Learning and Individual Differences 36 (2014) 19–26

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Learning and Individual Differences

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/lindif

Executive functioning difficulties as predictors of academic performance:

Examining the role of grade goals
Laura E. Knouse a,⁎, Greg Feldman b, Emily J. Blevins a,1
a
University of Richmond, 28 Westhampton Way, Richmond, VA 23173, USA
b
Simmons College, 300 Fenway, Boston, MA 02115, USA

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Concepts related to self-regulation have emerged repeatedly in research on college academic achievement.
Received 5 November 2013 We hypothesized that self-reported executive functioning (EF) deficits would predict academic perfor-
Received in revised form 19 May 2014 mance and investigated whether grade goals could account for this relationship. In Study 1 we obtained
Accepted 18 July 2014
data on the Barkley Deficits in Executive Functioning Scale (BDEFS) and self-reported GPA from co-educa-
Available online xxxx
tional university students (N = 250). In Study 2, we collected BDEFS and GPA goals from students at a
Keywords:
women’s college (N = 229) and obtained grades from the registrar. EF deficits predicted GPA concurrently
Executive functioning and prospectively even when controlling for prior grades. Self-motivation problems were most consistently
Grade point average related to grades and mediation analysis revealed a significant indirect effect via lower grade goals. Howev-
Goal setting er, goals did not fully account for this relationship. While our results suggest potential value for goal-setting
interventions, additional measures to improve self-regulation are likely needed to help struggling students
with self-motivation problems.
© 2014 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
1.1. Background
For decades, educational and social science researchers have been
interested in identifying factors that predict success in college, as
measured by academic performance or grade point average (GPA), in
order to improve students' academic outcomes (Crede & Kuncel,
2008). While high school GPA and scores on standardized tests like
the SAT and ACT are the most frequently used predictors of college
success, they only account for about 25% of the variance in college
GPA, motivating investigations of so-called “third factors” as predictors
of academic performance (Robbins et al., 2004). Several such “third fac-
tors” have received support in the literature including achievement mo-
tivation and academic self-efficacy (Robbins et al., 2004), study habits,
skills, and attitudes (Crede & Kuncel, 2008) and personality traits—in
particular, conscientiousness and self-control (Conard, 2005; Noftle &
Robins, 2007; O'Connor & Paunonen, 2007; Poropat, 2009; Tangney,
⁎ Corresponding author at: University of Richmond Department of Psychology, 28
Westhampton Way, University of Richmond, VA 23221, USA. Tel.: +1 804 287 6347;
fax: +1 804 287 1905.
E-mail addresses: lknouse@richmond.edu (L.E. Knouse),
gregory.feldman@simmons.edu (G. Feldman), emily.blevins@richmond.edu (E.J. Blevins).
1
Present address: University of Maryland, 2103 Cole Fieldhouse, College Park, MD
20742, USA.
Baumeister, & Boone, 2004). Most recently, Richardson, Abraham, and
Bond (2012) conducted a comprehensive meta-analysis and identified
students' self-selected goals for their own grades, academic self-
efficacy, and effort regulation as the most consistent predictors of GPA
out of 42 psychological factors. Because “third factors” may be useful
in identifying which recently-admitted students may be in need of
additional services to improve academic outcomes and retention
(Richardson et al., 2012), there is a need for additional research on pre-
dictors of low GPA and changes in GPA over time that can be the target
of interventions.
Executive function (EF)—defined as self-regulation to achieve future
goals—has far-ranging impact on daily functioning and quality of life
and encompasses a broad array of self-directed cognitions and actions
including problem-solving, working memory, impulse control, self-
motivation, and emotion regulation (Barkley, 2012a, 2012b). Executive
functioning in daily life is an excellent candidate for a “third factor” that
would meaningfully predict college GPA. First, successful functioning in
college requires extensive self-regulation above and beyond what is re-
quired in high school. From class attendance to self-structured studying
to balancing multiple academic and non-academic pursuits, college stu-
dents must self-regulate their own learning in the face of distraction.
Second, educational and developmental research has emphasized the
importance of EF to successful academic functioning at earlier points
in the developmental trajectory, from preschool through adolescence
(Biederman et al., 2004; Duckworth, Tsukayama, & May, 2010; St.
Clair-Thompson & Gathercole, 2006; Valiente, Lemery-Chalfant, &
Swanson, 2010). Third, a few studies have begun to identify a link

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2014.07.001
1041-6080/© 2014 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
20 L.E. Knouse et al. / Learning and Individual Differences 36 (2014) 19–26
between academic functioning in young adults and laboratory tasks
tapping key aspects of executive cognition including working memory
and delay discounting or the willingness to wait for larger long-term
rewards (Cowan et al., 2005; Gropper & Tannock, 2009; Kirby,
Winston, & Santiesteban, 2005).
The present study contributes to this research by examining EF
deficits evident in daily life with a brief multi-dimensional self-
report measure called the Barkley Deficits in Executive Functioning
Scale—Short Form (BDEFS, Barkley, 2012a). Although EF is often
assessed via laboratory tasks, the ecological validity of these tasks
is often poor (Barkley & Murphy, 2011) and rating scales of EF
have been shown to out-perform lab tasks in predicting outcomes
including occupational functioning (Barkley & Fischer, 2011;
Barkley & Murphy, 2010), depression symptoms and diagnoses
(Knouse, Barkley, & Murphy, 2013), and an array of outcomes in
college students (Wingo, Kalkut, Tuminello, Asconape, & Han,
2013). Importantly, the BDEFS allows an examination of the unique
contribution of distinct aspects of EF to academic performance. It
consists of five subscales measuring deficits in various domains of
executive functioning: self-management to time (procrastination),
self-organization (information-processing inefficiency), self-restraint
(impulsivity), self-motivation (difficulty with sustained effort), and
self-regulation of emotions (delayed emotional recovery following
stressor).
These facets of EF assessed by the BDEFS conceptually align with
constructs that have been previously linked to GPA. In particular,
the role of self-motivation with respect to academic tasks has
emerged in several studies. Richardson et al.'s (2012) meta-
analysis identified effort regulation, defined as the ability to main-
tain effort in the face of academic challenge, as one of the most
strongly correlated with academic performance (r = .32) even
when taking into account high school GPA and standardized test
scores (β = .22). Personality studies show that achievement striving
and self-discipline, akin to self-motivation, are the facets of consci-
entiousness with the strongest and most consistent relationships to
GPA (O'Connor & Paunonen, 2007).
Other constructs measured by the BDEFS may also be expected
to predict GPA based on prior research. The relevance of the self-
management to time construct is supported by prior studies on the
role of procrastination in GPA (Richardson et al., 2012). The relevance
of self-organization and self-restraint is conceptually supported by
research on working memory and delay discounting (Cowan et al.,
2005; Gropper & Tannock, 2009; Kirby et al., 2005). In contrast,
self-regulation of emotions might not be expected to correlate as
strongly with GPA. Emotion dysregulation is a facet of EF has been con-
sistently linked to psychopathology in college student samples (Aldao,
Nolen-Hoeksema, & Schweizer, 2010; Feldman, Knouse, & Robinson,
2013); however, the effects of emotional distress per se on GPA are
less clear. For instance, neuroticism and symptoms of depression tend
to exhibit weak and inconsistent associations with GPA (Richardson
et al., 2012). Taken together, the present study can help to clarify
which facets of EF suggested by prior research are most strongly linked
to GPA.
1.2. Study aims
The first aim of our study was to evaluate whether the BDEFS rat-
ing scale measure of EF deficits in daily life would predict cumulative
college GPA concurrently. In Study 1, we examined the association of
BDEFS with self-reported GPA in a large sample of students at a co-
educational institution to establish whether EF deficits were associ-
ated with academic performance. In Study 2 we examined the asso-
ciation to grades obtained from the registrar in a sample of
students at a women's college. Validation research of the BDEFS in
a nationally representative sample of adults (Barkley, 2012a) found
that the scale was not strongly correlated with intelligence or
academic ability but was moderately associated with educational at-
tainment and self-reported history of impairment in academic func-
tioning. Similarly, a separate study of 77 female college students
(Wingo et al., 2013) found that a different self-report measure of
EF was associated with self-rated academic impairment. However,
we are not aware of any study that has yet assessed the association
of self-ratings of EF deficits with actual grades. Furthermore, we test-
ed the replicability of cross-sectional findings across samples of stu-
dents at two colleges with distinct academic profiles.
Our second aim, tested in Study 2, was to test whether concurrent
associations would be replicated in prospective analyses. Research to
date on the BDEFS and earlier versions of the measure have focused
on its association with outcomes assessed concurrently and retro-
spectively (Barkley, 2012a). Prospective analyses are an important
step in the validation of any individual difference measure, but par-
ticularly this one given the centrality of self-regulation in the service
of future goals and desired states emphasized in the conceptualiza-
tion of EF that informed the development of this measure (Barkley,
2012a). Relatedly, our third aim, tested in both Studies 1 and 2,
was to examine unique contributions of each of the five BDEFS sub-
scales to the prediction of current and future GPA. Although the sub-
scales are highly correlated with one another (Barkley, 2012a), as
described above, particular subscales might be expected to better
predict college academic performance (e.g., effort regulation) and
so we wished to examine whether any subscales appeared to
uniquely predict GPA.
Our fourth and fifth aims, addressed in Study 2, involved further
examining the relationship between EF deficits and grades using goal-
setting theory. Because the EF construct emphasizes self-regulation in
the service of future goals, we reasoned that the goals that students
set for themselves might be an important factor in the relationship be-
tween EF deficits and GPA. The recent comprehensive meta-analysis
by Richardson et al. (2012) identified “grade goal” as one of the three
“non-intellective” constructs with the strongest correlation to college
grades. Grade goal (r = .35) included students' self-reports of their
goal grades or expected grades on an assignment or in a course. Grade
goal continued to predict college grades above and beyond high school
GPA and standardized test scores (β = .17). Notably, the studies cited in
Richardson et al. (2012) and others published previously (Locke &
Bryan, 1968; Wood & Locke, 1987) show an association between
grade goal and later grade in a single course but none provide data on
whether grade goal predicts semester GPA. Thus, our fourth aim was
to test whether students' self-selected grade goals correlated with
later semester GPA.
For our fifth aim, we were interested in examining whether lower
grade goals account for (mediate) the relationship between EF deficits
and academic performance. This hypothesis emerges from Locke and
Latham's (1990) goal-setting theory. Goal-setting theory, a theory of
motivation, states that goals regulate behavior such that difficult goals
lead to greater persistence and effort than easy goals or vague encour-
agement to “do your best,” and thus lead to better task performance.
Goals have been found to mediate or partially mediate the effects of
other variables, including personality traits, on performance (Locke &
Latham, 2006). Students' grade goals, for example, have been shown
to partially mediate the impact of goal orientation and personality char-
acteristics derived from self-determination theory on academic perfor-
mance (Lee, Sheldon, & Turban, 2003; VandeWalle, Cron, & Slocum,
2001). We are not aware of any studies that have tested goal-setting
as a mediator between EF deficits and academic performance. Thus,
based on prior research and the importance of goal-directed action in
the EF construct, we hypothesize that students with EF deficits set
lower goals and that this contributes to poorer academic performance.
Importantly, when testing the possible mediating role of self-selected
goals on later semester GPA, we took into account students' prior
college performance (cumulative GPA from the previous semester).
Students' grade goals are strongly related to their past performance
 L.E. Knouse et al. / Learning and Individual Differences 36 (2014) 19–26
(Wood & Locke, 1987) and thus taking prior semester performance into
account provides a rigorous test of the impact of grade goal and
enhances the applicability of our results to possible interventions.
In sum, we tested the following hypotheses:
1) EF deficits as measured by the BDEFS will predict lower GPA in
cross-sectional analyses in two different college samples (Studies
1 and 2).
2) EF deficits will predict lower GPA in prospective analyses, above and
beyond prior academic performance (Study 2).
3) Self-management to time and self-motivation deficits will be the
most strongly and uniquely related to GPA across the analyses
(Studies 1 and 2).
4) Students' self-selected grade goals will correlate with their subse-
quent academic performance (semester GPA; Study 2).
5) Grade goals will mediate the relationship between EF deficits and
subsequent GPA when controlling for past academic performance
(cumulative GPA; Study 2).
2. Study 1
2.1. Method
2.1.1. Participants and procedure
A sample of 314 undergraduates was recruited over two semes-
ters at a small, private co-educational university in the Southeastern
U.S. that is classified as a National Liberal Arts College and rated as
“more selective” (U.S. News and World Report Best Colleges
Ranking, 2013). The sample analyzed for this study (N = 250) in-
cluded those who had a self-reported cumulative college GPA and
complete data for the BDEFS. 56 participants were first semester stu-
dents who were excluded from analyses because they had not yet re-
ceived grades in college. An additional 6 participants did not answer
this question. The participants who did not answer the GPA question
did not differ from those retained for analyses on any of the BDEFS
scales. Two additional participants with GPA data did not complete
the BDEFS.
Of the 250 undergraduate students who had complete data (Age:
M = 19.76, SD = 1.13), 71.6% identified as White, 11.2% as Asian
or Pacific Islander, 15.2% as Black or African-American, 4% as Native
American, and 9.6% self-identified as “Other.” (Note that participants
could indicate more than one race.) 8.8% of participants self-identi-
fied as Hispanic. Data on gender were not recorded for 22% partici-
pants due to a software programming error. Of those who were
administered the question assessing gender, 31.3% were male and
68.7% were female. Participants were recruited through a variety of
means including introductory psychology students who received
course credit for participation (28%) as well as students who were
recruited from campus (72%) who received $5 in exchange for
participation.
All data collection procedures were approved by the relevant
Institutional Review Board and participants completed informed con-
sent procedures before participating.
2.1.2. Measures
2.1.2.1. Barkley Deficits in Executive Functioning Scale—Short Form (BDEFS;
Barkley, 2012a). This 20-item self-report scale measures executive func-
tioning problems in daily life. The scale is designed to tap perceived
problems with self-regulatory behavior or “executive action,” which is
related to but distinct from “executive cognition” as tapped by laboratory
tasks of executive functioning (Barkley, 2012b). Participants rate the
frequency with which they have experienced each problem over the
past six months on a four-point scale from “Never or Rarely” to
“Very Often.” This short form of the scale comprises five subscales
of four items each tapping deficits in self-management to time
21
(procrastination/poor planning), self-organization/problem solving
(information processing difficulties/cognitive inflexibility), self-restraint
(impulsivity), self-motivation (low/inconsistent effort and work quality),
and self-regulation of emotions (delayed recovery from negative emo-
tions). Subscale items are those that loaded most strongly on each factor
from the BDEFS Long Form. The BDEFS was normed on a large nationally
representative sample of adults (n = 1240) and has demonstrated reli-
ability and validity (Barkley, 2012a). Internal consistency of the overall
BDEFS scale and subscales in this sample was acceptable: Total score
(α = .87), self-management to time (α = .78), self-organization and
problem-solving (α = .73), self-restraint (α = .73), self-motivation
(α = .78), and self-regulation of emotions (α = .90).
2.1.2.2. Grade point average (GPA). Cumulative college GPA was
self-reported by participants at the time of study participation.
2.2. Results
The association between difficulties in executive functioning total
score and subscale scores and cumulative college GPA was first
assessed with zero-order correlations (Table 1, first column). Deficits
in self-motivation, self-management to time, self-organization and
the BDEFS total score were significantly negatively correlated with
cumulative GPA. Self-restraint was also negatively associated with
GPA, although less strongly so. Unexpectedly, deficits in emotion
regulation showed a small but significant positive association with
cumulative GPA.
To evaluate unique contributions of each BDEFS subscale, we
conducted a multiple regression analysis with all subscales entered
simultaneously as predictors (Table 2, first column). Self-motivation
problems emerged as the strongest negative predictor of GPA, while
self-regulation of emotions continued to show a positive relationship
in the context of the other subscales. Weaker, but still significant, was
the negative association between self-organization and problem-
solving deficits and GPA.
2.3. Discussion
Study 1 initially established that EF deficits are associated with aca-
demic performance of college students. In this sample, executive func-
tioning deficits as measured by the BDEFS total score was negatively
correlated with self-reported GPA (r = −.18). Our analyses, however,
support using BDEFS subscales rather than the total score, as individual
subscales were more strongly related to GPA. Of note, one subscale
(emotion regulation) positively predicted GPA, which may have weak-
ened the negative total score association.
The subscale measuring self-motivation problems showed the
strongest and most consistent negative association with GPA across
zero-order correlations (r = − .32) and the regression analysis con-
trolling for the other subscales (β = − .25). As mentioned previous-
ly, the construct of effort regulation emerged as one of the strongest
predictors of college grades in the meta-analysis by Richardson et al.
(2012) and thus the results of Study 1 conceptually replicate this
finding and confirm that students' ability to maintain consistent ef-
fort towards goals is an important predictor of academic achieve-
ment in college.
Self-organization and problem-solving deficits were also negatively
associated with GPA in both sets of analyses. The items in this scale
tap difficulties with efficient information processing and cognitive
flexibility. Managing diverse demands across a variety of courses may
be particularly difficult for students with these types of difficulties. In
contrast to the other scales, emotion regulation problems, tapping the
difficulty in recovering from negative emotions when upset, showed a
positive association with self-reported GPA. This finding was puzzling
given that prior studies do not support a consistent association between
GPA and the related construct of neuroticism. However, a recent study
22 L.E. Knouse et al. / Learning and Individual Differences 36 (2014) 19–26

Table 1
Association of BDEFS subscales and total scores to GPA in Samples 1 and 2.

Sample 1 Sample 2
N = 250, GPA self-reported N = 229, GPA data obtained from the registrar
(cumulative)
T1 GPA T2 GPA T2 GPA
R
(cumulative) (semester) (controlling for T1)
R r pr

BDEFS
Time −0.23⁎⁎⁎ −0.26⁎⁎⁎ −0.34⁎⁎⁎ −0.22⁎⁎
Organization −0.22⁎⁎⁎ −0.10 −0.12 0.06
Self-restraint −0.13⁎ −0.14⁎ −0.16⁎ −0.08
Motivation −0.32⁎⁎⁎ −0.27⁎⁎⁎ −0.39⁎⁎⁎ −0.29⁎⁎⁎
Emotion 0.14⁎ 0.12 0.00 −0.12
Total −0.18⁎⁎ −0.18⁎⁎ −0.29⁎⁎⁎ −0.23⁎⁎

BDEFS = Barkley Deficits in Executive Functioning Scale, GPA = grade point average.
⁎ p b .05.
⁎⁎ p b .01.
⁎⁎⁎ p b .001.

by De Feyter, Caers, Vigna, and Berings (2012) suggests that neuroticism
may positively predict academic performance at higher levels of consci-
entiousness and self-efficacy. If this describes the college sample in
Study 1, then the positive relationship between emotion regulation
problems and GPA may not generalize to other samples. We examined
whether this finding replicated by conducting the same analyses in
Study 2.
Study 1 provided preliminary evidence for links between aca-
demic performance in college and executive functioning deficits
but this study had a number of limitations. One limitation is the
use of self-reported GPA. Self-reported GPA is commonly used in
studies of correlates of college academic achievement (Kuncel,
Credé, & Thomas, 2005); furthermore, there is evidence that self-
report GPA is highly correlated with grades obtained directly from
a college registrar (Noftle & Robins, 2007). Nonetheless, there is
some concern that self-reported GPA may be systematically biased.
Specifically, students with lower prior achievement (as measured
by college entrance exams) are often less accurate in grade recall
than those with higher prior achievement (Kuncel et al., 2005). A
second limitation of Study 1 was the use of a cross-sectional design
which in effect tests the retrospective association between academic
performance in the prior semesters with EF rated in the subsequent
semester. As such, the goals of Study 2 included both replicating
and extending the results of Study 1 using GPA data obtained from
a registrar and a prospective design.
3. Study 2
The first goal of Study 2 was to determine whether key findings on
the association EF deficits with self-reported GPA from Study 1 would
replicate in a new sample of undergraduate students using grade data
obtained from the registrar. The second goal was to evaluate the associ-
ation of the BDEFS and its subscales with GPA prospectively, controlling
for prior college performance (Time 1 cumulative GPA). The third goal
of Study 2 was to examine goal-setting as a possible mediator of the
effects of self-motivation problems—the most robust EF predictor of
GPA emerging from both studies.
3.1. Method
3.1.1. Participants and procedure
Data in Study 2 were collected over two semesters from undergrad-
uate students attending a small, private women's college in the North-
eastern U.S. classified as a Regional University and rated “selective”
(U.S. News and World Report Best Colleges Ranking, 2013). Students
participated in this study in exchange for credit applied towards a
psychology course in which they were enrolled. After completing an
in-person survey in a laboratory session, participants were asked to
provide consent for the college Office of the Registrar to release to inves-
tigators the participant's cumulative GPA (as of the prior semester) and
semester GPA at the end of the semester once final grades had been
submitted. Questionnaire data was collected five-to-eight-weeks before
the completion of final exams from 302 students. Permission was
denied by 46 participants and granted by 256. Of those granting permis-
sion, 27 were first-semester students who did not have a prior semester
cumulative GPA and were excluded from analyses, resulting in a final
sample of 229 participants (Age: M = 19.98, SD = 2.75). In terms of
ethnicity, 77.7% identified as White, 9.2% as Asian or Pacific Islander,
3.1% as Black or African-American, 9.6% circled two or more ethnicities
or circled “Other,” and .4% left this item blank. 94.8% identified as

Table 2
Linear regression predicting GPA in Samples 1 and 2.

Sample 1 Sample 2
N = 250, GPA self-reported N = 229, GPA data obtained from the registrar
(cumulative)
T1 GPA T2 GPA T2 GPA
β
(cumulative) (semester) (controlling for T1 cumulative GPA)
R2 = .13 R2 = .17 R2 change = .05
β β β

BDEFS
Time −.12 −.16 −.16⁎ −.06
Organization −.18⁎ −.04 .02 .04
Self-restraint .03 −.08 −.03 .02
Motivation −.25⁎⁎ −.17⁎ −.30⁎⁎⁎ −.19⁎⁎
Emotion .26⁎⁎⁎ .21⁎⁎ .08 −.05

BDEFS = Barkley Deficits in Executive Functioning Scale, GPA = grade point average.
⁎ p b .05.
⁎⁎ p b .01.
⁎⁎⁎ p b .001.
 L.E. Knouse et al. / Learning and Individual Differences 36 (2014) 19–26
non-Hispanic, 4.4% identified as Hispanic, and .9% left this item blank. All
participants were female. Students completed this survey in exchange
for credit applied towards a psychology course in which they were
enrolled.
3.1.2. Measures
Participants completed the 20-item BDEFS (Barkley, 2012a) as de-
scribed in Study 1. Internal consistency of the BDEFS total and subscale
scores was acceptable: Total score (α = .86), Self-management to time
(α = .80), self-organization and problem-solving (α = .74), self-
restraint (α = .68), self-motivation (α = .72), and self-regulation of
emotions (α = .90).
3.1.2.1. GPA. As described above, cumulative GPA (as of the prior semes-
ter) and semester GPA data were obtained from the college Office of the
Registrar for participants who provided consent. The group that denied
permission to access GPA data did not differ from the 229 participants
retained for analyses in terms of any of the BDEFS scales.
3.1.2.2. Grade goals. Students responded to the statement, “This
semester, my GOAL for my GPA is:” by selecting one of eight categories
of grade ranges from A (4.0 to 3.86) to C− or lower (1.67 or less). We
decided to include both letter grades and GPA ranges in each response
option given that students may differ in terms of whether they
think about their personal grade goals as letter grades (which they
would receive on assignments, exams, and course semester grades) or
semester grade point averages (which students would typically only
see when reviewing their transcript).
3.1.3. Plan of analysis
We first repeated the analyses of Study 1 including correlations
between cumulative GPA and BDEFS total score and subscale scores
and a multiple regression analysis with all subscales entered simulta-
neously. We also calculated zero-order correlations with Time 2 semes-
ter GPA and partial correlations with this variable controlling for Time 1
cumulative GPA (Table 1) and multiple regression analyses predicting
these same outcomes with all BDEFS subscales entered simultaneously
(Table 2).
In considering students' self-selected GPA goals, we first examined
correlations between goals and Time 1 cumulative and Time 2 semester
GPA to replicate prior work on grade goals. Next, we tested a simple me-
diation model with GPA goal as the mediator between self-motivation
problems and Time 2 semester GPA using Model 4 in PROCESS for
SPSS by Hayes (2013). Indirect effects were evaluated by examining
whether 95% bias corrected confidence intervals around the estimate,
derived from 10,000 bootstrap resamples, included zero. Next, we
repeated this analysis controlling for Time 1 cumulative GPA to see
whether effects would hold.
3.2. Results
3.2.1. EF deficits predicting GPA
Deficits in self-management to time and self-motivation, as well
as the BDEFS total score, were significantly associated with cumulative
Time 1 GPA and prospectively with Time 2 semester GPA in zero-order
correlations and in partial correlations controlling for Time 1 cumulative
GPA (Table 1). Self-restraint was also associated with GPA concurrently
and prospectively, but not when controlling for prior cumulative GPA.
Although not significant, the positive association between deficits in
emotion regulation and cumulative GPA observed in Study 1 was repli-
cated in Study 2, yet the prospective association was not significant
and actually became a negative, non-significant relationship after con-
trolling for prior cumulative GPA.
Follow-up multiple regression analysis evaluating unique contribu-
tions of BDEFS subscales (Table 2) showed that self-motivation prob-
lems were negatively associated with Time 1 cumulative GPA and
23
emotion regulation problems were again positively associated with
GPA. Unique associations between emotion regulation deficits and
grades disappeared in the prospective analyses. Problems with time
management were negatively associated with Time 2 semester GPA
but, again, self-motivation showed the strongest unique association
with grades. Notably, the negative association between self-motivation
problems and Time 2 grades continued to be significant when Time 1
cumulative GPA was first entered into the model.
In sum, across all analyses, self-motivation problems showed the
most consistent and robust relationship with past and future GPA.
3.2.2. Goal-setting, self-motivation, and GPA
3.2.2.1. Goals and grades. We first examined the relationship between
students' GPA goals and grades in order to replicate Richardson et al.'s
(2012) findings on grade goal and academic performance. As expected,
zero-order correlations of students' GPA goals with both past and subse-
quent performance were significant and strong (Time 1 cumulative GPA
r = .69; Time 2 semester GPA r = .60; both p b .001). Self-motivation
deficits were negatively correlated with GPA goal, r = −.28; p b .001.
Thus, students with better past performance set higher goals and
students with more self-motivation problems set lower goals.
3.2.2.2. GPA goal as a mediator between self-motivation problems and GPA.
Illustrated in Fig. 1, mediation analysis using PROCESS Model 4 showed
that self-motivation problems had a direct negative impact on GPA
(−.07, p b .001). In addition, the indirect effect of self-motivation prob-
lems on GPA via lower goals was also significant and negative (− .04;
confidence interval of indirect effect = −.07 to −.02; 10,000 bootstrap
resamples used). Thus, the negative impact of self-motivation problems
on later grades was both direct and indirect via an association with
lower grade goals. In terms of total effects, every one-unit increase
in self-motivation problems (12-point scale) was associated with a
.11 unit decrease in Time 2 GPA.
We next conducted this analysis controlling for students' Time 1 cu-
mulative GPA. Cumulative GPA was strongly related to Time 2 semester
GPA (.58, p b .001). Although the magnitude of the relationships in the
mediation model was reduced, the pattern of results was similar. Self-
motivation problems continued to have a direct negative impact on
GPA (− .06, p b .001). The indirect effect of self-motivation problems
on GPA via GPA goal was reduced but remained significant and negative
(−.0056; confidence interval of indirect effect = −.0174 to −.0001).2
In light of the finding that students with greater self-motivation def-
icits both set lower goals and achieve lower GPAs, one question left un-
answered by the mediation analysis is whether students with lower
self-motivation actually attain the goals that they set for themselves.
We performed an exploratory analysis to examine this question. We
first converted semester Time 2 GPA into the eight category response
scale used in collecting students' grade goals [A (4.0 to 3.86) to C− or
lower (1.67 or less)]. We then created a difference score to capture
any discrepancy between goal and achieved GPA (Time 2 GPA—goal)
such that positive scores on this variable would reflect exceeding
one's stated goal. In this analysis, self-motivation problems were
negatively correlated with this difference score (r = − .24, p b .001),
suggesting that individuals with poor self-motivation fall further short
of achieving their goals.
2
We decided to focus on the self-motivation subscale rather than the BDEFS total score
in these analyses because of the heterogeneity of associations observed in Study 1 and
Study 2 between GPA and the separate EF subscales that make up the EF total score (in
particular, emotion regulation). Nonetheless, we repeated the mediator analyses in this
section using the EF total score as the predictor. The pattern of results was similar although
the magnitude of the effects was more modest and the indirect effect of BDEFS on Time 2
GPA via grade goal did not reach significance.
24 L.E. Knouse et al. / Learning and Individual Differences 36 (2014) 19–26
Fig. 1. Self-motivation problems predict subsequent GPA directly and indirectly via grade goals.
3.3. Discussion
Results from Study 2 replicate and confirm the particular importance
of self-motivation deficits among the facets of EF problems measured by
the BDEFS in predicting academic performance. This factor was the
strongest and most unique predictor of GPA prospectively and when
controlling for prior cumulative GPA. In further understanding the rela-
tionship between self-motivation deficits and subsequent grades, set-
ting lower goals partially explained why students with self-motivation
problems attain lower grades. Importantly, this result held when
controlling for prior cumulative GPA suggesting that the association
between goals and later performance was not simply an artifact of
students anchoring their goals to their prior performance. However,
our mediation analysis also demonstrated an enduring direct effect of
self-motivation problems on subsequent grades, suggesting that addi-
tional processes beyond setting low goals contribute to this association.
In addition, we found that self-motivation problems were associated
not only with lower grades compared to other students but also with
a greater likelihood of failing to meet one's self-selected goal. Thus,
students with self-motivation problems tend to both set lower goals
than their peers and be less likely to meet those already-lower goals.
In comparing the results of Study 1 and Study 2, self-management
to time also emerged in Study 2 as a predictor of past and future
GPA—however, this facet did not consistently predict grades when
self-motivation problems were included in the model. As in Study 1,
emotion regulation deficits showed some evidence of a positive relation-
ship with concurrent cumulative GPA—however, it did not predict
subsequent GPA in any of the Study 2 analyses suggesting that this
facet may not be a useful predictor of academic performance over time.
The prospective design of Study 2 is a significant strength, allowing
us to make stronger inferences about the effects of executive function-
ing on later academic performance. However, as noted previously,
BDEFS assessments took place mid-semester—five-to-eight-weeks be-
fore the completion of final exams—and so it is possible that students'
knowledge of grades from the first half of the semester informed their
self-assessment of EF deficits mid-semester. Furthermore, the mid-
semester assessment of goals may reflect a goal that has already been
calibrated in response to grades on earlier assignments. Future research
would benefit from assessment of EF deficits prior to the start of the
semester to provide a more pure test of the predictive utility of this
measure of EF functioning.
Central to theories of self-regulation (e.g., Carver & Scheier, 1998) is
the idea that behavior is regulated by feedback control processes. For
example, a student sets a semester grade goal of earning an A − the
first week of classes; a month later she earns a B on the first exam.
This feedback (in the form of the exam grade) on her progress towards
the semester grade goal would trigger anxiety and signal a need to
modify behavior (e.g., study more or in a different way), modify goals
(e.g., aim for a B +), or both. However, it is likely that such normative
processes in self-regulation may go awry in individuals with deficits in
executive functioning. This is suggested by our finding that students
with self-motivation deficits show greater discrepancies between their
self-identified goals and their actual performance. Unfortunately, any
potential calibration (or lack thereof) in grade goals resulting from EF
deficits cannot be determined in the current design. Thus, a promising
area for future research would be to examine the degree to which
students with varying executive functioning abilities modify their
grade goals throughout the semester as feedback on individual assign-
ments become available.
Overall, Study 2 confirmed the unique importance of self-motivation
deficits as a facet of EF that concurrently and prospectively predicted
academic performance above and beyond past college grades. Study 2
also identified a partial mediator of the effects of self-motivation
problems—grade goals—and supports the idea that students with self-
motivation problems set lower goals and then are less likely to achieve
those goals. Study 2 also indicated that additional processes other than
goal-setting must operate to connect self-motivation deficits to grade
outcomes.
4. Summary and conclusions
The present study examined the concurrent and prospective associ-
ations of a brief self-report measure of deficits in executive functioning
(EF) in daily life with grade point averages in college students. Overall,
findings support deficits in EF as an important individual difference
that may help to identify emerging adults at risk of academic difficulties.
Correlation analyses revealed that overall EF deficits (as indexed by the
BDEFS total score) was associated with cumulative GPA in both samples
as well as prospectively associated with subsequent GPA, even after
accounting for cumulative GPA. As such, this result indicates that
deficits in EF in daily life are a predictor of impaired future academic
performance.
Deficits in self-motivation in particular showed the strongest and
most consistent relationships with GPA across samples and methods.
Self-motivation deficits predicted future GPA above and beyond cumu-
lative GPA. Importantly, this finding is consistent with Richardson et al.'s
(2012) findings with respect to the construct of effort regulation. This
construct was one of the most strongly correlated with college academic
performance when taking into account high school GPA and standard-
ized test scores. It included the Learning and Study Strategies Inventory
(LASSI; Weinstein & Palmer, 2002) motivation subscale (e.g., “Even if I
do not like an assignment a course, I am able to get myself to work on
it.”) and the Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire (MSLQ;
Pintrich, Smith, Garcia, & Mckeachie, 1993) effort regulation subscale
 L.E. Knouse et al. / Learning and Individual Differences 36 (2014) 19–26
(e.g., “I work hard to do well in this class even if I don't like what we are
doing.”), thus tapping the ability of students to put forth effort in
contexts that provide little extrinsic or even intrinsic motivation. Our re-
sults confirm the importance of students' ability to generate consistent
effort and suggest that more general problems in self-motivation (not
just those directly related to academic tasks) may predict academic per-
formance as well. Beyond measures of ability and past performance,
success in college appears to rely on the capacity and willingness
to apply one's self consistently to tasks that are not inherently
reinforcing.
To better understand the relationship between self-motivation
problems and GPA, we examined it through the lens of goal-setting, as
prior work has identified students' grade goals as a robust predictor of
academic performance (Locke & Bryan, 1968; Richardson et al., 2012;
Wood & Locke, 1987) and a mediator between other more distal vari-
ables such as personality and academic performance (Lee et al., 2003;
VandeWalle et al., 2001). First, we were able to replicate the strong cor-
relation between students' goals and their past and current academic
performance (r = .60 and .69) using cross-course GPAs. In contrast,
past studies have only reported associations between goals and grades
in single courses. Next, through mediation analysis, we found that
self-motivation problems predicted setting lower GPA goals and that
this had a significant indirect effect on later grades. However, a direct
effect of self-motivation problems on grades remained, which suggests
that—in addition to setting lower goals—other processes operate to
translate general self-motivation problems into poorer academic per-
formance. The fact that students with more self-motivation problems
not only set lower goals but were less likely to achieve those goals
also hints at the operation of processes beyond goal-setting. Future
studies should measure other processes that may connect self-
motivation deficits to academic outcomes—for example, failure to use
specific self-motivational strategies or proportion of time spent on
academic vs. non-academic pursuits.
These findings have implications for the use of goal-setting interven-
tions to improve academic performance for students with self-motivation
problems as emphasized by Richardson et al. (2012). First, our results
suggest that encouraging students to set more ambitious goals may be
an important element of interventions to improve academic performance
and increase motivation. However, the results of our mediation analysis
also suggest that goal-setting cannot fully account for the relationship be-
tween self-motivation difficulties and academic problems, suggesting
that interventions must also focus on improving other self-regulation
skills rather than simply encouraging students to set higher goals and
providing encouragement to achieve them. Indeed, our results suggest
that the goals of students with low self-motivation may overshoot their
subsequent accomplishments. One-dimensional interventions are un-
likely to ameliorate EF-related academic problems and students in need
are likely to require additional self-regulatory tools to fully translate
higher goals into actual achievement. In other words, more ambitious
goal-setting may be a necessary—but not sufficient—element in improv-
ing academic functioning for students with self-regulation problems.
Given the prominent role of self-motivation and effort regulation in
predicting GPA, students may benefit from training in using self-
regulation strategies such as self-reinforcement to help them complete
less intrinsically rewarding academic tasks. For example, students could
learn to implement the Premack principle (Danaher, 1974) for avoided
tasks whereby they allow themselves to engage in a desired activity
(e.g., watching an episode of Arrested Development on Netflix) only
after meeting a specific target for an undesired activity (e.g., reading
20 pages of an uninteresting textbook chapter). Of course, students
would need to habitually rely on strategies like these if they are to
have a long-term impact on their ability to self-regulate. Fortunately,
there is growing evidence from the literature on skills-based treatments
for adult ADHD—a disorder of self-regulation—that people can learn
to consistently use skills to ameliorate their self-regulation deficits
(Safren et al., 2010; Solanto et al., 2010).
25
Strengths of the present study include the use of two independent
samples to examine the association of EF deficits to academic achieve-
ment at two colleges with distinct academic profiles. Specifically, Sample
1 was drawn from a national liberal arts college rated as “more selective”
whereas Sample 2 was drawn from a “selective” regional university
(U.S. News and World Report Best Colleges Ranking, 2013). Our study
demonstrated a relationship with actual grades obtained from the regis-
trar, not just with students' self-reported GPA. Another strength of this
study is the use of prospective design to extend the cross-sectional
results of Study 1. The demonstration that EF deficits exert an effect
upon subsequent GPA suggests that measuring EF deficits can help to
identify individuals at-risk for future poor academic performance. A
third strength of the study was our attempt to further examine the rela-
tionship between self-motivation problems and grades via students'
goals, a mechanism that is suggested by theory on EF (Barkley, 2012b)
as well as prior research on college academic performance (Richardson
et al., 2012) and motivation more broadly (Locke & Latham, 1990).
The limitations of our study must also be considered in interpreting
our findings and considering directions for future studies. First, the use
of a college student sample may limit generalizability in that the full
spectrum of EF deficits may not be represented given that EF deficits
have been shown to be associated with lower levels of academic attain-
ment in prior research (Barkley, 2012a). Furthermore, both samples
were drawn from private institutions and it would be important to as-
sess whether results replicate to students in a range of higher education
settings including public 2- and 4-year colleges and universities. Second,
Sample 2 consisted exclusively of female students attending a women's
college. While this allowed us to generalize the results of Study 1,
which took place at a co-educational institution, to a women's college,
additional research on grade goals as a mediator of the association of
self-motivation deficits and GPA will be needed in male college students
as well as female students attending co-educational institutions. Third,
the present analyses were limited to students who had already com-
pleted one semester of college to allow for statistical control of prior ac-
ademic performance. The role of EF deficits in predicting performance
and retention of first-semester students (above and beyond high school
GPA and entrance exam scores) would be a valuable area for further re-
search. Fourth, although we found relationships between self-reported
EF deficits and academic achievement in the current study, readers
should interpret our findings in light of the limitations of self report
and future research should assess the extent to which scores on the
BDEFS relate to other measures of self-regulation problems such as
other-report (peers, instructors), self-ratings obtained through ecologi-
cal momentary assessment, and specific self-regulation behaviors
relevant to an academic setting. Finally, in this study, we did not manip-
ulate goal setting and so we cannot make causal inferences either
from our own results or from the prior correlational studies on goal-
setting and grades. These ideas need to be directly evaluated using
randomized-controlled intervention studies comparing the efficacy of
interventions teaching use of compensatory self-regulatory skills such
as goal setting and motivation enhancement.
The relationship between EF deficits and other outcomes critical to
college adjustment deserves further study. EF deficits assessed by the
BDEFS have been shown to be associated with depression symptoms
in college students (Feldman et al., 2013). In a separate study, EF
assessed with a different rating scale was also found to be associated
with depression as well as other markers of impairment in college stu-
dents including academic, interpersonal, and substance use problems
(Wingo et al., 2013). EF deficits may also be involved in other health
behaviors of college students (eating pathology, risky sexual practices,
irregular sleep habits). If the BDEFS is found to predict a variety of out-
comes, it could be a relatively cost-effective tool for identifying students
at-risk for a range of negative outcomes early in their college careers.
Our findings support the value of assessment of EF deficits in re-
search on academic achievement in college students and support the
utility of the BDEFS as a brief, non-invasive measure of this construct.
26 L.E. Knouse et al. / Learning and Individual Differences 36 (2014) 19–26
In addition, our efforts to unpack the relationship of self-motivation
problems to future academic performance with respect to goal-setting
theory suggest that, while setting higher goals may be valuable to
improving the academic performance of less motivated students,
additional tools may be necessary to help them fully translate more
ambitious goals into academic reality.
References
Aldao, A., Nolen-Hoeksema, S., & Schweizer, S. (2010). Emotion-regulation strategies
across psychopathology: A meta-analytic review. Clinical Psychology Review, 30(2),
217–237, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2009.11.004.
Barkley, R. A. (2012a). The Barkley deficits in executive functioning scale. New York:
Guilford Press.
Barkley, R. A. (2012b). Executive functions: What they are, how they work, and why they
evolved. New York: Guilford Press.
Barkley, R. A., & Fischer, M. (2011). Predicting impairment in major life activities and
occupational functioning in hyperactive children as adults: Self-reported executive
function (EF) deficits versus EF tests. Developmental Neuropsychology, 36(2), 137–161,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/87565641.2010.549877.
Barkley, R. A., & Murphy, K. R. (2010). Impairment in occupational functioning and adult
ADHD: The predictive utility of executive function (EF) ratings versus EF tests.
Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology, 25(3), 157–173, http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/
arclin/acq014.
Barkley, R. A., & Murphy, K. (2011). The nature of executive function (EF) deficits in daily
life activities in adults with ADHD and their relationship to performance on EF tests.
Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment, 33(2), 137–158, http://dx.doi.
org/10.1007/s10862-011-9217-x.
Biederman, J., Monuteaux, M. C., Doyle, A. E., Seidman, L. J., Wilens, T. E., Ferrero, R., et al.
(2004). Impact of executive functioning deficits and attention-deficit/hyperactivity
disorder (ADHD) on academic outcomes in children. Journal of Consulting and
Clinical Psychology, 72(5), 757–766, http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-006X.72.5.757.
Carver, C. S., & Scheier, M. F. (1998). On the self-regulation of behavior. New York:
Cambridge University Press.
Conard, M.A. (2005). Aptitude is not enough: How personality and behavior predict
academic performance. Journal of Research in Personality, 40, 339–346.
Cowan, N., Elliott, E. M., Saults, J. S., Morey, C. C., Mattox, S., Hismjatullina, A., et al. (2005).
On the capacity of attention: Its estimation and its role in working memory and cog-
nitive aptitudes. Cognitive Psychology, 51(1), 42–100, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
cogpsych.2004.12.001.
Crede, M., & Kuncel, N. R. (2008). Study habits, skills, and attitudes: The third pillar
supporting collegiate academic performance. Perspectives on Psychological Science,
3(6), 425–453, http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-6924.2008.00089.x.
Danaher, B. G. (1974). Theoretical foundations and clinical applications of the Premack
principle: Review and critique. Behavior Therapy, 5, 307–324, http://dx.doi.org/10.
1016/S0005-7894(74)80001-8.
De Feyter, T., Caers, R., Vigna, C., & Berings, D. (2012). Unraveling the impact of the Big
Five personality traits on academic performance: The moderating and mediating
effects of self-efficacy and academic motivation. Learning and Individual Differences,
22(4), 439–448, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2012.03.013.
Duckworth, A. L., Tsukayama, E., & May, H. (2010). Establishing causality using longitudi-
nal hierarchical linear modeling: An illustration predicting achievement from self-
control. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 1, http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/
1948550609359707.
Feldman, G., Knouse, L. E., & Robinson, A. (2013). Executive functioning difficulties and
depression symptoms: Incremental validity and prospective associations. Journal of
Cognitive and Behavioral Psychotherapies, 13, 259–274.
Gropper, R. J., & Tannock, R. (2009). A pilot study of working memory and academic
achievement in college students with ADHD. Journal of Attention Disorders, 12(6),
574–581, http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1087054708320390.
Hayes, A. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis.
New York: Guilford Press.
Kirby, K. N., Winston, G. C., & Santiesteban, M. (2005). Impatience and grades: Delay-
discount rates correlate with college GPA. Learning and Individual Differences, 15(3),
213–222, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2005.01.003.
Knouse, L. E., Barkley, R. A., & Murphy, K. R. (2013). Does executive functioning (EF) pre-
dict depression in clinic-referred adults?: EF tests vs. rating scales. Journal of Affective
Disorders, 145, 270–275, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2012.05.064.
Kuncel, N. R., Credé, M., & Thomas, L. L. (2005). The validity of self-reported grade
point averages, class ranks, and test scores: A meta-analysis and review of the litera-
ture. Review of Educational Research, 75(1), 63–82, http://dx.doi.org/10.3102/
00346543075001063.
Lee, F. K., Sheldon, K. M., & Turban, D. B. (2003). Personality and the goal-striving process:
The influence of achievement goal patterns, goal level, and mental focus on perfor-
mance and enjoyment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(2), 256–265, http://dx.doi.
org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.2.256.
Locke, E. A., & Bryan, J. F. (1968). Grade goals as determinants of academic achievement.
Journal of General Psychology, 79(2), 217–228, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00221309.
1968.9710469.
Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (1990). A theory of goal setting and task performance.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc.
Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (2006). New directions in goal-setting theory. Current
Directions in Psychological Science, 15(5), 265–268, http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-
8721.2006.00449.x.
Noftle, E. E., & Robins, R. W. (2007). Personality predictors of academic outcomes: Big five
correlates of GPA and SAT scores. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93(1),
116–130, http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.93.1.116.
O'Connor, M. C., & Paunonen, S. V. (2007). Big five personality predictors of post-
secondary academic performance. Personality and Individual Differences, 43(5),
971–990, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2007.03.017.
Pintrich, P. R., Smith, D. A., Garcia, T., & Mckeachie, W. J. (1993). Reliability and predictive
validity of the Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire (MSLQ). Educational
and Psychological Measurement, 53(3), 801–813, http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/
0013164493053003024.
Poropat, A. E. (2009). A meta-analysis of the five-factor model of personality and academic
performance. Psychological Bulletin, 135(2), 322–338, http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/
a0014996.
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, http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0026838.
Robbins, S. B., Lauver, K., Le, H., Davis, D., Langley, R., & Carlstrom, A. (2004). Do psychosocial
and study skill factors predict college outcomes?: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin,
130(2), 261–288, http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.130.2.261.
Safren, S. A., Safren, S. A., Sprich, S., Mimiaga, M. J., Surman, C., Knouse, L. E., et al. (2010).
Cognitive behavioral therapy vs. relaxation with educational support for medication-
treated adults with ADHD and persistent symptoms. JAMA, 304(8), 857–880, http://
dx.doi.org/10.1001/jama.2010.1192.
Solanto, M. V., Marks, D. J., Wasserstein, J., Mitchell, K., Abikoff, H., Alvir, J., et al. (2010).
Efficacy of metacognitive therapy for adult ADHD. American Journal of Psychiatry,
167, 958–968, http://dx.doi.org/10.1176/appi.ajp.2009.09081123.
St. Clair-Thompson, H. L., & Gathercole, S. E. (2006). Executive functions and achieve-
ments in school: Shifting, updating, inhibition, and working memory. The Quarterly
Journal of Experimental Psychology, 59(4), 745–759, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/
17470210500162854.
Tangney, J. P., Baumeister, R. F., & Boone, A. (2004). High self-control predicts good adjust-
ment, less pathology, better grades, and interpersonal success. Journal of Personality,
72(2), 271–322, http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.0022-3506.2004.00263.x.
U.S. News and World Report Best Colleges Ranking (2013). U.S. News and World Report.
Retrieved from. http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/best-colleges
Valiente, C., Lemery-Chalfant, K., & Swanson, J. (2010). Prediction of kindergarteners'
academic achievement from their effortful control and emotionality: Evidence for
direct and moderated relationships. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102(3),
550–560, http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a001899.
VandeWalle, D., Cron, W. L., & Slocum, J. W. (2001). The role of goal orientation following
performance feedback. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(4), 629–640, http://dx.doi.
org/10.1037/0021-9010.86.4.629.
Weinstein, C. E., & Palmer, D. R. (2002). Learning and Study Strategies Inventory (LASSI):
User's manual (2nd ed.). Clearwater, FL: H & H Publishing.
Wingo, J., Kalkut, E., Tuminello, E., Asconape, J., & Han, S. D. (2013). Executive functions,
depressive symptoms, and college adjustment in women. Applied Neuropsychology:
Adult, 20(2), 136–144, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09084282.2012.670154.
Wood, R. E., & Locke, E. A. (1987). The relation of self-efficacy and grade goals to
academic performance. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 47(4), 1013–1024,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0013164487474017.