Structuring First-Year Retention at a Regional Public Institution: Validating and Refining the Structure of Bowman’s SEM Analysis

We Want You Back: Uncovering the Effects on In-Person Instructional Operations in Fall 2020

“…Because our main outcome was binary, we used a weighted least square means and variance-adjusted approach (WLSMV). The same approach can be found in prior research (Bowman et al, 2019 ; Collier et al, 2020a ). For models with a binary main outcome, a WLSMV approach is more appropriate than an ML estimator, as the WLSMV has been shown to produce more accurate factor loadings, interfactor correlations, and structural coefficient estimates (DiStefano & Morgan, 2014 ; Li, 2016 ).…”

“…Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) directionally examines the direct effect of one variable on another and also captures any indirect effects from one variable passing through another (Klem, 2000 ). In the past, higher education researchers have used SEM to identify factors influencing first-year college persistence (Collier et al, 2020a ), student growth and development (Wofford, 2020 ), and decisions surrounding expenditures or adoption of new technology (El-Masri & Tarhini, 2017 ). Relatively few studies have attempted to integrate institutions’ contextual sociopolitical factors into SEM structures examining higher education outcomes.…”

“…To test our models, we used the Lavaan module found in R. Although SEM studies have recently gained traction, an ongoing debate remains over which measures determine whether the models produce a statistically acceptable fit. For guidance among measures, we leaned on a combination of prior empirical studies published in strong higher education journals (see Bowman et al, 2019 ; Collier, et al, 2020a ) and methodological works (Hu & Bentler, 1998 ; Xia & Yang, 2019 ). Methodologists suggest that models are a good (acceptable) fit if the Comparative Fit Index (CFI) ≥ .95, Tucker Lewis Index (TLI) ≥ .95, root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) ≤ .06, and standardized root mean square residual (SRMR) ≤ .08 (Hu & Bentler, 1999 ; Shi et al, 2019 ).…”

Coming to College Hungry

“…More specific to our study, the Bowman model also illustrated that financial means 2 impact first-year students' non-cognitive attributes, social adjustment, commitment to the institution, college GPA, and persistence (Bowman et al, 2019). Follow-up testing of the Bowman model illustrated the structure's robustness and that Journal of Postsecondary Student Success including food security within the financial means variable influenced measurements of social adjustment, and first-year college performance and persistence (Collier et al, 2020). The Bowman model provided us the rationale for why we should conduct additional analyses between financial means, in this case, food security, and students' non-cognitive attributes and social behaviors.…”

“…With multiple causal models indicating that a maintained focus and intention to persist to degree influences persistence (Bowman et al, 2019;Cabrera et al, 1993) and descriptive research illustrating links between amotivation and performance (Warden & Myers, 2017), correlations between food insecurity and amotivation should mean that students who are food insecure early in their time at college may be more likely to stop-out. Therefore, food insecurity represents an immediate threat to first-year students' success-as recently confirmed using structural equation modeling by Collier et al (2020).…”