This study examines the relationship between psychosocial and study skill factors (PSFs) and college outcomes by meta-analyzing 109 studies. On the basis of educational persistence and motivational theory models, the PSFs were categorized into 9 broad constructs: achievement motivation, academic goals, institutional commitment, perceived social support, social involvement, academic self-efficacy, general self-concept, academic-related skills, and contextual influences. Two college outcomes were targeted: performance (cumulative grade point average; GPA) and persistence (retention). Meta-analyses indicate moderate relationships between retention and academic goals, academic self-efficacy, and academic-related skills (ps =.340,.359, and.366, respectively). The best predictors for GPA were academic self-efficacy and achievement motivation (ps =.496 and.303, respectively). Supplementary regression analyses confirmed the incremental contributions of the PSF over and above those of socioeconomic status, standardized achievement, and high school GPA in predicting college outcomes.

No abstract

No abstract

Quality management is a key factor in gaining competitive advantage. Much has been written about how quality should be managed in an organization. Juran discussed three basic processes of quality management [1][2][3][4]. Deming recommended 14 principles for effectively managing quality in an organization [5][6][7]. Crosby prescribed a 14-step zero-defect quality improvement programme for the organization [8]. Mondon[9] and Feigenbaum[10] described the concept of organization-wide total quality control.These authors and others [11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19] repeatedly discuss the importance of such critical factors as top management leadership for quality, employee involvement in quality, employee training, and supplier quality management.Several studies have been conducted to examine quality management practices in different countries [20][21][22][23]. These international quality studies used a survey questionnaire categorized in different sections. Two common features were noticed in these studies. First, no rationale was provided for the selections of factors included; and second, reliability and validity tests were very minimal.One other major study that provided a highly reliable and valid instrument of quality measurement has been by Parasuraman et al. [24,25]. They developed a methodology for measuring service quality that they called SERVQUAL. The instrument has been applied extensively in many service areas [26][27][28][29]. The instrument could be applied to service institutions only. In addition, the instrument measures the perceptions of "customers" as to the current level of service provided and the extent to which future potential existed for service improvement.Other studies attempted to provide manufacturing managers with a structured framework linking customer perceptions to important firm-specific quality measures [30][31][32][33]. However, they neither provide a clear instrument, nor explain how to do it.To date, the only systematic attempt in the literature to organize and synthesize the various sets of critical factors identified by different authors has been proposed by Saraph et al.[34]. They propose measures of overall organizational quality management for both manufacturing and service firms. They provided a synthesis of the quality literature by identifying eight critical factors (areas) of quality management in a business unit.

No abstract