Article

Journal of College Student Retention:

Research, Theory & Practice
High School Response 2021, Vol. 23(2) 279–291
! The Author(s) 2019
to Intervention and Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
College Academic DOI: 10.1177/1521025118821057
journals.sagepub.com/home/csr

Self-Efficacy: Influence
of Intervention
Experiences

Courtney Banks1, Yu-Yu Hsiao2,

Rayya Gordon1, and
Meagann Bordelon3

Abstract
An increasing number of students enrolling in college engaged in Tier 2 response to
intervention (RTI) academic supports in high school to supplement their secondary
education. However, few researchers examined if prior experiences with RTI
influence academic self-efficacy in college, a construct known to promote student
retention and graduation by increasing motivation and persistence. A total of 1,639
college students completed an online survey to report their previous learning expe-
riences, academic self-efficacy, and willingness to seek college supports. Structural
equation modeling revealed that the number of academic interventions in high school
significantly predicted greater willingness to seek academic supports in college and
confidence in interacting with school staff and peers about educational requirements
and assignments. The findings highlight benefits of prior experiences with RTI on
postsecondary transition and college achievement.

1
College of Humanities and Social Sciences, Sam Houston State University, Huntsville, TX, USA
2
University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, NM, USA
3
Houston Baptist University, Houston, TX, USA
Corresponding Author:
Courtney Banks, College of Humanities and Social Sciences, Sam Houston State University, Campus Box
2447, Huntsville, TX 77341-2116, USA.
Email: [email protected]
280 Journal of College Student Retention: Research, Theory & Practice 23(2)

Keywords
response to intervention, postsecondary transition, college academic self-efficacy

Response to intervention (RTI) uses data-driven service delivery to meet the

academic needs of students. Originating from the Individuals with Disabilities
Education Improvement Act, the multilevel system uses early screeners and
progress monitoring to determine if more or fewer supports are needed
(Fuchs & Fuchs, 2017). RTI practices are consistent with the prevention science
model, supporting all students with research-based classroom instruction and
increasing customized evidenced-based academic interventions for those at risk
for or who currently have learning disabilities (Catalano et al., 2012). RTI
interventions are often identified within three tiers, each addressing the type
and frequency of intervention for the student. Tier 1 supports include the core
curriculum and instruction all students receive; Tier 2 interventions are pull-out,
small group, evidence-based programs; and Tier 3 interventions are customized,
intensive, and frequent (Fuchs, Fuchs, & Compton, 2012). When conducted
with fidelity, the RTI process helps students return to grade-level expectations
(Arden, Gandhi, Edmonds, & Danielson, 2017). If grade-level progress is not
feasible, students’ RTI data can be used to facilitate a referral to spe-
cial education.
Research on RTI and student academic self-concept reveals that academic
interventions can buffer against negative self-concept (Ju, Zhang, &
Katsiyannis, 2012). However, differences in self-concept can be influenced by
time of initial academic intervention year and student grade level, with early
intervention resulting in increased changes on student academic self-concept
(Korhonen, Linnanmaki, & Aunio, 2014). Relocating to different schools and
changing criteria of grade-level proficiency can result in academic interventions
implemented in primary or during secondary school. Yet, limited information is
available that addresses academic self-concept and RTI in high school students,
especially those who enroll in college. Knowledge of academic self-concept for
high school students struggling academically can foster current and postsecon-
dary aids to promote students’ positive perception of academic success.

RTI and Self-Efficacy

RTI focuses on implementing preventative efforts to reduce the number of
students at risk for underachieving in school. Consequently, a hopeful intended
byproduct of implementing the RTI process is to increase a student’s
self-efficacy (Cleary, Schnaidmann, & Velardi, 2017). Self-efficacy is based on
Banks et al. 281

Bandura’s social cognitive theory (1997, 1999) and defined as an individual’s

perception to have the ability to achieve a goal (Bandura, Barbaranelli,
Caparara, & Pastorelli, 2001). The perception is heavily based on previous
experiences of competency, vicarious models, and psychological responses
(Bandura et al., 2001). A high self-efficacy is significantly correlated with adjust-
ment and achievement in school (Brady-Amoon & Fuertes, 2011).
Academic self-efficacy, a subtype of self-efficacy, is defined as a student’s level
of confidence in successfully completing an academic task, with low levels indi-
cating less drive and higher levels related to increased motivation, regardless of
the difficulty (Mercer, Nellis, Martinez, & Kirk, 2011). Research has indicated
that although students not receiving academic interventions have a higher aca-
demic self-efficacy compared with those who are within the RTI process (Mercer
et al., 2011), overtime, academically at-risk students receiving interventions can
show increases in academic self-efficacy (Atanasov, Dudnytska, Estes, & Marsh,
2013). Thus, within RTI, the premise is that although students struggling aca-
demically may not have high academic self-efficacy, application of assessment,
implementation, and progress monitoring of interventions can redefine student
perceptions of academic subjects when growth is evident, increasing academic
self-efficacy (Cleary, 2009).

RTI and the College Student

As of 2015, 69% of high school graduates enroll in college and universities
around the United States (U.S. Department of Education, National Center
for Education Statistics, 2017). The percentage of immediate college enrollment
has increased since 2000, likely indicating that the barriers to attend college may
be decreasing (U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education
Statistics, 2017). Compared with high school, college brings about new academ-
ic, social, and emotional experiences for the diverse demographic of students in
higher education (Atanasov et al., 2013; van Rhijn, Lero, Bridge, & Fritz, 2016).
The transition and novelty of the college experience is often associated with the
rise, decline, and rise in reports on overall well-being (Ridner, Newton, Staten,
Crowford, & Hall, 2016). Research has found that environmental mastery, a
component of psychological well-being, can decline during emerging adulthood,
the typical age of college attendance, when transition takes place (Lane, Leibert,
& Goka-Dubose, 2017) and is positively related to self-efficacy (De Caroli &
Sagone, 2014). The Psychological Well-Being subscale Autonomy, on the other
hand, can interact with cognitive processes such as positive or negative attribu-
tions to predict happiness in college students (O’Donnell, Chang, & Miller,
2013). Accordingly, new college experiences increase both independence and
uncertainty in navigating a novel environment, but growing comfort in the
new context can influence confidence and competence.
282 Journal of College Student Retention: Research, Theory & Practice 23(2)

A growing number of college students may have participated in Tier 2 aca-

demic interventions in high school, primarily due to as many as 20% of second-
ary students regularly receiving these interventions (Fuchs et al., 2012). Indeed,
student support teams at corresponding high schools make data informed deci-
sions based on students’ academic data, adopt an appropriate intervention, and
evaluate if growth from baseline has occurred (Bineham, Shelby, Pazey, &
Yates, 2014). However, to date, no known studies outline the perceptions of
these high school students who received these interventions on engaging in aca-
demic activities (i.e., studying, talking with professors, balancing school and
work) upon enrollment in college and their confidence to seek academic sup-
ports when needed. In secondary school, the student struggling academically
will typically receive supports initiated by their parents and teachers. However,
in college, students are often required to be their own advocate to successfully
engage in the academic environment and seek out supports when needed. A high
academic self-efficacy encompasses confidence in study skills and resourceful-
ness to facilitate increased motivation, achievement, and well-being (Zander,
Brouwer, Jansen, Crayen, & Hannover, 2018). Altogether, more research is
needed to understand academic self-efficacy in students who received supple-
mental academic interventions in high school to inform secondary and postse-
condary school success initiatives.

Purpose of the Study

This study examines reported self-efficacy in college students who have received
Tier 2 academic interventions in high school. Specifically, structural equation
modeling was used to determine if academic self-efficacy and self-efficacy to seek
out college supports are different based on frequency of reported high school
interventions. The results of the study can inform high school and postsecon-
dary counselors on additional factors that influence self-efficacy in college.

Research Questions
1. Is frequency of academic interventions in high school associated with will-
ingness to seek interventions in college?
2. Is frequency of academic interventions associated with academic self-efficacy
in college?

Methods
Participants
A total of 1,639 (43% Caucasian, 23% African American, 23% Latina or
Latino, 4% multiracial, and 2% Asian or Pacific Islander) students at the insti-
tution participated in the study. Of these students, 1,238 participants were
Banks et al. 283

female and 361 participants were male. The majority of participants were under-
graduates, which included 612 freshman students, 393 sophomore students, 303
junior students, and 290 senior students.

Procedure
This study was a part of a larger project to understand the relationship of college
students’ prior and current school experiences and their current social and emo-
tional beliefs. The participants electronically accessed the survey. Any of the
institution’s students who wished to participate could access the survey from
January 2017 to November 2017. Taking part in the survey required participants
to login to the institution’s Psychology Research Participation Portal and sign
up to take the survey. At no time was the survey distributed to participants in
any other method besides this psychology research participation portal.
Following informed consent, participants were directed to begin completing
the online study, which took approximately 45 minutes to complete. All
respondents could stop and start the survey as needed and were not required
to answer all questions. Following the conclusion, participants were informed
via email that they would receive one credit of psychology research participation
toward the psychology class of their choice that they were registered with in the
institution’s psychology research participation portal.

Measures
Demographic information. Students were asked to endorse their race or ethnicity,
gender, and classification at the university.

High school academic interventions. Students were asked to identify all academic
interventions they participated in as a high school student. Academic interven-
tions were drawn from the literature on Tier 2 supports (Warmbold-Brann,
Burns, Preast, Taylor, & Aguilar, 2017). Interventions endorsed included read-
ing, writing, problem-solving, and 28 other options. Frequency of academic
interventions was defined as the number of times a student used or partook in
academic resources and mediation beyond the standard. A total of eighteen
academic interventions was derived for each participant using a frequency
count for each selected intervention. This variable was measured on a binary
scale, with participants answering yes or no, they did or did not receive inter-
ventions, respectively; the researchers calculated the frequency of the interven-
tion they received.

Academic self-efficacy. Using the survey by Zajacova, Lynch, and Espenshade

(2005), students completed the College Self-Efficacy Inventory to measure con-
fidence in academic self-efficacy, which was defined as students’ beliefs in their
ability and personal achievement. A total of 27 markers for this variable were
284 Journal of College Student Retention: Research, Theory & Practice 23(2)

measured on a Likert-type scale, with “0” being not at all and “10” being
extremely. This measurement had four subscales: Interaction at School;
Academic Performance Out of Class; Academic Performance in Class; and
Managing Work, Family, and School. Each of these subscales had four to
seven markers to accompany them, such as “Asking questions” for the
Interaction at School subscale and “Managing time efficiently” for the
Managing Work, Family, and School subscale. In addition to the four subscales,
researchers created a total self-efficacy score that was taken from adding up all
of the assessment items together. Cronbach alpha of the score for the overall
academic self-efficacy is .93. For the subscales Interaction at School; Academic
Performance Out of Class; Academic Performance in Class; and Managing
Work, Family, and School, Cronbach’s alphas for the scores were .86, .80,
.87, and .71, respectively.

Willingness to seek academic support. Participants were asked 19 questions about

their willingness to seek academic support, which was defined as likelihood or
inclination of the student to use the various student resources provided by the
institution. The 19 questions were developed by the researchers who first
reviewed all academic and behavior supports available at the university site,
then adapted the style of each stem from the College Self-Efficacy Inventory
(Zajacova et al., 2006). Examples of the statements about willingness to seek
academic support included “Student Money Management Services,” “Study
Skills Workshop,” and “Academic Success Center.” These items were measured
on a Likert-type scale, with “0” being not at all and “10” being extremely likely.
Cronbach alpha of the scores for the measure is .92.

Statistical Analysis
Preliminary analyses were conducted using IBM SPSS Statistics version 25.0
(SPSS Inc.). Descriptive statistics were calculated on all primary study variables,
including the number of academic intervention received in high school, willing-
ness to take intervention in college, and self-efficacy in college overall ratings
and domain ratings (interaction at school, academic performance out of class,
academic performance in class, and managing work, family, and school).
Structural equation modeling (SEM) using Mplus version 8.0 (Muthén &
Muthén, 2012) was used to examine the associations among all the primary
study variables. As depicted in Figure 1, the number of academic interventions
was positioned as the predictors in the model. Willingness to seek interventions in
college and self-efficacy in college variables were treated as the outcomes. Two
binary variables: Gender (male vs. female) and academic intervention in high
school (received vs. not received) were included in the model as control variables.
All the possible direct pathways were estimated so the hypothesized model is
a saturated model. A saturated model always has the perfect fit to the data, so
Banks et al. 285

cinter

outcla

incla
Aca_inte

fam

confcol

willshsu

Figure 1. Path model of number of academic intervention in high school (Aca_inte) being
associated with academic self-efficacy and psychological well-being in college. Significant paths
were highlighted in bold. Standardized path coefficients were displayed. *p<.05.

the model fit indices were not needed to examine. Missing data were accommo-
dated with the maximum likelihood estimation method to use all available infor-
mation from the 1,639 students.

Results
Structural Model Testing
The unstandardized path coefficients along with standard errors and p values
for the number of interventions predicting self-efficacy measures are listed in
Table 1. The number of interventions was positively associated with seeking
academic support, indicating that students who received more interventions in
high school reported greater willingness to participate in college interventions.
Although the number of intervention in high school was not associated with
overall self-efficacy in college academic activities, it was positively associated
with confidence in interaction at school, suggesting that students who experience
more high school academic interventions tend to have higher self-efficacy in
college to interact with others about academic tasks.
The number of interventions was not associated with self-efficacy in in-class
academic performance and self-efficacy in managing work, family, and school.
Although being nonsignificant, students receiving more interventions in high
286 Journal of College Student Retention: Research, Theory & Practice 23(2)

Table 1. The Predictability of Number of Academic Interventions

in High School on Academic Self-Efficacy and Psychological Well-
Being Variables in College.

Number of intervention

Measure B SE p

WillColl 0.05 0.02 .023

ConfCol 0.03 0.02 .142
Cinter_sch 0.05 0.02 .024
OutclassfC 0.04 0.02 .069
InclassC 0.01 0.02 .701
fam_schC 0.01 0.02 .793
Note. B ¼ unstandardized path coefficient; SE ¼ standard error;
WillColl ¼ willingness to seek academic supports in college;
ConfCol ¼ overall academic self-efficacy; Cinter_sch ¼ confidence in inter-
action at school; OutclassfC ¼ confidence in academic performance outside
of class; InclassC ¼ confidence in academic performance in class;
fam_schC ¼ confidence in managing work, family, and school.

school tend to report higher self-efficacy in out-of-class academic perfor-

mance (p ¼ .069).

Discussion
Self-efficacy in college is associated with increased drive and mastery orientation
(Clayton, Blumberg, & Auld, 2010). For this reason, college retention initiatives
incorporate activities to build student persistence, increase academic achieve-
ment, and promote graduation. Growing diverse college student demographics
warrants that these initiatives support the whole student to increase social con-
nectedness, study skills, student–professor relationships, and academic advise-
ment (Turner & Thompson, 2014). A part of successful implementation of
retention programs and increased graduation rates fall on the level of initiative
and confidence college students have in achieving academic tasks and engaging
in these programs when needed. This study is the first to date that examines the
relationship of participation in high school interventions and future outcomes,
namely, college academic self-efficacy. Overall, results highlight the relationship
between participation in high school Tier 2 interventions and increased self-
efficacy to seek out academic supports in college.

High School Interventions and Future Help-Seeking Behaviors

Our findings suggest that students’ report of involvement in high school aca-
demic interventions is associated with students’ willingness to seek out
Banks et al. 287

interventions in college. The results are consistent with the premise of self-effi-
cacy—previous experiences of successful outcomes increase one’s beliefs in com-
petency to perform similar future actions (Bandura et al., 2001). Indeed,
students receiving academic interventions in high school can become familiar
with the benefits of supports, recognizing additional assistance not as a stigma
but as a supplement. For this study, perception of help-seeking behaviors
regardless of academic achievement history may be viewed as positive.
Notably, willingness to seek academic supports can be influenced by student
perception that the supports available are effective. This finding is consistent
with Lukosius, Pennington, and Olorunniwo (2013), who found that student
perception of college support systems are associated with students’ future deci-
sions such as dropping out or transferring schools. Winograd and Rust (2014)
also report that students associated with seeking academic supports with feelings
of inadequacy when the university climate was perceived as unsupportive.
Greater self-efficacy to seek out interventions can additionally be related to
perceptions of resourcefulness. In other words, knowledge that additional sup-
ports exist and are beneficial in the postsecondary setting can increase willing-
ness to pursue them when needed. Winograd and Rust further discuss that
underserved students participating in a university initiative to increase access
and retention had more knowledge about academic services at the university
compared with those not involved in the initiative. Students also reported feel-
ings of inadequacy when they felt the university climate was not supportive.
Taken together, prior experiences and greater knowledge of positive outcomes
that come with academic supports can place students in better positions to seek
out supports when they need them in college.

High School Interventions and Academic Self-Efficacy

For the current sample, results indicate that the number of academic interven-
tions in high school is not associated with overall self-efficacy in college activ-
ities. However, the relationship between frequency of high school academic
interventions and confidence in initiating social interactions in college for
academic success was significant. For the current sample, it is suggested that
students receiving Tier 2 interventions in high school are more confident in
interacting with professors, staff, and peers to gain more information about
resources. College students with a history of academic interventions in high
school may recognize that communicating their academic needs produces pos-
itive academic outcomes just as well as when engaging in routine independent
study skills. This finding is consistent with Roussel, Elliot, and Feltman (2011),
who found that students will seek out supports to master academic tasks regard-
less of perception of competency or incompetency on the task. Nonsignificant
differences in overall, in class, out of class, and balancing work and school self-
efficacies reveal that previous academic supports may not influence perceived
288 Journal of College Student Retention: Research, Theory & Practice 23(2)

competency in college academic activities. Buzzetta, Lenz, and Kennelly (2017)

also found no differences in goal directedness between student athletes enrolling
in a summer academic enrichment program before beginning college with stu-
dent athletes who were not required to have the program and started college in
the fall. Thus, students previously at risk for low academic performance can
have comparable confidence and resilience as students not receiving academic
interventions in high school. However, students with academic supports in high
school may draw upon additional resources, such as asking for help, when
independent efforts are exhausted.

Limitations
The study results should be considered in light of the limitations. College stu-
dents at one university served as sole participants to understand their percep-
tions of previous educational experiences and current perceptions of academic
behaviors. Although research has indicated that student retrospective reports
often reveal accurate occurrences (Luk et al., 2016; Newburry et al., 2018),
student preference to omit aspects of their history cannot be eliminated. In
addition, the study was cross-sectional and interest in extra credit points for
classes may have influenced student participation.
Future research should focus on the use of multiple sources of information
such as high school records and parent information to increase contextual pic-
tures of students’ experiences. A longitudinal study that examines academic self-
efficacy and willingness to seek out academic interventions from initial enroll-
ment to graduation would facilitate generalization of the results.

Conclusion
The results of the study suggest that receiving academic supports in high school
increases willingness to seek out supports and confidence to communicate needs in
college. Although the results are gleaned from one regionally diverse university,
the findings call attention to the benefits of academic support, when necessary, on
increased college academic self-efficacy. All students, regardless of academic
achievement status in high school, should perceive that seeking out supports
aid in academic success. Furthermore, academic help-seeking behaviors should
be seen as supplement to established internal resources, not as supports targeted
only for students at severe academic risk. Thus, upon entering college, all students
should receive explicit information about available supports on campus, the open
eligibility to participate, and expected benefits of involvement.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research,
authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Banks et al. 289

Funding
The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publica-
tion of this article.

References
Arden, S. V., Gandhi, A. G., Edmonds, R. Z., & Danielson, L. (2017). Toward more
effective tiered systems: Lessons from national implementation efforts. Exceptional
Children, 83(3), 269–280. doi:10.1177/0014402917693565
Atanasov, K. G., Dudnytska, N., Estes, T., & Marsh, J. (2013). Intervention strategies
promoting academic self-efficacy in prospective first-generation college students: A
literature review. The William & Mary Educational Review, 1(7), 24–34.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York, NY: Freeman.
Bandura, A. (1999). A social cognitive theory of personality. In L. Pervin & O. John
(Eds.), Handbook of personality (2nd ed., pp. 154–196). New York, NY: Guilford.
Bandura, A., Barbaranelli, C., Caprara, G. V., & Pastorelli, C. (2001). Self-efficacy beliefs as
shapers of children’s aspirations and career trajectories. Child Development, 72(1), 187–206.
Bineham, S. C., Shelby, L., Pazey, B. L., & Yates, J. R. (2014). Response to intervention:
Perspectives of general and special education professionals. Journal of School
Leadership, 2(1), 230–252.
Brady-Amoon, P., & Fuertes, J. N. (2011). Self-efficacy, self-rated abilities, adjustment,
and academic performance. Journal of Counseling & Development, 89(1), 431–438.
Buzzetta, M. E., Lenz, J. G., & Kennelly, E. (2017). Comparing two groups of student-
athletes: Implications for academic and career advising. NACADA Journal, 37(1), 26–36.
Catalano, R. F., Fagan, A. A., Gavin, L. E., Greenberg, M. T., Irwin, C. E., Ross, D. A.,
& Shek, D. T. L. (2012). Worldwide application of prevention science in adolescent
health. The Lancet, 379(9826), 1653–1664. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(12)60238-4
Clayton, K., Blumberg, F., & Auld, D. P. (2010). The relationship between motivation,
learning strategies and choice of environment whether traditional or including an
online component. British Journal of Educational Technology, 41(3), 349–364.
doi:10.1111/j.1467-8535.2009.00993.x
Cleary, T. J. (2009). Monitoring trends and accuracy of self-efficacy beliefs during inter-
ventions: Advantages and potential applications to school-based settings. Psychology
in the Schools, 46(2), 154–171. doi:10.1002/pits.20360
Cleary, T. J., Schnaidman, B., & Velardi, B. (2017). Effects of the self-regulation empow-
erment program (SREP) on middle school students’ strategic skills, self-efficacy, and
mathematics achievement. Journal of School Psychology, 64(1), 28–42. doi:10.1016/j.
jsp.2017.04.004
Fuchs, D., & Fuchs, L. S. (2017). Critique of the national evaluation of response to
intervention: A case for simpler frameworks. Exceptional Children, 83(3), 255–268.
doi:10.1177/0014402917693580
Fuchs, D., Fuchs, L. S., & Compton, D. L. (2012). Smart RTI: A next-generation
approach to multilevel prevention. Exceptional Children, 78(3), 263–279.
Ju, S., Zhang, D., & Katsiyannis, A. (2012). The causal relationship between academic self-
concept and academic achievement for students with disabilities: An analysis. Of SEELS
Data. Journal of Disability Policy Studies, 24(1), 4–14. doi:10.1177/1044207311427727
290 Journal of College Student Retention: Research, Theory & Practice 23(2)

Korhonen, J., Linnanmaki, K., & Aunio, P. (2014). Learning difficulties, academic well-
being and educational dropout: A person centered approach. Learning and Individual
Differences, 31(1), 1–10. doi:10.1016/j.lindif.2013.12.011
Lane, J. A., Leibert, T. W., & Goka-Dubose, E. (2017). The impact of life transition on
emerging adult attachment, social support, and well-being: A multiple-group compar-
ison. Journal of Counseling & Development, 95(1), 378–388. doi:10.1002/jcad.12153
Luk, J. W., Patock-Peckham, J. A., Medina, M., Terrell, N., Belton, D., & King, K. M.
(2016). Bullying perpetration and victimization as externalizing and internalizing
pathways: A retrospective study linking parenting styles and self-esteem to depression,
alcohol use, and alcohol-related problems. Substance Use and Misuse, 51(1), 113–125.
doi:10.3109/10826084.2015.1090453
Lukosius, V., Pennington, J. B., & Olorunniwo, F. O. (2013). How students’ perceptions
of support systems affect their intentions to drop out or transfer out of college. Review
of Higher Education and Self-Learning, 6(18), 189–207.
Mercer, S. H., Nellis, L. M., Martinez, R. S., & Kirk, M. (2011). Supporting the students
most in need: Academic self-efficacy and perceived teacher support in relation to
within-year academic growth. Journal of School Psychology, 49(1), 323–338.
doi:10.1016/j.jsp.2011.03.006
Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (2012). Mplus users guide (Version 7). Los Angeles, CA:
Muthén & Muthén.
Newburry, J. B., Arseneault, L., Moffitt, T. E., Caspi, A., Danese, A., Baldwin, J. R., &
Fisher, H. (2018). Measuring childhood maltreatment to predict early-adult psychopa-
thology: Comparison of prospective informant-reports and retrospective self-reports.
Journal of Psychiatric Research, 96(1), 57–64. doi:10.1016/j.jpsychires.2017.09.020
O’Donnell, S. L., Chang, K. B., & Miller, K. S. (2013). Relations among autonomy, attri-
bution style, and happiness in college students. College Student Journal, 47(1), 228–234.
Ridner, L. S., Newton, K. S., Staten, R. R., Crowford, T. N., & Hall, L. A. (2016).
Predictors of well-being among college students. Journal of American College Health,
64(2), 116–124. doi:10.1080/07448481.2015.1085057
Roussel, P., Elliot, A. J., & Feltman, R. (2011). The influence of achievement goals and
social goals on help-seeking from peers in an academic context. Learning and
Instruction, 21(3), 394–402. doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2010.05.003
Sansosti, F. J., Noltemeyer, A., & Goss, S. (2010). Principals’ perceptions of the impor-
tance and availability of response to intervention practices within high school settings.
School Psychology Review, 39(2), 286–295.
Turner, P., & Thompson, E. (2014). College retention initiatives meeting the needs of
millennial freshman students. College Student Journal, 1, 94–104. Retrieved from
http://ezproxy.shsu.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=
true&db=edsbl&AN=RN355154992&site=eds-live&scope=site
U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. (2017). The
condition of education 2017 (21017-144). Retrieved from https://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/
display.asp?id=51
Van Rhijn, T., Lero, D. S., Bridge, K., & Fritz, V. A. (2016). Unmet needs: Challenges to
success from the perspectives of mature university students. The Canadian Journal for
the Study of Adult Education, 28(1), 29–47.
Banks et al. 291

Warmbold-Brann, K., Burns, M. K., Preast, J. K., Taylor, C. N., & Aguilar, L. N.
(2017). Meta-analysis of the effects of academic interventions and modifications on
student behavior outcomes. School Psychology Quarterly, 32(3), 291–305.
doi:10.1037/spq0000207
Winograd, G., & Rust, J. P. (2014). Stigma, awareness of support services, and academic
help-seeking among historically underrepresented first-year college students. The
Learning Assistance Review, 19(2), 17–41.
Zajacova, A., Lynch, S. M., Espenshade, T. J. (2005). Self-efficacy, stress, and academic
success in college.Research in Higher education , 46(6), 677–706. doi: 10.1007/s11162-
004-4139-z
Zander, L., Brouwer, J., Jansen, E., Crayen, C., & Hannover, B. (2018). Academic self-
efficacy, growth mindsets, and university students’ integration in academic and social
support networks. Learning and Individual Differences, 62(1), 98–107. doi:10.1016/j.
lindif.2018.01.012

Author Biographies
Courtney Banks received her PhD from Texas A&M University. She is currently
an Assistant Professor of School Psychology and Licensed Psychologist at Sam
Houston State University. Dr. Banks’ research focuses on building home and
school collaborations in secondary school and examining ecological factors that
influence bullying participant roles.

Yu-Yu Hsiao is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Individual, Family,

and Community Education at the University of New Mexico. His research
interests include structural equation modeling, multilevel modeling, and quality
of life research.

Rayya Gordon is a third-year undergraduate student at Sam Houston State

University majoring in Psychology.

Meagann Bordelon is a second-year graduate student in the Counseling Program

at Houston Baptist University.