Exploring Academic Identity,Degree Commitment,and Life Purpose in First-Time Full-Time College Students: A Six-Year Degree Attainment Study (2017

Abstract

This study examined the role of academic identity, degree commitment, and sense of purpose, self-reported at the start of university, in students’ progress toward obtaining a degree over 6 years. First-time, full-time freshman students (N = 421, response rate of 21.1%) at a public university in the southwestern United States, designated as a Hispanic Serving Institution and an Asian American and Native American Pacific Islander Serving Institution, completed self-reported measures in Fall 2017. Their degree attainment, retention, and grade point average (GPA) were tracked until Spring 2023. Findings showed that academic identity significantly predicted 4-year degree attainment and cumulative GPA in the first 3 years. Degree commitment significantly predicted degree attainment within 4 and 5 years, retention into the third through sixth years, and cumulative GPA in the first 3 years. Altruistic purpose significantly predicted second-year retention and cumulative GPA at the end of the first year. These findings highlight the need for programs that support college student retention and success by strengthening their academic identity, degree commitment, and sense of purpose, especially altruistic purpose.

Keywords

academic identity degree commitment persistence retention graduation purpose in life life purpose altruistic purpose academic performance

Understanding the factors that contribute to students’ college degree attainment is paramount for promoting higher education outcomes linked with students’ success and wellbeing. Research has consistently shown that degree attainment is associated with various positive outcomes for college students. For example, studies have found that individuals with higher levels of education tend to have better employment prospects, especially within high-skill careers, higher earnings across major occupations, and lower rates of unemployment, along with greater job stability (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2021; Carnevale et al., 2016; Oreopoulos & Petronijevic, 2013). Moreover, throughout an individual's lifetime, those with a college degree earn significantly more than those with only a high school diploma, making a college degree the most important economic asset for succeeding in the labor market (Carnevale et al., 2016).

Additionally, degree attainment is linked to improved health outcomes, including lower rates of chronic diseases, higher levels of overall wellbeing, better health, and increased life expectancy (Cutler & Lleras-Muney, 2010; Zajacova & Lawrence, 2018). Furthermore, earning a college degree is often associated with greater levels of social mobility and economic opportunity, providing individuals with the skills and credentials necessary to not only succeed in today's competitive job market but also experience good health, family stability, social connections, and a greater sense of fulfillment (Baum et al., 2013; Hout, 2012). Additionally, people with higher education report higher levels of eudaimonic and hedonic wellbeing, indicating greater life meaning and positive emotions alongside fewer negative emotions; they also express satisfaction with most life domains (Nikolaev, 2018).

Therefore, examining the factors that influence students’ degree attainment is essential for promoting their long-term success and wellbeing. Previous research has highlighted the positive role of academic identity and degree commitment in contributing to first-year students’ academic success and retention (Yukhymenko-Lescroart & Sharma, 2023) as well as the significance of sense of purpose in promoting college retention and degree completion (Sharma et al., 2021, 2023). The objective of this study was to explore the extent to which self-reported academic identity, degree commitment, and sense of purpose—measured at the beginning of their university journey for first-time, full-time freshman students enrolled in Fall 2017 at a public university in the southwestern United States designated as a Hispanic Serving Institution and an Asian American and Native American Pacific Islander Serving Institution—were related to their progress toward obtaining a degree over a 6-year period, extending through Spring 2023.

Literature Review

The cost-benefit parameters that prospective students face can make the decision to pursue college complex (Oreopoulos & Petronijevic, 2013). Moreover, after starting college, there are numerous internal and situational factors that can hinder students from successfully attaining their degree. Understanding the factors that contribute to the retention and success of college students is essential for institutions of higher education striving to support student persistence and achievement. A substantial body of research has highlighted the significance of academic commitments, such as academic identity and degree commitment, in shaping students’ experiences and outcomes in college. In light of the critical role that academic commitments play in student retention and the importance of fostering purpose in student development, this literature review aims to explore the conceptualizations and relationships between academic identity, degree commitment, life purpose, and college students’ retention.

Academic Identity

Academic identity reflects the importance and value that students place on academic pursuits and is characterized by the centrality of being a student to one's sense of self (Yukhymenko-Lescroart & Sharma, 2023). Yukhymenko-Lescroart (2014) introduced the concept of academic identity among student-athletes, explaining that academic identity pertains to the centrality of being a student, while athletic identity emphasizes the centrality of being an athlete to one's self-concept. Research has highlighted the central role of academic identity as a significant predictor of academic success, persistence, and degree attainment in higher education (Yukhymenko-Lescroart & Sharma, 2023).

Studies have shown that college students with a strong sense of academic identity are more likely to set ambitious academic goals, experience higher levels of academic self-efficacy, demonstrate self-determined motivation, as well as persist and cope effectively with academic stressors and setbacks that naturally arise on the path to degree attainment (e.g., Anctil et al., 2008; Brown et al., 2014; Komarraju & Dial, 2014; Yukhymenko-Lescroart, 2014). These studies underscore the critical role of academic identity in promoting degree attainment and protecting students against academic disengagement and attrition.

Degree Commitment

Degree commitment is defined as the value students place on earning their college degree, including their intention and estimated likelihood of achieving it (Davidson et al., 2015). It encompasses students’ resolve and dedication to completing their college education (Davidson et al., 2015).

Life Purpose

Life purpose is conceptualized as the underlying intention behind achieving significant personal goals that, when fulfilled, can lead to positive change in one's life and in society (Sharma & Yukhymenko-Lescroart, 2022). Theorists of college persistence and retention, such as Tinto (1993), have emphasized that these underlying intentions directly influence students’ academic integration and their decision to persist or withdraw from college. Research has shown that life purpose plays a crucial role in college persistence, degree commitment, and retention (Hill et al., 2016). For example, a study with college students found that those with a stronger sense of purpose, particularly an altruistic purpose, reported greater degree commitment (Sharma & Yukhymenko-Lescroart, 2018).

Furthermore, research among first-time, full-time freshman students has identified sense of purpose as a positive predictor of academic commitments (Yukhymenko-Lescroart & Sharma, 2023). Specifically, students with an altruistic sense of purpose demonstrated stronger academic identity and degree commitment. Additionally, those who actively engaged in reflecting upon, awakening, and strengthening their sense of purpose showed higher levels of degree and institutional commitment. Collectively, these findings suggest that when students clarify their life's purpose and resolve to effect positive change, they are more likely to develop a robust academic identity and degree commitment, which in turn enhances their progress toward achieving a college degree (Yukhymenko-Lescroart & Sharma, 2023).

Purpose of the Study

In summary, students’ academic commitments, such as academic identity and degree commitment, are crucial for college student retention (e.g., Yukhymenko-Lescroart & Sharma, 2023). However, there is a gap in research concerning the relationship between these academic commitments and life purpose in relation to actual degree completion. This study aimed to explore how academic identity, degree commitment, and life purpose impact degree completion, retention, and academic performance among first-time, full-time college students. The findings have the potential to inform institutional practices and interventions designed to enhance student retention and success. By deepening our understanding of the connections between academic commitments, life purpose, and student retention, institutional leaders can develop targeted strategies to support students’ academic and personal development. Additionally, the results may contribute to the broader literature on student retention and offer valuable insights for policymakers and practitioners seeking to improve educational outcomes for college students.

Method

Participants

A random sample of 2,000 university students who enrolled full-time as first-time freshman students in Fall 2017 at a public university in the southwestern United States, designated as both Hispanic Serving Institution and an Asian American and Native American Pacific Islander Serving Institution, were invited to participate in the study. Based on voluntary responses, participants were 421 university students (311 female and 110 male). The race/ethnic composition was as follows: 55.1% Hispanic/Latinx, 20% Asian, 16.6% White, 3.6% Black, and others. Among them, 127 declared a BA degree, 261 declared a BS degree, one declared a BFA degree, and 32 had undeclared majors.

Measures

Academic Identity

The academic identity subscale of the Academic and Athletic Identity Scale (AAIS, Yukhymenko-Lescroart, 2014) consisted of five items, measuring the centrality of being a student on a seven-point scale. Students were asked to indicate how central each item was to their sense of self on a scale ranging from 1 = not central to 7 = the central core. An example of an academic identity item is “being a capable student.” This scale was developed and validated for the use with university students in the United States. It has shown to be valid with reliability estimates of .92 to .93 (Yukhymenko-Lescroart, 2014, study 1, study 2).

Degree Commitment

The Degree Commitment Scale (Davidson et al., 2015, study 2) consisted of three items with response options utilizing a five-point scale. An example of a degree commitment item is “At this moment in time, how strong would you say your commitment is to earning a college degree, here or elsewhere?” with response options ranging from 1 = very weak to 5 = very strong. This scale has been shown to be valid for measuring degree commitment with reliability estimate reported by Davidson et al. (2015) being .76.

Sense of Purpose in Life

The Revised Sense of Purpose Scale (SOPS-2, Sharma & Yukhymenko-Lescroart, 2019; Yukhymenko-Lescroart & Sharma, 2020) consisted of 14 items, designed to measure awakening to purpose, awareness of purpose, and altruistic purpose dimensions responded to on a seven-point agreement scale. This scale has been extensively used in studies with university students and adults and has been shown to be a valid and reliable measure of three dimensions of sense of purpose in life: awakening to purpose (four items), awareness of purpose (five items), and altruistic purpose (five items). An example of an awakening to purpose item is “I am gaining clarity about my life's purpose.” An example of an awareness to purpose item is “My purpose in life is clear.” An example of an altruistic purpose item is “I seek to serve society in many ways, large and small.” Students were asked to read each item and indicate their agreement using a scale ranging from 1 = strongly disagree to 7 = strongly agree. This scale has been validated with university students (Sharma & Yukhymenko-Lescroart, 2019) and adults (Yukhymenko-Lescroart & Sharma, 2020), with reliability coefficients being .87 for awakening to purpose, 94 for awareness of purpose, and .88 for altruistic purpose in a sample of college students (Sharma & Yukhymenko-Lescroart, 2019).

Degree Attainment

Measures of degree attainment were obtained from the Office of Institutional Effectiveness in summer 2023 and included degree completion, retention, and grade point average (GPA) by semester from the point of students’ enrollment in Fall 2017 to Spring 2023.

Procedure

Research ethics approval was obtained according to the university's policies and procedure for research with human subjects. Students were invited to complete self-reported measures in Fall 2017. Specifically, a total of 2,000 first-time full-time freshman students, randomly selected by the Office of Institutional Effectiveness, were invited to participate in the study via email. The survey, hosted on Qualtrics, was administered in early September 2017. After the initial invitation, two reminder emails were sent to nonrespondents, and data collection concluded within a month. Participants completed the survey at their convenience, and their confidentiality was strictly maintained throughout the study. No incentives were offered for participation. The response rate was 21.1%, and all participants who provided responses also provided informed consent for participation in the study. Then, degree attainment data were obtained from the Office of Institutional Effectiveness 6 years later, in summer 2023. These records were matched with the original survey responses using SPSS, ensuring the confidentiality of participants’ identities. All scales were administered in English, the participants’ native language and the language in which the scales were originally developed and validated.

Data Analysis

Data were analyzed using Mplus 8.9 (Muthén & Muthén, 2012–2023) with structural equation modeling employing the Bayesian estimation method as the primary analysis technique. Main analyses utilized all available data, with sensitivity analysis performed using full data (listwise deletion).

First, the factorial validity of the measures was assessed through confirmatory factor analysis using the maximum likelihood estimation method. The measurement model specified five factors, with items representing their intended factors: academic identity, degree commitment, awakening to purpose, awareness of purpose, and altruistic purpose. The fit of the measurement model was evaluated based on the guidelines provided by Hair et al. (2019) for models with sample sizes of over 250 participants and 12 to 30 observed items. Specifically, the model fit was deemed adequate with values for the comparative fit index (CFI) and Tucker-Lewis index (TLI) of .94 or higher, standardized root mean square residual (SRMR) of less than .08, and root-mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) of less than .07.

Subsequently, a series of structural models were estimated to test structural paths based on the measurement model. Specifically, self-reported measures collected in Fall 2017 (academic identity, degree commitment, and the three dimensions of purpose in life) were specified as five latent exogenous variables, whereas measures of degree attainment (degree earned by year, retention by year, academic performance by semester) were observed endogenous variables. The structural model was tested separately for each outcome. These models allowed for the examination of the extent to which each outcome was predicted by academic identity, degree commitment, awakening to purpose, awareness of purpose, and altruistic purpose. All latent variables were allowed to freely correlate. For models with endogenous variables of degree earned by year (1 = degree earned, 0 = degree not earned) and retention by year (1 = retained, 0 = not retained), these outcomes were specified as categorical variables, while GPA was treated as a continuous variable. All models were estimated using the Bayesian estimation method, which provides a flexible approach to handling complex data and assists with convergence of the model even with smaller samples. The significance of the effects was determined based on the 95% Bayesian credibility intervals (CI). Results are considered significant when the 95% CI does not include 0 (denoted in bold in tables).

Results

Preliminary Analysis

Missing data on individual items ranged from 0 to 0.7% (a total of 20 missing points out of 9,262), and met the assumption of missing completely at random (MCAR) as indicated by the Little's MCAR test: $χ^{2}$ (112, N = 421) = 111.85, p = .486.

Factorial validity of the measures was tested by specifying a measurement model with all self-reported items representing their intended factors using confirmatory factor analysis. The results showed a good fit to the data: $χ^{2}$ (199, N = 421) = 411.63, p < .001, RMSEA = .050, 90% CI [.043, .057], CFI = .972, TLI = .968, SRMR = .034.

Table 1 shows the estimated correlations and reliability coefficients among the study's self-reported measures. Reliability estimates ranged between .81 and .96. All correlations were significant and positive, ranging from .22 to .82.

Table 1.

Estimated Correlations and Reliability Coefficients for Study's Self-Reported Measures, N = 421.

Measure	1	2	3	4	5
1. Academic identity	-
2. Degree commitment	.41 [.31, .50]	-
3. Awakening to purpose	.25 [.16, .35]	.42 [.32, .51]	-
4. Awareness of purpose	.22 [.13, .32]	.30 [.20, .40]	.82 [.78, .86]	-
5. Altruistic purpose	.30 [.20, .40]	.37 [.27, .47]	.52 [.44, .60]	.44 [.35, .52]	-
Reliability (omega)	.91	.81	.93	.96	.90

Note. 95% confidence intervals are in brackets. All correlations were significant at p < .001.

The Main Analysis: Structural Equation Modeling

A series of structural models were tested separately for each outcome to examine whether the five self-reported measures (academic identity, degree commitment, awakening to purpose, awareness of purpose, and altruistic purpose) significantly predicted the outcomes (degree earned by year, retention by year, academic performance by semester). Results are presented in Tables 2 to 4 and are described below.

Table 2.

Results for Degree Earned by Year.

Measure	All available data, N = 421			Sensitivity analysis (listwise deletion), n = 415
Measure	Estimate (SD)	95% CI	p	Estimate (SD)	95% CI	p
Degree earned in 4 years
Academic identity	.15 (.07)	[.004, .30]	.022	.16 (.07)	[.03, .29]	.009
Degree commitment	.20 (.09)	[.01, .38]	.019	.20 (.09)	[.02, .36]	.017
Awakening to purpose	−.15 (.14)	[−.43, .12]	.138	−.14 (.15)	[−.42, .15]	.187
Awareness of purpose	.16 (.13)	[−.10, .38]	.106	.14 (.13)	[−.11, .38]	.176
Altruistic purpose	−.06 (.09)	[−.22, .11]	.267	−.08 (.08)	[−.24, .09]	.186
Degree earned in 5 years
Academic identity	.13 (.07)	[−.02, .27]	.037	.14 (.07)	[−.003, .26]	.027
Degree commitment	.19 (.08)	[.03, .36]	.013	.20 (.08)	[.04, .35]	.009
Awakening to purpose	.00 (.13)	[−.27, .25]	.490	.01 (.14)	[−.28, .27]	.489
Awareness of purpose	−.09 (.12)	[−.32, .13]	.243	−.11 (.12)	[−.34, .11]	.193
Altruistic purpose	.02 (.08)	[−.14, .18]	.408	−.01 (.08)	[−.16, .15]	.454

Note. For “Degree earned in 6 years,” there were no additional degrees; hence the results are identical to Degree earned in 5 years. Results are significant, when 95% CI does not include 0 (denoted in boldfaced). CI = Bayesian credibility intervals; p = one-tailed p-value.

Table 3.

Results for Persistence by Year.

Measure	All available data, N = 421			Sensitivity analysis (listwise deletion), n = 415
Measure	Estimate (SD)	95% CI	p	Estimate (SD)	95% CI	p
Persistence: 2 year
Academic identity	.10 (.08)	[−.06, .25]	.113	.11 (.07)	[−.03, .26]	.069
Degree commitment	.17 (.09)	[−.02, .35]	.034	.19 (.08)	[.02, .36]	.013
Awakening to purpose	−.23 (.15)	[−.52, .04]	.058	−.23 (.15)	[−.50, .06]	.067
Awareness of purpose	−.01 (.13)	[−.28, .24]	.449	−.03 (.14)	[−.29, .24]	.431
Altruistic purpose	.18 (.08)	[.01, .34]	.016	.14 (.08)	[−.03, .30]	.059
Persistence: 3 year
Academic identity	.07 (.07)	[−.07, .22]	.153	.08 (.07)	[−.06, .23]	.116
Degree commitment	.28 (.08)	[.10, .44]	.000	.30 (.08)	[.14, .46]	.000
Awakening to purpose	−.28 (.15)	[−.57, .01]	.029	−.28 (.15)	[−.56, .00]	.027
Awareness of purpose	−.01 (.13)	[−.26, .23]	.478	−.03 (.13)	[−.27, .23]	.416
Altruistic purpose	.11 (.08)	[−.05, .28]	.078	.06 (.08)	[−.09, .23]	.199
Persistence: 4 year
Academic identity	.08 (.07)	[−.07, .23]	.132	.09 (.07)	[−.05, .23]	.103
Degree commitment	.24 (.08)	[.07, .40]	.001	.26 (.08)	[.11, .42]	.000
Awakening to purpose	−.22 (.14)	[−.51, .06]	.071	−.21 (.15)	[−.50, .06]	.079
Awareness of purpose	−.01 (.13)	[−.26, .22]	.466	−.03 (.13)	[−.27, .21]	.406
Altruistic purpose	.07 (.08)	[−.10, .23]	.191	.03 (.08)	[−.13, .19]	.347
Persistence: 5 year
Academic identity	.11 (.07)	[−.04, .26]	.083	.12 (.07)	[−.02, .25]	.049
Degree commitment	.19 (.08)	[.02, .35]	.019	.20 (.08)	[.04, .35]	.006
Awakening to purpose	−.09 (.14)	[−.38, .18]	.247	−.08 (.15)	[−.36, .20]	.291
Awareness of purpose	−.05 (.13)	[−.29, .18]	.337	−.08 (.13)	[−.32, .17]	.283
Altruistic purpose	.002 (.08)	[−.17, .16]	.493	−.04 (.08)	[−.20, .12]	.304
Persistence: 6 year
Academic identity	.12 (.07)	[−.02, .26]	.043	.13 (.07)	[.00, .26]	.030
Degree commitment	.20 (.08)	[.04, .37]	.010	.21 (.08)	[.05, .35]	.007
Awakening to purpose	−.02 (.13)	[−.28, .24]	.444	−.01 (.14)	[−.29, .25]	.463
Awareness of purpose	−.09 (.12)	[−.33, .12]	.226	−.12 (.12)	[−.34, .12]	.176
Altruistic purpose	.05 (.08)	[−.11, .20]	.291	.02 (.08)	[−.14, .18]	.397

Note. Results are significant, when 95% CI does not include 0 (denoted in boldfaced). CI = Bayesian credibility intervals; p = one-tailed p-value.

Table 4.

Results for Academic Performance (GPA) by Semester.

Measure	All available data, N = 421			Sensitivity analysis (listwise deletion)
Measure	Estimate (SD)	95% CI	p	Estimate (SD)	95% CI	p
Fall 2017				n = 415
Academic identity	.17 (.06)	[.07, .28]	.002	.19 (.05)	[.08, .30]	.000
Degree commitment	.25 (.06)	[.13, .37]	.000	.26 (.06)	[.12, .36]	.000
Awakening to purpose	−.03 (.10)	[−.23, .17]	.380	−.04 (.10)	[−.24, .16]	.342
Awareness of purpose	−.16 (.09)	[−.33, .03]	.052	−.16 (.09)	[−.33, .02]	.042
Altruistic purpose	.03 (.06)	[−.10, .15]	.318	.01 (.06)	[−.11, .12]	.425
Spring 2018				n = 398
Academic identity	.16 (.06)	[.05, .27]	.004	.18 (.06)	[.07, .28]	.001
Degree commitment	.23 (.07)	[.10, .36]	.000	.25 (.06)	[.12, .38]	.000
Awakening to purpose	−.19 (.10)	[−.38, .01]	.029	−.18 (.10)	[−.38, .04]	.050
Awareness of purpose	−.02 (.09)	[−.19, .17]	.437	−.01 (.09)	[−.20, .17]	.446
Altruistic purpose	.13 (.06)	[.01, .24]	.019	.09 (.07)	[−.04, .21]	.090
Fall 2018				n = 348
Academic identity	.10 (.06)	[−.02, .22]	.061	.08 (.06)	[−.05, .2]	.091
Degree commitment	.15 (.07)	[.001, .28]	.024	.13 (.07)	[−.02, .25]	.045
Awakening to purpose	−.17 (.11)	[−.38, .04]	.062	−.20 (.11)	[−.45, −.001]	.025
Awareness of purpose	−.02 (.10)	[−.22, .17]	.426	.02 (.10)	[−.17, .24]	.428
Altruistic purpose	.11 (.07)	[−.02, .25]	.041	.12 (.07)	[−.03, .24]	.055
Spring 2019				n = 332
Academic identity	.09 (.06)	[−.03, .21]	.071	.07 (.07)	[−.06, .19]	.144
Degree commitment	.16 (.07)	[.01, .29]	.022	.10 (.07)	[−.05, .23]	.074
Awakening to purpose	−.04 (.11)	[−.25, .16]	.377	−.03 (.12)	[−.25, .21]	.411
Awareness of purpose	−.06 (.10)	[−.25, .14]	.284	−.08 (.11)	[−.29, .12]	.225
Altruistic purpose	.07 (.07)	[−.06, .21]	.158	.05 (.07)	[−.09, .19]	.249
Fall 2019				n = 326
Academic identity	.10 (.06)	[−.02, .22]	.049	.10 (.06)	[−.02, .22]	.046
Degree commitment	.10 (.07)	[−.05, .23]	.098	.00 (.07)	[−.15, .14]	.500
Awakening to purpose	−.06 (.11)	[−.28, .16]	.297	.03 (.12)	[−.22, .29]	.395
Awareness of purpose	−.03 (.10)	[−.22, .17]	.385	−.08 (.11)	[−.27, .14]	.233
Altruistic purpose	−.02 (.07)	[−.15, .13]	.405	−.08 (.07)	[−.23, .06]	.136
Spring 2020				n = 307
Academic identity	.05 (.06)	[−.07, .17]	.208	.04 (.06)	[−.08, .16]	.265
Degree commitment	.21 (.07)	[.06, .35]	.005	.12 (.07)	[−.02, .26]	.054
Awakening to purpose	−.13 (.12)	[−.37, .08]	.115	−.10 (.12)	[−.34, .15]	.216
Awareness of purpose	.06 (.10)	[−.14, .26]	.288	.10 (.11)	[−.12, .30]	.202
Altruistic purpose	−.01 (.07)	[−.15, .13]	.427	−.07 (.08)	[−.21, .08]	.199
Fall 2020				n = 291
Academic identity	.14 (.06)	[.02, .26]	.012	.13 (.07)	[.003, .27]	.023
Degree commitment	.18 (.07)	[.04, .33]	.009	.08 (.07)	[−.07, .22]	.125
Awakening to purpose	−.06 (.12)	[−.30, .17]	.297	.03 (.14)	[−.24, .31]	.432
Awareness of purpose	−.02 (.10)	[−.23, .18]	.411	−.06 (.12)	[−.30, .17]	.312
Altruistic purpose	−.01 (.07)	[−.15, .14]	.456	−.03 (.07)	[−.17, .11]	.358
Spring 2021				n = 280
Academic identity	.21 (.06)	[.08, .33]	.000	.21 (.07)	[.09, .34]	.000
Degree commitment	.11 (.07)	[−.04, .25]	.071	.00 (.08)	[−.17, .14]	.471
Awakening to purpose	−.04 (.12)	[−.27, .19]	.375	.08 (.14)	[−.18, .37]	.267
Awareness of purpose	.00 (.10)	[−.20, .22]	.487	−.07 (.12)	[−.31, .14]	.277
Altruistic purpose	−.05 (.07)	[−.19, .09]	.234	−.06 (.08)	[−.21, .09]	.210
Fall 2021				n = 181
Academic identity	.23 (.07)	[.10, .35]	.001	.21 (.09)	[.05, .38]	.008
Degree commitment	.05 (.09)	[−.11, .23]	.273	.03 (.10)	[−.15, .22]	.381
Awakening to purpose	−.04 (.13)	[−.30, .22]	.375	.01 (.16)	[−.31, .32]	.482
Awareness of purpose	−.12 (.12)	[−.34, .12]	.160	−.21 (.14)	[−.49, .08]	.071
Altruistic purpose	.04 (.08)	[−.12, .19]	.306	−.01 (.09)	[−.20, .17]	.439
Spring 2022				n = 134
Academic identity	.26 (.08)	[.11, .40]	.000	.27 (.10)	[.07, .46]	.002
Degree commitment	.01 (.09)	[−.19, .18]	.472	−.02 (.11)	[−.25, .20]	.446
Awakening to purpose	−.02 (.15)	[−.32, .26]	.428	.02 (.19)	[−.33, .39]	.447
Awareness of purpose	.06 (.13)	[−.20, .31]	.344	.02 (.17)	[−.30, .34]	.458
Altruistic purpose	.01 (.08)	[−.15, .18]	.452	−.02 (.10)	[−.23, .19]	.426
Fall 2022				n = 83
Academic identity	.26 (.08)	[.09, .42]	.002	.27 (.12)	[.00, .50]	.025
Degree commitment	−.04 (.11)	[−.24, .20]	.400	.00 (.13)	[−.27, .26]	.492
Awakening to purpose	−.22 (.16)	[−.55, .10]	.088	−.09 (.26)	[−.58, .44]	.371
Awareness of purpose	.09 (.15)	[−.19, .38]	.287	−.05 (.25)	[−.54, .43]	.430
Altruistic purpose	.07 (.09)	[−.12, .26]	.238	.07 (.13)	[−.19, .34]	.303
Spring 2023				n = 63
Academic identity	.29 (.08)	[.12, .45]	.000	.20 (.15)	[−.10, .48]	.092
Degree commitment	−.03 (.12)	[−.29, .18]	.404	.00 (.15)	[−.29, .29]	.493
Awakening to purpose	−.09 (.2)	[−.47, .31]	.312	−.01 (.4)	[−.77, .76]	.486
Awareness of purpose	.03 (.19)	[−.32, .37]	.444	−.02 (.38)	[−.80, .67]	.471
Altruistic purpose	.10 (.10)	[−.10, .28]	.155	.07 (.17)	[−.24, .41]	.331

Note. Results are significant, when 95% CI does not include 0 (denoted in boldfaced). CI = Bayesian credibility intervals; GPA=grade point average; p = one-tailed p-value.

Degree Earned by Year

As shown in Table 2, degree earned in 4 years was positively predicted by academic identity ( $β$ = .15) and by degree commitment ( $β$ = .20). Degree earned in five years was positively predicted by degree commitment ( $β$ = .19). These results were confirmed in sensitivity analysis. Because no additional students earned degree during the sixth year, the results for degree earned in 6 years were identical to degree earned in 5 years.

Retention by Year

As shown in Table 3, first-year retention was positively predicted by altruistic purpose ( $β$ = .18). However, these results were not confirmed in sensitivity analysis, which showed that only first-year retention was positively predicted by degree commitment ( $β$ = .19). Notably, all other results for second-, third-, fourth-, and fifth-year retention showed that only degree commitment was a consistent positive and significant predictor ( $β$ ranged between .19 and .28). These results were also confirmed in the sensitivity analysis.

Academic Performance by Semester

As shown in Table 4, first-semester GPA was predicted positively by academic identity ( $β$ = .17) and degree commitment ( $β$ = .25). These results were confirmed in sensitivity analysis. Second-semester GPA was predicted positively by altruistic purpose ( $β$ = .13), academic identity ( $β$ = .16), and degree commitment ( $β$ = .23), but the sensitivity results did not confirm altruistic purpose as a significant predictor.

During the second year (third and fourth semesters), GPA was predicted by degree commitment ( $β$ = .15 and .16); however, did not confirm by sensitivity analysis. In fact, third-semester GPA was predicted negatively by awakening to purpose in sensitivity analysis ( $β$ = −.20).

During the third year, GPA was not significantly predicted by any predictors in the fifth semester. However, in the sixth semester, GPA was positively predicted by degree commitment ( $β$ = .21); yet, not confirmed by sensitivity analyses.

Starting from the fourth year, GPA was positively predicted by academic identity ( $β$ ranged between .14 and .29), with most results being confirmed by sensitivity analyses.

Discussion

Academic commitments, including academic identity and degree commitment, have been shown to predict first-year GPA, good academic standing, and retention (Yukhymenko-Lescroart & Sharma, 2023). Sense of purpose also plays a significant role in college retention and degree completion (Sharma et al., 2021, 2023). This study examined whether academic identity, degree commitment, and sense of purpose in life among first-time full-time undergraduate students at the start of their college journey are associated with degree completion, retention, and academic performance over a 6-year period. The results strongly support the role of academic commitments reported by first-time full-time students at the beginning of their college journeys in terms of degree completion, retention, and academic performance. However, there is limited support for the role of a sense of life purpose in degree completion, retention, and academic performance in this study.

Specifically, academic identity emerged as a significant and positive predictor of earning a degree within 4 years, signifying that students entering university with a robust academic identity are more likely to graduate within this timeframe. Moreover, these students consistently achieved high GPAs in most semesters, and notably, this effect persisted in the fourth, fifth, and sixth years of study, highlighting the long-lasting influence of academic identity on students’ academic performance. This finding aligns with prior research that underscores the importance of academic identity in fostering students’ commitment to their academic goals and their perseverance through challenges (Brown et al., 2014; Yukhymenko-Lescroart, 2014).

The findings also indicated that a strong degree commitment significantly predicted degree completion within 4 and 5 years, suggesting that students who enter a university with a dedicated commitment to earning their degree are more likely to accomplish this goal. Additionally, students with a strong degree commitment at the start of their college journey achieved higher GPAs during their first year and had a higher likelihood of being retained after each academic year. These findings align with previous studies, such as Yukhymenko-Lescroart and Sharma (2023), regarding the roles of academic identity and degree commitment in academic performance and degree progress.

Contrary to prior studies (e.g., Sharma et al., 2021, 2023), our research found limited support for the influence of life purpose on degree completion, retention, and academic performance. Specifically, we observed that a strong altruistic purpose positively predicted first-year retention and second-semester GPA, indicating that students with a strong desire to contribute to their community were more likely to persist beyond the first year and achieve high grades during their initial semester. Furthermore, the sensitivity analysis revealed that actively seeking one's life purpose at the start of college was a negative predictor of GPA during the third semester, suggesting that students engaged in purpose-seeking earned lower grades compared to those who were not. Overall, the initial positive association between altruistic purpose and first-year retention, which was not confirmed in the sensitivity analysis, suggests that while an altruistic sense of purpose might initially motivate students, it is the sustained commitment to degree attainment that more reliably predicts long-term retention. The inconsistent findings regarding altruistic purpose might also suggest that while it may influence certain aspects of academic engagement, its effect on GPA is less stable compared to academic identity and degree commitment.

Implications

This study highlights the critical roles of academic identity and degree commitment in predicting college degree attainment, retention, and academic performance. The results further showed that a strong altruistic purpose predicted first-year students’ academic success and retention. These insights can inform both research and institutional practices aimed at enhancing students’ educational outcomes and retention.

Future research should continue to employ longitudinal designs to examine how academic identity, degree commitment, and life purpose evolve over time and how these changes impact educational outcomes. Understanding the dynamic nature of these constructs can provide deeper insights into the mechanisms driving student success. The present study focused on first-time, full-time college students. Future studies should explore these relationships among different student populations, including part-time students, nontraditional students, and graduate students from diverse backgrounds.

The results of this study also offer practical implications for higher education institutions. For example, the findings suggest the importance of providing academic support services that can help students navigate academic challenges by reinforcing their academic identity and commitment to degree completion. College advisors could, for instance, emphasize the development of a strong academic identity and commitment to degree attainment by helping students set clear academic goals and providing ongoing support, which can enhance their commitment and persistence. College personnel can also provide opportunities for students to engage in meaningful activities, such as research projects, internships, and community service, which can strengthen their academic identity and commitment, contributing to better educational outcomes. Given the important role of altruistic purpose, higher education institutional leaders should also consider implementing programs that help students explore and clarify their sense of purpose and connect their academic pursuits to a broader vision of making a positive difference in society. Previous research has shown that when students are motivated by an altruistic sense of purpose, they experience stronger academic engagement and degree commitment (Sharma & Yukhymenko-Lescroart, 2018), which, as this study has shown, can contribute to students’ degree attainment and retention.

Limitations

While this study provides valuable insights into the roles of academic identity, degree commitment, and sense of purpose in predicting degree attainment, retention, and academic performance, several limitations must be acknowledged. First, this study focused exclusively on first-time, full-time college students. The students were drawn from one large public university in the southwestern part of the United States, which has been designated as a Hispanic Serving Institution and an Asian American and Native American Pacific Islander Serving Institution. This specific demographic might limit the generalizability of the findings to other student populations, such as part-time students, nontraditional students, transfer students, or graduate students from diverse backgrounds. Second, this study relied on self-reported data to assess academic identity, degree commitment, and sense of purpose. Self-reported measures can be subject to biases such as social desirability bias, recall bias, and response bias, which might affect the accuracy and reliability of the study's findings. Triangulating self-reported data with other sources could improve data reliability. Third, this study did not account for various contextual factors such as family support, financial resources, institutional support, mentoring, and academic engagement, which can play a significant role in students’ academic journeys. Addressing these limitations in future research will inform the development of more effective strategies to support college students’ retention and degree completion.

Conclusions

The purpose of this study was to investigate the role of self-reported academic identity, degree commitment, and sense of purpose—measured at the beginning of the university journey for first-time full-time freshman students—in their progress toward obtaining a degree over a span of 6 years. Findings showed that academic identity, as reported by students in Fall 2017, played a salient role in degree attainment within 4 years, as well as in cumulative GPA during the first year and in years 4, 5, and 6. Additionally, degree commitment emerged as a significant predictor of earning a degree within 4 and 5 years, as well as persistence into the third, fourth, fifth, and sixth years, and cumulative GPA in years 1, 2, and 3. Furthermore, altruistic purpose was found to be a significant predictor of second-year persistence and cumulative GPA at the end of the first year. Overall, this study highlights the importance of implementing programs and strategies that support college students’ retention and success by strengthening their academic identity, degree commitment, and sense of purpose, especially altruistic purpose. Future research should continue to explore these relationships, considering diverse student populations and the potential impact of targeted interventions. Such research can promote institutional practices and interventions that enhance college students’ educational outcomes, including degree attainment and retention.

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 iDs

Mariya A. Yukhymenko-Lescroart

Gitima Sharma

Author Biographies

Mariya A. Yukhymenko-Lescroart is an associate professor of Research and Statistics in the Department of Curriculum and Instruction at California State University, Fresno. She earned her MA (2009) and PhD (2012) in Educational Psychology with a specialization in Research Methodology from the University of Connecticut, as well as an MA in Sport Psychology (2019) from California State University. Her research is driven by substantive-methodological synergy, focusing on the integration of positive, educational, and sport psychology to promote the positive development of college students and adults. In her methodological work, she is particularly interested in scale development and validation, as well as the application of multilevel and structural equation modeling to empirical data. With a pragmatic research approach, she is skilled in both quantitative and qualitative methodologies. She is also dedicated to supporting the research of other scholars through her expertise. She serves on the editorial boards of Sport, Exercise, and Performance Psychology and the International Sport Coaching Journal, where she contributes to advancing knowledge in her field.

Gitima Sharma is an associate professor of Counseling at California State University, Fresno, and a distinguished mental health consultant, life and career coach, and motivational speaker. She holds a master's degree in Counseling from Michigan State University and a PhD in Counselor Education from The Pennsylvania State University. Her research focuses on life purpose, meaning, hope, joy, and fulfillment. At her university, she is deeply involved in teaching, mentoring, scholarship, and service. She advocates for equity-driven approaches that foster a culture of self-care, belonging, and appreciation for diversity. With over 30 publications and more than 50 speaking engagements, she advances individual, pedagogical, and organizational efforts to strengthen mental health, positive inner transformation, identity development, career success, and goal fulfillment across diverse age groups and cultural backgrounds.

References

Anctil

T. M.

Ishikawa

M. E.

Tao Scott

(2008). Academic identity development through self-determination: Successful college students with learning disabilities. Career Development for Exceptional Individuals, 31(3), 164–174. https://doi.org/10.1177/0885728808315331

Baum

Payea

(2013). Education pays 2013: The benefits of higher education for individuals and society. The College Board.

Brown

E. L.

Kanny

M. A.

Johnson

(2014). “I am who I am because of here!” school settings as a mechanism of change in establishing high-risk adolescents’ academic identities. The Journal of Early Adolescence, 34(2), 178–205. https://doi.org/10.1177/0272431613480271

Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2021). Employment projections – 2022–2032. U.S. Department of Labor. https://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/ecopro.pdf

Carnevale

A. P.

Jayasundera

Gulish

(2016). America’s divided recovery: College haves and have-nots. Georgetown University Center on Education and the Workforce. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED574377.pdf

Cutler

D. M.

Lleras-Muney

(2010). Understanding differences in health behaviors by education. Journal of Health Economics, 29(1), 1–28. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhealeco.2009.10.003

Davidson

W. B.

Beck

H. P.

Grisaffe

D. B.

(2015). Increasing the institutional commitment of college students: Enhanced measurement and test of a nomological model. Journal of College Student Retention: Research, Theory & Practice, 17(2), 162–185. https://doi.org/10.1177/1521025115578230

Hair

J. F. Jr.

Black

W. C.

Babin

B. J.

(2019). Multivariate data analysis (8th ed.). Cengage.

Hill

P. L.

Burrow

A. L.

Bronk

K. C.

(2016). Persevering with positivity and purpose: An examination of purpose commitment and positive affect as predictors of grit. Journal of Happiness Studies, 17(1), 257–269. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-014-9593-5

10.

Hout

(2012). Social and economic returns to college education in the United States. Annual Review of Sociology, 38, 379–400. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.soc.012809.102503

11.

Komarraju

Dial

(2014). Academic identity, self-efficacy, and self-esteem predict self-determined motivation and goals. Learning and Individual Differences, 32, 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2014.02.004

12.

Muthén

L. K.

Muthén

B. O.

(2012–2023). Mplus (Version 8.10) [computer software]. Muthén & Muthén. https://wwwstatmodelcom/

13.

Nikolaev

(2018). Does higher education increase hedonic and eudaimonic happiness? Journal of Happiness Studies, 19(2), 483–504. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-016-9833-y .

14.

Oreopoulos

Petronijevic

(2013). Making college worth it: A review of the returns to higher education. The Future of Children, 23(1), 41–65. https://doi.org/10.1353/foc.2013.0001

15.

Sharma

Kim

Bernal

(2021). The relationship between high school sophomores’ purpose orientations and their postsecondary completion a decade later. Professional School Counseling Journal, 25(1), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1177/2156759X20981051

16.

Sharma

Yukhymenko-Lescroart

M. A.

(2018). The relationship between college students’ sense of purpose and degree commitment. Journal of College Student and Development, 59(4), 486–491. https://doi.org/10.1353/csd.2018.0045

17.

Sharma

Yukhymenko-Lescroart

(2019). Validation of the revised sense of purpose scale with emerging adults. Journal of Character Education, 15(2), 39–52.

18.

Sharma

Yukhymenko-Lescroart

M. A.

(2022). A framework for cultivating purpose as a pedagogy of care. Italian Journal of Educational Technology, 30(1), 65–74. https://doi.org/10.17471/2499-4324/1234

19.

Sharma

Yukhymenko-Lescroart

M. A.

Scarton

(2023). Purpose and career development: Implications for career counseling and counselor education. International Journal for Educational and Vocational Guidance, 23(2), 481–497. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10775-021-09517-9

20.

Tinto

(1993). Leaving college: Rethinking the causes and cures of student attrition (2nd ed.). University of Chicago Press.

21.

Yukhymenko-Lescroart

(2014). Students and athletes? Development of the academic and athletic identity scale (AAIS). Sport, Exercise, and Performance Psychology, 3(2), 89–101. https://doi.org/10.1037/spy0000009

22.

Yukhymenko-Lescroart

M. A.

Sharma

(2020). Examining the factor structure of the revised sense of purpose scale (SOPS-2) with adults. Applied Research in Quality of Life, 15(4), 1203–1222. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11482-019-09729-w

23.

Yukhymenko-Lescroart

Sharma

(2023). Sense of purpose and progress towards degree in freshman college students. Journal of Student Retention: Research, Theory, & Practice, 21(1), 187–207. https://doi.org/10.1177/1521025120975134

24.

Zajacova

Lawrence

E. M.

(2018). The relationship between education and health: Reducing disparities through a contextual approach. Annual Review of Public Health, 39, 273–289. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-publhealth-031816-044628

Exploring Academic Identity,Degree Commitment,and Life Purpose in First-Time Full-Time College Students: A Six-Year Degree Attainment Study (2017–2023)

Abstract

Keywords

Literature Review

Academic Identity

Degree Commitment

Life Purpose

Purpose of the Study

Method

Participants

Measures

Academic Identity

Degree Commitment

Sense of Purpose in Life

Degree Attainment

Procedure

Data Analysis

Results

Preliminary Analysis

The Main Analysis: Structural Equation Modeling

Degree Earned by Year

Retention by Year

Academic Performance by Semester

Discussion

Implications

Limitations

Conclusions

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

Funding

ORCID iDs

Author Biographies

References