CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 218Higher Education Research StudiesMentoring and Academic DevelopmentHigher Education Practises and Engagement

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 26 of the 26 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Academic advising: does it really impact student success?

Young‐Jones, Adena D., Burt, Tracie D., Dixon, Stephanie, Hawthorne, Melissa J.·2013·Quality Assurance in Education
DOI 10.1108/09684881311293034
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Purpose This study was designed to evaluate academic advising in terms of student needs, expectations, and success rather than through the traditional lens of student satisfaction with the process. Design/methodology/approach Student participants ( n =611) completed a survey exploring their expectations of and experience with academic advising. Principal axis factor analysis, multiple regression analyses, and analyses of variance were applied to student responses. Findings Six interpretable factors (i.e. advisor accountability, advisor empowerment, student responsibility, student self‐efficacy, student study skills, and perceived support) significantly related academic advising to student success. Differences emerged with regard to advisement of demographically diverse students. Practical implications The results suggest improvements in advising practices, particularly interventions focused on specific demographic populations. Originality/value The present study contributes to existing literature by expanding advising research beyond student satisfaction to explore how it influences student success. Additionally, results suggest a need for future research that further develops the concept and practice of quality academic advising.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1108/09684881311293034

Cites

26 of 26 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, 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?

Citations

Cites

Show all 26 references

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. Habley, W.R. (Ed.) (2004), “The status of academic advising: findings from the ACT sixth national survey”, Monograph No. 10, National Academic Advising Association, Manhattan, KS.
  2. Hemwall, M.K. and Trachte, K.C. (2003), “Learning at the core: theory and practice of academic advising in small colleges and universities”, in Hemwall, M.K. and Trachte, K.C. (Eds), Advising and Learning: Academic Advising from the Perspective of Small Colleges and Universities, Monograph No. 8, National Academic Advising Association, Manhattan, KS, pp. 7‐11.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 201–217 of 217

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Young‐Jones, A. D., Burt, T. D., Dixon, S., & Hawthorne, M. J.
Affiliations
Missouri State University (US)
Venue
Quality Assurance in Education
Publisher
Emerald
Published
2013-01-25
Volume
21
Issue
1
Pages
7-19
ISSN
0968-4883 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1108/09684881311293034
OpenAlex
W2055913020
Cited by
218
References
26
Citations by year
2026: 12 · 2025: 12 · 2024: 15 · 2023: 13 · 2022: 26 · 2021: 37 · 2020: 22 · 2019: 18 · 2018: 16 · 2017: 12 · 2016: 14 · 2015: 12 · 2014: 8 · 2013: 1
FWCI
56.45
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
www.emerald.com/insight/site-policies (tdm)
Locations
  • Quality Assurance in Education (publishedVersion)
  • BearWorks (Missouri State University) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Education › Higher Education Research Studies
  • Social Sciences › Education › Mentoring and Academic Development
  • Social Sciences › Education › Higher Education Practises and Engagement
Keywords
academic advising, student success, student self-efficacy, study skills, perceived support, student responsibility, demographic diversity

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