Study Entry Self-Efficacy Scale (SESW)

Abstract

The Study Entry Self-Efficacy Scale (known in German as the Skala zur Erfassung der Studieneinstiegsselbstwirksamkeit, abbreviated as SESW-Skala or SESW) is a psychometric instrument engineered to evaluate context-specific self-efficacy beliefs among undergraduate university students during their critical transition into tertiary education. Conceptualized within Albert Bandura‘s social cognitive theory and adhering rigorously to Egon Brunswik’s principle of predictor-criterion symmetry, the scale assesses prospective coping expectations across domain-specific academic challenges rather than broad, generalized competence beliefs. The SESW comprises 13 positively keyed items grouped structurally into three distinct yet correlated subdimensions: Deadlines and Strategies (Fristen und Strategien [FuS], 8 items), Motivation and Cognition (Motivation und Kognition [MuK], 3 items), and Cognitive Challenges (kognitive Herausforderungen [kH], 2 items). Respondents evaluate each statement on a 5-point Likert response format ranging from 1 (not at all [gar nicht]) to 5 (completely [voll und ganz]).

Extensive psychometric investigations conducted across large-scale normative and longitudinal cohorts—including a comparative reference sample of 1,842 first-year students, a multi-cohort longitudinal sample initially encompassing 1,086 freshmen tracking dropout intentions over nine months, and a cross-sectional cohort of 148 students—demonstrate excellent measurement properties. The global instrument yields outstanding internal consistency estimates, with Cronbach’s alpha exceeding .88, McDonald’s omega reaching ω = .90, and Raykov’s composite reliability rho exceeding .64 across subdimensions. The scale demonstrates robust factorial validity through confirmatory factor models confirming longitudinal measurement invariance across sequential university cohorts. Crucially, the SESW operates with exceptional measurement precision in the lower spectrum of the latent trait distribution, rendering it an indispensable screening tool for early identification of at-risk students susceptible to academic attrition, dropout intentions, and low study satisfaction.

Keywords

Study entry self-efficacy, academic self-efficacy, higher education transition, student retention, university dropout prediction, psychometrics, scale validation, screening instrument, academic adjustment, social cognitive theory, SESW scale, predictor-criterion symmetry

Authors

The Study Entry Self-Efficacy Scale (SESW) was developed and psychometrically validated by educational psychologists and psychometricians situated within the German university system, primarily centered around research initiatives conducted at the Justus Liebig University Giessen (Justus-Liebig-Universität Gießen), Germany. The instrument was subjected to formal methodological scrutiny and received certification from the Test Assessment System of the Board of Assessment of the Federation of German Psychologists’ Associations (Testbeurteilungssystem des Diagnostik- und Testkuratoriums, TBS-DTK) with the TBS-DTK Transparency Certificate and inclusion in the ZIS (Zusammenstellung sozialwissenschaftlicher Items und Skalen) open-access repository curated by GESIS – Leibniz Institute for the Social Sciences under the DIN-Screen quality audit.

Purpose

The foundational purpose of the Study Entry Self-Efficacy Scale (SESW) is to deliver a theoretically grounded, psychometrically robust, and parsimonious diagnostic screening instrument capable of measuring academic self-efficacy specifically tailored to the study entrance phase (Studieneinstieg, comprising the first and second semesters) across all academic disciplines. Empirical monitoring from the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD, 2016, 2017, 2018) demonstrates that university attrition represents a substantial systemic problem across industrialized nations, with approximately one in three undergraduate students terminating their higher education studies without completing a degree. In Germany, research conducted by the German Centre for Higher Education Research and Science Studies (Deutsches Zentrum für Hochschul- und Wissenschaftsforschung; DZHW, Heublein et al., 2017) underscores that approximately 28% of undergraduate bachelor’s degree candidates drop out, with the overwhelming majority departing during their initial two semesters. Consequently, higher education administrators, academic advisors, and student counseling services require early-stage, reliable diagnostic instruments capable of identifying underlying motivational vulnerabilities before formal academic failure occurs.

Meta-analytic syntheses examining academic performance and student persistence (e.g., Richardson et al., 2012; Robbins et al., 2004; Schneider & Preckel, 2017) have consistently identified self-efficacy beliefs as one of the most potent psychological determinants of academic performance, study satisfaction, and retention. However, standard measurement practices in higher education research frequently rely on either omnibus measures of generalized self-efficacy (such as the Schwarzer & Jerusalem General Self-Efficacy Scale) or broad academic self-efficacy inventories conceived for foreign higher education systems (e.g., Chemers et al., 2001). Generalized scales lack the contextual granularity necessary to capture the specific organizational, cognitive, and self-regulatory demands experienced by novice students navigating German university structures. Conversely, direct translations of Anglo-American instruments frequently suffer from construct distortion due to systemic cross-national discrepancies regarding curriculum autonomy, continuous assessment vs. high-stakes end-of-term examinations, and cultural expectations of self-directed learning (International Test Commission, 2016; Rammstedt et al., 2011).

The SESW was specifically constructed to resolve these limitations. Rather than evaluating generic academic competence, the SESW functions as an actionable screening apparatus that evaluates a student’s perceived capability to execute the exact academic behaviors necessary to master the transitional phase. By design, the scale emphasizes high diagnostic sensitivity in the lower region of the latent self-efficacy distribution. This functional specialization allows tertiary institutions to deploy the scale during orientation periods or within the first semester to identify freshmen suffering from alarmingly deficient coping expectations. The tool enables timely institutional interventions, such as tailored mentoring programs, time-management workshops, and metacognitive learning strategy courses, thereby dampening premature dropout intentions and fostering adaptive student engagement across diverse faculty cohorts.

Psychological Construct

The core psychological construct evaluated by the instrument is Study Entry Self-Efficacy (Studieneinstiegsselbstwirksamkeit). Consistent with Bandura’s foundational definition (1977, 1997), self-efficacy does not reflect an objective inventory of physical or intellectual skills, nor does it capture omnibus self-esteem or global optimism. Instead, it constitutes a generative belief system regarding one’s prospective capability to mobilize cognitive resources, orchestrate goal-directed courses of action, and execute behaviors required to attain designated types of performances under situational demands and stressors. In the operationalized framework of the SESW, this construct is differentiated into three primary interrelated subdimensions, which together formulate an overarching hierarchical construct:

1. Deadlines and Strategies (Fristen und Strategien [FuS])

Comprising eight of the scale’s thirteen items, the Deadlines and Strategies dimension constitutes the operational core of self-regulatory behavior during the university transition. Transitioning from tightly scaffolded secondary education environments to tertiary institutions requires individuals to exercise autonomous time management, schedule planning, and self-directed examination preparation. The items subsumed within this subdimension evaluate a student’s confidence in their ability to independently curate semester timetables (Item 1), allocate study time meaningfully across intensive examination periods (Item 2), perform under acute temporal stress (Item 3), orchestrate self-responsible test preparation regimens (Item 4), detect personal knowledge deficits (Item 5), remediate those deficits proactively (Item 6), adhere to mandatory administrative and academic deadlines (Item 7), and master exceptionally voluminous curricula (Item 13). This dimension reflects executive functioning applied to academic tasks, highlighting metacognitive monitoring and strategic pacing.

2. Motivation and Cognition (Motivation und Kognition [MuK])

Spanning three items, the Motivation and Cognition subscale measures the intersection of affective resilience and foundational reasoning capabilities. Higher education study demands that students endure academic ambiguity, lower initial grade points, and unexpected conceptual setbacks without abandoning personal learning goals. Item 8 assesses motivational tenacity and affective equilibrium under adversity (“…even during minor academic setbacks, not losing courage”). In conjunction with affective resilience, this subdimension evaluates the epistemic transfer of prior knowledge acquired in secondary education to novel academic domains (Item 9) and the perceived capacity to deconstruct disciplinary problems through structured logical analysis and abstract reasoning (Item 10). Thus, MuK captures the motivational-volitional persistence and cognitive transfer necessary to engage sustained intellectual effort.

3. Cognitive Challenges (kognitive Herausforderungen [kH])

The third subscale, represented by two highly concentrated items, reflects the perceived capability to master epistemological complexities intrinsic to higher academic discourse. In contrast to rote memorization, university scholarship requires the acquisition of abstract research methodologies and domain-specific disciplinary paradigms. Item 11 measures confidence in learning specific methodological techniques relevant to one’s academic field (e.g., statistical analysis in social sciences, wet-lab protocols in natural sciences, hermeneutic approaches in the humanities), while Item 12 captures the perceived capacity to comprehend intricate, highly complex disciplinary conceptual interrelations. Although representing a targeted two-item subscale intended primarily for differentiated theoretical research, kH indexes deep-level cognitive processing capability central to advanced scholarship.

Theoretical Framework

The conceptual architecture of the SESW is anchored in Bandura’s (1977, 1986, 1997) Social Cognitive Theory, specifically the conceptualization of perceived self-efficacy as a dynamic, situation-specific appraisal mechanism rather than a static, immutable personality trait (such as the Big Five personality traits described by Costa & McCrae, 1992). Trait personality constructs represent long-term behavioral dispositions exhibiting substantial temporal stability across heterogeneous situations. In sharp contrast, self-efficacy beliefs are cognitive representations that continuously incorporate self-reflective feedback from four informational sources: mastery experiences, vicarious experiences, social persuasion, and physiological/affective states. Because self-efficacy appraisals undergo systematic re-calibration as individuals confront novel environmental demands, entering university represents an epistemic disruption wherein established self-schemas are fundamentally challenged.

A second foundational pillar governing the development of the SESW is Egon Brunswik‘s (1955) Principle of Predictor-Criterion Symmetry (often elaborated in modern educational psychometrics as the lens model symmetry criterion; cf. Betz & Hackett, 2006). Brunswik postulated that the predictive validity of psychological assessments is maximized when the conceptual breadth and contextual specificity of the predictor variable match the conceptual breadth and contextual specificity of the criterion outcome. Generalized measures of self-efficacy—which evaluate a person’s abstract confidence in handling nonspecific life hurdles—inevitably display attenuated statistical correlations when predicting targeted academic behaviors, such as university dropout during the freshmen year, attendance at mandatory tutorials, or examination pass rates. To optimize predictive precision, the measurement of self-efficacy must be directly contextualized within the unique ecology of the higher education transition.

To ground the scale in genuine empirical challenges rather than theoretical abstractions, the SESW development team conducted a multi-source inductive item generation phase adhering to modern test construction principles (Eid & Schmidt, 2014). The challenges defining the study entry phase were synthesized from three comprehensive empirical investigations across German universities:

• Student Survey at Justus Liebig University Giessen (Ehrlich, 2016): A campus-wide survey (N = 5,263 students across all degree programs) identifying competencies that exhibited statistically significant correlations with subjective study success expectations (e.g., autonomous application of scientific methods, identification and remediation of knowledge deficits).
• 12th BMBF Student Survey (Ramm et al., 2014; Bargel, 2015): A nationally representative survey conducted on behalf of the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research, with targeted sub-analyses of N = 647 freshmen identifying the primary structural difficulties experienced during initial enrollment: performance pressure, exam preparation, and study planning.
• CHE Faculty Survey (Horstmann & Hachmeister, 2016): A comprehensive assessment of approximately 9,500 university professors across 32 academic disciplines conducted by the Centre for Higher Education (Centrum für Hochschulentwicklung), isolating universally demanded core proficiencies: logical/analytical thinking, independent learning, self-discipline, and enduring frustration tolerance.

By mapping item formulations directly onto the consensus overlap of these three empirical sources, the SESW captures the multifaceted ecological demands of the freshmen experience, ensuring both rigorous theoretical alignment and exhaustive ecological validity.

Validity

The SESW has undergone extensive empirical validation across multiple cross-sectional and prospective longitudinal investigations, confirming strong content, convergent, discriminant, factorial, and predictive criterion-related validity.

Content Validity and Qualitative Cognitive Pre-Testing

Initial content validation was established through qualitative cognitive interviewing utilizing the think-aloud technique (De Leeuw et al., 2012) among first-year undergraduate students. Participants completed a preliminary 10-item prototype while vocalizing their internal reasoning processes. Cognitive interviews confirmed that respondents interpreted behavioral verbs (e.g., timetable planning, deadline tracking, deficit compensation) in full accordance with the intended psychometric definitions. Crucially, the qualitative pre-test confirmed that sensitive phrases—such as Item 8 addressing emotional resilience in the face of academic failure (“not losing courage during minor setbacks”)—elicited realistic cognitive reflections regarding university examinations without generating psychological deterrence. Furthermore, respondent feedback indicated that the initial 10-item pool underrepresented purely cognitive and methodological hurdles; consequently, three supplementary items capturing complex content comprehension (Item 12), disciplinary methodologies (Item 11), and high-volume learning demands (Item 13) were incorporated into the final 13-item instrument.

Convergent and Discriminant Construct Validity

In a quantitative pilot study involving N = 148 undergraduate psychology freshmen, the preliminary SESW demonstrated strong convergent validity with the generalized Self-Efficacy Scale (Allgemeine Selbstwirksamkeit; Schwarzer & Jerusalem, 1999), demonstrating a robust positive correlation of r = .62 (p = .001). This large effect size confirms substantial shared variance regarding underlying perceived agency while simultaneously illustrating that 61.6% of the variance remains unshared, validating the psychometric distinction between broad personality-adjacent efficacy traits and academic-entry-specific efficacy beliefs.

Discriminant validity was further examined by evaluating the SESW’s divergence from unrelated demographic and cognitive factors. As anticipated in social cognitive theory, the scale scores demonstrate minimal or negligible confounding associations with distal biographical variables, proving that the scale does not simply duplicate generalized intellectual aptitude but rather indexes self-referential competence expectations.

Predictive and Longitudinal Criterion Validity

The ultimate criterion for a study entrance diagnostic instrument resides in its capacity to predict prospective student retention and subjective adjustment. Within the multi-cohort longitudinal study following n = 1,086 freshmen across their first academic year (spanning Winter Semesters 2016/17, 2017/18, and 2018/19), the predictive validity of the SESW was evaluated against key criteria measured at the end of the second semester (Time 3, n = 424 retained participants). Baseline SESW scores obtained during the first semester demonstrated statistically significant predictive utility for subsequent dropout intentions (Studienabbruchintentionen) and overall study satisfaction (Studienzufriedenheit). Students reporting lower initial SESW scores exhibited significantly higher subsequent inclinations to terminate their university studies prematurely.

Furthermore, an analysis of panel attrition across the nine-month longitudinal trajectory provided striking naturalistic evidence of criterion validity: participants who dropped out of the longitudinal study prematurely (a behavioral proxy correlated with broader academic disengagement and withdrawal) had exhibited significantly lower baseline SESW scores at study entry compared to those who completed all longitudinal assessment waves (t(1078) = -2.098, p = .036). These longitudinal findings establish the SESW as a potent prospective forecasting tool.

Reliability

The Study Entry Self-Efficacy Scale exhibits outstanding internal consistency and acceptable stability estimates, satisfying the psychometric criteria required for both group-level academic analytics and high-stakes individual diagnostics.

Internal Consistency and Composite Reliability

Across the large-scale normative comparison sample (N = 1,842 freshmen at Justus Liebig University Giessen), the complete 13-item instrument achieved an internal consistency coefficient of Cronbach’s alpha > .88. Because Cronbach’s alpha relies on the assumption of tau-equivalence (which can underestimate or distort true score reliability in multidimensional scales), structural equation modeling was employed to compute non-parametric and latent parameter estimates. The SESW demonstrated an exceptional McDonald’s omega of ω = .90 for the total score, indicating that approximately 90% of the composite score variance is attributable to the underlying general latent factor.

When evaluated across its constituent subscales, composite reliability remains sound, with Raykov’s composite reliability rho (ρ) > .64 across the individual subscales. Given that the subscales vary in length (with Deadlines and Strategies encompassing 8 items, Motivation and Cognition 3 items, and Cognitive Challenges 2 items), these composite coefficients reflect satisfactory internal precision for differentiated research sub-dimensions.

Test-Retest Reliability and Temporal Dynamics

Stability analyses conducted within the longitudinal sample yielded retest reliability estimates of r_tt > .35 across a prolonged multi-month interval across the first and second semesters. In conventional psychometrics evaluating stable traits, a retest correlation in the .35 to .55 range might be considered modest. However, as Bandura (1977, 1997) stressed, self-efficacy is explicitly conceptualized as a dynamic cognitive state that fluctuates in response to real-world mastery experiences, academic feedback, examination outcomes, and environmental adjustments. The moderate longitudinal stability observed over nine months empirically validates the dynamic responsiveness of the construct: self-efficacy appraisals actively reconfigure as students encounter their first formal collegiate grading periods and recalibrate their expectations.

Item Difficulties and Discrimination Parameters

In the normative sample (N = 1,842), the global SESW scale exhibited a mean score of M = 4.02 (SD = 0.55), with slight negative skewness (Sk = -0.50, SE = 0.06) and positive kurtosis (K = 0.52, SE = 0.11). Non-parametric Kolmogorov-Smirnov (D(1842) = .989, p < .01) and Shapiro-Wilk tests (W(1842) = .979, p < .01) confirmed non-normal distribution, a hallmark of screening instruments engineered to differentiate at the lower end of the continuum. Item difficulty indices in the developmental pre-test ranged from p = .72 to .79, reflecting high average agreement. Corrected item-total correlations (item discrimination indices) ranged consistently between r_it = .31 and .49, optimal values for capturing distinct facets of a multifaceted educational transition without redundant item content.

Factor Analysis

The internal structural architecture of the SESW was evaluated through comprehensive confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) conducted in R and IBM SPSS Statistics to test competing structural models.

Hierarchical Higher-Order Factor Model

Based on cognitive processing theory and item generation parameters, a hierarchical structural model was hypothesized and confirmed. The model specifies a single overarching, higher-order general factor—Study Entry Self-Efficacy (Studieneinstiegsselbstwirksamkeit)—at the apex, which accounts for the substantial covariation among three lower-order latent factors:

• Factor 1: Deadlines and Strategies (FuS): Defined by 8 manifest items (Items 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 13), capturing academic self-organization, scheduling, temporal management, and knowledge remediation.
• Factor 2: Motivation and Cognition (MuK): Defined by 3 manifest items (Items 8, 9, and 10), capturing affective persistence during adversity, scholastic knowledge activation, and logical problem-solving.
• Factor 3: Cognitive Challenges (kH): Defined by 2 manifest items (Items 11 and 12), capturing domain-specific methodological mastery and the conceptual comprehension of complex theoretical networks.

Standardized factor loadings across manifest items onto their designated lower-order factors are uniformly substantial and statistically significant, confirming that each item reliably reflects its targeted latent construct. Moreover, the three first-order factors exhibit moderate-to-high latent intercorrelations, justifying the calculation and primary diagnostic use of an unweighted total scale mean score.

Measurement Invariance Across Cohorts

To substantiate that the SESW functions equivalently over time, multi-group confirmatory factor analysis (MGCFA) was executed across the three independent longitudinal freshman cohorts (matriculation years 2016/17, 2017/18, and 2018/19). The analyses formally established measurement invariance across all three academic cohorts, satisfying criteria for configural invariance (equivalent factor structure), metric (weak) invariance (equivalent factor loadings), and scalar (strong) invariance (equivalent item intercepts). Establishing longitudinal scalar invariance confirms that observed mean differences between academic cohorts or assessment points reflect genuine shifts in the underlying psychological trait rather than structural measurement artifacts, thereby fully legitimizing the aggregation of diverse student cohorts for comparative institutional benchmarking.

Instrument / Measurement Tool

The complete specifications of the Study Entry Self-Efficacy Scale (SESW) instrument are detailed below:

• Test Type: Standardized self-report psychological questionnaire / educational screening tool.
• Target Population: First-year undergraduate tertiary students (enrolled in their first or second academic semesters) across all academic disciplines, including research universities (Universitäten) and universities of applied sciences (Fachhochschulen).
• Number of Items: 13 items.
• Factor Structure / Subscales:
  • Fristen und Strategien (FuS; Deadlines and Strategies) – 8 items: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 13
  • Motivation und Kognition (MuK; Motivation and Cognition) – 3 items: 8, 9, 10
  • kognitive Herausforderungen (kH; Cognitive Challenges) – 2 items: 11, 12
• Polarity / Keying: All 13 items are positively poled (+). Higher response values denote stronger study entry self-efficacy; no item reverse-coding is required.
• Response Scale: Authentic 5-point Likert scale:
  • 1 = gar nicht (not at all)
  • 2 = eher nicht (rather not)
  • 3 = teils teils (partly / in-between)
  • 4 = etwas (somewhat)
  • 5 = voll und ganz (completely)
• Administration Mode: Online digital survey or traditional paper-and-pencil questionnaire.
• Administration Time: Highly time-efficient:
  • Online administration: Approximately 1.5 to 3 minutes.
  • Paper-and-pencil administration: Approximately 3 to 5 minutes (including instructional overview).
• Scoring and Index Calculation: For general applied and diagnostic purposes, an overall composite index is formed by calculating the unweighted arithmetic mean across all 13 items. The resulting scale score spans the continuum from [1.00; 5.00]. Subscale scores may be computed for nuanced educational research by averaging the items designated to each respective subscale.
• Handling Missing Data: When isolated items are omitted in large datasets, researchers are advised to determine whether data are Missing Completely at Random (MCAR) and employ modern multiple imputation or full information maximum likelihood (FIML) procedures (Lüdtke et al., 2007; Rubin, 1976). In individual diagnostic screenings, completing all 13 items is strictly recommended.
• Diagnostic Interpretation: The instrument is tailored with elevated discriminatory power at the lower end of the trait spectrum. Individuals scoring significantly below normative benchmark values (e.g., scale scores ≤ 3.00) should be identified as experiencing compromised study entry self-efficacy, triggering proactive academic counseling or targeted institutional mentoring.

Permissions & Fee and Test Year

The Study Entry Self-Efficacy Scale (SESW) was finalized and psychometrically benchmarked following iterative data collection spanning from 2016 through 2018, with formal longitudinal validation and open repository publication established through the ZIS / GESIS platform and the TBS-DTK diagnostic audit. The instrument is dedicated to open science and academic advancement. It is made freely accessible for non-commercial educational, scientific, and higher education institutional research purposes without licensing fees. Institutional researchers, university administrators, and educational psychologists are authorized to implement the SESW within campus surveys, orientation assessments, and academic counseling initiatives, provided that appropriate scholarly attribution is accorded to the original authors and the ZIS repository. Commercial distribution, proprietary repackaging, or incorporation into fee-based assessment software requires explicit prior written consent from the authoring research team.

References

• Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84(2), 191–215. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.84.2.191
• Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Prentice-Hall.
• Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. W. H. Freeman.
• Bargel, T. (2015). Herausforderungen und Schwierigkeiten beim Studieneinstieg. Sonderbericht des Konstanzer Studierendensurveys. Universität Konstanz, AG Hochschulforschung.
• Betz, N. E., & Hackett, G. (2006). Career self-efficacy: Theory and research. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 31(1), 3–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2005.11.002
• Brunswik, E. (1955). Representative design and probabilistic theory in a functional psychology. Psychological Review, 62(3), 193–217. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0047470
• Chemers, M. M., Hu, L. T., & Garcia, B. F. (2001). Academic self-efficacy and first-year college student performance and adjustment. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93(1), 55–64. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.93.1.55
• Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO-PI-R) and NEO Five-Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI) professional manual. Psychological Assessment Resources.
• De Leeuw, E., Hox, J., & Dillman, D. (2012). International handbook of survey methodology. Routledge.
• Ehrlich, C. (2016). Studieneingangsbefragung an der Justus-Liebig-Universität Gießen 2016. Justus-Liebig-Universität Gießen.
• Eid, M., & Schmidt, K. (2014). Testtheorie und Testkonstruktion. Hogrefe Verlag.
• Heublein, U., Ebert, J., Hutzsch, C., Isleib, S., König, R., Richter, J., & Woisch, A. (2017). Zwischen Studienerwartungen und Studienwirklichkeit: Ursachen des Studienabbruchs, beruflicher Verbleib der Studienabbrecherinnen und Studienabbrecher und Entwicklung von Maßnahmen zur Vermeidung von Studienabbruch (Forum Hochschule 1/2017). Deutsches Zentrum für Hochschul- und Wissenschaftsforschung (DZHW).
• Horstmann, N., & Hachmeister, C.-D. (2016). Welche Fähigkeiten und Voraussetzungen sollten Studierende je nach Studienfach mitbringen? Ergebnisse einer Befragung von Professorinnen und Professoren (Arbeitspapier Nr. 195). CHE Centrum für Hochschulentwicklung.
• International Test Commission. (2016). The ITC guidelines for translating and adapting tests (Second edition). https://www.intestcom.org/
• Lüdtke, O., Robitzsch, A., Trautwein, U., & Köller, O. (2007). Umgang mit fehlenden Werten in der psychologischen und erziehungswissenschaftlichen Forschung: Eine Einführung in moderne Verfahren. Psychologische Rundschau, 58(2), 103–117. https://doi.org/10.1026/0033-3042.58.2.103
• OECD. (2016). Education at a glance 2016: OECD indicators. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/eag-2016-en
• OECD. (2017). Education at a glance 2017: OECD indicators. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/eag-2017-en
• OECD. (2018). Education at a glance 2018: OECD indicators. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/eag-2018-en
• Peiffer, H., Scherer, S., & Brünken, R. (2018). Entwicklung und Validierung einer Skala zur Erfassung akademischer Selbstwirksamkeit im Psychologiestudium. Diagnostica, 64(4), 213–224. https://doi.org/10.1026/0012-1924/a000207
• Ramm, M., Multrus, F., Bargel, T., & Schmidt, M. (2014). Studensituation und studentische Orientierungen: 12. Studierendensurvey an Universitäten und Fachhochschulen. Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung (BMBF).
• Rammstedt, B., Kemper, C. J., & Schupp, J. (2011). Standardisierung von Erhebungsinstrumenten in der Umfrageforschung: Überlegungen zu Qualitätsstandards. Methoden, Daten, Analysen, 5(2), 143–158.
• Richardson, M., Abraham, C., & Bond, R. (2012). Psychological correlates of university students’ academic performance: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 138(2), 353–387. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0026838
• Robbins, S. B., Lauver, K., Le, H., Davis, D., Langley, R., & Carlstrom, A. (2004). Do high-school grades and study skills predict college persistence and performance? A meta-analysis of the existing literature. Psychological Bulletin, 130(2), 261–288. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.130.2.261
• Rubin, D. B. (1976). Inference and missing data. Biometrika, 63(3), 581–592. https://doi.org/10.1093/biomet/63.3.581
• Schneider, M., & Preckel, F. (2017). Variables associated with achievement in higher education: A systematic review of meta-analyses. Psychological Bulletin, 143(6), 565–600. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000098
• Schwarzer, R., & Jerusalem, M. (1999). Skalen zur Erfassung von Lehrer- und Schülermerkmalen: Dokumentation der psychometrischen Verfahren im Rahmen der Wissenschaftlichen Begleitung des Modellversuchs Selbstwirksame Schulen. Freie Universität Berlin.
• Statistisches Bundesamt. (2018). Bildung und Kultur. Studierende an Hochschulen (Fachserie 11, Reihe 4.1). Statistisches Bundesamt.
• Trautwein, C., & Bosse, E. (2017). Fächerkulturen und die Bewältigung von Herausforderungen im Studieneinstieg. Zeitschrift für Hochschulentwicklung, 12(1), 113–135. https://doi.org/10.3217/zfhe-12-01/07
• Urdan, T., & Pajares, F. (2006). Self-efficacy beliefs of adolescents. Information Age Publishing.

Items of the Scale