Cited by 422Optimism, Hope, and Well-beingEducation, Achievement, and GiftednessGrit, Self-Efficacy, and Motivation

Hope, self-efficacy, optimism, and academic achievement: Distinguishing constructs and levels of specificity in predicting college grade-point average

Feldman, David B., Kubota, Maximilian·2015·Learning and Individual Differences

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.lindif.2014.11.022

Cites

11 of 11 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Feldman, D. B., & Kubota, M.
Affiliations
Santa Clara University (US)
Corresponding author
Feldman, David B.
Venue
Learning and Individual Differences
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2015-01
Volume
37
Pages
210-216
ISSN
1041-6080 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2092973861
Cited by
422
References
11
Citations by year
2026: 26 · 2025: 30 · 2024: 35 · 2023: 51 · 2022: 54 · 2021: 33 · 2020: 79 · 2019: 39 · 2018: 24 · 2017: 27 · 2016: 19 · 2015: 4
FWCI
23.81
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Learning and Individual Differences (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Optimism, Hope, and Well-being
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Education, Achievement, and Giftedness
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Grit, Self-Efficacy, and Motivation
Keywords
hope, academic self-efficacy, general self-efficacy, optimism, academic performance, college grade point average, expectancy theory, university students

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.

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