Cited by 138Higher Education Research StudiesCareer Development and DiversityEducation, Achievement, and Giftedness

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 85 of the 86 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; 15 of the 41 sources its claims cite were checked for support.

The Importance of STEM Sense of Belonging and Academic Hope in Enhancing Persistence for Low-Income, Underrepresented STEM Students

Open access
Hansen, Michele J., Palakal, Mathew J., White, Le’Joy·2024·Journal for STEM Education Research

Abstract

The purpose of this longitudinal investigation was to examine the effectiveness of a comprehensive, integrated curricular and co-curricular program designed to build community, provide academic and social support, and promote engagement in academically purposeful activities resulting in more equitable environments for historically underrepresented, low-income science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) information technology (IT) students. The study also focused on the role that the sense of belonging and academic hope play in enhancing persistence to degree completion. Program participants had significantly higher persistence rates compared to a matched comparison group. Additionally, STEM-specific belonging and academic hope significantly predicted students’ intentions to persist to degree completion in IT. A major finding was that STEM domain–specific belonging was a stronger predictor of persistence than general belonging. Our investigation has implications for the role that cohort-based programs, industry engagement, peer mentoring, proactive advising, undergraduate research opportunities, career preparation, and leveraging need-based financial aid play in ensuring equity in STEM.

Overview

AI snapshot

Written from the paper’s full text.

TL;DR

This longitudinal quasi-experimental study found that low-income, historically underrepresented IT students in the comprehensive LiFT program had significantly higher 1-, 2-, and 3-year persistence rates than a matched comparison group. Among LiFT scholars, STEM/IT-specific sense of belonging and academic hope significantly predicted intentions to persist to IT degree completion, with IT-specific belonging outperforming general belonging.

Key findings

  • LiFT participants had higher persistence than the matched comparison group: 1-year 81.5% vs. 54.2%, 2-year 75.3% vs. 41.3%, and 3-year 61.1% vs. 38.9%.
  • In logistic regressions controlling for HS GPA, LiFT participants were 8.76 times more likely to persist to year 1, 14.63 times more likely to persist to year 2, and 5.31 times more likely to persist to year 3.
  • In the LiFT questionnaire sample (N = 72), sense of belonging and academic hope significantly predicted intentions to persist to IT degree completion, R² = .32, F(5, 63) = 5.34, p < .001, even with gender and historically underrepresented status in the model.
  • IT domain-specific belonging significantly predicted intentions to persist (β = .40, p < .01) and academic hope significantly predicted intentions to persist (β = .42, p < .001), while general sense of belonging did not significantly predict intentions to persist.

Methods

  • Longitudinal quasi-experimental design with 170 LiFT scholars and 170 matched comparison students across a large public urban Midwestern 4-year university and a large urban public 2-year community college pipeline, for academic years 2017–2018, 2018–2019, and 2019–2020.
  • Institutional records provided demographics, HS GPA, SAT, financial aid, and 1-, 2-, and 3-year persistence in IT; an anonymous self-report questionnaire administered only to LiFT scholars (N = 72, 44% response rate) measured general belonging, IT-specific belonging, academic hope, and intention to persist.
  • Analyses included chi-square tests, hierarchical logistic regression adjusting for HS GPA, and hierarchical multiple regression predicting intentions to persist from gender, HUR status, general belonging, IT belonging, and academic hope.

Limitations

  • The paper states the sample was relatively small and primarily male, low-income, underrepresented minority IT students at two institutions, limiting generalizability and making it harder to understand women IT students’ experiences.
  • The paper states random assignment was not possible due to ethical and logistical constraints, so causal attributions about LiFT should be cautious; the study could not isolate which LiFT components caused differences, and time constraints limited assessment of long-term workforce outcomes.
  • Evident from the text: the questionnaire was administered only to LiFT scholars and was anonymous, so questionnaire results could not be linked to individual institutional records; financial aid data restrictions prevented 1:1 matching on Pell/FAFSA, and the LiFT group had significantly higher HS GPA than the comparison group, which was adjusted for in regression models.

Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s41979-023-00096-8

Cites

85 of 86 references verified0 citation errors · 1 not checkable

Statistics

8 tests recomputed · 1 with the reported and recomputed p on opposite sides of .05

Verification

Claims the paper makes

33 Own result · 22 Own method · 11 No full text of the sources · 10 Own interpretation · 9 Partly supported · 4 Supported · 4 Sources not found · 2 Not checked yet · 1 No basis given · accuracy not yet measured

Show all 60 claims

  • Probably not a substantial claim. 21
  • It may state two separate claims as one. 18
  • The quote only partly states this claim. 1
36 of 36
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The matched comparison group is equivalent to LiFT participants on unmeasured confounding variables.

    “The demographic, school, major, and academic preparation variables were used to find a matched comparison group of 170 students entering during the same cohort years in the same IT department and major who were closely matched on demographics, academic preparation, and financial aid information.”
  • The authors state this as an assumption.

    The institutional context and financial support create safe spaces and provide the resources students need to persist to degree completion.

    “The institutional context coupled with financial support was designed to serve as an effective mechanism to create safe spaces for IT students to develop an IT sense of belonging and hope.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    All LiFT students experienced all components of the program.

    “The program was designed so that all LiFT students experienced all components of the program (e.g., undergraduate research and career development planning).”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The LiFT program's comprehensive support caused the observed differences in persistence rates, rather than unmeasured confounding or selection effects.

    “As such, we employed logistic regression procedures to adjust for HS GPA as a potential confounding variable in our regression models.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Need-based financial aid is a key component of the LiFT program's effectiveness.

    “The results may have implications in terms of the importance of considering need-based financial aid since this was a key component of the overall comprehensive LiFT program even though we were not able to isolate this component in our analyses.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The comparison group is comparable to LiFT participants except for program participation and HS GPA.

    “We were able to employ a quasi-experimental design and develop a matched control group of IT, underrepresented, low-income students not participating in the LiFT interventions to investigate the effects on 1-, 2-, and 3-year retention to STEM IT rates.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The matched comparison group is equivalent to LiFT participants on unmeasured confounders, so differences in persistence can be attributed to LiFT participation.

    “Persistence rates for the LiFT participants and the matched comparison group”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Intentions to persist to IT degree completion are a valid proxy for actual persistence to degree completion.

    “intentions to persist to IT degree completion”
8 of 8

Statistics that don’t add up

Each reported p-value recomputed from its test statistic and degrees of freedom.

3 of 3

Statistics recomputed

Every reported test result, recomputed from its test statistic and degrees of freedom. A result shows as not adding up only once an independent check has confirmed it.

  • Doesn’t add upχ²(1) = 1.65reported p < .05 · recomputed p = .199The two fall on opposite sides of .05

    “X 2 (1, N = 73) = 1.65, p < .05”

  • Doesn’t add upt(340) = 1.81reported p < .05 · recomputed p = .071

    “t(340) = 1.81, p < .05”

  • Doesn’t add upχ²(2) = 5.89reported p < .05 · recomputed p = .053

    “χ 2 (2) = 5.89, p < .05”

  • Consistentχ²(1) = 22.7reported p < .001 · recomputed p < .001

    “X 2 (1, N = 340) = 22.7, p < .001”

  • Consistentχ²(1) = 13.14reported p < .001 · recomputed p < .001

    “X 2 (1, N = 161) = 13.14, p < .001”

  • Consistentχ²(2) = 22.2reported p < .001 · recomputed p < .001

    “χ 2 (2) = 22.20, p < .001”

  • Consistentχ²(2) = 21.73reported p < .001 · recomputed p < .001

    “χ 2 (2) = 21.73,p < .001”

  • ConsistentF(5, 63) = 5.34reported p < .001 · recomputed p < .001

    “F(5, 63) = 5.34, p < .001”

8 of 8

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.

2 of 2

Citations

Cites

Show all 81 references

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. Kuh, G. D. (2008). High-impact practices: What they are, who has access to them, and why they matter. Association of American Colleges and Universities.
  2. Kuh, G. D., & O’Donnell, K. (2013). Ensuring quality and taking high-impact practices to scale. Association of American Colleges and Universities.
  3. Maples, S. C. (2003). Academic achievement and retention rate of students who did and did not participate in a university summer bridge program. Dissertation Abstracts International Section A: Humanities & Social Sciences, 63(7-A), 2468.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Hansen, M. J., Palakal, M. J., & White, L.
Affiliations
  • The Ohio State University (US)
  • Indiana University – Purdue University Indianapolis (US)
Corresponding author
Hansen, Michele J.
Venue
Journal for STEM Education Research
Published
2023-05-23
Volume
7
Issue
2
Pages
155-180
ISSN
  • 2520-8705 (ISSN-L)
  • 2520-8713
OpenAlex
W4377692532
Cited by
138
References
81
Citations by year
2026: 57 · 2025: 43 · 2024: 35 · 2023: 3
FWCI
102.27
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
Journal for STEM Education Research (publishedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
National Science Foundation (1643586.)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Education › Higher Education Research Studies
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Career Development and Diversity
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Education, Achievement, and Giftedness
Keywords
sense of belonging, academic hope, student persistence, low-income students, underrepresented students, STEM education, information technology students, STEM equity, peer mentoring, undergraduate research, industry engagement, need-based aid, career preparation

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-11-03, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).

A second model labelled each claim on 2026-11-03 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).

Cited sources are checked with a language model’s help (gpt-6-sol).

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review