Personality, Vocational Interests, Cognitive Abilities and Personal Values for the Prediction of Academic Performance and Academic Satisfaction

Abstract

Attrition from Australian universities comprises almost one quarter of enrolments. Providing students at risk of attrition with effective career counselling is consequently a priority. Attrition is often due to poor academic performance and/or satisfaction. Identifying individual differences to predict these would improve applied career counselling. Person-Environment Fit theory holds that the fit between an individual’s traits, abilities and academic environment affects their academic achievement and satisfaction. Increasing the variety and specificity of traits could improve predictions over the use of a single individual difference domain or broader traits. Participants (N=358) completed an individual differences test battery comprising self-report measures of the Five Factor Model personality traits, cognitive abilities, vocational interests, and values, and reported their satisfaction with undertaking psychology. Upon completion of the semester, psychology course grade and Grade Point Average for all subjects were reported. The first study investigated prediction of academic satisfaction using these individual differences. Personality traits and vocational interests predicted academic satisfaction with psychology. Narrow personality facets were stronger predictors than broader personality factors. Cognitive abilities demonstrated some potential for predicting academic satisfaction with psychology. The second study similarly examined the prediction of academic performance. Personality traits, cognitive abilities and vocational interests were significant predictors of psychology course grade and GPA. Whilst personality facets were strong predictors of academic performance, personality factors only predicted overall GPA. Values predicted psychology course grade but not overall GPA. The third study reported an exploratory factor analysis which utilised personality factors, cognitive abilities, vocational interests and values to produce ten factors. Factor scores predicted psychology course grade, overall GPA and academic satisfaction with psychology. Notably, different factor scores were predictors of different academic outcomes. The fourth study improved on this by utilising narrow personality facets instead of broader personality factors to produce eight factors. Factor scores predicted psychology course grade, GPA, and academic satisfaction with psychology. Different factor scores were significant predictors of different academic outcomes. The fifth study optimised prediction by increasing specificity between independent variables and academic outcomes, potentially enabling a reduction in assessment time for career counselling. Academic outcome parsimony was prioritised over the use of a single set of predictive factor scores; three sets of factor scores were produced to predict each of the three academic outcomes. Optimised factor scores demonstrated strong prediction and a parsimonious approach. Prediction of academic performance and academic satisfaction can be improved by using a wider variety of individual differences domains in combination, narrow traits, and factor scores optimised for the prediction of single specific outcomes. Specificity of outcome was important as well as specificity of academic domain. Differing factor scores were relevant to the prediction of poor and high academic performance and academic satisfaction with psychology. Practical implications include defining which variables lead to increased and decreased psychology grades, GPA, and satisfaction with psychology. The specificity of optimised variables suggests career counselling assessment could be streamlined. These studies highlight the need for research focused on breadth of individual differences and specificity of prediction.