Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36638114›Full record

ArticlePloS one2023

A latent class analysis approach to the identification of doctoral students at risk of attrition.

Samantha M Stevens, Peter M Ruberton, Joshua M Smyth, Geoffrey L Cohen, Valerie Purdie Greenaway, Jonathan E Cook

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
2.8field-weighted citation impact, top 11% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Samantha M StevensDepartment of Psychology, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0002-4665-6748
Peter M RubertonDepartment of Psychology, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA, United States of America.
Joshua M SmythDepartment of Biobehavioral Health, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA, United States of America.
Geoffrey L CohenDepartment of Psychology and Graduate School of Education, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, United States of America.
Valerie Purdie GreenawayDepartment of Psychology, Columbia University, New York, NY, United States of America.
Jonathan E CookDepartment of Psychology, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA, United States of America.
Pennsylvania State University · USColumbia University · USStanford University · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

To advance understanding of doctoral student experiences and the high attrition rates among Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) doctoral students, we developed and examined the psychological profiles of different types of doctoral students. We used latent class analysis on self-reported psychological data relevant to psychological threat from 1,081 incoming doctoral students across three universities and found that the best-fitting model delineated four threat classes: Lowest Threat, Nonchalant, Engaged/Worried, and Highest Threat. These classes were associated with characteristics measured at the beginning of students' first semester of graduate school that may influence attrition risk, including differences in academic preparation (e.g., amount of research experience), self-evaluations and perceived fit (e.g., sense of belonging), attitudes towards graduate school and academia (e.g., strength of motivation), and interpersonal relations (e.g., perceived social support). Lowest Threat students tended to report the most positive characteristics and Highest Threat students the most negative characteristics, whereas the results for Nonchalant and Engaged/Worried students were more mixed. Ultimately, we suggest that Engaged/Worried and Highest Threat students are at relatively high risk of attrition. Moreover, the demographic distributions of profiles differed, with members of groups more likely to face social identity threat (e.g., women) being overrepresented in a higher threat profile (i.e., Engaged/Worried students) and underrepresented in lower threat profiles (i.e., Lowest Threat and Nonchalant students). We conclude that doctoral students meaningfully vary in their psychological threat at the beginning of graduate study and suggest that these differences may portend divergent outcomes.

Indexed as

MotivationStudentsEducation, GraduateFemaleHumansLatent Class AnalysisSocial Identification

Identifiers

PMID36638114
PMCPMC9838860
OpenAlexW4315927840

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.