A Psychosociocultural View of Hispanic First-Generation College Students’ Graduation Rates

Abstract

First-generation college students (FGCS), nearly 50% of which identify as Hispanic, are an underserved population. The psychosociocultural theoretical framework posits that individual, environmental, and cultural factors contribute to the academic success of Hispanic students. This study examined the relationship between these factors (i.e., demographics, academic self-efficacy, meeting with professors, and attending cultural programming) to 6-year bachelor’s degree attainment and time to bachelor’s degree attainment among Hispanic students at a Hispanic Serving Institution (n = 358). Being better prepared academically, being female, and having greater academic self-efficacy were positively related to bachelor’s degree attainment; FGCS status was negatively related. Among students who graduated (n = 208), entering college being better prepared academically, and having greater academic self-efficacy were related to quicker bachelor’s degree attainment; FGCS status was not significantly related. Practitioners may pay more attention to Hispanic students’ academic self-efficacy and the success of Hispanic male students.

Keywords

psychosociocultural first-generation college students Hispanic Latino Latinx graduation

Despite steady increases in 4-year college graduation rates over the last 15 years (MacFarland et al., 2018), individuals of Hispanic descent still face considerable environmental and societal obstacles when attempting to obtain their bachelor’s degree.¹ To frame how the current educational pipeline has failed to sufficiently support such students, prior to entering college, only 63 out of 100 Latina/o students will obtain their high school diploma, while only 13 of those students will obtain their bachelor’s degree (Pérez Huber et al., 2015). Of the Hispanic/Latino students who do enroll in college, many are first-generation college students (FGCS), as nearly two-thirds (61%) of Hispanic/Latino youths’ parents have an educational level of high school or less (Balemian & Feng, 2013). FGCS, in general, tend to graduate from college at lower rates than their non-FGCS peers (20% vs. 42% as in Redford et al., 2017; Radunzel, 2021) with some studies from the past few decades showing that Hispanic FGCS, in particular, have experienced the lowest rates of graduation (McCarron & Inkelas, 2006) and retention (Lohfink & Paulsen, 2005) (more recent research on this topic was not found).

Consistent with seminal research (e.g., Nora and Cabrera, 1996), the psychosociocultural (PSC) theoretical framework (Gloria and Rodriguez, 2000) states that the aforementioned statistics may be related to the mismatch between Latino cultural values (e.g., familismo, comunidad, and personalismo), which are collectivistic in nature, and those of American universities, which are individualistic in nature. Given the call for more research on Latino FGCS (Salis Reyes & Nora, 2012), the present study sought to utilize the PSC framework to see which culturally relevant components (i.e., psychological [academic self-efficacy], social [meeting with professors], cultural [attending cultural programming]), when taken together, were related to successful 6-year graduation of Hispanic students at a single Hispanic Serving Institution (HSI),² while examining if they had a unique relationship for Hispanic FGCS, in particular. The present study is the first to utilize the PSC framework to examine graduation rates, use any sort of controls (i.e., prior academic performance and demographic variables), and examine meeting with professors and attending cultural programming variables (both suggested to be important by the framework), thus expanding the empirical knowledge of the framework.

Theoretical Framework

Because of the unique cultural elements that Hispanic students face in the predominantly White culture of the United States, the PSC theoretical framework examines psychological, social, and cultural factors as they relate to the persistence of Hispanic college students rather than focusing solely on cognitive factors, such as grade point average (GPA) or test scores. PSC strives to holistically examine the components present in the university experiences of Hispanic students by focusing on the unique culture-specific challenges that Hispanic students face on college campuses, such as struggles with academic self-efficacy (psychological), receiving mentorship and social support in a personalized way (social) and feeling culturally accepted in the college environment (cultural) (Castellanos & Gloria, 2007; Gloria & Rodriguez, 2000). When these elements are satisfied through culturally consistent avenues, PSC posits “that increased personal well-being will result in improved skills to negotiate the academic context and ultimately persist until graduation” (Castellanos & Gloria, 2007, p. 383).

The PSC framework has been used to examine various college outcomes for groups of Latina/o students, such as academic persistence decisions (Aguinaga & Gloria, 2015), sense of mattering on campus (Dueñas & Gloria, 2017), GPA (Chun et al., 2016), Latina sorority members’ academic persistence decisions (Delgado-Guerrero & Gloria, 2013), and Mexican-American women community college students’ emic well-being (Herrera et al., 2018). In general, prior studies have demonstrated that various psychological (e.g., self-esteem; Herrera et al., 2018), social (e.g., perceived social support; Delgado-Guerrero and Gloria, 2013), and cultural factors (e.g., match between students’ culture and the institution’s culture; Dueñas and Gloria, 2017) are related to the aforementioned college outcomes. Several studies have also demonstrated that the university environment (e.g., feeling valued or comfortable on campus) plays a crucial role in the psychological well-being of Latina/o students on campus (Aguinaga & Gloria, 2015; Delgado-Guerrero & Gloria, 2013; Herrera et al., 2018). The PSC framework has also been used with several other groups of students of color (e.g., Native American, Black, Chinese-American, Hmong), aside from Hispanic students, and has been associated with similar positive results (see Beasley and McClain [2021] for a thorough literature review). However, no PSC study to date has investigated graduation outcomes and only one study has examined Latina/o FGCS (i.e., Dueñas and Gloria, 2017). In that study, it was found that FGCS “reported lower self-esteem, cohesion, belonging, and congruity” (p. 900) than Latina/o non-FGCS.

Hispanic FGCS

During the 2011–2012 academic year, 47.8% of Hispanic college students were FGCS (Skomsvold, 2014). While research on this population is lacking (Salis Reyes & Nora, 2012), the research that does exist on Hispanic FGCS captures their obstacles within the higher education system. For example, McCarron and Inkelas (2006) found that Hispanic FGCS had the lowest college graduation rate (18.8%) 8 years after high school graduation, while Lohfink and Paulsen (2005) found that Hispanic FGCS had the lowest first-to-second-year college persistence rate. Comparing Latino FGCS to Latino non-FGCS, Kouyoumdjian et al. (2017) found that a sample of 114 Latino FGCS and Latino non-FGCS did not differ in their GPAs. However, in a larger sample of 2,499 Hispanic college students, Latino et al. (2020) found that Hispanic FGCS had lower first-year GPAs and first-to-second year persistence rates than their Hispanic non-FGCS peers. Importantly, Latino et al. (2020) also found that Hispanic FGCS who had access to environmental supports, such as accelerated learning in high school or financial aid in college, did indeed have greater academic success than those who did not.

With regard to success, several studies have used qualitative methodologies to examine what has allowed Hispanic FGCS, from their own perspective, to succeed in college (Benmayor, 2002; Gloria & Castellanos, 2012). Consistent with the psychological, social, and cultural domains in PSC theory, the general results suggest that academic self-efficacy, meaningful social relationships, and cultural congruency are beneficial for the college success of this population. For instance, Gloria and Castellanos (2012) found that Latina FGCS reported relying heavily on communal aspects of family and other on-campus social support networks (e.g., peers and faculty members) for coping with their educational attainment. In another study, Benmayor (2002) concluded that “first-generation Mexican-origin students need peers, mentors, and role models for familia on campus, and that they need appropriate structural supports that help them to thrive” (pp. 115–116).

Psychological Dimension: Academic Self-Efficacy

Confidence in one’s academic abilities has been identified as an area that is of particular concern to Hispanic students in higher education (Castellanos & Gloria, 2007). For example, Quintana et al.’s (1991) seminal meta-analysis found that Latino college students reported experiencing greater amounts of academic stress than did their White counterparts. Their academic stress was related to “approaching teachers, taking tests, writing papers, producing the quality of scholarship required by teachers, and failing to meet academic expectations” (p. 161). Similarly, and within the PSC framework, Delgado-Guerrero and Gloria (2013) found that college self-efficacy was significantly related to Latina sorority sisters’ academic persistence decisions and Chun et al. (2016) found academic self-efficacy to be a predictor of GPA for Latina/o college students. In addition, a recent systematic review of the literature (which included 27 studies) concluded that “there is a significant and positive relationship between self-efficacy and academic performance in Latina/o students, at all educational levels, and through different types of measurements of self-efficacy and academic performance” (Manzano-Sanchez et al., 2018, pp. 198–199). However, no studies regarding the academic self-efficacy of Latina/o FGCS were included in the review. In fact, Manzano-Sanchez et al. (2018) have called for research on this factor for this particular population.

While our focus in this study is on Hispanic students, we note that academic self-efficacy has also been found to be positively related to college grades and retention among the overall general population of college students (Robbins et al., 2004), as well as among FGCS (Majer, 2009). Academic self-efficacy has also been shown to be associated with increased intent to persist to degree completion among college students, in general (Zajacova et al., 2005).

Social Dimension: Faculty Mentorship

The PSC framework posits that mentorship is a critical social element for the success of Hispanic college students (Gloria & Rodriguez, 2000). More specifically, Castellanos and Gloria (2007) suggest that regular interactions with faculty mentors can contribute to the academic persistence of Latina/o college students, which is consistent with findings from the literature (Crisp et al., 2015). Specifically, Crisp et al. (2015) found that relationships with professors, in particular, were related to Latina/o students’ grades in college. Similar results for Hispanic FGCS have been found in qualitative research (Benmayor, 2002; Gloria & Castellanos, 2012), but are apparently lacking in terms of quantitative research (Salis Reyes & Nora, 2012).

Cultural Dimension: Cultural Programming on Campus

According to Gloria and Rodriguez (2000), comfort and cultural fit on campus are important factors for Hispanic college students, as well. Hispanic college students and Hispanic FGCS, in particular, often feel that they do not fit in and are not accepted on campus (Benmayor, 2002; Cabrera & Nora, 1994; Gloria & Castellanos, 2003, 2012). Within the PSC theoretical framework, how comfortable one feels on campus was found to predict Latina/o college student academic persistence decisions (Delgado-Guerrero & Gloria, 2013) and was mediated only by an Anglo ethnic orientation, but not a Mexican ethnic orientation (Aguinaga & Gloria, 2015). Similarly, Herrera et al. (2018) found that Mexican-American women students who were the first in their family to graduate from high school felt less comfortable on a community college campus. Castellanos and Gloria (2007) recommended that various types of cultural programming be implemented on campus to create an environment that is culturally inviting. Despite this recommendation, there are no published studies known to the present authors that examine cultural programming from a PSC perspective.

Purpose

The aim of the present study is to use the PSC framework to better understand graduation rates of Hispanic FGCS in a culturally sensitive and holistic fashion. Simultaneously, the present study also adds new literature to the PSC framework by examining previously unstudied variables (i.e., graduation rates, meeting with professors, and attending cultural programming) while adding to research on Hispanic FGCS. Despite their representation in higher education (Skomsvold, 2014), Hispanic FGCS have been identified as an understudied population (Salis Reyes & Nora, 2012). Furthermore, no study that has explicitly used the PSC framework on Hispanic FGCS to date has controlled for prior academic performance or demographic variables, thus strengthening the meaning of results. Three research questions guided this study:

Is being a Hispanic FGCS related to 6-year bachelor’s degree attainment rates?

Is being a Hispanic FGCS related to time to bachelor’s degree attainment?

What factors from the PSC framework (i.e., academic self-efficacy, meeting with professors, or attending cultural programming) are uniquely related to the bachelor’s degree attainment and time to bachelor’s degree attainment for Hispanic FGCS?

After controlling for prior academic achievement and student demographics, both of which have been associated with degree completion (Chen et al., 2019; Radunzel & Noble, 2012, 2013), it was hypothesized that:

Hispanic FGCS would have significantly lower graduation rates and take significantly more time to graduate than Hispanic non-FGCS.

In addition, given that Latina/o FGCS have been shown to have lower levels of academic self-efficacy (Dueñas & Gloria, 2017), it was hypothesized that academic self-efficacy would significantly interact with Hispanic FGCS status to have a greater influence on both bachelor’s degree attainment and time to bachelor’s degree attainment for FGCS than non-FGCS Hispanic students.

No a priori hypotheses were made about the interaction of Hispanic FGCS status with meeting with professors or attending cultural programing, due to lack of previous research.

Methods

Study Sample

The study sample included 685 Hispanic students who had taken the ACT or SAT college admissions tests and had completed the ACT Engage assessment to measure academic behaviors. This represented 82% of the 2012 incoming first-year class. Ninety-two percent of the total incoming class identified as Hispanic. Students identified their race by selecting: “African American,” “American Indian,” “White,” “Hispanic,” “Asian,” “Pacific Islander,” or “two or more races”; this information was supplied by the institution. Of the 685 students, 522 (or 62% of the incoming class) completed an additional survey in February of 2013 about their on-campus resource utilization. Due to missing data on parental education, the final data set for the logistic regression analysis on 6-year bachelor’s degree attainment included 358 students (female = 214 [59.8%], FGCS = 157 [43.9%]). Because only a subset of the 358 students obtained their bachelor’s degree, the final data set for the linear regression analysis on months to bachelor’s degree attainment included 208 students (female = 133 [63.9%], FGCS = 79 [37.9%]). Country of origin for those who identified as Hispanic was not available.

Institutional Context

The institution in this study is an accredited 4-year HSI university located in the southern United States and is in close proximity to Mexico. It enrolls ∼7,500 students, about 6,500 of which are undergraduates. The institution has a current acceptance rate of 51% and had a graduation rate of just under 46% in 2012. Approximately 90% of the institution’s students are Hispanic and ∼80% of students receive need-based financial aid. In recent years, the faculty composition was ∼40% Hispanic. This HSI served as an ideal institution for this study given its larger Hispanic student population.

Outcome Variables

There were two outcome variables of interest in this study that were related to degree attainment. Degree information was obtained by matching student records to National Student Clearinghouse (NSC) data.

Six-Year Bachelor’s Degree Attainment

This was a binary outcome where students were categorized as either having obtained their bachelor’s degree (coded as 1) or as not having obtained their bachelor’s degree within 6 years of enrollment (i.e., from the 2012–2013 academic year through the 2017–2018 academic year) (coded as 0). NSC tracks students across institutions so students may have obtained their bachelor’s degree from a different institution after transferring.

Months to Bachelor’s Degree Attainment

For students who obtained their bachelor’s degree, the number of months it took to earn their bachelor’s degree from their initial enrollment in college was computed.

Predictor Variables

There were multiple variables used to predict the study outcomes.

FGCS Status

For consistency with studies that have used the PSC framework for FGCS (e.g., Aguinaga and Gloria, 2015; Delgado-Guerrero and Gloria, 2013; Dueñas and Gloria, 2017),³ students who were the first in their family to attend college (i.e., students whose parents had not attended any college) were considered as FGCS. Parents’ education level was obtained both from the institution and their ACT record with options being “no college” (coded as 1 for FGCS), “some college,” “bachelor’s degree earned,” or “graduate degree earned” (all coded as 0).

Gender

Gender was included in the models because nationally representative statistics demonstrate that females have higher 6-year bachelor’s degree attainment rates than males (Chen et al., 2019). Gender was obtained from the institution with options being “male” (coded as 0) or “female” (coded as 1), and thus denotes the students’ self-reported biological sex, though students were free to interpret this how they wished.

ACT Composite Score

ACT Composite score was used to control for prior academic achievement. If the student took the SAT instead of the ACT, their SAT score was concorded to an ACT Composite score. Students’ most recent standardized test scores were used from either their junior or senior year in high school. The ACT Composite score is the rounded average of the four subject scores in English, mathematics, reading, and science (ACT, 2019). ACT Composite score was used as a measure of prior academic achievement as it has been shown that students who earn higher ACT and/or SAT scores tend to earn higher grades in college in their first year as well as throughout their college career and return and graduate at higher rates as compared to students with lower test scores, even after statistically controlling for student demographic characteristics (e.g., race/ethnicity and annual family income level) and other academic achievement measures such as high school GPA (HSGPA) (Latino et al., 2020; Sackett et al., 2009, 2012; University of California Academic Senate, 2020; Westrick et al., 2021). HSGPA was not available in the present study.

Academic Self-Confidence

The Academic Self-Confidence scale was used to measure academic self-efficacy. Academic Self-Confidence is one of 10 scales from ACT Engage College (originally called the Student Readiness Inventory), a nonevaluative, low stakes assessment of psychosocial skills and behaviors as they pertain to academic achievement (ACT, 2015). Academic Self-Confidence is defined as “the extent to which a student believes he or she can perform well in school” (Robbins et al., 2006, p. 600). Academic Self-Confidence has been found to be a predictor of GPA and degree completion for college students, in general, in a sample of over 14,371 students (see ACT, 2016, p. 68).

The Academic Self-Confidence scale contains 10 items on a 6-point Likert scale; scores range from 12 to 72. This scale was demonstrated to have high internal consistency reliability (α = .85), a moderate 0 to 2 month test–retest reliability (r = .78), and the norming sample contained 34.9% (or about 50,500) Hispanic/Latino students (ACT, 2016). In the present study, the institution administered ACT Engage to its incoming students between August and October of the 2012–2013 academic year.

Meeting with Professors

One of the resources asked about on the resource utilization survey was whether students met with their professors outside of class. Students could select either “participated in this resource” (coded as 1) or “did not participate in this resource” (coded as 0).

Attending Cultural Programming

On the same resource utilization survey, students reported whether or not they attended cultural programming on campus. Students could select either “participated in this resource” (coded as 1) or “did not participate in this resource” (coded as 0).

Statistical Analysis and Modeling

First, logistic regression modeling was utilized to determine which variables significantly predicted 6-year bachelor’s degree attainment, a dichotomous outcome. Second, linear regression modeling was utilized to determine which variables significantly predicted time to graduation, a continuous outcome. Both the logistic and linear regression models were run with four sequential steps. This was done to introduce the control variables (i.e., ACT Composite score and gender) and the variable of interest (i.e., FGCS status) into the model prior to the PSC variables to examine their incremental contributions to subsequent models.

Regarding the specific steps of the modeling process, step 1 contained the two control variables of gender and ACT Composite score, step 2 added FGCS status, step 3 added the three PSC-specific variables of Academic Self-Confidence, meeting with professors, and attending cultural programming, and step 4 added interaction terms between FGCS status and the three PSC variables. The step 4 model was implemented to answer the third research question. A significance level of .05 was used in this study.

Results

Descriptive statistics and correlations for the predictor variables in this study are presented in Table 1. The average ACT Composite score was 18.9, and the average Academic Self-Confidence score was 54.9. Forty-four percent of the students were FGCS and 60% were females. More than three-fourths (77%) of the students reported meeting with professors outside of class time, but fewer than one-third (30%) reported attending cultural programming activities.

Table 1.

Descriptive Statistics and Correlations of Predictor Variables (n = 358).

Variable		1	2	3	4	5	6	M	SD
1	ACT composite score	–	−.120*	−.159**	.324**	−.138**	−.014	18.92	3.247
2	Gender (female)		–	.002	.061	−.059	−.074	.60	–
3	FGCS			–	−.128*	.085	.087	.44	–
4	Academic self-confidence				–	−.029	.005	54.88	9.072
5	Meeting with professors					–	.142**	.77	–
6	Attending cultural programming						–	.30	–

Note. M = mean; SD = standard deviation; FGCS = first-generation college students..

*p < .05; **p < .01.

Models

Six-Year Bachelor’s Degree Attainment

First, we examined whether there was a difference in overall bachelor’s degree attainment rates between Hispanic FGCS and Hispanic non-FGCS, irrespective of other student characteristics. Based on a simple bivariate chi-square analysis, the results highlighted that Hispanic non-FGCS earned a bachelor’s degree at a significantly higher rate than Hispanic FGCS (64.1% vs. 50.3%; $χ^{2}$ = 6.956, df = 1, p = .008).

Next, we evaluated the modeled results. Table 2 provides the results from the four sequential steps of the logistic regression modeling for 6-year bachelor’s degree attainment. According to the step 1 model, both of the control variables were significantly related to 6-year bachelor’s degree attainment at this institution (i.e., ACT Composite score [OR = 1.13] and gender [female] [OR = 1.68]). That is, holding all other variables constant, for every point increase in ACT Composite score there was a 12.7% increase in the odds of obtaining a bachelor’s degree within 6 years. Additionally, female students had 68.2% greater odds of obtaining their bachelor’s degree within 6 years.

Table 2.

Logistic Regression Results for 6-Year Bachelor's Degree Attainment (n = 358).

Predictor		B	Standard error B	Exp(B)	Wald	$χ^{2}$	df	Nagelkerke R²
Step 1						15.524**	2	.057
	ACT composite score	.120	.036	1.127	11.253**
	Gender (female)	.520	.225	1.682	5.340*
Step 2						4.627*	1	.074
	ACT composite score	.109	.036	1.115	9.076**
	Gender (female)	.517	.226	1.677	5.216*
	FGCS	−.479	.223	.619	4.617*
Step 3						7.628	3	.100
	ACT composite score	.094	.039	1.099	5.982*
	Gender (female)	.489	.231	1.631	4.466*
	FGCS	−.461	.227	.631	4.122*
	Academic self-confidence	.027	.013	1.027	4.193*
	Meeting with professors	.454	.270	1.575	2.836
	Attending cultural programming	−.211	.246	.810	.732
Step 4						1.439	3	.105
	ACT composite score	.094	.039	1.098	5.832*
	Gender (female)	.491	.232	1.634	4.466*
	FGCS	.026	1.477	1.027	.000
	Academic self-confidence	.670	.018	1.026	2.068
	Meeting with professors	.670	.344	1.954	3.801
	Attending cultural programming	−.098	.351	.906	.079
	Academic self-confidence × FGCS	.000	.025	1.000	.000
	Meeting with professors × FGCS	−.560	.543	.571	1.064
	Attending cultural programming × FGCS	−.230	.495	.795	.215

Note. The parameter estimates (B) are unstandardized coefficients. Exp(B) is the exponentiation of the B and represents the odds ratio for completing a bachelor’s degree within 6 years. FGCS = first-generation college students.

*p < .05. **p < .01.

Results from the step 2 model suggest that FGCS students at this institution were significantly less likely than their peers to complete a degree within 6 years (adjusted OR = 0.62), after accounting for prior achievement and gender. According to the step 3 model, only one of the three PSC-specific variables was significantly related to 6-year bachelor’s degree completion: namely Academic Self-Confidence (adjusted OR = 1.03 for every 1 unit increase). Meeting with professors approached significance at the .05 level (p = .051; adjusted OR = 1.58), but attending cultural programming was not significantly related to 6-year degree completion. Even after statistically controlling for the PSC-specific variables and the two control variables, FGCS status was negatively related to completing a degree within 6 years (adjusted OR = 0.63). Moreover, the results from the step 4 model indicate that none of the PSC variables significantly interacted with FGCS status. This finding suggests that the effects of the three PSC predictors on 6-year degree completion did not differ by FGCS status, and therefore these predictors were not uniquely related to bachelor’s degree attainment for Hispanic FGCS. At step four, the model accounted for 10.5% of the variance in predicting 6-year bachelor’s degree attainment rates amongst Hispanic college students in this study (Nagelkerke R² = .105). The percentage of variation explained by the model is consistent with that reported in other studies for degree completion models that incorporated pre-college academic and demographic characteristics (e.g., Radunzel et al., 2016; Radunzel & Mattern, 2020).⁴

Months to Bachelor’s Degree Attainment

Of the 358 Hispanic students included in the study sample, 208 completed a bachelor’s degree within 6 years and were analyzed using sequential linear regression models to examine factors associated with months to bachelor’s degree attainment (n = 208, female = 133, FGCS = 79). Globally, the average number of months to graduation was 51.33 (∼4 years and 3 months) with a standard deviation of 7.29. Based on the modeled results as shown in Table 3, all of the significant variables were associated with reductions in the number of months to bachelor’s degree attainment.

Table 3.

Linear Regression Results for Number of Months to Bachelor's Degree Attainment (n = 208).

Predictor		B	Standard error B	β	t	Adjusted R²	R² change	F change	df1, df2
Step 1						.048	.057	6.199**	2, 205
	ACT composite score	−.475	.149	−.218	−3.187**
	Gender (female)	−2.018	1.039	−.133	−1.943
Step 2						.056	.012	2.682	1, 204
	ACT composite score	−.511	.150	−.235	−3.408**
	Gender (female)	−1.968	1.035	−.130	−1.901
	FGCS	−1.679	1.025	−.112	−1.638
Step 3						.108	.064	4.983**	3, 201
	ACT composite score	−.331	.153	−.152	−2.160*
	Gender (female)	−1.901	1.009	−.125	−1.885
	FGCS	−1.887	1.000	−.126	−1.886
	Academic self-confidence	−.211	.056	−.262	−3.777**
	Meeting with professors	.540	1.180	.031	.458
	Attending cultural programming	−.365	1.089	−.023	−.335
Step 4						.113	.018	1.373	3, 198
	ACT composite score	−.311	.153	−.143	−2.026*
	Gender (female)	−2.074	1.014	−.137	−2.046*
	FGCS	−12.970	6.491	−.865	−1.998*
	Academic self-confidence	−.271	.074	−.336	−3.642**
	Meeting with professors	−.736	1.478	−.042	−.498
	Attending cultural programming	−.432	1.397	−.027	−.309
	Academic self-confidence × FGCS	.144	.108	.541	1.327
	Meeting with professors × FGCS	3.911	2.471	.247	1.583
	Attending cultural programming × FGCS	−.001	2.216	.000	.000

Note. The parameter estimates (B) are unstandardized coefficients. FGCS = first-generation college students.

*p < .05. **p < .01.

According to the step 1 model, students entering college better prepared academically as measured by the ACT Composite score took a shorter time to complete a degree. More specifically, for every 1 point increase in ACT Composite score, the number of months to degree completion was reduced by 0.48 months (or about 2 weeks). Females were estimated to complete a degree in a similar number of months as males; this result was not statistically significant in step 3. Surprisingly, and contrary to the hypothesis, the number of months that FGCS students were estimated to complete a degree was similar to their peers as this result was not statistically significant in step 2 or 3 models.

According to the step 3 model, Academic Self-Confidence was the only PSC-specific variable that was significantly related to time to degree completion. These results suggested that students exhibiting greater Academic Self-Confidence took a shorter time to earn a degree (by 0.2 months for every 1 point increase in Academic Self-Confidence). Meeting with professors and attending cultural programming events were not significantly related to this outcome. As shown in the step 4 model, none of the PSC variables significantly interacted with FGCS status on time to degree completion. Overall, the step 4 model accounted for ∼11% of the variance in the number of months to degree completion in this study.

Discussion

This application of the PSC theoretical framework is the first study to examine the relationship of PSC variables to graduation rates amongst Hispanic college students (previous studies have looked at more immediate outcomes such as academic persistence decisions). The results provided support for the usefulness of the PSC framework in predicting graduation outcomes for Hispanic college students, particularly in the area of academic self-efficacy. In particular, in step 3 of the sequential logistic regression models (see Table 2), results indicated that every point increase in academic self-efficacy was associated with a 2.7% increase in the odds of obtaining a bachelor’s degree (holding all other variables constant). In addition, holding all other variables constant, results suggest that every point increase in academic self-efficacy was found to be related to almost a quarter of a month decrease in months to bachelor’s degree attainment (see Table 3). Even after accounting for gender and ACT Composite score, academic self-efficacy as measured in the first semester of college was found to be significantly related to increased bachelor’s degree attainment and a shorter time needed to obtain that particular degree. Other PSC variables in the models (i.e., meeting with professors or attending cultural programming) were not significant. To date, it does not appear that any study applying the PSC framework has used key control predictors in their analyses (such as gender or academic achievement) as was done in the present study, thus strengthening the present results.

We also examined the role that being a Hispanic FGCS played in degree outcomes. It was hypothesized that Hispanic FGCS would have lower 6-year bachelor’s degree attainment rates, which was supported by the data, even after statistically controlling for prior achievement, gender, and the three PSC variables evaluated in this study. As mentioned in the prior paragraph, the only PSC-related variable measured in the first year that was significantly associated with 6-year bachelor’s degree completion was academic self-efficacy. Regarding non-PSC variables, gender and ACT Composite score were also significantly related. These results highlight the importance of prior academic success and academic self-efficacy for college-going students of Hispanic descent, as well as the importance of paying further attention to Hispanic males and/or examining the strengths inherent in the academic approach of Hispanic females. The present results are also consistent with findings of a systematic review of the literature that also identified precollege performance (i.e., HSGPA, ACT Composite score, or SAT score) and being a female as positively related to academic outcomes for Latina/o college students (Crisp et al., 2015). Contrary to the hypothesis that Hispanic FGCS status would interact with academic self-efficacy on degree completion, none of the FGCS–PSC interactions in the model were significant. Finally, though we did find that Hispanic FGCS were less likely to graduate in 6 years than their Hispanic non-FGCS peers, this study found that once ACT Composite score, gender, and academic self-efficacy were accounted for, those Hispanic FGCS who did graduate were estimated to take a similar amount of time to graduate (in months) as compared to their peers (see steps 2 and 3 in Table 3).

Implications

The results of this study have potential implications for educators, counselors, administrators, and researchers. Specifically, PSC characteristics, such as academic self-efficacy as observed in the present study, appear to be important to the college success of Hispanic college students. For the current sample, academic self-efficacy was measured during students’ first semester of college and was found to be predictive of bachelor’s degree attainment up to 6 years later. This was also true for time to degree completion. These results suggest that the curriculum should be designed to incrementally foster Hispanic students’ academic self-efficacy and that it should be regularly assessed, either through standardized assessment or by educators when they meet with students on an individual basis. Furthermore, college counselors can work with Hispanic students to help them examine their beliefs around their academic capabilities and explore how this can be questioned or modified to help them achieve the success they wish for. Gloria and Rodriguez’s (2000) original PSC paper on the matter provides a culturally competent blueprint for this. In addition, as academic self-efficacy has been previously found to be related to similar outcomes for the general college population (Majer, 2009; Robbins et al., 2004; Zajacova et al., 2005), these results might have some application with all students, though further investigation is warranted.

An additional implication for educators, counselors, and administrators is that special attention should be dedicated to Hispanic males to ensure their academic success, as well. In this study, Hispanic females were significantly more likely to obtain their bachelor’s degree, indicating that additional resources may be useful for drawing out Hispanic males’ academic capabilities. Promising programs, such as Project Mentoring to Achieve Latino Educational Success (Project MALES) at the University of Texas at Austin (Sáenz et al., 2015), may provide a useful blueprint for work with this population. In a therapeutic setting, college counselors can work with Hispanic male students to help them examine the role that masculinity and cultural/societal expectations may play in their level of academic success.

For researchers, additional use of the PSC framework is warranted based on the results of the present study, given the significant results of academic self-confidence both in 6-year bachelor’s degree attainment rates and time (in months) to graduation (see Tables 2 and 3). Future students can contribute to the research of PSC by continuing to examine the theory in terms of real-world outcomes, such as graduation rates in the present study. Also, researchers can examine the limitations section of the present article for ideas as to how other PSC variables (such as mentoring or cultural programming) might be operationalized differently to further examine whether they play a contributory role in academic outcomes.

Limitations

This study has several limitations. First, the results in this analysis are correlational and are not causal in nature. Future studies that are able to demonstrate causality would contribute to knowledge on Hispanic FGCS as well as the PSC theoretical framework. Second, this study was done at a single HSI, limiting the generalizability of the results. Third, there may have been limitations with the form of measurement used for the PSC variables of meeting with professors and attending cultural programming, neither of which were significant in either of the overall models. For future studies, a frequency of how often students utilized these services may be a form of measurement that is more sensitive to variations in student behavior, as opposed to the dichotomous-type measurement (i.e., a flag of “yes” or “no”) of the present study. Furthermore, utilizing a psychological construct that is able to capture intimacy and comfort within the mentoring relationship (as with meeting with professors) or cultural comfort and congruity (as with attending cultural programming) may more accurately mirror Latina/o culture and PSC theory (Castellanos & Gloria, 2007) and might be considered as a form of measurement in future studies. Fourth, students were only identified as Hispanic in the present study, failing to capture the unique variability found in the academic achievement of individuals of differing Latin American backgrounds (de Brey et al., 2019). Fifth, gender was measured as a binary variable in the present study, limiting the possibility of uncovering additional gender-related relationships with bachelor’s degree attainment.

Conclusion

Overall, the results of this study suggest that pre-college characteristics and PSC factors are related to the success of Hispanic college students at the single HSI analyzed in the present study. Specifically, ACT Composite score, being a female, and academic self-efficacy were significant predictors of 6-year bachelor’s degree attainment, while ACT Composite score and academic self-efficacy were significantly related to shorter times to bachelor’s degree attainment. As there were no significant interaction terms, it appears these variables may be relevant to Hispanic students at this institution, in general, rather than Hispanic FGCS, in particular. In terms of generalization on a broader scale, institutions that are similar in their student composition and mission may find the results from this study useful for helping to inform their retention and student success initiatives and strategies as they are generally consistent with systematic reviews of the literature on Latina/o college students (Crisp et al., 2015; Manzano-Sanchez et al., 2018). In terms of application, the results imply that practitioners should address PSC factors, such as academic self-efficacy, as well as demographic and pre-college factors, such as gender (males had lower 6-year completion rates) and academic preparedness, with students of Hispanic backgrounds. Lastly, this study provided important contributions to the PSC theoretical framework by being the first to examine the theory with graduation outcomes and controls (i.e., prior academic performance and demographics).

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

Christian A. Latino

Notes

Author Biographies

Christian A. Latino, PhD, is a licensed psychologist conducting psychotherapy in private practice in Davis, CA.

Justine Radunzel, PhD, is the Statistical Consulting Center Coordinator at the University of Northern Iowa.

Jason D. Way, PhD, is a senior research psychologist at ACT, Inc. in Iowa City, IA.

Edgar Sanchez, PhD, is a lead research scientist at ACT, Inc. in Iowa City, IA.

Alex Casillas, PhD, is a principal research psychologist at ACT, Inc. in Iowa City, IA.

Saba Rasheed Ali, PhD, is associate dean for research, and professor and program chair of Counseling Psychology at the University of Iowa.

D. Martin Kivlighan III is an associate professor in Counseling Psychology at the University of Iowa.

References

ACT (2015). ACT engage user guide. https://www.act.org/content/dam/act/unsecured/documents/ACT-Engage-user-guide.pdf

ACT (2016). Development and validation of ACT engage: Technical manual. https://www.act.org/content/dam/act/unsecured/documents/act-engage-technical-manual.pdf

ACT (2019). ACT technical manual. http://www.act.org/content/dam/act/unsecured/documents/ACT_Technical_Manual.pdf

Aguinaga

Gloria

A. M.

(2015). The effects of generational status and university environment on Latina/o undergraduates’ persistence decisions. Journal of Diversity in Higher Education, 8(1), 15–29. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0038465

Balemian

Feng

(2013, July 18–21). First generation students: College aspirations, preparedness and challenges [Conference session]. College Board AP Annual Conference, Las Vegas, NV, USA. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED563393.pdf

Beasley

S. T.

McClain

(2021). Examining psychosociocultural influences as predictors of Black college students’ academic self-concept and achievement. Journal of Black Psychology, 47(2–3), 118–150. https://doi.org/10.1177/0095798420979794

Benmayor

(2002). Narrating cultural citizenship: Oral histories of first-generation college students of Mexican origin. Social Justice, 29(4), 96–121.

Cabrera

A. F.

Nora

(1994). College students’ perceptions of prejudice and discrimination and their feelings of alienation: A construct validation approach. The Review of Education/Pedagogy/Cultural Studies, 16(3–4), 387–409. https://doi.org/10.1080/1071441940160310

Castellanos

Gloria

A. M.

(2007). Research considerations and theoretical application for best practices in higher education: Latina/os achieving success. Journal of Hispanic Higher Education, 6(378), 378–396. https://doi.org/10.1177/1538192707305347

10.

Chen

Elliott

B. G.

Kinney

S. K.

Cooney

Pretlow

Bryan

Ramirez

N. A.

Campbell

(2019). Persistence, retention, and attainment of 2011–12 first-time beginning postsecondary students as of Spring 2017. First look (NCES 2019-401). U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. https://nces.ed.gov/pubs2019/2019401.pdf

11.

Chun

Marin

M. R.

Schwartz

J. P.

Pham

Castro-Olivo

S. M.

(2016). Psychosociocultural structural model of college success among Latina/o students in Hispanic-serving institutions. Journal of Diversity in Higher Education, 9(4), 385–400. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0039881

12.

Crisp

Taggart

Nora

(2015). Undergraduate Latina/o students: A systematic review of research identifying factors contributing to academic success outcomes. Review of Educational Research, 85(2), 249–274. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654314551064

13.

de Brey

Musu

McFarland

Wilkinson-Flicker

Diliberti

Zhang

Branstetter

Wang

(2019). Status and trends in the education of racial and ethnic groups 2018 (NCES 2019-038). U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. https://nces.ed.gov/pubs2019/2019038.pdf

14.

Delgado-Guerrero

Gloria

A. M.

(2013). La importancia de la hermandad Latina: Examining the psychosociocultural influences of Latina-based sororities on academic persistence decisions. Journal of College Student Development, 54(4), 361–378. https://doi.org/10.1353/csd.2013.0067

15.

Dueñas

Gloria

A. M.

(2017). ¿Pertenezco a esta universidad?: The mediating role of belonging for collective self-esteem and mattering for Latin@undergraduates. Journal of College Student Development, 58(6), 891–906. https://doi.org/10.1353/csd.2017.0070

16.

Gloria

A. M.

Castellanos

(2003). Latina/o and African American students at predominantly White institutions: A psychosociocultural perspective of cultural congruity, campus climate, and academic persistence. In Castellanos

Jones

(Eds.), The majority in the minority: Expanding representation of Latino/a faculty, administrators and students in higher education (pp. 71–94). Stylus.

17.

Gloria

A. M.

Castellanos

(2012). Desafíos y bendiciones: A multiperspective examination of the educational experiences and coping responses of first-generation Latina college students. Journal of Hispanic Higher Education, 11(1), 82–99. https://doi.org/10.1177/1538192711430382

18.

Gloria

A. M.

Rodriguez

E. R.

(2000). Counseling Latino university students: Psychosociocultural issues for consideration. Journal of Counseling and Development, 78(2), 145–154. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1556-6676.2000.tb02572.x

19.

Herrera

Gloria

A. M.

Castellanos

(2018). The role of perceived educational environment and high school generation on Mexican American female community college students’ emic well-being. Journal of Diversity in Higher Education, 11(3), 254–267. https://doi.org/10.1037/dhe0000056

20.

Kouyoumdjian

Guzman

B. L.

Garcia

N. M.

Talavera-Bustillos

(2017). A community cultural wealth examination of sources of support and challenges among Latino first- and second-generation college students at a Hispanic serving institution. Journal of Hispanic Higher Education, 16(1), 61–76. https://doi.org/10.1177/1538192715619995

21.

Latino

C. A.

Stegmann

Radunzel

Way

J. D.

Sanchez

Casillas

(2020). Reducing gaps in first-year outcomes between Hispanic first-generation college students and their peers: The role of accelerated learning and financial aid. Journal of College Student Retention: Research, Theory and Practice, 22(3), 441–463. https://doi.org/10.1177/1521025118768055

22.

Lohfink

M. M.

Paulsen

M. B.

(2005). Comparing the determinants of persistence for first-generation and continuing-generation students. Journal of College Student Development, 46(4), 409–428. https://doi.org/10.1353/csd.2005.0040

23.

MacFarland

Hussar

Wang

Zhang

Wang

Rathbun

Barmer

Forrest Cataldi

Bullock Mann

(2018). The condition of education 2018 (NCES 2018-144). U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. https://nces.ed.gov/pubs2018/2018144.pdf

24.

Majer

J. M.

(2009). Self-efficacy and academic success among ethnically diverse first-generation community college students. Journal of Diversity in Higher Education, 2(4), 243–250. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0017852

25.

Manzano-Sanchez

Outley

Gonzalez

J. E.

Matarrita-Cascante

(2018). The influence of self-efficacy beliefs in the academic performance of Latina/o students in the United States: A systematic literature review. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 40(2), 176–209. https://doi.org/10.1177/0739986318761323

26.

McCarron

G. P.

Inkelas

K. K.

(2006). The gap between educational aspirations and attainment for first-generation college students and the role of parental involvement. Journal of College Student Development, 47(5), 534–549. https://doi.org/10.1353/csd.2006.0059

27.

Nora

Cabrera

A. F.

(1996). The role of perceptions of prejudice and discrimination on the adjustment of minority students to college. The Journal of Higher Education, 67(2), 119–148. 10.1080/00221546.1996.11780253

28.

Pérez Huber

Malagón

M. C.

Ramirez

B. R.

Camargo Gonzalez

Jimenez

Vélez

V. N.

(2015). Still falling through the cracks: Revisiting the Latina/o education pipeline (CSRC Research Report No. 19). UCLA Chicano Studies Research Center.

29.

Quintana

S. M.

Vogel

M. C.

Ybarra

V. C.

(1991). Meta-analysis of Latino students’ adjustment in higher education. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 13(2), 155–168. 10.1177/07399863910132003

30.

Radunzel

(2021). Examining retention and transfer in relation to incoming student data for first-generation and continuing-generation students: What differences exist? Journal of College Student Retention: Research, Theory & Practice, 23(2), 214–242. https://doi.org/10.1177/1521025118813516

31.

Radunzel

Mattern

(2020). Predicting students’ chances of completing a degree: How does superscoring compare to other scoring methods when applicants retest? (ACT working paper 2020 [01]). ACT, Inc.

32.

Radunzel

Mattern

Westrick

(2016). The role of academic preparation and interests on STEM success (ACT research report series 2016 [8]). ACT, Inc.

33.

Radunzel

Noble

(2012). Predicting long-term college success through degree completion using ACT Composite score, ACT benchmarks, and high school grade point average (ACT research report series 2012 [5]). ACT, Inc.

34.

Radunzel

Noble

(2013). Differential effects on student demographic groups of using ACT College Readiness Assessment Composite score, ACT benchmarks, and high school grade point average for predicting long-term college success through degree completion (ACT research report series 2013[5]). ACT, Inc.

35.

Redford

Ralph

Hoyer

K. M.

(2017). First-generation and continuing-generation college students: A comparison of high school and postsecondary experiences (NCES 2018-009). U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. https://nces.ed.gov/pubs2018/2018009.pdf

36.

Robbins

S. B.

Allen

Casillas

Peterson

C. H.

(2006). Unraveling the differential effects of motivational and skills, social, and self-management measures from traditional predictors of college outcomes. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98(3), 598–616. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.98.3.598

37.

Robbins

S. B.

Lauver

Davis

Langley

Carlstrom

(2004). Do psychosocial and study skill factors predict college outcomes? A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 130(2), 261–288. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.130.2.261

38.

Sackett

P. R.

Kuncel

N. R.

Arneson

J. J.

Cooper

S. R.

Waters

S. D.

(2009). Does socioeconomic status explain the relationship between admission tests and post-secondary academic performance? Psychological Bulletin, 135(1), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0013978

39.

Sackett

P. R.

Kuncel

N. R.

Beatty

A. S.

Rigdon

J. L.

Shen

Kiger

T. B.

(2012). The role of socioeconomic status in SAT-grade relationships and in college admissions decisions. Psychological Science, 23(9), 1000–1007. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797612438732

40.

Sáenz

V. B.

Ponjuan

Segovia

Del Real Viramontes

(2015). Developing a Latino mentoring Program: Project MALES (Mentoring to Achieve Latino Educational Success). In Turner

(Ed.), New directions for higher education, mentoring as transformative practice: Supporting student and faculty diversity (pp. 75–85). Jossey-Bass. https://doi.org/10.1002/he.20144

41.

Salis Reyes

N. A.

Nora

(2012). Lost among the data: A review of Latino first generation college students. Hispanic Association of Colleges and Universities. https://www.hacu.net/images/hacu/OPAI/H3ERC/2012_papers/Reyes%20nora%20-%20rev%20of%201st%20gen%20latino%20college%20students%20-%202012.pdf

42.

Santiago

(2006). Inventing Hispanic-Serving Institutions (HSIs): The basics. Excelencia in Education.

43.

Skomsvold

(2014). Web tables—Profile of undergraduate students: 2011–12 (NCES 2015-167). U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. https://nces.ed.gov/pubs2015/2015167.pdf

44.

University of California Academic Senate (2020). Report of the UC Academic Council Standardized Testing Task Force (STTF). https://senate.universityofcalifornia.edu/_files/underreview/sttf-report.pdf

45.

Westrick

P. A.

Schmidt

F. L.

Robbins

S. B.

Radunzel

J. M. R.

(2021). The road to retention passes through first year academic performance: A meta-analytic path analysis of academic performance and persistence. Educational Assessment, 26(1), 35–51. https://doi.org/10.1080/10627197.2020.1848423

46.

Zajacova

Lynch

S. M.

Espenshade

T. J.

(2005). Self-efficacy, stress, and academic success in college. Research in Higher Education, 46(6), 677–708. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11162-004-4139-z