Abstract
The Questionnaire of Determinants of Academic Choice and Adaptation (known in its original Spanish designation as the Cuestionario de Condicionantes de la Elección y Adaptación Académica; CE-AA; Sánchez-García, Moreno-Yaguana, & Fernández-García, 2023) is an empirical psychometric instrument designed to evaluate the psychosocial determinants, motivational drivers, and institutional factors that influence university trajectory, persistence, and academic success within higher education. Developed and validated within the university system of Ecuador, the CE-AA addresses critical psychosocial transitions by capturing four central dimensions: (a) students’ perceptions of information and pre-university orientation determinants; (b) motivational configurations shaping degree choice; (c) subjective levels of current academic satisfaction; and (d) institutional guidance and academic support experienced during university enrollment. Psychometric refinement through expert judgment yielded robust content validity, achieving a global Content Validity Index (CVI) of 0.88 according to Tristán’s criteria, exceeding the conventional threshold of 0.58. Structural validation via exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) isolated a two-factor model for “Reasons for Choosing Studies” (explaining 68.92% of the cumulative variance) and a unidimensional model for “Academic Satisfaction” (accounting for 53.54% of total variance). Reliability estimates using McDonald’s omega coefficient (ω) revealed high composite reliability for Academic Satisfaction (ω = 0.912) and the Intrinsic-Instrumental Reasons factor (ω = 0.919), alongside moderate reliability for Social Influence (ω = 0.687). While confirmatory models demonstrated acceptable baseline fit across sampling adequacy indices (KMO > 0.85; Bartlett’s sphericity p < .000), authors emphasize the continuous need for cross-cultural replication. The CE-AA provides academic researchers, university counselors, and higher education policymakers with an evidence-based diagnostic framework to detect early dropout risk profiles and optimize student retention initiatives.
Keywords
Academic Satisfaction, Academic Success, Psychosocial Factors, Reasons for Choosing Studies, Risk Factors, University Students, Higher Education Retention, Vocational Guidance, Psychometrics, Factor Analysis, Latin American Higher Education
Authors
The CE-AA was formulated, developed, and validated through collaborative psychometric research between institutions in Spain and Ecuador:
- María Fe Sánchez-García — Department of Methods of Research and Diagnosis in Education, Faculty of Education, Universidad Nacional de Educación a Distancia (UNED), Madrid, Spain. Correspondence Address: Calle Juan del Rosal 14, 28040 Madrid, Spain. Email: [email protected]
- Paulina E. Moreno-Yaguana — Department of Educational Sciences, Universidad Técnica Particular de Loja (UTPL), Loja, Ecuador. Email: [email protected]
- Ana Fernández-García — Department of Methods of Research and Diagnosis in Education, Faculty of Education, Universidad Nacional de Educación a Distancia (UNED), Madrid, Spain. Email: [email protected]
Purpose
The primary purpose of the Questionnaire of Determinants of Academic Choice and Adaptation (CE-AA) is to systematically evaluate, quantify, and model the psychological, social, and contextual determinants that govern how students select university degree programs, how they experience their academic transition, and how satisfied they remain throughout their tertiary educational trajectory. Worldwide, and particularly across Latin America, first- and second-year university attrition represents a profound institutional and socioeconomic challenge. Early disengagement frequently stems from misaligned vocational expectations, inadequate pre-college guidance, external socioeconomic pressures, or deficits in institutional support services. The CE-AA was conceived to bridge the diagnostic gap between static demographic markers and dynamic psychosocial processes that directly moderate undergraduate academic performance, retention, and subjective success.
From an applied perspective, the CE-AA operates across clinical, counseling, and institutional research domains:
- Early Warning and Retention Screening: Institutional research offices can deploy the CE-AA during entry and transitional semesters to identify cohorts exhibiting maladaptive choice profiles (e.g., degree selection driven solely by extrinsic social expectations without intrinsic interest) or early markers of low academic satisfaction.
- Vocational and Psychological Counseling: University counselors and student welfare practitioners can leverage individual subscale scores to explore personal misalignment, offering individualized career counseling, psychoeducation, and academic coping strategies.
- Curricular and Support Service Evaluation: By assessing student perceptions of university guidance, administrative responsiveness, and instructional climate, institutional leaders can systematically audit the quality and accessibility of campus-wide support programs.
- Cross-Cultural Educational Research: The instrument provides an empirically validated, culturally adapted tool for exploring how sociodemographic variables (e.g., gender, first-generation status, regional provenance) interact with academic motivation and persistence across emerging higher education systems.
Psychological Construct
The CE-AA operationalizes a multidimensional construct centered on academic adaptation, motivational volition, and cognitive appraisals of higher education. Rather than framing degree choice and retention as discrete, isolated events, the scale conceptualizes university adaptation as an ongoing psychosocial negotiation among individual goals, relational influences, and institutional ecosystems.
1. Pre-University Information and Orientation Determinants
This dimension examines the structural and informational foundations that precede university matriculation. It evaluates the breadth, clarity, and perceived usefulness of career guidance resources received during secondary education, open-house activities, web-based institutional portals, and vocational counseling sessions. Students possessing clear, realistic, and multifaceted pre-entry information tend to develop more calibrated academic expectations, significantly mitigating the cognitive dissonance often encountered during the first year of college.
2. Motivational Determinants of Degree Choice
The instrument bifurcates reasons for degree choice into two distinct psychometric factors:
- Intrinsic-Instrumental Reasons: Reflects self-determined, autonomous career choice based on personal vocational calling, intellectual curiosity, perceived competence, and deliberate occupational utility (e.g., choosing a degree because it aligns with personal values and offers structured professional pathways).
- Social Influence: Captures heteronomous, extrinsic, and normative pressures exerted by primary relational networks, including parental expectations, peer affiliations, social prestige, and external family modeling. Elevated scores on this factor indicate that the career trajectory was substantially shaped by external compliance rather than internalized vocational commitment.
3. Current Academic Satisfaction
Academic satisfaction within the CE-AA represents a comprehensive cognitive and affective evaluation of the student’s ongoing university experience. It encompasses satisfaction with instructional quality, faculty pedagogical competencies, administrative communication, curricular relevance, physical and digital campus infrastructure, and peer collaborative environments. Low satisfaction scores reflect institutional alienation and academic demoralization, both of which serve as direct precursors to withdrawal.
4. Institutional Support and University Guidance
This component measures the student’s appraisal of the proactive and reactive assistance offered by the university. It captures tutoring systems, mentoring opportunities, psychological support services, academic advising, and administrative receptivity. This dimension monitors whether the institution acts as a protective buffer against academic distress or whether bureaucratic fragmentation exacerbates student vulnerability.
Theoretical Framework
The architecture of the CE-AA is rooted in modern psychological and educational theories of motivation, career development, and student persistence:
Self-Determination Theory (SDT)
Developed by Deci and Ryan, Self-Determination Theory posits that human behavior is optimized when driven by autonomous rather than controlled forms of motivation. Autonomous motivation entails intrinsic interest, value congruence, and perceived autonomy. Within the CE-AA, the “Reasons for Choosing Studies” scale operationalizes this continuum: students driven by intrinsic-instrumental reasons reflect autonomous motivation, satisfying the fundamental psychological needs for autonomy and competence. Conversely, choice driven primarily by social influence illustrates introjected or external regulation, which empirical literature consistently links to elevated emotional exhaustion, imposter feelings, and academic disengagement.
Social Cognitive Career Theory (SCCT)
Lent, Brown, and Hackett’s Social Cognitive Career Theory serves as an additional theoretical pillar. SCCT emphasizes how self-efficacy beliefs, outcome expectations, and environmental contextual supports/barriers converge to shape career interests, choices, and performance attainments. The CE-AA reflects SCCT by assessing both subjective personal appraisals (outcome expectations reflected in instrumental choice) and environmental affordances (institutional support systems and access to pre-university orientation).
Tinto’s Student Integration Model & Bean’s Attrition Model
Vincent Tinto’s classic longitudinal model of institutional departure and John Bean’s psychological model of student retention conceptualize academic persistence as a function of academic and social integration. According to Tinto, persistence requires ongoing alignment between student commitments and institutional systems. When students perceive the university environment as unsupportive or intellectually discordant (as measured by the CE-AA’s Academic Satisfaction and Institutional Guidance dimensions), their institutional commitment erodes, exponentially elevating their risk of departure.
Validity
The psychometric validation of the CE-AA was conducted systematically with undergraduate university cohorts in Ecuador, demonstrating robust content and construct validity evidence.
Content Validity
Content validity was evaluated using an expert panel method involving university researchers and educational diagnosticians. Panelists evaluated each proposed item on dimensions of relevance, sufficiency, semantic clarity, and theoretical alignment. Quantification of panel consensus was executed using the Content Validity Index (CVI) adapted via Tristán’s (2008) modified formulation. Methodological criteria dictated that any item falling below an agreement index of 0.58 would be subjected to elimination or structural revision. Across the finalized items, the majority yielded individual CVI values exceeding 0.90, with no item falling below the 0.50 threshold. The overall global CVI for the instrument was calculated at 0.88, indicating exemplary content validity, linguistic intelligibility, and contextual appropriateness for higher education populations.
Construct and Factorial Validity
Construct validity was established through sequential Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) and Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA):
- Reasons for Choosing Studies Scale: EFA validated a bifurcated latent structure representing (1) Intrinsic-Instrumental Reasons and (2) Social Influence. This dual-factor model accounted for 68.92% of the cumulative variance, confirming that these two dimensions adequately capture the underlying motivational dynamics of career choice. Confirmatory testing yielded robust Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin sampling adequacy (KMO = 0.855) and highly significant sphericity (Bartlett’s χ² = 7555.41, df = 36, p < .001).
- Academic Satisfaction Scale: EFA supported a unidimensional conceptualization of institutional satisfaction, explaining 53.54% of the total variance. Subsequent confirmatory analysis confirmed sampling adequacy (KMO = 0.921) and structural sphericity (Bartlett’s χ² = 8368.18, df = 55, p < .001).
The authors reported that while structural equation fit indices confirmed acceptable baseline models, fit statistics did not reach idealized optimal levels (e.g., standard strict thresholds for RMSEA and CFI), prompting recommendations that future iterations refine specific covariance structures across heterogeneous student sub-populations.
Reliability
Internal consistency for the CE-AA was calculated using McDonald’s omega (ω), which provides a more robust, realistic estimation of scale reliability than Cronbach’s alpha under conditions of varying factor loadings and congeneric measurement models.
The empirical reliability coefficients demonstrated high to moderate internal consistency across dimensions:
- Academic Satisfaction Scale: Achieved an omega coefficient of ω = 0.912, demonstrating high measurement precision and item homogeneity for assessing institutional and educational contentment.
- Reasons for Choosing Studies — Factor 1 (Intrinsic-Instrumental Reasons): Exhibited an omega coefficient of ω = 0.919, confirming high internal consistency for items measuring autonomous vocational and professional motivation.
- Reasons for Choosing Studies — Factor 2 (Social Influence): Produced an omega coefficient of ω = 0.687. Although falling just below the conventional 0.70 benchmark, this value is considered psychometrically acceptable for concise, exploratory subscales assessing multifaceted external social pressures.
Collectively, these values demonstrate that the CE-AA possesses satisfactory internal consistency for group-level educational diagnostics, institutional research, and exploratory screening.
Factor Analysis
The factorial architecture of the CE-AA was investigated through distinct structural phases, distinguishing motivational selection determinants from experiential satisfaction outcomes.
Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA)
Prior to factor extraction, correlation matrices were inspected to verify inter-item associations. For the “Reasons for Choosing Studies” module, principal axis factoring with oblique rotation yielded a clean two-factor solution without destructive cross-loadings. Factor 1, consolidating intrinsic interest, personal calling, and professional utility, accounted for the predominant share of variance, whereas Factor 2 captured external familial, relational, and social prestige influences. Together, both factors explained 68.92% of the total variance. For the “Academic Satisfaction” module, extraction demonstrated that items aligned along a single overarching latent construct accounting for 53.54% of the total variance.
Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA)
Confirmatory modeling evaluated whether the observed empirical covariance matrices conformed to the theoretical multi-factor specifications:
- Reasons for Choosing Studies: The measurement model conformed satisfactorily to empirical data. Sampling adequacy was verified by a Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) index of 0.855, and Bartlett’s test of sphericity rejected the identity matrix hypothesis (χ² = 7555.41; df = 36; p < .0001).
- Academic Satisfaction: The unidimensional CFA confirmed high sampling adequacy with a KMO index of 0.921 and Bartlett’s test yielding χ² = 8368.18 (df = 55; p < .0001).
The study authors note that while baseline goodness-of-fit metrics fell within acceptable empirical parameters, the overall global fit across all sub-dimensions remains classified as “acceptable rather than optimal.” This indicates that individual items retain slight degrees of residual covariance that warrant further cross-validation across diverse socio-institutional contexts.
Instrument / Measurement Tool
- Formal Name: Cuestionario de Condicionantes de la Elección y Adaptación Académica (CE-AA) [Questionnaire of Determinants of Academic Choice and Adaptation]
- Authors: María Fe Sánchez-García, Paulina E. Moreno-Yaguana, and Ana Fernández-García (2023)
- Test Type: Original multidimensional self-report inventory/questionnaire
- Primary Dimensions:
- Pre-university information and orientation determinants
- Reasons for choosing studies (Subscales: Intrinsic-Instrumental Reasons; Social Influence)
- Academic satisfaction
- Institutional guidance and university support received
- Item Count: 15 core psychometrically validated items across the primary analytical subscales, complemented by contextual and institutional inquiry blocks in the comprehensive survey
- Response Formats: Multi-format design comprising Likert-type rating scales (e.g., assessing degree of agreement/importance from low to high), selective multiple-choice items for contextual background, and qualitative open-ended response prompts
- Target Population: Undergraduate university students across all academic years, primarily spanning emerging adulthood (18–29 years) and mature students (30–39 years)
- Language: Original instrument validated in Spanish (Ecuadorian university population)
- Scoring and Interpretation: Subscale raw scores are derived by summing or averaging item responses within each factor. Higher scores on Intrinsic-Instrumental reasons and Academic Satisfaction indicate positive academic adaptation and low attrition risk, whereas elevated scores on Social Influence paired with low Academic Satisfaction signify an at-risk student profile
Permissions & Fee and Test Year
- Year of Publication: 2023
- Fee: Free for non-commercial academic, institutional research, and educational counseling applications
- Copyright & Permissions: The instrument was published under open-access scientific publication standards in the Revista Iberoamericana de Diagnóstico y Evaluación Psicológica (RIDEP). Researchers, educational authorities, and clinicians wishing to implement, translate, or adapt the CE-AA should contact the corresponding author, Dr. María Fe Sánchez-García ([email protected]), or consult the original publication for formal licensing and institutional permissions.
References
Bean, J. P., & Eaton, S. B. (2001). The psychology underlying successful student retention. Journal of College Student Retention: Research, Theory & Practice, 3(1), 73–89. https://doi.org/10.2190/6R55-4B30-28G9-G7P6
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The “what” and “why” of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11(4), 227–268. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327965PLI1104_01
Lent, R. W., Brown, S. D., & Hackett, G. (2000). Contextual supports and barriers to career choice: A social cognitive analysis. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 47(1), 36–49. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0167.47.1.36
Sánchez-García, M. F., Moreno-Yaguana, P. E., & Fernández-García, A. (2023). Condicionantes Psicosociales y Perfiles de Riesgo para el Éxito Académico Universitario: Validación de un Instrumento para su Exploración [Psychosocial conditioning factors and risk profiles for academic success: Design of an instrument for their exploration]. Revista Iberoamericana de Diagnóstico y Evaluación Psicológica, 67(1), 129–145. https://doi.org/10.21865/RIDEP67.1.10
Tinto, V. (1993). Leaving college: Rethinking the causes and cures of student attrition (2nd ed.). University of Chicago Press. https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226922461.001.0001
Tristán, A. (2008). Modificación al modelo de Lawshe para el dictamen cuantitativo de la validez de contenido de un instrumento objetivo. Avances en Medición, 6(1), 37–48.