the
variance for the criteria [R2 = .61, F (15, 1382) = 144.14, p < .001].

Path Analysis

A path analysis was produced to investigate direct and indirect effects among
variables. To improve the model’s global fit, some direct effects were added, as well
as the correlation among errors in perception of support, organization and interest
in educational process, center relationship and time of support with homework
(see Figure 2).
Absolute fit indexes were used to ensure the model fit, determining the extent
to which the model predicts the observed covariance matrix. In this sense, in the
final model, statistic χ 2 reached a value of 345.595, df = 41, p = .001. The Root
Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) was .073, which was considered
acceptable given the strong correlations with the original matrix. Similarly, re-
garding incremental fit measures, the normed fit and Tucker-Lewis indexes (NFI
and TLI) were .949 and .913, respectively. Finally, the comparative fit index (CFI)
was .954. Hu and Bentler (1999) suggested CFI ≥ .95 as the cutoff for a good
model fit. The percentage variance explained by the criterion variable was 56%.

Evaluation of Individual Parameters

With regard to the relationships between the observed variables, all of the
relationships proposed in the final model were significant (p < .05), except for
the effects produced by academic self-concept on achievement goals, and this
last effect on the developmental, personalization, and metacognition scales. The
biggest standardized regression weighting was reached in academic self-concept-
academic achievement (β = .477, SE = .038, p = .001), followed by expectation-
perception of support, organization and interest in the educational process (β
= .395, SE = .022, p = .001) and academic self-concept-developmental scale
(β = .350, SE = .295, p = .001). Similarly, the majority of direct effects were
positive. There are two negative and significant direct effects, reached in time
of support with homework-academic achievement (β = −.211, SE = .008, p
 284 The Journal of General Psychology
Downloaded by [University of Alicante], [Alejandro Veasº] at 02:17 10 December 2015

FIGURE 2. Graphic representation of the results of the final model. IQ: Intel-
lectual ability; ACADEMIC SC: Academic self-concept; POPULARITY: Pop-
ularity; LEAR GOALS: Learning goals; PERF GOALS: Performance goals;
EXPECT: Expectation; PERC S: Perception of support, organization and in-
terest in educational process; CENT S: Center relationship; TIME S: Time
of support with homework; DEV S: Developmental scale; PERS S: Person-
alization scale; MET S: Metacognition scale; ACHIEVEMENT: Academic
achievement.

= .001) and personalization scale-academic achievement (β = −.200, SE =

.004, p = .001). The statistically significant indirect effects were produced by
intellectual ability on academic self-concept through expectations (β = .101, p
= .007), popularity (β = .037, p = .007), learning goals (β = .083, p = .012)
and performance goals (β = .020, p = .028) through academic self-concept; and
on personalization scale (β = .080, p = .009), developmental scale (β = .088,
p = .005) and metacognition scale (β = .098, p = .006) through expectations.
Additionally, statistically significant were the indirect effects of performance goals
on academic achievement through the personalization and metacognition scales
(β = −.010, p = .023), and academic self-concept on academic achievement
through the developmental, personalization, and metacognition scales (β = .056,
p = .016).

Discussion

Few studies have analyzed the cognitive, motivational and contextual vari-
ables in a unique predictive model. The purpose of this study was to examine
the significant contribution of the dimensions of intellectual ability, self-concept,
learning strategies, goal orientation, popularity, and parent involvement on aca-
demic achievement. According to our hypothesis, all of the steps included in the
 Veas et al. 285

hierarchical regression analyses were statistically significant; therefore, all of the

variables contribute to the prediction of academic achievement. The model consid-
ered in the path analysis obtained a satisfactory data fit. Almost all of the pathways
included are significant, explaining 56% of the variance in academic achievement.
These results demonstrate the importance of all of the variables included.
Furthermore, beyond cognitive and motivational variables, popularity and parent
Downloaded by [University of Alicante], [Alejandro Veasº] at 02:17 10 December 2015

involvement are equally essential indicators that affect academic achievement. Not
only do teachers provide sufficient tools to enhance the performance of students,
but parents and peers are also variables that could be seen as an opportunity or
an obstacle to achieve better scholarly performance. Specifically, non-cognitive
variables have as much importance as cognitive variable to predict academic
achievement.
Our data confirmed that intellectual ability is a strong predictor for academic
achievement, similar to previous findings (Deary, Strand, Smith, & Fernandes,
2007; Jensen, 1998). Furthermore, cognitive ability has a significant predictive
strength on students’ goal orientations and on the appropriate use of learning
strategies. Thus, students with more limited abilities are more performance-goal
oriented. This conclusion seems obvious, particularly when considering that, on
the one hand, a learning goal orientation means a much greater investment of a
student’s cognitive and metacognitive abilities, and on the other, the very tools of
aptitude measurement contain an important influence of crystallized intelligence
(Castejón, Pérez, & Gilar, 2010).
In the hierarchical regression analysis, we can see that academic self-concept
has more power of prediction in comparison with verbal and math self-concept.
This fact suggests that possible failures in some subjects do not necessarily imply
poor self-concept levels, and the intensity of internal/external comparisons among
students is also relevant (Marsh et al., 2014). Hence, academic self-concept implies
different aspects of self-evaluation, which supports the multidimensional approach
of the construct (Marsh, 1990; Marsh & Craven, 1997).
In the path analysis, academic self-concept logically has a significant influence
on students’ goal orientations as well. However, even though this relationship was
expected to be negative in the case of performance-goal orientation (Middleton &
Midgley, 1997; Pintrich, 2000; Skaalvik, 1997), the results show that students with
a positive self-concept can be performance-goal orientated, although to a lesser
extent, which coincides with the study by Bandalos et al. (2003).
Goal orientations have a significant effect on the strategies selected by stu-
dents in school tasks. Against expectation (Senko & Harackiewick, 2005), both
types of goals are positive ones. This fact may be explained by the considerations
of multiple goals (Wolters, 1999); research results show greater academic achieve-
ment, particularly in students with a high level of orientation toward learning and
a moderate/high level toward performance (Barron & Harackiewicz, 2000, 2001;
Bong, 2009; Harackiewicz, Barron, Elliot, Tauer, & Carter, 2002; Liu, Wang, Tan,
Ee, & Koh, 2009).
 286 The Journal of General Psychology

With regard to learning strategies, this study reveals a significant contribution

to academic achievement, in accordance with previous results (Areepattamannil,
2014; Chiu, Chow, & McBridge-Chang, 2007; Yip, 2007). Positive contributions
have been made by meta-cognition and development strategies. The first plays
a fundamental role in the selection and intelligent regulation of strategies and
learning techniques, being classified as a general strategy, which can be applied
Downloaded by [University of Alicante], [Alejandro Veasº] at 02:17 10 December 2015

to various domains (Nisbet & Shucksmith, 1986). The second integrates and
relates new information with previous knowledge and requires a more sophisti-
cated treatment because it focuses on the meaning rather than superficial aspects.
A significant and positive prediction of academic achievement has been found
with popularity, in line with previous results (Anderman & Freeman, 2004; Austin
& Draper, 1984; Oberle & Schonert-Reichl, 2013). In general terms, popularity
leads to a feeling of belongingness in school, which increases good performance
and motivation at school (Roeser, Midgley, & Urdan, 1996). Although popularity
could include students with bad behaviors and negative scholarly performance
(Schwartz et al., 2006), the normal positive predictions identified by the results
suggest that these groups are usually scarce. In general terms, relations among
peers constitute friendships in school and contribute to academic engagement and
achievement, along with other processes such as emotional security and teacher-
child relationships (Ladd, 2005; Ladd, Kochenderfer, & Coleman, 1996; Valiente,
Lemery-Chalfant, Swanson, & Reiser, 2008; Wentzel, 1998).
Parent involvement was included in the last step of the hierarchical regression
analysis to test the specific contribution on academic achievement. As expected,
we found that the three first dimensions included perception of support, organiza-
tion, and interest in the educational process; expectations and the center relation-
ship were statistically positive predictors of academic achievement, whereas time
of support with homework was a predictor of negative academic achievement.
The same result is found in the path analysis. Parent involvement is related to
monitoring and checking, and various studies have noted the possible negative
outcomes of monitoring, which can be related to authoritative and authoritarian
parenting styles (Areepattamannil, 2010; Niggli, Trautwein, Schnyder, Luedtke,
& Neumann, 2007) and can increase students’ anxiety levels (Tan & Goldberg,
2009). On the other hand, expectations appear to be the best predictor of par-
ent involvement according to the recent meta-analysis by Jeynes (2010). These
results highlight the importance of parent expectations and beliefs for academic
achievement beyond the cognitive and motivational variables.
In general, the current findings reflect the importance of taking into consider-
ation both non-cognitive and cognitive variables to gain a better understanding of
academic achievement. However, some limitations may need to be addressed in
the future. First, more measurements of popularity and parent involvement have to
be analyzed, such as teachers’ ratings and parent’s self-reported behavior. Teach-
ers have more objective experiences with their students and are not as influenced
by possible biases (Oberle & Schonert-Reichl, 2013; Pepler & Craig, 1998), and
 Veas et al. 287

parents can also provide more comprehensive information about the influence they
have on their children.
In addition, future studies are necessary for discovering patterns across age
groups or subgroups of the student population. For example, some authors have
included family socio-economic status and the education level of the parents
because of their impact on academic achievement (Bradley & Corwyn, 2002;
Downloaded by [University of Alicante], [Alejandro Veasº] at 02:17 10 December 2015

Vista & Grantham, 2010), as well as the relationships between parent involvement
and school outcomes in urban, suburban, and rural schools (Ma, Shen, & Krenn,
2014).
In summary, the present study indicates the importance of cognitive, moti-
vation, and contextual variables for a deeper understanding of academic achieve-
ment in adolescents. We found that all of the variables included in each step of
the hierarchical regression analysis were statistically significant and explained a
considerable percentage of the variance (56%). Furthermore, we must give special
relevance to contextual variables, e.g., popularity and parent involvement, because
of their fundamental influence on the academic achievement beyond motivational
and cognitive variables, as they serve as a guide for educational practices.

AUTHOR NOTES

Alejandro Veas is a researcher and PhD student in the Department of De-

velopmental Psychology and Didactics, at the University of Alicante, Spain. His
studies are focused on academic achievement, underachievement IRT models and
research methodology. Dr. Juan Luis Castejón is Full Professor at the area of
Developmental and Educational Psychology at the University of Alicante since
2002. In the research fields, his lines of work are focused on academic achievement,
motivation, emotional intelligence, transversal competencies and employment of
university graduates. Dr. Raquel Gilar is Professor at the Department of Devel-
opmental Psychology and Didactics at the University of Alicante, Spain. She has
extended experience in management, teaching, elaboration and development of
training and educational programs, quality evaluation and human resources man-
agement. Dr. Pablo Miñano works as a primary teacher at a school in Alicante,
Spain. Since 2008, he also works as an associate teacher at the Department of De-
velopmental Psychology and Didactics at the University of Alicante. His research
interests are focused on academic achievement, underachievement, academic mo-
tivation, intelligence and research methodology.

REFERENCES
Alonso, J. (1991). Motivación y aprendizaje en el aula. cómo enseñar a pensar [Motivation
and learning in the classroom. How to teach thinking]. Madrid, Spain: Santillana.
Anderman, L. H., & Freeman, T. M. (2004). Students’ sense of belonging in school.
Advances in Motivation and Achievement, 13, 27–63.
 288 The Journal of General Psychology

Areepattamannil, S. (2010). Parenting practices, parenting style, and children’s school

achievement. Psychological Studies, 55(4), 283–289.
Areepattamannil, S. (2014). Are learning strategies linked to academic performance among
adolescents in two states in India? A tobit regression analysis. The Journal of General
Psychology, 141(4), 408–424.
Austin, A. B., & Draper, D. C. (1984). The relationship among peer acceptance, social
impact, and academic achievement in middle school. American Educational Research
Downloaded by [University of Alicante], [Alejandro Veasº] at 02:17 10 December 2015

Journal, 21, 597–604.

Bandalos, D. L., Finney, S. J., & Geske, J. A. (2003). A model of statics performance based
on achievement goal theory. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95, 604–616.
Barron, K. E., & Harackiewicz, J. (2000). Achievement goals and optimal motivation:
A multiple goals approach. In C. Sansone & J. M. Harackiewicz (Eds), Intrinsic and
extrinsic motivations. The search for optimal motivation and performance (pp. 231–256).
London, UK: Academic Press.
Barron, K. E., & Harackiewicz, J. (2001). Achievement goals and optimal motivation:
Testing multiple goal model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80, 706–722.
Beltrán, J., Pérez, L., & Ortega, M. (2006). CEA. cuestionario de estrategias de aprendizaje
[CEA. Learning strategies questionnaire]. Madrid, Spain: TEA Ediciones.
Bong, M. (2009). Age-related differences in achievement goal differentiation. Journal of
Educational Psycholgy, 101, 879–896.
Bradley, R. H., & Corwyn, R. F. (2002). Socioeconomic status and child development.
Annual Review of Psychology, 53(1), 371–399.
Cabanach, R. G., Arias, A. V., Pérez, J. C. N., & González-Pienda, J. A. (1996). Una
aproximación teórica al concepto de metas académicas y su relación con la motivación
escolar [A theoretical approach to the concept of academic goals and its relation with
the school motivation]. Psicothema, 8(1), 45–61.
Castejón, J. L., & Navas, L. (1992). Determinantes del rendimiento académico en la
enseñanza secundaria. un modelo causal [Determinants of academic achievement in
secondary education. A causal model]. Análisis y Modificación de Conducta, 18(61),
697–729.
Castejón, J. L., Pérez, A. M., & Gilar, R. (2010). Confirmatory factor analysis of Project
Spectrum activities. A second order g factor or multiple intelligence?. Intelligence, 38,
481–496.
Cattell, R. (1994). Test de factor «g» de cattell, escala 2 (forma A) [Cattell Factor «g»
test, scale 2 form A). Institute for Personality and Ability Testing. Madrid, Spain: TEA
Ediciones.
Cerezo, F. (2000). BULL-S. Test de evaluación de la agresividad entre escolares [BULL-S.
Test for assessing agressiveness among school students]. Manual De Referencia. Bizcaia,
Spain: Grupo ALBOR-COHS.
Chamorro-Premuzic, T., & Furnham, A. (2006). Self-assessed intelligence and academic
performace. Educational Psychology, 26(6), 769–779.
Chiu, M. M., Chow, B. W., & McBridge-Chang, C. (2007). Universals and specifics in
learning strategies: Explaining adolescent mathematics, science, and reading achieve-
ment across 34 countries. Learning and Individual Differences, 17(4), 344–365.
Colom, R., & Flores-Mendoza, C. E. (2007). Intelligence predicts scholastic achievement
irrespective of SES factors: Evidence from Brazil. Intelligence, 35(3), 243–251.
Csikszentmihalyi, M., & Nakamura, J. (1989). The dynamic of intrinsec motivation: A
study of adolescent. In C. Ames & R. Ames (eds.). Research on motivation in education:
Vol. 3. Goals and cognitions. New York: Academic Press.
Deary, I. J., Strand, S., Smith, P., & Fernandes, C. (2007). Intelligence and educational
achievement. Intelligence, 35(1), 13–21.
 Veas et al. 289

Drew, P. Y., & Watkins, D. (1998). Affective variables, learning approaches and academic
achievement: a causal modelling investigation with Hong Kong tertiary students. British
Journal of Educational Psychology, 60(2), 173–188.
El Nokali, N. E., Bachman, H. J., & Votruba-Drzal, E. (2010). Parent involvement and
children’s academic and social development in elementary school. Child Development,
81(3), 988–1005.
Elliot, A. J. (1999). Approach and avoidance motivation and achievement goals. Educa-
Downloaded by [University of Alicante], [Alejandro Veasº] at 02:17 10 December 2015

tional Psychologist, 34, 169–189.

Elliot, A. J. (2005). A conceptual history of the achievement goal construct. In A. J. Elliot
& C. S. Dweck (Eds.), Handbook of competence and motivation (pp. 52–72). New York,
NY: The Guilford Press.
Fan, X., & Chen, M. (2001). Parental involvement and students’ academic achievement: A
meta-analysis. Educational Psychology Review, 13(1), 1–22.
Fenollar, P., Román, S., & Cuestas, P. J. (2007). University students’ academic perfor-
mance: An integrative conceptual framework and empirical analysis. British Journal of
Educational Psychology, 77(4), 873–891.
Garcı́a, M., González-Pienda, J. A., Núñez, J. C., González, S., Alvárez, L., Roces, C.,
González-Cabanach, R., & Valle, A. (1998). El cuestionario de metas académicas (CMA).
un instrumento para la evaluación de la orientación motivacional de los alumnos de
educación secundaria [Academic goals questionnaire (CMA). An instrument to evaluate
motivational goals of students in secondary education]. Aula Abierta, 71, 175–199.
González-Pienda, J. A., Núñez, J. C., González-Pumariega, S., Roces, C., Garcı́a, M.,
González, P., Cabanach, R. G., & Valle, A. (2000). Autoconcepto, proceso de atribución
causal y metas académicas en niños con y sin dificultades de aprendizaje [Self-concept,
process of causal attribution and academic goals in chidren with and without learning
disabilites]. Psicothema, 12(4), 548–556.
González-Pienda, J. A., Núñez, J. C., Gonzalez-Pumariega, S., Álvarez, L., Roces, C., &
Garcia, M. (2002). A structural equation model of parental involvement, motivational
and aptitudinal characteristics, and academic achievement. The Journal of Experimental
Education, 70(3), 257–287.
Green, J., Liem, G. A. D., Martin, A. J., Colmar, S., Marsh, H. W., & McInerney, D. (2012).
Academic motivation, self-concept, engagement, and performance in high school: Key
processes from a longitudinal perspective. Journal of Adolescence, 35(5), 1111–1122.
Guay, F., Boivin, M., & Hodges, E. V. E. (1999). Predicting changes in academic achieve-
ment: A model of peer experiences and self-system processes. Journal of Education
Psychology, 91, 105–115.
Guay, F., Ratelle, C. F., Roy, A., & Litalien, D. (2010). Academic self-concept, autonomous
academic motivation, and academic achievement: Mediating and additive effects. Learn-
ing and Individual Differences, 20(6), 644–653.
Hair, J. F., Anderson, R. E., Tatham, R. L., & Black, W. C. (2006). Multivariate data
analysis (5th ed.). New York, NY: Pearson Prentice Hall.
Hattie, J. A. C. (2009). Visible learning: A synthesis of meta-analyses relating to achieve-
ment. New York, USA: Routledge.
Harackiewicz, J. M., Barron, K. E., Pintrich, P. R., Elliot, A. J., & Thrash, T. M. (2002).
Revision of achievement goal theory: Necessary and illuminating. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 94, 630–645.
Hayamizu, T., & Weiner, B. (1991). A test of Dweck’s model of achievement goals as related
to perceptions of ability. The Journal of Experimental Education, 59(3), 226–234.
Hill, N. E., & Tyson, D. F. (2009). Parental involvement in middle school: A meta-analytic
assessment of the strategies that promote achievement. Developmental Psychology, 45(3),
740–763.
 290 The Journal of General Psychology

Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure
analysis: conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modelling,
6(1), 1–55.
Huang, C. (2011). Self-concept and academic achievement: A meta-analysis of longitudinal
relations. Journal of School Psychology, 49(5), 505–528.
Inglés, C. J., Martı́nez-Monteagudo, M. C., Garcı́a-Fernández, J. M., Valle, A., & Castejón,
J. L. (2014). Goal orientation profiles and self-concept of secondary school students.
Downloaded by [University of Alicante], [Alejandro Veasº] at 02:17 10 December 2015

Revista De Psicodidáctica/Journal of Psychodidactics, 0. doi: 10.1387/RevPsicodi-

dact.10023
Jensen, A. R. (1998). The g factor: The science of mental ability. Westport, CT: Praeguer.
Jeynes, W. (2005). A meta-analysis of the relation of parental involvement to urban ele-
mentary school student academic achievement. Urban Education, 40(3), 237–269.
Jeynes, W. (2010). The salience of the subtle aspects of parental involvement and encour-
aging that involvement: Implications for school-based programs. The Teachers College
Record, 112(3), 747–774.
Karbach, J., Gottschling, J., Spengler, M., Hegewald, K., & Spinath, F. M. (2013). Parental
involvement and general cognitive ability as predictors of domain-specific academic
achievement in early adolescence. Learning and Instruction, 23(0), 43–51.
Ladd, G. W. (2005). Children’s peer relations and social competence: A century of progress.
New Haven, CT: Yale University Press..
Ladd, G. W., Kochenderfer, B. J., & Coleman, C. C. (2008). Friendship Quality as a
Predictor of Young Children’s Early School Adjustment. Child Development, 67(3),
1103–1118.
LaFontana, K. M., & Cillesen, A. H. N. (1998). The nature of children’s stereotypes of
popularity. Social Development, 7, 301–320.
Linnenbrink-Garcı́a, L., Tyson, D. E., & Pattall, E. A. (2008). When are achievement
goal orientation beneficial for academic achievement? A closer look at main effects and
moderating factors. International Review of Social Psychology, 21, 19–70.
Liu, W. C., Wang, C. K., Tan, O. S., Ee, J., & Koh, C. (2009). Understanding students’ moti-
vation in project work: A 2×2 achievement goal approach. British Journal of Educational
Psychology, 79, 87–106.
Lorenz, F., & Wild, E. (2007). Parental involvement in schooling—results concerning its
structure and impact on students’ motivation. In M. Prenzel & L. AllolioNäcke (Eds.),
Studies on the educational quality of schools. The final report on the DFG Priority
Program (pp. 299–316). Münster: Waxman.
Lu, L., Weber, H. S., Spinath, F. M., & Shi, J. (2011). Predicting school achievement from
cognitive and non-cognitive variables in a Chinese sample of elementary school children.
Intelligence, 39, 130–140.
Ma, X., Shen, J., & Krenn, H. Y. (2014). The relationship between parental involvement and
adecuate yearly progress among urban, suburban and rural schools. School Effectiveness
and School Improvement, 25(4), 629–650.
Marsh, H. W. (1990). A multidimensional, hierarchical model of self-concept: Theoretical
and empirical justification. Educational Psychology Review, 2(2), 77–172.
Marsh, H. W. (2007). Self-concept theory, measurement and research into practice: The role
of self-concept in educational psychology. Leicester, UK: British Psychological Society.
Marsh, H. W., & Craven, R. (1997). Academic self-concept: Beyond the dustbowl. In
D. Phye Gary (Ed). Handbook of classroom assessment: Learning, achievement, and
adjustment. Educational psychology series, (pp.131–198). San Diego, CA: Academic
Press.
 Veas et al. 291

Marsh, H. W., & Martin, A. J. (2011). Academic self-concept and academic achievement:
Relations and causal ordering. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 81(1), 59–
77.
Marsh, H. W., Kuyper, H., Seaton, M., Parker, P. D., Morin, A. J. S., Möller, J., & Abduljab-
bar, A. S. (2014). Dimensional comparison theory: An extension of the internal/external
frame of reference effect on academic self-concept formation. Contemporary Educa-
tional Psychology, 39(4), 326–341.
Downloaded by [University of Alicante], [Alejandro Veasº] at 02:17 10 December 2015

Meece, J. L., Anderman, E. M., & Anderman, L. H. (2006). Classroom goal structure,
student motivation, and academic achievement. Annual Review Psychology, 57, 487–503.
Middleton, M. J., & Midgley, C. (1997). Avoiding the demonstration of lack of ability:
Underexplorer aspect of goal theory. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98, 710–718.
Miñano, P., & Castejón, J. L. (2011). Variables cognitivas y motivacionales en el rendimiento
académico en lengua y matemáticas: Un modelo estructural [Cognitive and motivational
variables on academic achievement in spanish language and mathematics]. Revista de
Psicodidáctica/Journal of Psychodidactics, 16(2), 203–230.
Miñano, P., Castejón, J. L., & Gilar, R. (2012). An explanatory model of academic achieve-
ment based on aptitudes, goal orientations, self-concept and learning strategies. The
Spanish Journal of Psychology, 15(1), 48–60.
Muis, K. R., & Franco, G. M. (2009). Epistemic beliefs: Setting the standards for self-
regulated learning. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 34, 306–318.
Navas, L., González, C., & Torregrosa, G. (2002). Metas de aprendizaje: Un análisis
transversal de las estructuras factoriales que presentan [Learning goals: A cross-sectional
analysis of the factor structures which present]. Revista de Psicologı́a General y Aplicada,
55(4), 553–564.
Navas, L., Sampascual, G., & Santed, M. A. (2003). Predicción de las calificaciones de
los estudiantes: La capacidad explicativa de la inteligencia general y de la motivación
[Predicting students’ grades: The explanatory capacity of general intelligence and moti-
vation]. Revista de Psicologı́a General y Aplicada, 56, 225–237.
Niggli, A., Trautwein, U., Schnyder, I., Luedtke, O., & Neumann, M. (2007). Parental home-
work support can be beneficial, but parental intrusion is detrimental: Family background,
parental homework supervision, and performance gains. Psychologie in Erziehung Und
Unterricht, 54(1), 1–14.
Nisbet, J., & Shucksmith, J. (1986). Learning strategies. Boston, MA: Routledge and Kegan
Paul.
Oberle, E., & Schonert-Reichl, K. A. (2013). Relations among peer acceptance, inhibitory
control, and math achievement in early adolescence. Journal of Applied Developmental
Psychology, 34(1), 45–51.
Okpala, C. O., Okpala, A. O., & Smith, F. E. (2001). Parental involvement, instructional
expenditures, family socioeconomic attributes, and student achievement. The Journal of
Educational Research, 95(2), 110–115.
Pepler, D. J., & Craig, W. M. (1998). Assessing children’s peer relationships. Child and
Adolescent Mental Health, 3(4), 176–182.
Phillipson, S., & Phillipson, S. N. (2012). Children’s cognitive ability and their academic
achievement: The mediation effects of parental expectations. Asia Pacific Education
Review, 13(3), 495–508.
Pintrich, P. R. (2000). The role of goal orientation in self-regulated learning. In M.
Boekaerts, P. R. Pintrich, & M. Zeidner (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation (pp.
452–502). London, UK: Academic Press.
Pintrich, P. R., & De Groot, E. V. (1990). Motivational and self-regulated learning compo-
nents of classroom academic performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82(1),
33–40.
 292 The Journal of General Psychology

Roebken, H. (2007). The influence of goal orientation on student satisfaction, academic en-
gagement and achievement. Electronic Journal of Research in Educational Psychology,
5(3), 679–704.
Roeser, R. W., Midgley, C., & Urdan, T. C. (1996). Perceptions of the school psychological
environment and early adolescents’ psychological and behavioral functioning in school:
The mediating role of goals and belonging. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88(3),
408–422.
Downloaded by [University of Alicante], [Alejandro Veasº] at 02:17 10 December 2015

Rogers, M. A., Theule, J., Ryan, B. A., Adams, G. R., & Keating, L. (2009). Parental
involvement and children’s school achievement evidence for mediating processes. Cana-
dian Journal of School Psychology, 24(1), 34–57.
Ruban, L. M., & McCoach, D. B. (2005). Gender Differences in Explaining Grades
Using Structural Equation Modeling. The Review of Higher Education, 28(4), 475–
502.
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of in-
trinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55,
68–78.
Schwartz, D., Gorman, A. H., Nakamoto, J., & McKay, T. (2006). Popularity, social
acceptance, and aggression in adolescent peer groups: Links with academic performance
and school attendance. Developmental Psychology, 42(6), 1116–1127.
Senko, C., & Harackiewicz, J. M. (2005). Journal of Educational Psychology, 97(3),
320–336.
Skaalvik, E. M. (1997). Self-enhancing and self-defeating ego orientation: Relations with
task and avoidance orientation, achievement, self-perceptions and anxiety. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 89, 71–81.
Spinath, B., Spinath, F. M., Harlaar, N., & Plomin, R. (2006). Predicting school achievement
from general cognitive ability, self-perceived ability, and intrinsic value. Intelligence, 34,
363–374.
Swalander, L., & Taube, K. (2007). Influences of family based prerequisites, reading
attitude, and self-regulation on reading ability. Contemporary Educational Psychology,
32, 206–230.
Tan, E. T., & Goldberg, W. A. (2009). Parental school involvement in relation to children’s
grades and adaptation to school. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 30(4),
442–453.
Valiente, C., Lemery-Chalfant, K., Swanson, J., & Reiser, M. (2008). Prediction of chil-
dren’s academic competence from their effortful control, relationships, and classroom
participation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100(1), 67–77.
Valle, A., Cabanach, R. G., Núñez, J. C., Rodrı́guez, S., & Piñeiro, I. (1999). Un modelo
causal sobre los determinantes cognitivo-motivacionales del rendimiento académico [A
causal model of cognitive-motivational determinants of academic achievement]. Revista
de Psicologı́a General y Aplicada, 52, 499–519.
Valle, A., Cabanach, R. G., Núnez, J. C., González-Pienda, J., Rodrı́guez, S., & Piñeiro, I.
(2003). Multiple goals, motivation and academic learning. British Journal of Educational
Psychology, 73(1), 71–87.
Véronneau, M., Vitaro, F., Brendgen, M., Dishion, T. J., & Tremblay, R. E. (2010). Trans-
actional analysis of the reciprocal links between peer experiences and academic achieve-
ment from middle childhood to early adolescence. Developmental Psychology, 46(4),
773–790.
Vista, A. D., & Grantham, T. C. (2010). Effects of parental education level on fluid intel-
ligence of Philippine public school students. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment,
28(3), 236–248.
 Veas et al. 293

Watkins, M. W., Lei, P., & Canivez, G. L. (2007). Psychometric Intelligence and Achieve-
ment. Intelligence, 35(1), 59–68.
Weiner, B. (1990). History of motivational research in education. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 82(4), 616–622.
Wentzel, K. R. (1991). Relations between social competence and academic achievement in
early adolescence. Child Development, 62(5), 1066–1078.
Wentzel, K. R., & Caldwell, K. (1997). Friendships, peer acceptance, and group member-
Downloaded by [University of Alicante], [Alejandro Veasº] at 02:17 10 December 2015

ship: Realtions to academic achievement in middle school. Child Development, 68(6),

1198–1209.
Wentzel, K. R., Elliot, J., & Dweck, C. (2005). Peer relationships, motivation, and academic
performance at school. In J. Andrew & C. S. Dweck (Eds.), Handbook of competence
and motivation (pp. 279–296). New York, NY: Guildford Press.
West, S. G., Finch, J. F., & Curran, P. J. (1995). Structural equations models with nonnormal
variables. In R. H. Hoyle (Ed.), Structural equation modelling: Concepts, issues and
applications (pp. 56–75). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Wilder, S. (2014). Effects of parental involvement on academic achievement: A meta-
synthesis. Educational Review, 66(3), 377–397.
Wolters, C. A. (1999). The relation between high school students’ motivational regulation
and their use of learning strategies, effort, and classroom performance. Learning and
Individual Differences, 11(3), 281–299.
Yip, M. C. (2007). Differences in learning and study strategies between high and low
achieving university students: A Hong Kong study. Educational Psychology, 27(5),
597–606.
Zuffianò, A., Alessandri, G., Gerbino, M., & Luengo, B. P. (2013). Academic achieve-
ment: The unique contribution of self-efficacy beliefs in self-regulated learning beyond
intelligence, personality traits, and self-steem. Learning and Individual Differences, 23,
158–162.

Original manuscript received November 12, 2014

Final version accepted September 8, 2015

APPENDIX

Parent Involvement Questionnaire

1. I believe that my parents help me with my studies as much as they can.

2. My parents think that I will successfully complete compulsory education.
3. My parents regularly attend tutoring sessions with my tutor.
4. My parents help me structure my at-home studying sessions.
5. I believe that my parents should assist me more with activities related to my
education.
6. My parents believe I can continue on to pursue post-compulsory education
(i.e., high school, intermediate vocational training).
7. My parents regularly inquire about my academic performance.
8. My parents review the work I have done in school every day.
9. I think that my parents collaborate with me as much as they can to improve
my educational experience.
 294 The Journal of General Psychology

10. My parents think that I can perform work successfully.

11. When I experience educational difficulties, my parents inform my teachers.
12. My parents regularly review my schedule as a way of informing themselves
about my activities and exam dates.
13. I believe that the support I receive from my parents will improve my grades.
14. My parents discuss my post-compulsory education plans with me (i.e., high
Downloaded by [University of Alicante], [Alejandro Veasº] at 02:17 10 December 2015

school, professional training (PT), university).

15. I inform my parents of activities that happen at school.
16. My parents help me answer questions while I complete my homework.
17. I believe that my parents take an interest in my educational progress.
18. My parents think that I will pursue higher education (university).
19. My school informs my parents of curricula and of academic and professional
opportunities.
20. My parents assist me with questions, homework, Internet research, etc.