The interaction of student and program variables for the purpose of developing a model for predicting graduation from graduate programs over a 10-year period

The effect of student attributes and program characteristics on doctoral degree completion.

“…Researchers determined orientation program attendance produced long-term positive retention benefits for students and that students who attended orientation were more likely to persist, more likely to re-enroll, and more likely to obtain a degree (de Valero, 2001). Investigators noted that contrary to popular belief, doctoral attrition occurred early in the program and prior to completion of doctoral coursework (Cook & Swanson, 1978;Ehrenberg & Mavros, 1995;Nerad & Miller, 1996;White, 1986).…”

“…The investigators developed an exploratory model to utilize with the technique of path analysis to identify possible predictors sought in the research. Cook and Swanson (1978) found that as age increases at the time of admission, the likelihood of graduation decreases. The researchers determined both full-time student Terenzini (1979) study that measured student and faculty relationships and students' academic and intellectual development.…”

“…Researchers have consistently reported national doctoral completion rates at just barely at or above 50% (Astin, 1997;Bauer, 2004;Cook & Swanson, 1978;de Valero, 2001;Dorn & Papalewis, 1997;Ehrenberg & Mavros, 1995;Golde, 2001;Kluever, 1997;Lee, 2003;Lovitts, 2004;Lovitts & Nelson, 2000;Malmberg, 2000;Nerad & Miller, 1996;Wynn, 2003). Polson (2003) suggested that investment in opportunities that help graduate students transition into their new roles were more likely to retain graduate students through degree completion.…”

“…The most significant general findings discovered by the above studies included the following: (a) social integration and student's institutional commitment had direct effects on persistence (Golde, 2000); (b) developing a social network helped retain students at a higher rate (Berry, 1993;de Valero, 2001;Lovitts & Nelson, 2000;Stallone, 2003); (c) the relationship with the faculty adviser was the key to remaining at the university and key during the dissertation stage Campbell, 1992;de Valero, 2001;Lovitts & Nelson, 2000;Malmberg, 2000;Stallone, 2003;Wood, 1978); (d) integration of graduate students into the social and professional aspects of their department and holding graduate assistantships increased retention (de Valero, 2001;Golde, 2000;Lovitts, 2004;Lovitts & Nelson, 2000;Stallone, 2003); (e) stronger communication/relationship with adviser and committee chair had positive effects on persistence (Berry, 1993;de Valero, 2001;Lee, 2003;Lovitts & Nelson, 2000;Wynn, 2003); (f) scholarships/financial support or assistantships increased persistence (Abedi & Benkin, 1987;Bauer, 2004;Cook & Swanson, 1978;de Valero, 2001;Ehrenberg & Mavros, 1995;Gillingham et al, 1991;Isaac et al, 1991;King & Chepyator-Thompson, 1996;Pauley, 1998;Sheridan & Pyke, 1994); (g) more research preparation assisted in dissertation completion (Wagner, 1986);…”

“…The researcher indicated dropouts tended to be older and averaged a longer time between receipt of their last degree and enrollment in the doctoral program than did graduates. Cook and Swanson (1978) conducted a study to determine factors that may predict the probability of graduation from doctoral programs. The researchers focused on factors used by the selection committee at the time of admission and factors that emerged after admission and throughout pursuit of the doctoral degree.…”