The European Educational Researcher

Assessing subjective university success with the Subjective Academic Achievement Scale (SAAS)

The European Educational Researcher, Volume 4, Issue 3, October 2021, pp. 283-290
OPEN ACCESS VIEWS: 3177 DOWNLOADS: 1630 Publication date: 15 Nov 2021
University achievement is a highly relevant educational outcome with implications for students' academic and professional futures. As the majority of students that drop out of university do so due to subjective reasons in contrast to a lack of capability to handle the workload, a measure of subjective university achievement (complementing grade point average) is helpful to enhance educational research on causes, correlates, and consequences of university success. This study aims to introduce a short scale for assessing subjective academic achievement – the SAAS – and provide first results on its psychometric properties. Based on two independent samples of university students, the internal consistency, factorial validity, and construct validity of the SAAS are corroborated, suggesting the measure's administration in educational research on university success and related issues.
GPA, Higher education, Short scale, University achievement, University success.
Stadler, M., Kemper, C. J., & Greiff, S. (2021). Assessing subjective university success with the Subjective Academic Achievement Scale (SAAS). The European Educational Researcher, 4(3), 283-290.
  1. Abele, A. E., & Spurk, D. (2009). How do objective and subjective career success interrelate over time? Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 82(4), 803–824.
  2. Aryee, S., Chay, Y. W., & Tan, H. H. (1994). An Examination of the Antecedents of Subjective Career Success Among a Managerial Sample in Singapore. Human Relations, 47(5), 487–509.
  3. Bacon, D. R., & Bean, B. (2006). GPA in Research Studies: An Invaluable but Neglected Opportunity. Journal of Marketing Education, 28(1), 35–42.
  4. Beauducel, A [Andre], & Wittmann, W. W. (2005). Simulation Study on Fit Indexes in CFA Based on Data With Slightly Distorted Simple Structure. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 12(1), 41–75.
  5. Betz, N. E., & Fitzgerald, L. F. (1987). The career psychology of women. Academic Press.
  6. Dai, L., & Song, F. (2016). Subjective Career Success: A Literature Review and Prospect. Journal of Human
  7. Resource and Sustainability Studies, 04(03), 238–242.
  8. Dries, N., Pepermans, R., & Carlier, O. (2008). Career success: Constructing a multidimensional model. Journal of
  9. Vocational Behavior, 73(2), 254–267.
  10. George, D., Dixon, S., Stansal, E., Gelb, S. L., & Pheri, T. (2008). Time diary and questionnaire assessment of factors associated with academic and personal success among university undergraduates. Journal of American College Health : J of ACH, 56(6), 706–715.
  11. Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1–55.
  12. Johnson, V. E. (2003). Grade inflation: A crisis in college education. Springer.
  13. Liepmann, D., Beauducel, A [A.], Brocke, B., & Nettelnstroth, W. (2012). IST-Screening: Intelligenz-Struktur-Test ; Screening ; Manual. Hogrefe.
  14. Little, T. D., Cunningham, W. A., Shahar, G., & Widaman, K. F. (2002). To Parcel or Not to Parcel: Exploring the Question, Weighing the Merits. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 9(2), 151–173.
  15. Mould, T., & DeLoach, S. B. (2017). Moving beyond GPA: Alternative Measures of Success and Predictive Factors in Honors Programs. Journal of the National Collegiate Honors Council, 18(1), 149–168.
  16. Muthén, B., & Muthén, L. (2018). Mplus. In W. J. van der Linden (Ed.), Chapman & Hall/CRC Statistics in the Social and Behavioral Sciences. Handbook of Item Response Theory (pp. 507–518). CRC Press.
  17. Ng, T. W. H., Eby, L. T., Sornesen, K. L., & Feldman, D. C. (2005). Predictors of objective and subjective career success: A meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 58(2), 367–408.
  18. Paulhus, D. L., Lysy, D. C., & Yik, M. S. M. (1998). Self‐report Measures of Intelligence: Are They Useful as
  19. Proxy IQ Tests? Journal of Personality, 66(4), 525–554.
  20. Richardson, M., Abraham, C., & Bond, R. (2012). Psychological correlates of university students' academic performance: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 138(2), 353–387.
  21. Stauffer, J. M., & Mendoza, J. L. (2001). The proper sequence for correcting correlation coefficients for range restriction and unreliability. Psychometrika, 66(1), 63–68.
  22. Ulriksen, L., Madsen, L. M., & Holmegaard, H. T. (2010). What do we know about explanations for drop out/opt out among young people from STM higher education programmes? Studies in Science Education, 46(2), 209– 244.
  23. Ziegler, M., Kemper, C. J., & Kruyen, P. (2014). Short Scales – Five Misunderstandings and Ways to Overcome
  24. Them. Journal of Individual Differences, 35(4), 185–189.
Creative Commons License