CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 109Education, Achievement, and GiftednessStatistical Methods and Bayesian InferenceGrit, Self-Efficacy, and Motivation

Re‐examining the reciprocal effects model of self‐concept, self‐efficacy, and academic achievement in a comparison of the Cross‐Lagged Panel and Random‐Intercept Cross‐Lagged Panel frameworks

Burns, Richard A., Crisp, Dimity A., Burns, Robert B.·2020·British Journal of Educational Psychology
DOI 10.1111/bjep.12265
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Background: The cross‐lagged panel (regression) model ( CLPM ) is the usual framework of choice to test the longitudinal reciprocal effects between self‐concept and achievement. Criticisms of the CLPM are that causal paths are over‐estimated as they fail to discriminate between‐ and within‐person variation. The random‐intercept cross‐lagged panel model ( RI ‐ CLPM ) is one alternative that extends the CLPM by partialling out between‐person variance. Aims: We compare analyses from a CLPM and a RI ‐ CLPM which examine the reciprocal relationships between self‐concept, self‐efficacy, and achievement and determine the extent CLPM estimates are inflated by between‐person variance. Sample(s): Participants ( n = 314) were first‐year undergraduate psychology students recruited as part of the ST udent Engagement with Education and Learning ( STEEL ) project. Methods: Participants completed measures of self‐efficacy and self‐concept prior to completing fortnightly quiz assessments. Results: Cross‐Lagged Panel (regression) Model estimates are likely over‐estimated in comparison with RI ‐ CLPM estimates. Cross‐Lagged Panel (regression) Model analyses identified a reciprocal effects relationship between self‐concept and achievement, confirming established literature. In RI ‐ CLPM analyses, these effects were attenuated and a skill development association between achievement and self‐concept was supported. A reciprocal relationship between self‐efficacy and achievement was supported. Better model fit was reported for the RI ‐ CLPM analyses. Conclusions: Prior findings relating to the reciprocal effects of self‐concept and achievement need to be reconsidered. Whilst such a relationship was supported in a CLPM analysis in this study, within an RI ‐ CLPM framework, only achievement predicted self‐concept. However, in both CLPM and RI‐CLPM models a reciprocal effects model of self‐efficacy and achievement was supported.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/bjep.12265

Cites

32 of 32 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

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?

  • The choice of sophisticated statistical models to investigate reciprocal relationships can have implications for the conclusion drawn.

    “Such studies most importantly also point out that the choice of sophisticated statistical models to investigate such relationships can have implications for the conclusion drawn (e.g., Burns et al., 2020;Ehm et al., 2019).”

    From Motivation-Achievement Cycles in Learning: a Literature Review and Research Agenda (2022) · cites this paper as Burns et al., 2020

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Burns, R. A., Crisp, D. A., & Burns, R. B.
Affiliations
  • Australian National University (AU)
  • University of Canberra (AU)
Corresponding author
Burns, Richard A.
ORCID
Venue
British Journal of Educational Psychology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2019-01-17
Volume
90
Issue
1
Pages
77-91
ISSN
  • 0007-0998 (ISSN-L)
  • 2044-8279
DOI
10.1111/bjep.12265
OpenAlex
W2910520902
Cited by
109
References
32
Citations by year
2026: 16 · 2025: 24 · 2024: 15 · 2023: 19 · 2022: 15 · 2021: 12 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 1
FWCI
10.32
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/termsAndConditions#vor (vor)
Locations
  • British Journal of Educational Psychology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • ANU Open Research (Australian National University) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Education, Achievement, and Giftedness
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods and Bayesian Inference
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Grit, Self-Efficacy, and Motivation
Keywords
reciprocal effects model, self-concept, self-efficacy, academic performance, cross-lagged panel model, random intercept cross-lagged panel model, skill development, undergraduate students
MeSH terms
Academic Success, Adult, Female, Humans, Male, Self Concept, Students, Universities, Models, Statistical, Self Efficacy, Young Adult

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