http://ldx.sagepub.com/Journal of Learning Disabilities

http://ldx.sagepub.com/content/47/2/116The online version of this article can be found at:

 DOI: 10.1177/0022219412439325

2014 47: 116 originally published online 21 March 2012J Learn DisabilMeirav Hen and Marina Goroshit

Between Students With and Without Learning DisabilitiesAcademic Procrastination, Emotional Intelligence, Academic Self-Efficacy, and GPA: A Comparison

  

Published by:

  Hammill Institute on Disabilities

and

http://www.sagepublications.com

can be found at:Journal of Learning DisabilitiesAdditional services and information for    

  http://ldx.sagepub.com/cgi/alertsEmail Alerts:

 

http://ldx.sagepub.com/subscriptionsSubscriptions:  

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:  

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:  

http://ldx.sagepub.com/content/47/2/116.refs.htmlCitations:  

What is This? 

- Mar 21, 2012OnlineFirst Version of Record  

- Jan 31, 2014Version of Record >>

at TENNESSEE TECH UNIV on June 5, 2014ldx.sagepub.comDownloaded from at TENNESSEE TECH UNIV on June 5, 2014ldx.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Journal of Learning Disabilities2014, Vol. 47(2) 116 –124© Hammill Institute on Disabilities 2012Reprints and permissions: sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navDOI: 10.1177/0022219412439325journaloflearningdisabilities.sagepub.com

Article

Recent research has shown that most college students pro-crastinate on a regular basis (Steel, 2007). Defined as unnec-essarily postponing or avoiding tasks that must be completed (Schraw, Wadkins, & Olafson, 2007), procrastination has been seen as an impediment to academic success because it decreases the quality and quantity of learning while increas-ing the severity of stress and negative outcomes in students’ lives (Howell & Watson, 2007). A meta-analytic study of procrastination based on 261 studies indicated that task aver-siveness, task delay, general and self-efficacy, impulsiveness, as well as conscientiousness and its facets of self-control, distractibility, and organization, were strong and consistent predictors of procrastination (Steel, 2007). Attention defi-cits, tendency to boredom, and low self-esteem were also partially related to academic procrastination (Ferrari, 2000), as were individual values, learning routines (Dietz, Hofer, & Fries, 2007), fear of failure, perfectionism, and locus of con-trol (Brownlow & Reasinger, 2000).

Among all the variables that have been investigated in relationship to academic procrastination, self-related vari-ables such as self-regulation, self-efficacy, and self-esteem have received the most attention (Klassen et al., 2010).

Recently, Deniz, Tras, and Adygan (2009) studied the relationship between emotional intelligence (EI) and aca-demic procrastination. They explored the effects of EI on the academic procrastination and locus of control tenden-cies in a group of university students, assuming that the ability to utilize emotions to reduce stress would be related to locus of control and would affect academic procrastina-tion. Results indicated that adaptability and coping with stress abilities were highly correlated with students’ aca-demic procrastination tendency and that adaptability and general mood significantly predicted students’ locus of control. Further findings revealed a negative correlation between EI and both academic procrastination and locus of control.

439325 LDXXXX10.1177/0022219412439325Hen and GoroshitJournal of Learning Disabilities

1Tel-Hai College, Upper Galilie, Israel

Corresponding Author:Meirav Hen, Tel-Hai College, Israel.Email: meiravhen2@gmail.com

Academic Procrastination, Emotional Intelligence, Academic Self-Efficacy, and GPA: A Comparison Between Students With and Without Learning Disabilities

Meirav Hen, PhD1 and Marina Goroshit, PhD1

Abstract

Academic procrastination has been seen as an impediment to students’ academic success. Research findings suggest that it is related to lower levels of self-regulated learning and academic self-efficacy and associated with higher levels of anxiety, stress, and illness. Emotional intelligence (EI) is the ability to assess, regulate, and utilize emotions and has been found to be associated with academic self-efficacy and a variety of better outcomes, including academic performance. Students with learning disabilities (LD) are well acquainted with academic difficulty and maladaptive academic behavior. In comparison to students without LD, they exhibit high levels of learned helplessness, including diminished persistence, lower academic expectations, and negative affect. This study examined the relationships among academic procrastination, EI, and academic performance as mediated by academic self-efficacy in 287 LD and non-LD students. Results indicated that the indirect effect of EI on academic procrastination and GPA was stronger in LD students than in non-LD students. In addition, results indicated that LD students scored lower than non-LD students on both EI and academic self-efficacy and higher on academic procrastination. No difference was found in GPA.

Keywords

emotional intelligence, academic procrastination, academic self-efficacy, learning disabilities, higher education

at TENNESSEE TECH UNIV on June 5, 2014ldx.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Hen and Goroshit 117

Emotional Intelligence

EI refers to the ability to process emotional information as it pertains to the perception, assimilation, expression, regula-tion, and management of emotion (Brackett, Rivers, Shiffman, Lerner, & Salovey, 2006). It involves a set of mental abilities with which individuals employ high-level processes regard-ing their attitudes to feelings, clarity of feelings, ability to discriminate among feelings, and mood-regulating strate-gies (Brackett & Mayers, 2003). It is the ability to carry out accurate reasoning about emotions and the ability to use emotions and emotional knowledge to enhance thought (Lopes, Salovey, Côte, & Beers, 2005). EI has been found to be positively correlated with variables such as empathy, verbal intelligence, extraversion, openness to feelings, self-esteem, and life satisfaction (Bastian, Burns, & Nettelbeck, 2005; Chan, 2004; Fernandez-Berrocal & Extremera, 2006). Emotionally intelligent individuals are often described as well-adjusted, warm, genuine, persistent, and optimistic (Ivcevic, Brackett, & Mayer, 2007).

The ability to assess, regulate, and utilize emotions is an emotional self-regulation ability that has been found to be associated with a variety of better outcomes, including employment and academic performance (Boyatzis, 2006; Daus & Ashkanasy, 2005).

EI and academic self-efficacy are often studied together as predictors of academic achievement and professional performance (Duran, Extremera, Rey, Fernandez-Berrocal, & Montalban, 2006). Some studies have examined the moderating influence of EI on the link between academic self-efficacy and achievement among university students (Adeyemo, 2007). Others have explored the development of EI on levels of students’ self-efficacy and task perfor-mance (Gil-Olarte, Palomera, & Brackett, 2006).

Academic Self-EfficacySelf-efficacy refers to people’s judgments of their own capa-bilities to organize and execute courses of action required to attain designated types of performances (Bandura, 1986). According to Bandura (1997), self-efficacy strongly influ-ences the choices people make, the effort they expend, and how long they persevere in the face of challenge. Much research shows that self-efficacy influences academic moti-vation, learning, and achievement (Bong, 2001; Pajares, 1996). Self-efficacy beliefs influence task choice, effort, persistence, resilience, and achievement (Bandura, 1997; Britner & Pajares, 2006).

A significant number of researchers have described self-efficacy as being a strong and consistent predictor of pro-crastination (Steel, 2007; Van-Eerde, 2003). The findings of Haycock, McCarthy, and Skay (1998) suggested a signifi-cant inverse relationship between self-efficacy beliefs and procrastination. Chu and Choi (2005) found that active

procrastinators who choose to procrastinate and view it as a positive learning strategy tend to have higher levels of self-efficacy than passive procrastinators who view procrastina-tion in a negative way. Seo’s (2008) findings suggested that students with self-oriented perfectionism procrastinated less than others and that self-efficacy serves as a full media-tor in the relationship between these two. Tuckman and Sexton (1992) concluded that self-beliefs mediated between external conditions and self-regulated performance, in a way that a lack of academic self-efficacy led to academic procrastination.

Students With Learning DisabilitiesStudents with learning disabilities (LD) are well acquainted with academic difficulty and failure. It is hardly surprising then that when encountering academic challenge, students with LD exhibit a wide range of maladaptive behaviors related to learned helplessness, including diminished per-sistence, lower academic expectations, and negative affect (Baird, Scott, Dearing, & Hamill, 2009). Various studies have described the academic barriers these students face in higher education, pinpointing the lack of appropriate aca-demic skills or suitable academic strategies, social and affective difficulties, decreased achievement (Frazier, Youngstrom, Glutting, & Watkins, 2007), poorer time man-agement skills, and deficient test taking strategies (Reaser, Prevatt, Petscher, & Proctor, 2007).

Further studies determined that LD students reported higher levels of stress and anxiety, lower academic self-efficacy, greater lack of self-confidence and self-doubt, and extreme self-criticism compared to non-LD students (Sparks & Lovett, 2009). Several other studies that explored self-efficacy and other social and emotional components in LD students found that college students with and without LD are relatively similar in most social-emotional abilities but differ in stress management abilities and in needs for social support systems (Kariv & Heiman, 2004).

Another study that explored the coping strategies of stu-dents with LD indicated that although students without LD were more task orientated and perceived more support than students with LD, students with LD used more emotional coping strategies than non-LD students (Heiman & Kariv, 2004). Very few studies have explored EI in LD students, suggesting that a clear profile has not yet emerged (Reiff, Hatzes, Bramel, & Gibbon, 2001).

Most recently, Klassen, Krawchuk, Lynch, and Rajani (2008) published a mixed-methods article reporting two studies that explored the relationships between academic procrastination and self-efficacy for self-regulation in 208 undergraduates with and without LD. Their findings indi-cated that individuals with LD reported significantly higher levels of procrastination, coupled with lower levels of meta-cognitive self-regulation and self-efficacy for self-regulation

at TENNESSEE TECH UNIV on June 5, 2014ldx.sagepub.comDownloaded from

118 Journal of Learning Disabilities 47(2)

than those without LD. They argued that referencing self-regulated learning as the key to academic procrastination is limiting because it neglects the role that motivation plays in adoption of important metacognitive strategies. They sug-gested that academic self-efficacy is a key to understanding academic procrastination in adults who have knowledge of cognitive and metacognitive skills and strategies but may pos-sess lower confidence to use them to organize their learning.

Based on the above-reviewed literature, it is assumed that EI, which is considered a self-related variable and is associ-ated with better academic outcomes, may be associated with academic procrastination. Following the findings of Heiman and Kariv (2004) and Kariv and Heiman (2004) that LD stu-dents tend to use social-emotional strategies more often to cope with their academic difficulties than non-LD students and other findings that suggested the significance of teach-ing emotional strategies for LD students in higher education (Dahan & Meltzer, 2010) and the need for multidimensional support programs to strengthen LD students emotional as well as academic abilities (Gregg, 2007), this study aims to better understand the role of EI and its relevance to academic procrastination and academic performance (GPA), in both LD and non-LD students.

The main purpose of the current study is to examine the effect of EI on academic procrastination and GPA through academic self-efficacy, within LD and non-LD groups, and to compare the effects of EI on academic self-efficacy, aca-demic procrastination, and GPA in LD versus non-LD stu-dents. In addition, levels of EI, academic self-efficacy, and academic procrastination are compared between the two groups.

MethodParticipants and Procedure

The research is based on a convenience sample of 287 second-year undergraduate students (14% males, 86% females) from a variety of departments at Tel-Hai Academic College in Israel. The mean age was 25.1 years (SD = 4.5). Within this sample, 35% (n = 99) of the participants were classified as having some kind of LD and 65% (n = 188) of them as not having LD.

All LD students in the sample receive academic accom-modation from a special support center in the college. LD students who wish to receive this support (such as extra time during exams, permission to dictate answers in exams or to take frequent breaks) must provide a formal psycho-logical diagnosis from the previous 5 years. The criteria for the diagnosis of LD are determined by a multidisciplinary diagnostic staff of LD and include detailed measures of cognitive abilities and achievement abilities, correspond-ing to the definition of the National Joint Committee on Learning Disabilities (Meltzer, 2006). In addition, they all

have a normal range or above IQ, but their psychometric and final high school achievement scores do not meet the mini-mum entrance requirement for Tel-Hai Academic College. To meet entrance requirements, all LD students who do not meet these criteria are required to enroll in to a 6-week, inten-sive summer preparation program. This program is focused on improving participants’ academic skills, increasing their academic performance, and increasing their self-awareness in the academic milieu. Most LD students in the support cen-ter are diagnosed as having attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) or dyslexia. However, in this study stu-dents were not asked to report their specific diagnosis.

The participants were asked to complete the question-naires during class time in several large courses (n > 60) early in the 2009–2010 academic year autumn semester. The students were notified that participation in the research was voluntary and anonymous.

Psychometric MeasuresIn addition to the demographic variables mentioned above, each participant completed three scales: EI, academic self-efficacy, and academic procrastination. A description of each scale is presented below. Table 1 summarizes descrip-tive statistics for demographic and psychometric measures as well as scale reliabilities for the overall research sample.

Emotional intelligence scale. The Schutte Self Report Emo-tional Intelligence Test is a 33-item self-report measure of EI developed by Schutte et al. (1998). The items are scored on a Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (does not describe me well) to 5 (describes me very well). This test is a trait mea-sure of EI. This instrument includes the following subscales that reveal satisfactory internal reliability: (a) Appraisal and Expression of Emotions (13 items; e.g., “I like to share my emotions with others”), (b) Regulation of Emotions (10 items; e.g., “I have control over my emotions”), and (c) Uti-lization of Emotions (10 items; e.g., “When I am in a posi-tive mood, solving problems is easy for me”).

Academic self-efficacy scale. To measure academic effi-cacy, we used the College Academic Self-Efficacy Scale (Owen & Froman, 1988). This instrument consists of 26 items scored on a Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (do not feel confident) to 5 (feel very confident). Each item is related to one of the three subscales, all of which revealed sufficient reliability: (a) Technical Skills (e.g., using com-puters and library recourses), (b) Social Situations (e.g., par-ticipating in a class discussion, asking a lecturer to repeat his or her explanation), and (c) Cognitive Operations (e.g., listening carefully during a lecture on a difficult topic, understanding an examination question).

Academic procrastination scale. This scale was designed for college students (Milgram, Mey-Tal, & Levison, 1998). It includes items related to three academic assignment cat-egories: (a) homework (e.g., “I do my homework the same

at TENNESSEE TECH UNIV on June 5, 2014ldx.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Hen and Goroshit 119

day I receive the assignment”), (b) examination (e.g., “As soon as I know when an examination will be given, I start to prepare for it”), and (c) papers (e.g., “I begin preparing lengthy papers soon after they are assigned”). Each cate-gory consists of seven items measured on a 4-point scale (from 1 = hardly ever to 4 = almost always). For the pur-poses of our research, we changed the questionnaire scale to a 5-point scale.

A measurement of GPA was based on a self-reported question: “What was your grade point average last year?” To ensure that the self-reported GPA in our sample reflected the real GPA of Tel-Hai Academic College students, we compared the sample GPA mean (M = 86.8) to the overall GPA mean as provided by college authorities (M = 86.3). This comparison revealed no significant difference (t = 1.36, p > .05), suggesting that the self-reported GPA may be considered a reliable measure.

To classify students as LD or non-LD, the participants were asked a question: “Are you supported by the LD stu-dents support center during your studies?” Participants who replied yes were classified as LD students.

ResultsTo examine the effect of EI on academic procrastination and GPA through academic self-efficacy within LD and non-LD groups and to compare the effects of EI on aca-demic self-efficacy, academic procrastination, and GPA in

LD versus non-LD students, we applied followed the struc-tural equation modeling (SEM) method (using Amos 18). We built a measurement model with three latent variables: EI, academic efficacy, and academic procrastination. Each latent variable has three indicators. These indicators are the means of items related to latent variable subscales as described in the instruments section above. We also added GPA as an observed variable.

This model revealed the following results for the fit mea-sures: χ2 = 72.199, df = 28, p = .000; χ2/df = 2.58; normed fit index (NFI) = .94, Tucker–Lewis index (TLI) = .94, incre-mental fit index (IFI) = .96, comparative fit index (CFI) = .96, root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) = .07 (90% CI = .05, .09), p value for close fit (PCLOSE) = .12. These measures indicate a good fit (Hu & Bentler, 1999; Schermelleh-Engel, Moosbrugger, & Müller, 2008), suggesting that our scales have construct validity and can be utilized further. It should be noted that the model’s p value is significant. However, the chi-square test is not a good model fit measure for a sample with an N greater than 200 (Bollen & Long, 1993; Hooper, Coughlan, & Mullen, 2008).

To compare the EI, academic self-efficacy, and academic procrastination means of LD and non-LD students, we ran a multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA). The results showed that a general model for testing the differences in EI, academic self-efficacy, and academic procrastination in LD and non-LD students was significant, F(3, 283) = 7.83,

Table 1. Sample Characteristics (N = 287).

n % Cronbach’s α M SD Range

Gender Male 39 13.6 Female 248 86.4 Learning disability No 182 62.8 Yes 108 37.2 Age 25.08 4.35 19–54GPA 86.75 5.12 68–96Academic self-efficacy .73 3.51 0.53 1.8–4.9 Technical .60 3.60 0.54 1.9–4.9 Social .76 3.35 0.70 1.6–5.0 Cognitive .84 3.57 0.60 1.5–4.9Academic procrastination .81 2.97 0.67 1.3–4.6 Homework .85 2.94 0.82 1.0–4.8 Papers .74 2.89 0.76 1.0–4.7 Examinations .85 3.08 0.71 1.4–5.0Emotional intelligence .78 3.85 0.45 1.7–4.8 Expression .81 3.85 0.51 1.5–5.0 Regulation .76 3.86 0.50 1.6–5.0 Utilization .77 3.85 0.45 1.8–5.0

at TENNESSEE TECH UNIV on June 5, 2014ldx.sagepub.comDownloaded from

120 Journal of Learning Disabilities 47(2)

p < .001; η2 = .077. They also showed that LD students have significantly lower EI and academic self-efficacy and higher academic procrastination (see Table 2).

To examine the effect of EI on academic self-efficacy, academic procrastination, and GPA, we performed a simul-taneous group analysis (Arbuckle, 2009) for LD and non-LD groups (see Figure 1).

In our previous research (Hen & Goroshit, in press), we found that EI has an indirect effect on academic procrastination and

GPA. This effect occurs through academic efficacy: Higher EI leads to higher academic efficacy and as a result to lower pro-crastination and higher GPA. In the current study we assumed this model would hold for LD and non-LD students, and we presumed that there would be a stronger effect of EI on aca-demic procrastination and GPA for LD students than for non-LD students.

The simultaneous group model revealed a good fit: χ2 = 105.3, df = 62, p = .001; χ2/df = 1.69; NFI = .31, TLI = .94,

Table 2. Multivariate Analysis—Emotional Intelligence (EI), Academic Self-Efficacy, and Academic Procrastination in LD and Non-LD Students.

Group

Non-LD (n = 188) LD (n = 99) Group Effect

M SD M SD F(1, 285) η2

EI 3.85 0.34 3.75 0.40 4.71* .016Academic self-efficacy 3.62 0.49 3.32 0.54 23.12*** .075Academic procrastination 2.90 0.63 3.10 0.72 6.06* .021

*p < .05. ***p < .001.

Figure 1. A path diagram for relations among emotional intelligence, academic self-efficacy, academic procrastination, and GPA.Note: β according to two research groups: non-LD and LD.

at TENNESSEE TECH UNIV on June 5, 2014ldx.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Hen and Goroshit 121

IFI = .96, CFI = .96, RMSEA = .049 (90% CI = .032, .065); PCLOSE = .507. Results showed that EI has a significant direct effect on academic self-efficacy: higher EI was asso-ciated with higher academic self-efficacy. They also showed indirect effects of EI on academic procrastination and GPA for both LD and non-LD groups: Higher EI is related to higher GPA and lower academic procrastination. These indirect effects were tested using the bootstrap estimation method (Mallinckrodt, Abraham, Wei, & Russell, 2006) and were found to be significant since their confidence intervals did not include zero (see Table 3).

To find out whether the effects of EI on academic self-efficacy, academic procrastination, and GPA were similar for LD versus non-LD students, we ran two additional mod-els. First, we constrained the paths from EI to academic pro-crastination, through academic self-efficacy, to be equal for LD and non-LD groups. Then we compared the constrained and unconstrained models. This comparison showed that the constrained model had a worse fit (Δχ2 = 6.97, p < .05), suggesting that the indirect effect of EI on academic pro-crastination is significantly stronger for LD students.

Second, we constrained the paths from EI to GPA through academic self to be equal across the two groups. Again, we compared the constrained and unconstrained models. Results showed that the constrained model had a worse fit (Δχ2 = 6.60, p < .05), suggesting that the indirect effect of EI on GPA is significantly stronger for LD students.

DiscussionThis study examined the relationships between EI and aca-demic procrastination in LD students as an attempt to

broaden and contribute to the small amount of evidence in this area. It targeted a difference in levels of academic self-efficacy, academic performance as measured by GPA, and EI between LD and non-LD students, questioning whether academic self-efficacy would mediate the relationship between EI and academic procrastination as well as the relationship between EI and academic performance, in both LD and non-LD students.

Results indicated that LD students have lower EI and academic self-efficacy and higher academic procrastina-tion than non-LD students. There was no difference between the groups in GPA scores. These findings support other studies that have found LD students to be rated lower in self-regulated learning behaviors (Baird et al., 2009), academic self-efficacy (Klassen, 2007; Klassen & Lynch, 2007), and self-efficacy for self-regulation and higher in academic procrastination (Klassen et al., 2008). Further studies that explored LD students’ GPA and other perfor-mance scales have revealed inconsistent findings (Heiman & Precel, 2003). Gregg (2007) argued that students with LD were competitive academically with their peers and graduated with GPAs not significantly less than those of non-LD students. Meltzer’s (2006) study also found that students with LD on average took only one semester longer to graduate. The LD students who participated in our study are supported by a special program for LD students. They receive academic accommodations, and this may also explain the similarity in GPA scores between the two groups. Only a few studies have explored EI in LD students (Reiff et al., 2001), suggesting that college students with and without LD are relatively similar in most social and emotional abilities.

Table 3. Direct and Indirect Standardized Effects and Bootstrap Estimate Confidence Interval of Emotional Intelligence (EI) Effect on Academic Self-Efficacy, Academic Procrastination, and GPA for LD and Non-LD Students.

Effect

Direct Indirect

Independent Variable Dependent Variable B SE(B) β B SE(B) βBootstrap

Estimate (95% CI)

Non-LD EI Academic self-efficacy 0.55*** 0.10 .52 — — — — Academic self-efficacy Academic procrastination –0.40*** 0.10 –.35 — — — — Academic self-efficacy GPA 3.37*** 0.96 .28 — — — — EI Academic procrastination — — — –0.22*** 0.08 –.18 –0.32, –0.07 EI GPA — — — 1.85*** 0.56 .15 0.03, 0.25LD EI Academic self-efficacy 1.18*** 0.25 .67 — — — — Academic self-efficacy Academic procrastination –0.46*** 0.12 –.46 — — — — Academic self-efficacy GPA 3.16*** 0.88 .37 — — — — EI Academic procrastination — — — –0.55*** 0.24 –.31 –0.54, –0.12 EI GPA — — — 3.74*** 1.28 .25 0.09, 0.39

***p < .001.

at TENNESSEE TECH UNIV on June 5, 2014ldx.sagepub.comDownloaded from

122 Journal of Learning Disabilities 47(2)

Further results indicated that the indirect effect of EI on academic procrastination and GPA in LD students was stronger than in non-LD students. This finding may suggest that for LD students the ability to regulate their emotional states is crucial for less academic procrastination and for better performance in their academic tasks. This finding certainly supports other findings that have suggested a rela-tionship between the emotional and cognitive components of self-regulation and how they relate to performance and motivation in different populations (Klassen et al., 2010). It also may echo Heiman and Kariv’s (2004) findings that suggest that LD students in higher education use more emo-tional coping strategies than non-LD students to achieve their performance goals. They also reported some differ-ences in stress management abilities and in the need for social support between the two groups (Kariv & Heiman, 2004). Sparks and Lovett (2009) reported that LD students scored higher on stress and anxiety and expressed a greater lack of self-confidence and self-doubt and extreme self-criticism regarding their learning process and abilities. Baird et al. (2009) found that LD students were rated lower in overall self-regulated learning behaviors, whereas Wilson, Deri Armstrong, Furie, and Walcot (2009) found that LD students reported higher prevalence of mental health disorders and use of special services than non-LD students. Altogether, these findings strengthen the argument that LD students in higher education need emotional sup-port and emotional regulation, in addition to learning strate-gies and other accommodations, to improve their academic experience and performance.

ConclusionsLD students in higher education are well acquainted with academic difficulty. The findings of the current study sup-port this notion and further raise the need to study the vari-ables that may be contributors to their academic success. EI has been found to be associated with a variety of outcomes, including academic performance. Findings in the present study indicate a stronger indirect association among EI, academic procrastination, and GPA in LD students in com-parison to non-LD students. This may suggest that strength-ening these emotional abilities in LD students may contribute to their academic adaptation and performance. In the past decade several studies have indicated the significance of teaching emotional strategies for LD students in higher edu-cation (Dahan & Meltzer, 2010). Others have stressed the need for multidimensional support programs to strengthen LD students’ emotional as well as academic abilities (Gregg, 2007). Our findings specifically raise the need to further explore the role of EI abilities in academic procrastination and its relationship to academic self-efficacy in LD students.

This is an initial study, and our findings should be further examined in relation to other predictors and possible causes of academic procrastination in LD students. Doing so will

contribute to the support and training programs we offer in our college for LD students and maybe for other colleges as well. Time orientation and management workshops are already pro-vided and have been found to be very beneficial (Meltzer, 2006), and during the coming academic year we will experi-ment with a 15-week EI training program for LD students.

Although this study included a good number of partici-pants, most participants were females from the social sci-ence department and most LD students were supported by a special accommodation program, but their exact accommo-dations were not tracked and LD students were not divided into specific categories. This certainly limits our ability to generalize across the different categories of LD and to con-trol for a specific effect of one category (e.g., ADHD). In addition, this study utilized only self-reported measure-ments and utilized GPA as a performance measure, although it is controversial. These limitations make it difficult to gen-eralize our findings; however, our findings contribute to the notion that to better support LD students in higher educa-tion there needs to be a clear emphasis on their emotional abilities and self-related states.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

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

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

References

Adeyemo, D. A. (2007). Moderating influence of emotional intelligence on the link between academic self-efficacy and achievement of university students. Psychology Developing Societies, 19, 199–211.

Arbuckle, J. L. (2009). Amos 18.0 user’s guide. Chicago, IL: SPSS.Baird, G., Scott, W., Dearing, E., & Hamill, S. (2009). Cognitive

self-regulation in youth with and without learning disabili-ties: Academic self-efficacy, theories of intelligence, learning versus performance goal preferences, and effort attributions. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 28, 881–908.

Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York, NY: Freeman.

Bastian, V. A., Burns, N. R., & Nettelbeck, T. (2005). Emotional intelligence predicts life skills, but not as well as personality and cognitive abilities. Personality and Individual Differences, 39, 1135–1145.

Bollen, K., & Long, J. S. (1993). Testing structural equation mod-els. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Bong, M. (2001). Role of self-efficacy and task-value in pre-dicting college students’ course performance and future

at TENNESSEE TECH UNIV on June 5, 2014ldx.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Hen and Goroshit 123

enrollment intentions. Contemporary Educational Psychol-ogy, 26, 553–570.

Boyatzis, R. (2006). Using tipping points of emotional intelligence and cognitive competencies to predict financial performance of leaders. Psicothema, 18, 124–131.

Brackett, M. A., & Mayers, J. D. (2003). Convergent, discriminate, and incremental validity of competing measures of emotional intelligence. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29, 1147–1158.

Brackett, M. A., Rivers, S. E., Shiffman, S., Lerner, N., & Salovey, P. (2006). Relating emotional abilities to social functioning: A comparison of self-report and performance measures of emo-tional intelligence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychol-ogy, 91, 780–795.

Britner, S. L., & Pajares, F. (2006). Sources of science self-efficacy beliefs of middle school students. Journal for Research in Sci-ence Teaching, 43, 485–499.

Brownlow, S., & Reasinger, R. D. (2000). Putting off until tomor-row what is better done today: Academic procrastination as a function of motivation toward college work. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 15, 15–34.

Chan, D. W. (2004). Perceived emotional intelligence and self-efficacy among Chinese secondary school teachers in Hong Kong. Personality and Individual Differences, 36, 1781–1795.

Chu, A. H. C., & Choi, J. N. (2005). Rethinking procrastination: Positive effects of “active” procrastination behavior on attitudes and performance. Journal of Social Psychology, 145, 245–264.

Dahan, O., & Meltzer, Y. (2010). באקדמיה ובמרכזי התמיכה בכלל למידה הדילמות המתעוררות עם לקויות לסטודנטים להוראה בפרט בנוגע The dilemmas raised in LD support centers in higher] ובהכשרהeducation]. Mofet Journal, 42, 44–48.

Daus, C. S., & Ashkanasy, N. M. (2005). The case for the ability-based model of emotional intelligence in organizational behavior. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26, 453–466.

Deniz, M. E., Tras, Z., & Adygan, D. (2009). An investigation of academic procrastination, locus of control, and emotional intelligence. Educational Sciences: Theory & Practice, 9, 623–632.

Dietz, F., Hofer, M., & Fries, S. (2007). Individual values, learn-ing routines and academic procrastination. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 77, 893–906.

Duran, A., Extremera, N., Rey, L., Fernandez-Berrocal, P., & Montalban, F. M. (2006). Predicting academic burnout and engagement in educational settings: Assessing the incremental validity of perceived emotional intelligence beyond perceived stress and general self-efficacy. Psicothema, 18(Suppl.), 158–164.

Fernandez-Berrocal, P., & Extremera, N. (2006). Emotional intel-ligence: A theoretical and empirical review of its first 15 years of history. Psicothema, 18, 7–12.

Ferrari, J. R. (2000). Procrastination and attention: Factor analy-sis of attention deficit, boredom, intelligence, self-esteem, and task delay frequencies. Journal of Social Behavior and Per-sonality, 15, 185–196.

Frazier, T. W., Youngstrom, E. A., Glutting, J. J., & Watkins, M. W. (2007). ADHD and achievement: Meta-analysis of the child,

adolescent, and adult literatures and a concomitant study with college students. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 40, 49–65.

Gil-Olarte, P., Palomera, R., & Brackett, M. (2006). Relating emotional intelligence to social competence and academic achievement in high school students. Psicothema, 18(Suppl.), 118–123.

Gregg, N. (2007). Underserved and underprepared: Postsecond-ary learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 22, 219–228.

Haycock, L. A., McCarthy, P., & Skay, C. L. (1998). Procrastina-tion in college students: The role of self-efficacy and anxiety. Journal of Counseling & Development, 76, 317–324.

Heiman, T., & Kariv, D. (2004). Manifestations of learning dis-abilities in university students: Implications for coping and adjustment. Education, 125, 313–324.

Heiman, T., & Precel, K. (2003). Students with learning disabili-ties in higher education. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 36, 248–260.

Hen, M., & Goroshit, M. (In press). Academic efficacy as a media-tor between emotional intelligence, GPA and academic pro-crastination. Manuscript submitted for publication.

Hooper, D., Coughlan, J., & Mullen, M. R. (2008, June). Evaluat-ing model fit: A synthesis of the structural equation modeling literature. Paper presented at the 7th European Conference on Research Methodology for Business and Management Stud-ies, London, UK.

Howell, A. J., & Watson, D. C. (2007). Procrastination: Associa-tions with achievement goal orientation and learning strate-gies. Personality and Individual Differences, 43, 167–178.

Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1–55.

Ivcevic, Z., Brackett, M. A., & Mayer, J. D. (2007). Emotional intelligence and emotional creativity. Journal of Personality, 75, 200–236.

Kariv, D., & Heiman, T. (2004). Task-oriented versus emotion-oriented coping strategies: The case of college students. Col-lege Student Journal, 39, 72–85.

Klassen, R. M. (2007). Using predictions to learn about the self-efficacy of early adolescents with and without learning disabil-ities. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 32, 173–187.

Klassen, R. M., Ang, R. P., Chong, W. H., Krawchuk, L. L., Huan, V. S., Wong, I. Y. F., & Yeo, L. S. (2010). Academic procrastination in two settings: Motivation correlates, behavioral patterns, and negative impact of procrastination in Canada and Sin-gapore. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 59, 361–379.

Klassen, R. M., Krawchuk, L. L., Lynch, S. L., & Rajani, S. (2008). Procrastination and motivation of undergraduates with learning disabilities: A mixed methods inquiry. Learning Dis-abilities Research & Practice, 23, 137–147.

Klassen, R. M., & Lynch, S. L. (2007). Self-efficacy from the perspective of adolescents with learning disabilities and their specialist teachers. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 40, 94–507.

at TENNESSEE TECH UNIV on June 5, 2014ldx.sagepub.comDownloaded from

124 Journal of Learning Disabilities 47(2)

Lopes, P. N., Salovey, P., Côte, S., & Beers, M. (2005). Emotion regulation abilities and the quality of social interaction. Emo-tion, 5, 113–118.

Mallinckrodt, B., Abraham, W. T., Wei, M., & Russell, D. W. (2006). Advances in testing the statistical significance of medi-ation effects. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 53, 372–378.

Meltzer, Y. (2006). לסטודנטים עם לקויות למידה במכללה האקדמית תל-חי A support center for learning disabled students] .מרכז תמיכהin Tel-Hai Academic College]. Issues in Special Education & Rehabilitation, 21, 98–101.

Milgram, N., Mey-Tal, G., & Levison, Y. (1998). Procrastination, generalized or specific, in college students and their parents. Personality and Individual Differences, 25, 297–316.

Owen, S. V., & Froman, R. D. (1988). Development of a college academic self-efficacy scale (Rep. No. TM012 263). East Lan-sing, MI: National Center for Research on Teacher Learning. Retrieved from ERIC database. (ED298158)

Pajares, F. (1996). Self-efficacy beliefs in academic settings. Review of Educational Research, 66, 543–578.

Reaser, A., Prevatt, F., Petscher, Y., & Proctor, B. (2007). The learning and study strategies of college students with ADHD. Psychology in the Schools, 44, 627–638.

Reiff, H. B., Hatzes, N. M., Bramel, M. H., & Gibbon, T. (2001). The relation of LD and gender with emotional intelligence in college students. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 34, 66–78.

Schermelleh-Engel, K., Moosbrugger, H., & Müller, H. (2008). Evaluating the fit of structural equation models: Tests of significance and descriptive goodness-of-fit measures. Meth-ods of Psychological Research Online, 8, 23–74.

Schraw, G., Wadkins, T., & Olafson, L. (2007). Doing the things we do: A grounded theory of academic procrastination. Jour-nal of Educational Psychology, 99, 12–25.

Schutte, N. S., Malouff, J. M., Hall, L. E., Haggerty, D. J., Cooper, J. T., Golden, C. J., & Dornheim, L. (1998). Development and vali-dation of a measure of emotional intelligence. Personality and Individual Differences, 25, 167–177.

Seo, E. H. (2008). Self-efficacy as a mediator in the relation-ship between self-oriented perfectionism and academic procrastination. Social Behavior and Personality, 36, 753–764.

Sparks, R. L., & Lovett, B. J. (2009). College students with learn-ing disability diagnoses: Who are they and how do they per-form? Journal of Learning Disabilities, 42, 494–510.

Steel, P. (2007). The nature of procrastination: A meta-analytic and theoretical review of quintessential self-regulatory failure. Psychological Bulletin, 133, 65–94.

Tuckman, B. W., & Sexton, T. L. (1992). Self-believers are self-motivated; self-doubters are not. Personality and Individual Differences, 13, 425–428.

Van-Eerde, W. (2003). A meta-analytically derived nomological network of procrastination. Personality and Individual Differ-ences, 35, 1401–1418.

Wilson, A. M., Deri Armstrong, C., Furie, A., & Walcot, E. (2009). The mental health of Canadians with self-reported learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 42, 24–40.

at TENNESSEE TECH UNIV on June 5, 2014ldx.sagepub.comDownloaded from