academic self-efficacy and performance of underrepresented stem majors: gender, ethnic, and social...

Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy, Vol. 13, No. 1, 2013, pp. 347--369

Academic Self-Efficacy and Performanceof Underrepresented STEM Majors: Gender, Ethnic,and Social Class Patterns

David MacPhee,* Samantha Farro, and Silvia Sara CanettoColorado State University

This longitudinal study examined academic self-efficacy and performance amongScience/Technology/Engineering/Math (STEM) majors who are underrepresentedin STEM education and occupations; i.e., women, specific ethnic minorities, andlow-socioeconomic status (SES) individuals. Performance on academic tests andself-perceptions of academic skills were assessed at admission and graduationfrom a STEM mentoring program. At admission, women perceived themselvesas academically weaker than men despite similar academic performance. How-ever, by graduation, women’s academic self-efficacy was equivalent to men’s.In addition, students with double STEM-minority statuses, by ethnicity and SES,had lower academic self-efficacy and performance than d id students with singleSTEM-minority status. Exploratory analyses of change over time by ethnic/SESgroups showed varying patterns of change that depended on the outcome vari-able. This study’s finding of an increase in academic self-efficacy for women andstudents with STEM-minority status by both ethnicity and SES at graduation froma mentoring program is perhaps an indication of the positive impact of mentoring.The mixed findings at program completion for students with single versus doubleSTEM-minority status call for attention to the complex relationship between socialdisadvantage, academic self-efficacy, and academic performance.

*Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to David MacPhee, Department ofHuman Development and Family Studies, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO 80523. [e-mail:[email protected]].

This study was completed in partial fulfillment of the requirements for Samantha Farro’s doctoraldegree, Department of Psychology, Colorado State University. An earlier version of this study waspresented at the 2008 annual meeting of the American Psychological Association, Boston, MA.

This research was supported in part by U.S. Department of Education grants (A. Wilcox, V.Gallegos, and D. MacPhee) for the McNair Program, and by the National Science Foundation Centerfor Multi-Scale Modeling of Atmospheric Processes, managed by Colorado State University undercooperative agreement No. ATM-0425247 OSP No. 533045.

347

DOI: 10.1111/asap.12033 C© 2013 The Society for the Psychological Study of Social Issues

348 MacPhee, Farro, and Canetto

Women in the United States are underrepresented in many science, technol-ogy, engineering, and mathematics (STEM1) educational fields and occupations(e.g., Babco & Bell, 2004; Xie & Shauman, 2003). For example, a National Sci-ence Foundation (NSF, 2013) report noted that women earned less than 30% ofundergraduate degrees in engineering and computer sciences, even though theirparticipation in most fields has risen and in fact since the late 1990s they receivedat least 57% of all undergraduate degrees. A similar pattern of STEM underrep-resentation is evident for some U.S. ethnic minorities whereby less than 15% ofundergraduate degrees in engineering, math, and physical science were earned byAfrican American, Latina/o, or Native American (ALNA2) students (NSF, 2013).There are also indications that socioeconomically disadvantaged students are lesslikely to major in STEM than students from higher socioeconomic status (SES)families (Shaw & Barbuti, 2010).

Sociocultural factors play a critical role in the limited human diversity foundin STEM fields in the United States (Ceci, Williams, & Barnett, 2009). Evidenceto support this proposition includes the variability in the proportion of men andwomen by historical epochs and by country (Valian, 2007). The variability in thedemographic diversity across STEM fields within the United States and elsewhereis another cue to the role of cultural factors in STEM participation (Babco & Bell,2004; NSF, 2013).

Self-efficacy is emerging as one such sociocultural factor (e.g., Shaw &Barbuti, 2010). Academic self-efficacy, defined as confidence in one’s ability toaccomplish academic tasks, affects educational and occupational interests and ex-pectations. Judgments about oneself, including competence in various domains,entail learning from vicarious experience in a social context as well as verbalpersuasion from powerful others. In the case of women and ALNAs, negativestereotypes lower self-assessments of STEM-related abilities as well as their per-formance in STEM tasks, ultimately compromising STEM educational and occu-pational aspirations (for a review of issues for women in STEM, see the reportby the American Association of University Women [AAUW], 2010). In contrast,STEM self-efficacy and commitment are boosted by the positive persuasion of,and learning experiences with, supportive mentors, particularly for students un-derrepresented in STEM (Leslie, McClure, & Oaxaca, 1998; Stout, Dasgupta,Hunsinger, & McManus, 2011).

1 For the purposes of this article, STEM refers to chemistry, computer science and informationtechnology, geosciences, life science, physics, engineering, and mathematics.

2 According to the National Science Foundation (NSF, 2013, p. 2), women, persons with dis-abilities, and three ethnic groups—African Americans, Latinas/os, and Native Americans—are “un-derrepresented in science and engineering because they constitute smaller percentages of science andengineering degree recipients and of employed scientists and engineers than they do of the popula-tion. Asians are not considered underrepresented because they are a larger percentage of science andengineering degree recipients and of employed scientists and engineers than they are of the population.”

Academic Self-Efficacy and Performance 349

This study focused on the academic self-efficacy and performance of femaleand male undergraduates in STEM fields as well as those who were low-SESand/or ALNAs. Specifically, this study assessed these students’ academic self-efficacy and performance longitudinally, at entrance to and completion of a STEMmentoring program.

There are many reasons why studying academic self-efficacy and perfor-mance in STEM-underrepresented groups is important. The United States needsan abundant and diverse STEM-educated labor force to keep pace with advancesin science and technology locally and globally (Xie & Shauman, 2003). Female,ALNA, and low-SES persons stand out as a conspicuous and untapped resourcefor expanding and diversifying the pool of U.S. STEM professionals (NSF, 2013).Innovation would be enhanced by expanding the participation of diverse individu-als in STEM, as noted in the 2010 AAUW report: “With a more diverse workforce,scientific and technological products, services, and solutions are likely to be bet-ter designed and more likely to represent all users.” Because STEM occupationsare high status and also lucrative, increasing the participation of female, ALNA,and low-SES individuals in STEM education would also expand the social andeconomic opportunities of individuals from these disadvantaged groups.

Academic Self-Efficacy and Performance

Self-perceived competence is “a pivotal factor in career choice and devel-opment” because “unless people believe they can produce desired outcomes bytheir actions, they have little incentive to act or to persevere in the face of diffi-culties” (Bandura, Barbaranelli, Caprara, & Pastorelli, 2001, p. 187). Perceivedself-efficacy, interest, performance, and persistence in a field stand in reciprocalrelationship, reinforcing each other over time (Nauta, Epperson, & Kahn, 1998;Nauta, Kahn, Angell, & Cantarelli, 2002; Zeldin, Britner, & Pajares, 2008). Therole of academic self-efficacy may be particularly important in U.S. women’sinterest and persistence in STEM because in the United States, such careers areconsidered masculine pursuits (Bernstein & Russo, 2008). Studies find that womenwho are unsure of their science and math skills are less likely to persist in STEMcareer paths, as compared to women who are more confident in such skills (AAUW,2010).

Successful academic performance also predicts interest and persistence inSTEM, especially for students who are minorities in STEM. For instance, inone study, high school and college first-year grade point average (GPAs) werethe best predictors of educational persistence among students who majored inscience or engineering (Mendez, Buskirk, Lohr, & Haag, 2008). In other studies,women’s persistence in science majors and careers was associated with high schoolmath grades (Camp, Gilleland, Pearson, & Putten, 2009), college entrance examscores (e.g., Fassinger, 1990), or college GPA (Camp et al.). Successful academic


performance has also been linked to higher level career aspirations among womenin STEM majors (Nauta, Epperson, & Kahn, 1998).

Occupational self-efficacy theory (see Betz, 1997) also provides insights intowhy some U.S. ethnic minorities are underrepresented in STEM. First, limitedacademic preparation is a significant factor in deterring many ALNAs from pur-suing STEM education and occupations (Betz, 1997; Museus, Palmer, Davis, &Maramba, 2011). For instance, lower college GPAs are associated with higherattrition rates from STEM majors as well as lower enrollments in graduate school(e.g., DeBerard, Spielmans, & Julka, 2004). Taking fewer math courses makesone less prepared and less competitive for STEM higher education, which to asignificant degree accounts for fewer ALNAs enrolling in STEM graduate pro-grams (for reviews, see Betz, 1997; Poirer, Tanenbaum, Storey, Kirshstein, &Rodriguez, 2009). Second, given that academic performance contributes to aca-demic self-efficacy, minority and low-income students may be doubly at risk(Betz, 1997): They encounter more obstacles to navigating academic milestonesthat are required for entry into graduate school and STEM occupations, and di-minished academic self-efficacy may in turn lead them to avoid STEM coursesand occupations (Lent et al., 2005). Academic self-efficacy may also account forthe association between successful academic performance and later interest andachievement in STEM (O’Brien, Martinez-Pons, & Kopala, 1999). Thus, dimin-ished confidence and vocational self-perceptions may be obstacles to ALNAs’entry into STEM occupations, by undermining their academic performance andalso by affecting their choice of STEM occupations as well as their persistence inSTEM majors.

There is growing recognition that the role of academic self-efficacy in dis-parities in STEM participation needs to be tested over time and across a diversityof respondents (Shaw & Barbuti, 2010). As noted by Ishitani (2006), a limita-tion of the extant literature is that few studies used a longitudinal design; evenfewer included socioeconomically or ethnically diverse samples (see Leslie et al.,1998). One exception is a longitudinal study that found ethnic minority students’academic self-efficacy to predict intentions to pursue a scientific career (Estrada,Woodcock, Hernandez, & Schultz, 2011).

Mentoring in Relation to Academic Self-Efficacy and Performance

Mentoring can be a critical source of emotional support, modeling, and guid-ance that promotes academic engagement and achievement (see Martin & Dowson,2009) and bolsters confidence (Liang, Tracy, Taylor, & Williams, 2002). Researchon college students in STEM consistently finds that women feel more isolated andreceive less mentoring than do men (see Burke & Sunal, 2010). Consequently,“women can benefit remarkably from access to support networks” that involvementoring (Sheffield, 2006, p. 192). Given that loss of confidence may be an


important factor in women’s decision to drop out of STEM fields (Huang, 2003),and that mentoring relationships often bolster women’s self-confidence (Down-ing, Crosby, & Blake-Beard, 2005; Paglis, Green, & Bauer, 2006), mentoring isoften a key feature in programs geared toward supporting women’s interest andpersistence in STEM (Barton, 2006; Liang et al., 2002). Inadequate mentoringalso is an important determinant of the decision by ALNAs not to pursue graduatestudies in STEM (see review by Poirer et al., 2009). Based on extensive researchon academic self-efficacy, Betz (1997, p. 127) argued that interventions to enhanceSTEM-minority students’ expectations of efficacy “may be an important buffer tothe lack of support or, worse, overt discrimination.”

Some programs to promote the persistence of ALNAs in STEM also featurementoring as their centerpiece (e.g., Burke & Sunal, 2010). A few of these men-toring programs have been evaluated with comparative longitudinal designs. Forexample, Wesley Schultz et al. (2011) found that ethnic minorities involved inthe Research Initiative for Science Excellence were more likely than a matchedcomparison group to persist in their intentions to pursue a scientific research ca-reer, although the key factor in persistence intentions was undergraduate researchexperience, not engagement with a mentor. More typically, however, mentoringprograms are evaluated with retrospective and/or qualitative methods that areunable to document changes in academic confidence and persistence in STEM.

The Current Study

This study longitudinally examined the academic self-perceptions and perfor-mance of students who are underrepresented (i.e., by sex, SES, and/or ethnicity)in STEM disciplines. One gap in the literature on STEM minorities is that ithas focused primarily on single rather than on multiple STEM-minority dimen-sions. By contrast, in this study we examined the academic self-perceptions andperformance of STEM students who embodied multiple STEM-minority identi-ties. Also, the students were selected into a mentoring program because of theiracademic promise. Academically promising STEM-minority students are an im-portant group for researchers interested in academic self-efficacy. As achievers infields in which they are minorities, these students may offer a window on academicand psychological resilience (e.g., Syed, Azmitia, & Cooper, 2011).

A goal of this study was to explore whether a diversity of socially disad-vantaged but academically promising female and male STEM students exhibitedthe gendered patterns of academic self-efficacy and performance documented inthe literature. As described earlier, studies of college students in STEM disci-plines have revealed sex differences in academic self-confidence, favoring men,although such differences are less often observed on measures of actual academicperformance (e.g., Friedman, 1989). Thus, our first hypothesis was that a gendered


pattern of academic self-efficacy and performance would be evident in our sampleat entry in the mentoring program.

A second goal was to examine patterns of academic self-efficacy and per-formance by multiple dimensions of STEM underrepresentation, as called forby Betz (1997). Few studies, most of them qualitative, have been conducted onstudents with three or more STEM-minority statuses. Therefore, our analysesof the academic performance and self-efficacy of students with three intersect-ing STEM-minority statuses (by sex, ethnicity, and SES) were exploratory. Theliterature on ethnic minorities underrepresented in STEM points to limited aca-demic preparation and lower academic self-efficacy as important barriers to theirpursuing STEM education (Museus et al., 2011). In addition, low-SES studentsreceive less assistance with school-related tasks due their parents’ limited edu-cation, time, and financial resources, and they also have limited access to rolemodels with a college degree (Engle & Tinto, 2008). Thus, we hypothesized thatacademic self-efficacy and performance would be most compromised in studentswho were ALNAs and also low SES, as compared to students with only one ofthose STEM-disadvantaged statuses.

A third goal of this study was to follow our STEM-underrepresented students’perceived and actual academic performance over time, from admission to grad-uation from a mentoring program. Based on studies on the mentoring of womenin science (e.g., Downing et al., 2005), as well as studies on mentoring’s effectson academic confidence (for a review, see Johnson, 2007), we hypothesized thatparticipation in a STEM mentoring program provides a greater boost to women’sacademic self-efficacy than to men’s. We also explored whether students with adouble STEM disadvantage, in terms of ethnicity and SES, would show greaterimprovement in academic self-perceptions and performance between entry intoand graduation from a mentoring program, relative to students with either ethnicityor SES STEM disadvantage.

Method

Participants

The sample for this study was students majoring in STEM disciplines andparticipating in the McNair Scholars Program at a large (26,500 students), public,Mountain West University. The McNair Program is one of six U.S. Department ofEducation TRIO Programs aimed at supporting high academic-potential STEMmajors who are minorities (U.S. Department of Education, 2002). To be eligiblefor the program, STEM majors have to be from one or more of the followingSTEM-underrepresented groups: female; low income, first generation in college;or ALNA. McNair students are also required to have a 3.00 GPA or higher, ordemonstrate the potential for achieving that criterion by graduation, and to be in


their junior or senior year. The initial sample for this study included 175 studentsenrolled in the McNair program over a 10-year period. In a typical year, 10–12 participants were enrolled in the fall of their junior year, and 3–6 additionalparticipants were enrolled in the summer of their junior or senior year.

Students in this study were recruited into the McNair Program by two means.The primary (fall) recruitment strategy involved mailings to juniors and seniorswho met at least one of the selection criteria as underrepresented students inSTEM at the public Mountain West university. A second strategy involved sendinginvitations for participation in the Summer McNair program to eligible students atnearby colleges and universities. Summer-start McNair scholars were in residenceat the main campus for 3 months, and then participated in the McNair Programby means of mentoring and research activities at both their home campus and atthe host campus. In terms of program exposure, approximately 80% of McNairscholars completed 2 years in the program and the remainder completed 1 year.

At admission, the participants’ mean age was 23 years (range = 18–47).Most participants described themselves as socioeconomically (SES) disadvan-taged (80% were first generation in college, and 80% were from low-incomefamilies). First-generation status and low family income were related to one an-other, ϕ = .59, p < .0001. Given that first-generation status and low-income statuswere concordant for 88% of the participants, a low-SES category was assignedwhether the individual was first generation, low income, or both. Sixty-one percentof respondents were women. Forty-one percent described themselves as Latina/o,8% African American, 7.4% Native American, and 5.7% as “multiple” or “other”ethnicity; the remainder (38.3%) described themselves as nonLatina/o EuropeanAmerican. STEM ethnic-minority status was related to both SES factors: first gen-eration, ϕ = .41, p < .001; and low family income, ϕ = .47, p < .001. To examinethe role of intersecting ethnicity and SES statuses, three groups of students werecreated: (1) ALNA students without low SES (n = 32), (2) students of nonLatino/aEuropean-American descent with low SES (n = 62), and (3) ALNA students withlow SES (n = 75 with double STEM-disadvantage status).

Measures

Academic performance was measured in three ways: by means of a measureof critical thinking, via practice Graduate Record Examination (GRE) scores, andvia cumulative GPA at graduation.

Critical thinking. The Watson-Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisal (WGCTA;Watson & Glaser, 1994) measures five aspects of critical thinking: inferences,recognition of assumptions, deduction, interpretation, and evaluation of argu-ments. The 40 items yield a total score with a range from 0 to 40. WGCTAscores are predictive of GPA and achievement and other cognitive test scores


(Geisinger, 1994). The WGCTA has adequate alpha and retest reliabilities (fora review, see Geisinger, 1994). In this sample, the internal consistency of theWGCTA was high (α = .94). With regard to validity, in this sample the WGCTAtotal score was correlated with undergraduate GPA values (r [142)]= .27), andwith the practice GRE Verbal (r[108] = .51) and Analytical (r = .53) scores, allp < .001.

GRE scores. GRE scores were obtained via practice tests were administeredfrom one of the published test preparation books, using a timed, group-testingformat.

GPA. Cumulative GPA upon graduation was obtained from students’ tran-scripts.

Academic self-efficacy was measured with Harter’s (1992) scale, supple-mented by items related to self-perceived academic and study skills developedfor this study. Harter’s measure provided a general assessment of academic self-efficacy whereas the latter questions focused on skills specific to science and mathas well as study strategies.

Self-efficacy. The What I Am Like scale (WIAL; Harter, 1992) is a measureof self-competence for adolescents and young adults. The WIAL was chosenbecause (i) it assesses multiple domains of self-efficacy (described below), (ii)the Scholastic and Intelligence scales have been used in previous research onacademic self-efficacy (e.g., Bouchey & Harter, 2005), and (iii) it also measuresthe importance of various domains to the individual. The WIAL uses a forced-alternative format in which individuals select one of two statements that bestrepresents their self-appraisals. For example, one item from the Scholastic scale isthis: “Some students feel confident that they are mastering their coursework BUTOther students do not feel so confident.” A sample item from the Intelligence scaleis: “Some students feel like they are just as smart or smarter than other studentsBUT Other students wonder if they are as smart.” Once the most descriptivestatement is chosen, the respondent decides whether it is sort of true of me orreally true of me. Scores can range from 1 to 4, with higher scores reflectingstronger belief in the chosen self-appraisal.

Four WIAL content scales were administered: Acceptance (i.e., self-perceivedsocial skills), Creativity, Scholastic (i.e., mastery of coursework), and Intelli-gence. In this sample the Scholastic and Intelligence scales were highly correlated(r = .78; p < .0001) and thus were combined into a single score we called Aca-demic Self-Efficacy. This scale is consistent with how Bandura et al. (2001) definedacademic self-efficacy in terms of mastery of academic subjects and coursework.In addition, the Global Self-Worth scale assesses general self-concept in relationto being pleased with oneself and liking the kind of person one is. Cronbach’s


alpha reliabilities exceeded .85 in the standardization sample, and ranged from .76to .86 in the current sample. Related to construct validity, previous research hasfound that the academic self-efficacy scales are correlated with grades in math andscience as well as self-reflected appraisals from parents and teachers (Bouchey &Harter, 2005).

Self-perceived academic and study skills. Confidence in academic and studyskills also was measured via structured and open-ended items developed for thisstudy. Respondents rated themselves as weak (1), average (2), or strong (3) in termsof science and math skills as well as specific study skills. The latter included or-ganization, note taking, test anxiety, and test taking. In addition, participants com-pleted three open-ended questions regarding concerns they had about preparingfor graduate school, obstacles to their success in graduate school, and skills andcharacteristics they thought would help them succeed in graduate school. Contentanalysis (Weber, 1990) was used to code the open-ended responses. First, twoindividuals independently coded a random selection of 20 responses to identifythemes related to academic weaknesses and strengths. Coding discrepancies wereresolved by consensus. Nine obstacles were mentioned, four of which were notedby at least 5% of respondents: finances (57%), competitive admissions (30%), aca-demic skills (26%), and time/stress management (21%). Eight personal strengthsrelated to pursuing graduate school in the future were mentioned; determinationor hard work (83%) and research experience (9%) were noted most often. Thesecodes were then used for the remaining responses, with 15 of the responses codedby a different pair of raters to determine interrater reliability (kappa = .86).

Graduate school plans. Information about postgraduate plans was collectedvia questions developed for this study. These yes/no questions asked whether stu-dents had (i) selected a graduate discipline, (ii) applied to graduate programs, (iii)been accepted in graduate programs, and (iv) received graduate school funding.

The pretest battery of measures (including the WGCTA, WIAL, and measuresof self-perceived academic and study skills) was group administered in Septemberfor fall cohorts and in May for summer cohorts. Posttest measures (includingthe WGCTA and WIAL) were administered individually within two months ofgraduation (which coincided with completion of the McNair Program), typically21 months after students had entered the program. Regardless of their time ofentrance to the McNair program, all McNair students completed (i) workshopson technical writing, GRE preparation, and orientation to graduate school; (ii)yearly academic plans for postgraduate work to clarify career goals and skills; (iii)networking activities such as informational interviews with graduate students,visits to other research labs, and McNair conferences; and (iv) a research projectwith a faculty mentor. Mentors received guidance on how to build supportive


relationships with proteges and how to foster proteges’ career development. Thisstudy’s procedures were approved by our University’s Institutional Review Board.

Plan of Analysis

Multivariate ANOVAs were used to test for sex differences and for ethnic/SESdifferences in academic self-efficacy and academic performance. MANOVA wasused to discern “a parsimonious interpretation of a system of outcome variables”(Huberty & Morris, 1989, p. 304). In this study, the indicators of academic perfor-mance constituted one system of conceptually interrelated variables, and the mea-sures of academic self-efficacy and confidence in study skills constituted anothersystem. In follow-up univariate tests of hypotheses involving group differences,one-tailed tests were used.

Results

Preliminary Analyses

Missing data at Time 1. Seven cases were omitted from the analyses becausethey had incomplete data for at least two of the primary dependent variables:undergraduate GPA, GRE scores, and self-efficacy ratings on the WIAL. Pre-liminary analyses were conducted, using χ2 and t tests, to determine patternsof missing baseline data because 40% of participants were missing data on atleast one dependent variable, primarily self-reported academic and study skills(n = 112 completed). Of the 168 students remaining in the sample, baseline datawere complete for 92% of students for GPA (n = 154), 99% for the WIAL andWGCTA (n = 167), and 74% for the GRE (n = 124); 99 participants had com-plete data for all four of these measures. Analyses revealed a nonrandom patternof missing data related to the sex of the participant, χ2(1, N = 168) = 5.76,p = .02, with men having more missing data than women on the study skills mea-sure. To maximize statistical power, univariate analyses of group differences werecomputed separately for (i) the WIAL, (ii) measures of academic performance,and (iii) self-reported academic and study skills. For this reason, the degrees offreedom differ for each group comparison.

Attrition at Time 2. The sample at time of graduation from the McNair Pro-gram (Time 2) comprised 48% of the sample at program admission (Time 1).Individuals who participated in the study at Time 1 and Time 2 were similar, on allbut two variables, to individuals who completed only Time 1 measures. Studentswho completed the posttest, compared to those who did not, were significantlylower in self-rated science skills and also believed they had weaker test-takingskills (p < .05). Following procedures described in Miller and Wright (1995),these two variables were entered into a probit regression analysis. The resulting


lambda score, which uses a set of variables to estimate the likelihood of the partic-ipant having missing Time 2 data, was used as a covariate in analyses of McNairprogram outcomes. Next, missing data were imputed using a multiple imputationstrategy recommended by Graham (2012). We used the fully conditional MCMCmethod to impute missing data for normally distributed dependent variables. TheMCMC method can handle both continuous and categorical predictor variables aswell as arbitrary missing data patterns. This method assumes an iterative approachthat fits a single variable using all other variables in the model as predictors andthen imputes missing data for the single variable being fit. The method continuesfor each variable in the model to the maximum number of iterations specified,which was 20 in this (SPSS 21.0).

Intersection of sex and SES/ethnicity. Exploratory analyses were conducted todetermine if there was an interaction between the STEM-minority status variables,with self-perceptions on the WIAL and the indicators of academic performance asthe dependent variables. In each MANOVA, sex and ethnicity-by-SES group werethe independent variables. With the set of four WIAL scales as the dependentvariable in the first MANOVA, the omnibus Sex by SES/Ethnicity interactionwas not significant, F(8,161) = .23. With cumulative GPA and the practice GREscores as the dependent variables in the second MANOVA, the omnibus Sex bySES/Ethnicity interaction also was not significant, F(8,72) = 1.10. Given the lackof Sex by SES/Ethnicity interaction effects, and the fact that some small cell sizesreduced power to less than .38, subsequent analyses focus on either sex differencesor SES-by-ethnic group differences.

Women’s and Men’s Academic Self-Efficacy and Performance at ProgramEntry

Given that past studies indicate that women have lower academic self-confidence than men (e.g., Leslie et al., 1998), one-tailed tests were used toexamine differences between women and men on measures of academic self-efficacy, creativity, test-taking abilities, test anxiety, and academic preparedness.First, a multivariate ANOVA was conducted with sex of participant as the be-tween subjects effect for Academic Self-Efficacy and on the WIAL as well asthe self-perception measures of confidence in study skills and test taking. Themain effect of sex was significant, F(5,108) = 8.46, p < .001. The Roy-Bargmanstep-down tests were significant for Academic Self-Efficacy, ηp

2 = .036, and forthe items related to self-perceived study and test-taking skills. Female studentshad significantly lower self-perceptions of their study skills, test-taking skills,and test anxiety than male students (see Table 1); a lower score on test anxietyindicates that it is perceived as an area of weakness. Univariate F tests for theother WIAL scales as well as individual items related to self-perceived academicskills are reported in Table 1. With p set at .01 to correct for the number of


Table 1. STEM Women’s and Men’s Academic Performance and Self-Perceptions at Entry into theMcNair Mentoring Program

Women MenMean (SD) Mean (SD) F

Academic performanceCritical thinking (WGCTA) 29.50 (5.55) 29.28 (5.76) n.s.GRE—verbal 460 (90) 441 (95) n.s.GRE—quantitative 526 (113) 557 (122) n.s.GRE—analytical 503 (143) 483 (173) n.s.Cumulative GPA 3.22 (.53) 3.27 (.48) n.s.

Academic self-perceptionsWIAL: academic self-efficacy 3.07 (.62) 3.35 (.52) 8.58**

WIAL: acceptance 3.05 (.73) 2.96 (.70) n.s.WIAL: creativity 2.83 (.65) 3.16 (.68) 9.80***

WIAL: global self-worth 3.31 (.53) 3.28 (.56) n.s.Academic skills: science 2.64 (.54) 2.73 (.46) n.s.Academic skills: math 2.27 (.62) 2.32 (.67) n.s.Study skills: organization 2.70 (.52) 2.43 (.50) 5.57*

Study skills: note taking 2.64 (.57) 2.17 (.70) 12.49***

Study skills: test anxiety 2.07 (.61) 2.52 (.51) 4.16***

Study skills: test taking 2.21 (.62) 2.46 (.79) 2.96*

Note. WGCTA = Watson-Glazer Critical Thinking Appraisal; GRE = Graduate Record Examinationpractice test; WIAL = What I Am Like scale. Sex differences on the measures of academic performancewere tested with two-tailed tests; sex differences on the measures of academic self-perceptions weretested with one-tailed tests.*p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001.

tests, female and male students were found to differ in self-perceived Creativity,ηp

2 = .056, but had similar perceptions of global self-worth and academic pre-paredness in science and math.

The null hypothesis of no sex difference in academic performance was sup-ported by the omnibus MANOVA testing female-male differences in critical think-ing, GRE practice scores, and cumulative GPA at graduation, F(5,77) = .04 (seeTable 1). To put these scores in context, the McNair students were in the 30thpercentile in critical thinking, the 50th percentile on the GRE-Verbal, and at the30th percentile on the other two GRE tests.

Responses to open-ended questions about perceived obstacles to pursuinggraduate school reinforce the above quantitative findings. Women were morelikely than men (39% vs. 13%) to view their academic skills as an obstacle forpursuing graduate school, χ2(1, N = 114) = 3.92, p = .05. A higher proportion ofmen than women perceived time/stress management as an obstacle (37% vs. 18%),χ2(1, N = 114) = 3.87, p = .05. Finally, women and men were equally likely tomention family obligations as an obstacle (13%) and to perceive determinationand hard work (83%) as personal assets for graduate school.

Post hoc tests were conducted to determine whether academic self-efficacyand performance predicted the likelihood that the McNair students would applyto graduate or professional school. Undergraduate GPA was strongly (Cohen’s


d = 1.62) associated with whether participants had applied to graduate school(M = 3.40) or had not (M = 2.67), t(119) = 5.18, p < .0001. Students who weremore confident in their test-taking skills were more likely to apply for postgraduatetraining, d = .60, t(74) = 1.97, p = .054, as were students who rated themselvesas having better time management skills, d = .76, t(74) = 2.08, p = .05. Half ofthe students who did not apply for postgraduate training stated that it was difficultto find the time to do so. None of the other variables were significantly associatedwith applying for postgraduate training.

Changes in Academic Self-Efficacy: Sex Differences

Repeated-measures ANOVAs were used to test the hypothesis that women’sacademic self-efficacy would receive a greater boost, between admission to andgraduation from the McNair Program, than would men’s. Sex of participant wasthe between subjects effect and time (admission to and graduation from the McNairProgram) was the within subjects factor. The lambda score related to differentialattrition was entered as a covariate. A significant main effect for time was found,F(1,164) = 31.74, p < .0001. This effect was qualified by a time-by-sex ofparticipant interaction effect for Academic Self-Efficacy, F(1,164) = 10.97, p =.001; this represents a medium effect size, ηp

2 = .062. By graduation, women’sacademic self-efficacy had increased by .61 SDs but men’s had remained stable(see Figure 1). This finding cannot be explained by differential program dosagebecause women and men attended the same number of workshops (90% vs. 88%,respectively). Also, women and men had similar scores on a test of what theygained from those workshops (78% vs. 76%, respectively), spent the same amountof time meeting with their McNair advisers and working with their researchmentors, and received similar scores from their research mentors on their researcharticles (91% vs. 88%, respectively).

Self-perceived creativity also increased from program admission to gradua-tion, F(1,164) = 16.81, p < .0001, as did perceived global self-worth, F(1,164) =19.48, p < .0001. Sex-specific changes were observed on Creativity, F(1,164) =4.07, p = .045, but not in global self-worth. The increase in self-reported creativityfor female students, compared to no change for males, represents a small effectsize, ηp

2 = .045. No differences by time, sex, or their interaction emerged on theWGCTA measure of critical thinking or on the other WIAL scales.

Academic Self-Efficacy and Performance: Differences by SES and EthnicMinority Status

MANOVAs with Tukey post hoc tests were used to test the hypothesis thatacademic self-efficacy and performance favor students with single versus multipleSTEM minority statuses. For these analyses, STEM minority status was defined


Fig. 1. STEM women’s and men’s academic self-efficacy at entry into and graduation from the McNairMentoring Program.

in two ways: being an underrepresented ethnic minority in STEM (ALNA) andlow SES. Three groups of students were compared on the baseline measures ofacademic self-efficacy and performance: (1) typical-SES ALNA students, (2) low-SES nonLatina/o European American students, and (3) low-SES ALNA students(i.e., double STEM-disadvantage status).

The first MANOVA focused on Ethnic Group/SES differences in self-efficacyon the WIAL. The omnibus test revealed a trend, F(8,164) = 1.90, p = .06.The Roy-Bargman step-down test was significant for Academic Self-Efficacy,ηp

2 = .054, which is a small effect. Tukey post hoc tests showed that McNairstudents who had two STEM-disadvantage statuses perceived themselves to beless academically competent on the WIAL scale (see Table 2). The three groupswere similar on the measures of self-perceived creativity, acceptance, and globalself-worth.

The second MANOVA included the measures of academic performance, forwhich the omnibus main effect was significant, F(10,71) = 2.85, p = .03. TheRoy-Bargman step-down tests were significant for each of the GRE scales, ηp

2

= .077 to .115, which represent medium effect sizes, as well as on cumulativeGPA, ηp

2 = .039, and the WGCTA, ηp2 = .048. The significant difference among

the three groups in critical thinking (see Table 2) was because of low-SES ethnicminority students performing significantly worse than low-SES European Amer-ican students. On the practice GRE, low-SES European American students ob-tained higher scores than either STEM ethnic minority group on all three subtests


Table 2. Academic Performance and Self-Perceptions of STEM Students at Entry into the McNairMentoring Program, by Ethnicity and SES

Ethnic minority European-american

Low SESTypical SESMean (SD) Mean (SD) Mean (SD) F

Academic assessmentsCritical thinking (WGCTA) 29.03 (5.90) 28.22a (5.63) 30.89b (5.20) 3.92*

GRE—verbal 417a (84) 423a (88) 472b (77) 5.02**

GRE—quantitative 503a (112) 496a (113) 565b (105) 5.00**

GRE—analytical 468b (108) 411a (144) 513c (138) 5.84**

Cumulative GPA 3.39b (.37) 3.11a (.54) 3.31b (.50) 4.23**

Self-perceptionsWIAL: academic self-Efficacy 3.38a (.46) 3.02b (.61) 3.27a (.61) 3.78*

WIAL: acceptance 3.17 (.87) 3.03 (.74) 2.93 (.58) n.s.WIAL: creativity 3.07(.62) 2.89 (.72) 3.01 (.66) n.s.WIAL: global self-worth 3.39 (.55) 3.26 (.54) 3.31 (.54) n.s.Academic skills: science 2.76 (.44) 2.58 (.57) 2.69 (.47) n.s.Academic skills: math 2.24 (.63) 2.31 (.61) 2.26 (.68) n.s.Study skills: organization 2.63 (.50) 2.59 (.58) 2.64 (.49) n.s.Study skills: note taking 2.68 (.58) 2.45 (.70) 2.42 (.61) n.s.Study skills: test anxiety 2.00 (.58) 2.02 (.70) 2.21 (.70) n.s.Study skills: test taking 2.21 (.71) 2.11a (.69) 2.39b (.61) 3.15*

Note. WGCTA = Watson-Glazer Critical Thinking Appraisal; GRE = Graduate Record Examinationpractice test; WIAL = What I Am Like scale. Group means that differ significantly, using Tukey posthoc tests (p < .05), are indicated with different subscripts.*p < .05; **p < .01.

(see Table 2), with the low-SES ethnic minority students having Analytical scoresthat were significantly lower than those of the typical-SES STEM ethnic mi-nority students. Differences in cumulative GPA showed the same pattern asdid the GRE scores, with students who had STEM minority statuses by bothethnicity and SES having significantly lower average GPAs than the other twogroups.

Related to confidence in specific academic and study skills, the three groupswere similar on the measures of science and math skills as well as study skills(see Table 2). However, McNair students with two STEM-disadvantage statusesperceived themselves to be less competent in their test-taking skills (see Table 2),whereas low-SES European American students were most confident on the lat-ter measure. Thus, as hypothesized, students with multiple STEM-disadvantagestatuses were significantly lower on multiple indices of academic performanceas well as in their academic self-efficacy and confidence in their test-takingskills.

Post hoc analyses were conducted to determine if the three ethnic/SES groupsalso differed in their persistence in STEM as indicated by application to graduateschool. Binary logistic regression was used given that the dependent variable wasdichotomous: applied versus did not apply to graduate school. UndergraduateGPA and confidence in test-taking skills were entered as covariates in the first step


because in earlier analyses these variables were associated with the decision toapply to graduate school. Two dummy variables were entered in the second step:The first represented single versus multiple STEM-disadvantage status, and thesecond coded for European American versus STEM ethnic minority. Althoughthe covariates explained significant variance in whether or not students appliedto graduate school, R2 = .392, p < .0001, neither dummy variable—representingethnicity and SES—accounted for additional variance, p > .83.

Changes in Academic Self-Efficacy: Differences by SES and EthnicMinority Status

Exploratory analyses, using repeated-measures ANOVAs with p set at .005,were conducted to assess whether students with a double STEM disadvantage,in terms of ethnicity and SES, showed greater improvement across time in self-perceptions and academic performance, relative to student with either ethnic-ity or SES STEM disadvantage. The lambda score related to differential attri-tion was entered as a covariate. A significant group difference was found inself-reported creativity, F(2, 163) = 6.29, p = .002, ηp

2 = .071, with a de-cline observed for the ALNA typical-SES students but an increase found for theother two groups, substantially so for the European-American/low-SES students(Cohen’s d > .52). A different pattern emerged on the measure of critical think-ing, F(2, 157) = 5.28, p = .005,with the double STEM-disadvantage studentsimproving by .28 SDs and the other two groups either remaining stable or de-clining slightly. The effect for critical thinking was medium in size, ηp

2 = .061.No differential change was found on the other WIAL scales, GRE scores, orcumulative GPA.

Discussion

Summary and Limitations

This longitudinal study examined academic self-efficacy and performanceamong ethnically and SES-diverse women and men at entry into and graduationfrom a mentoring program for underrepresented STEM majors. In support ofour first hypothesis, at admission, women perceived themselves as academicallyweaker than men even though they had similar academic performance scores. Yetby graduation, women’s academic self-efficacy was similar to men’s. A differentpattern emerged when the data were examined through the lens of SES andethnicity: At program entry, students with multiple STEM minority statuses hadlower scores on every measure of academic performance, compared to peerswith a single STEM-disadvantage status. However, double-disadvantage students,


compared to their single-disadvantage peers, benefited more from the McNairProgram in two areas: critical thinking—a domain of academic performance—and self-perceived creativity.

Several cautions are warranted in interpreting this study’s findings. One lim-itation is that because of inadequate statistical power, we were unable to fully testthe intersectionality of sex, ethnicity, and SES. However, exploratory analyses in-dicated that sex differences are additive rather than multiplicative with ethnic/SESdifferences. Larger samples of ALNAs would also be helpful in disaggregating theALNA category in its subgroups. This is because the lives of African American,Latina/o, and Native American individuals are different in ways that are relevantto STEM self-efficacy, such as negative stereotypes and access to role models.Also, future studies exploring the role of ethnicity in STEM self-perceptions andperformance should include measures of ethnic identity that are more complexthan an ethnic group label. An additional limitation is that the study skills measureswere not administered to two cohorts of students, resulting in 35% missing data,with men being more likely to have missing data on this measure than women.Because of these nonrandom patterns of missing data, the findings of this studyare suggestive.

Yet another limitation pertains to the measure used to assess academic self-efficacy. Although the What I am Like measure provides a comprehensive pictureof college students’ self-perceptions, it is not necessarily the ideal choice for as-sessing academic self-efficacy given (i) limited evidence of its validity for thispurpose and (ii) the relatively high mean scores obtained by this at-risk sam-ple. Furthermore, a measure of self-efficacy that is specific to STEM (e.g., amath self-efficacy measure) may be an especially good choice for future stud-ies of STEM students because self-efficacy is domain-specific (Cordero, Porter,Israel, & Brown, 2010). Additional limitations are that this study did not in-clude a comparison group who did not participate in the mentoring program,and that students self-selected into the mentoring program. For these reasons, itcannot be claimed that the McNair students’ performance and self-evaluationsat graduation were the result of participation in the mentoring program. At thesame time, our study’s outcomes at graduation are consistent with those of otherMcNair Program evaluation studies (Ishiyama & Hopkins, 2003; Lam, Ugweje,Mawasha, & Srivatsan, 2003). As well, longitudinal follow-ups of minority studentparticipants in the R.I.S.E. program, which used a matched comparison group,have found higher rates of graduation and application to graduate programs inSTEM as a result of undergraduate research experiences (Estrada et al., 2011).Future studies of mentoring programs for STEM majors could be strengthenedby including a control group (e.g., Larose et al., 2011) or a matched comparisongroup.


Sex Differences in Academic Self-Efficacy and Performance

This study extends to an ethnically and SES-diverse sample of female andmale STEM majors prior observations about gendered patterns of academicself-efficacy and performance. Across studies, women tend to be less positiveabout their academic skills in comparison to equally able men (for reviews, seeDweck, 2007; Spelke & Grace, 2007). Whether the problem is one of womenunderestimating their academic skills or men overstating their abilities, theconsequences are often more negative for those who are too modest rather thanthose who are too bold. Simply put, women’s lower academic confidence maydeter them from persisting in education and careers that could be rewardingfor them, personally and financially. As a case in point, in this study, STEMstudents who were less confident in their academic abilities were less likely toapply for postgraduate training. Similarly, in other studies, those (usually women)who were unsure about their academic abilities or who held the belief that theiracademic achievement was the result of luck or effort rather than skill were lesslikely to persist in their educational or career path than those who were confidentin their academic skills and/or believed that their academic success was becauseof their talent (AAUW, 2010; Betz, 1997; Dweck, 2007).

Given the relation between academic self-confidence and persistence (AAUW,2010), interventions to enhance women’s self-efficacy may be critical in support-ing their persistence in STEM education, and ultimately for increasing their rep-resentation in STEM occupations. The good news is that change is possible. Forexample, research conducted in the United States by Correll (2001, 2004) suggeststhat the association of mathematical competence with masculinity negatively in-fluences women’s mathematics self-assessment, and raises the standard by whichgirls and women believe they have to perform to aspire to STEM careers. Correll’sresearch also indicates that when women are aware that their abilities are similarto those of men, they no longer judge themselves by higher standards, and expressthe same aspirations as men. Therefore, promulgating the message that women andmen achieve equally well in STEM, especially when given similar opportunities, islikely to support women’s confidence, and also encourages their interest and per-sistence in STEM education and occupations (AAUW, 2010). Mentoring effortssuch as the McNair Program are one of many vehicles for exposing STEM womento accurate information about their capabilities and for boosting their self-efficacyand nurturing their commitment to STEM. Given the pervasive negative messagesabout women and STEM, interventions to support women’s self-efficacy need tobe multimodal and sustained.

Ethnic and SES Differences in Academic Self-Efficacy and Performance

This study is unique in its longitudinal examination of the academic self-perceptions and performance of students with STEM-disadvantage status by either


ethnicity or SES, or both. Consistent with our hypothesis, the findings showed thatat admission to the McNair Program, students with STEM-disadvantaged statusby both ethnicity and SES, compared to students with only one of these formsof disadvantage, had significantly lower (i) academic self-efficacy, (ii) test takingskills; and (iii) academic performance as indicated by GRE and critical thinkingscores as well as cumulative GPA, with effect sizes between .43 (moderate) and.62 (large). At graduation from the program, students with double-minority statusshowed improvement on a measure of academic performance (i.e., critical think-ing) as well as in self-perceived creativity. By contrast, the higher SES ALNAstudents in the sample evinced small decreases on these measures. It is possiblethat these findings are artifacts of regression to the mean. The findings may alsorepresent differential fit between students’ needs and mentoring program’s fea-tures, depending on the students’ specific disadvantage and identities. Based ontheory and research on multiple identities (Shih, Sanchez, & Ho, 2010), it is con-ceivable that a depression in self-efficacy and performance for students who wereSTEM-ethnic minorities but not SES disadvantaged might result from increasedself-awareness, via participation in the mentoring program and more time spent inpredominantly European-American academia, of their stigmatized ethnic identity.For European-descent students from low-SES families, participation in the mentor-ing program and more time in predominantly European-American academia mighthave made more salient to them their STEM-empowering European-Americanidentity.

Conclusions

This study documents a boost to women’s academic self-efficacy, comparedto men’s, among academically promising, ethnically and SES-diverse STEM ma-jors enrolled in a McNair mentoring program. The convergent evidence in thisstudy, across measures of academic self-efficacy, replicates previous findingswith different populations in women in STEM (e.g., AAUW, 2010; Zeldin et al.,2008), providing support for the argument that sex differences in academic self-confidence contribute to women’s underrepresentation in STEM. In addition, ourfindings are consistent with previous research showing that mentoring approachesmay be an especially propitious means of engaging women in science occupa-tions (Liang et al., 2002). Furthermore, students with a double STEM-minoritystatus were significantly lower than their single-minority status peers in both aca-demic performance and confidence, yet gained more from the McNair Programin terms of critical thinking skills, suggesting that comprehensive support pro-grams and policies may need to be enacted, starting in high school if not earlier(e.g., Taylor, Erwin, Ghose, & Perry-Thornton, 2001), to enhance the diversity ofprofessionals in STEM disciplines. This study’s mixed findings for students withsingle versus double STEM-disadvantage statuses call for attention to the complex


relationship between social disadvantage, academic self-efficacy, and perfor-mance. In particular, the impact of STEM mentoring programs may vary de-pending on program participants’ specific STEM-minority disadvantage andidentities, with implication for the design of STEM mentoring programs andresearch.

References

American Association of University Women (AAUW) (2010). Why so few? Women in science, tech-nology, engineering and mathematics. Washington, DC: AAUW.

Babco, E. L., & Bell, N. E. (2004). Professional women and minorities: A total human resourcesdata compendium (15th ed.). Washington, DC: Commission on Professionals in Science andTechnology.

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

Bandura, A., Barbaranelli, C., Caprara, G. V., & Pastorelli, C. (2001). Self-efficacy beliefs asshapers of children’s aspirations and career trajectories. Child Development, 72, 187–206.doi/10.1111/1467–8624.00273

Barton, A. C. (2006). Engaging girls in science. In C. Skelton, B. Francis, & L. Smulyan (Eds.), TheSage handbook of gender and education (pp. 211–235). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Bernstein, B. L., & Russo, N. F. (2008). Explaining too few women in STEM careers: A psychosocialperspective. In M. A. Paludi (Ed.), The psychology of women at work: Challenges and solutionsfor our female workforce, Vol. 2: Obstacles and the identity juggle (pp. 1–33). Westport, CT:Praeger/Greenwood.

Betz, N. (1997). What stops women and minorities from choosing and completing majors in scienceand engineering? In D. Johnson (Ed.), Minorities and girls in school: Effects on achievementand performance (pp. 105–140). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Bouchey, H. A., & Harter, S. (2005). Reflected appraisals, academic self-perceptions, and math/scienceperformance during early adolescence. Journal of Educational Psychology, 97, 673–686.doi:10.1037/0022-0663.97.4.67

Burke, B. A., & Sunal, D. W. (2010). A framework to support Hispanic undergraduate women inSTEM majors. In D. W. Sunal, C. S. Sunal, & E. L. Wright (Eds.), Teaching science withHispanic ELLs in K–16 classrooms (pp. 273–312). Greenwich, CT: IAP Information Age.

Camp, A. G., Gilleland, D., Pearson, C., & Putten, J. V. (2009). Women’s path into science andengineering majors: A structural equation model. Educational Research and Evaluation, 15,63–77. doi: 10.1080/13803610802591725.

Ceci, S. J., Williams, W. M., & Barnett, S. M. (2009). Women’s underrepresentation in sci-ence: Sociocultural and biological considerations. Psychological Bulletin, 135, 218–261.doi: 10.1037/a0014412; 10.1037/a0014412.supp.

Cordero, E. D., Porter, S. H., Israel, T., & Brown, M. T. (2010). Math and science pursuits; Aself-efficacy intervention comparison study. Journal of Career Assessment, 18, 363–375. doi:10.1177/1069072710374572.

Correll, S. J. (2001). Gender and the career choice process: The role of biased self-assessment.American Journal of Sociology, 106, 1691–1730. doi: 10.1086/321299.

Correll, S. J. (2004). Constraints into preferences: Gender, status, and emerging career aspirations.American Sociological Review, 69, 93–113.

DeBerard, M., Spielmans, G., & Julka, D. (2004). Predictors of academic achievement and retentionamong college freshmen: A longitudinal study. College Student Journal, 38, p. 66–80.

Downing, R. A., Crosby, F. J., & Blake-Beard, S. (2005). The perceived importance of developmentalrelationships on women undergraduates’ pursuit of science. Psychology of Women Quarterly,29, 419–426. doi: 10.1111/j.1471–6402.2005.00242.x.


Dweck, C. S. (2007). Is math a gift? Beliefs that put females at risk. In S. J. Ceci & W. M. Williams(Eds.), Why aren’t more women in science? Top researchers debate the evidence (pp. 47–56).Washington, D.C.: American Psychological Association.

Engle, J., & Tinto, V. (2008). Beyond access: College success for low income, first generation students.Washington, DC: Pell Institute.

Estrada, M., Woodcock, A., Hernandez, P. R., & Schultz, P. (2011). Toward a model of social influencethat explains minority student integration into the scientific community. Journal of EducationalPsychology, 103, 206–222. doi:10.1037/a0020743.

Fassinger, R. E. (1990). Causal models of career choice in two samples of college women. Journal ofVocational Behavior, 36, 225–248 doi: 10.1016/0001-8791(90)90029-2.

Friedman, L. (1989). Mathematics and the gender gap: A meta-analysis of recent studies onsex differences in mathematical tasks. Review of Educational Research, 59, 185–213doi: 10.2307/1170414.

Geisinger, K. F. (1994). Review of the Watson-Glaser critical thinking appraisal, Form S. MentalMeasurements Yearbook, 13, 1121–1124.

Graham, J. W. (2012). Missing data: analysis and design. New York: Springer.Harter, S. (1992). Visions of self: Beyond the me in the mirror. In J. E. Jacobs (Ed.), Developmental

perspectives on motivation (pp. 99–144). Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska.Huang, A. S. (2003). Confidence or arrogance? AWIS Magazine, 32(4), 6–9.Huberty, C. J., & Morris, J. D. (1989). Multivariate analysis versus multiple univariate analyses.

Psychological Bulletin, 105(2), 302–308 doi:10.1037/0033–2909.105.2.3.Ishitani, T. T. (2006). Studying attrition and degree completion behavior among first-generation college

students in the United States. Journal of Higher Education, 77, 861–885.Ishiyama, J. T., & Hopkins, V. M. (2003). Assessing the impact of a graduate school preparations

program on first-generation, low-income college students at a public liberal arts university.Journal of College Student Retention, 4, 393–405.

Johnson, W. B. (2007). Student-faculty mentorship outcomes. In T. D. Allen & L. T. Eby (Eds.), TheBlackwell handbook of mentoring: A multiple perspectives approach (pp. 189–210). Malden,MA: Blackwell.

Lam, P. C., Ugweje, O., Mawasha, P. R., & Srivatsan, T. S. (2003). An assessment of the effectivenessof the McNair Program at the University of Akron. Journal of Women and Minorities in Scienceand Engineering, 9, 70–86.

Larose, S., Cyrenne, D., Garceau, O., Harvey, M., Guay, F., Godin, F., . . . & Deschenes, C. (2011).Academic mentoring and dropout prevention for students in math, science and technology.Mentoring and Tutoring: Partnership in Learning, 19, 419–439.

Lent, R., Brown, S., Sheu, H., Schmidt, J., Brenner, B., Gloster, C., & Treistman, D. (2005). So-cial cognitive predictors of academic interests and goals in engineering: Utility for womenand students at historically Black universities. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 52, 84–92.doi: 10.1037/0022-0167.52.1.84.

Leslie, L. L., McClure, G. T., & Oaxaca, R. L. (1998). Women and minorities in science and engineering:A life sequence analysis. Journal of Higher Education, 69, 239–276.

Liang, B., Tracy, A. J., Taylor, C. A., & Williams, L. M. (2002). Mentoring college-agewomen: A relational approach. American Journal of Community Psychology, 30, 271–288.doi: 10.1023/A:1014637112531.

Martin, A. J., & Dowson, M. (2009). Interpersonal relationships, motivation, engagement, and achieve-ment: Yields for theory, current issues, and educational practice. Review of Educational Re-search, 79, 327–365. doi: 10.3102/0034654308325583.

Mendez, G., Buskirk, T. D., Lohr, S., & Haag, S. (2008). Factors associated with persistence in scienceand engineering majors: An exploratory study using classification trees and random forests.Journal of Engineering Education, 97, 57–70.

Miller, R. B., & Wright, D. W. (1995). Detecting and correcting attrition bias in longitudinal familyresearch. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 57, 921–929. doi: 10.2307/353412.

Museus, S., Palmer, R. T., Davis, R. J., & Maramba, D. C. (2011). Racial and ethnic minority students’success in STEM education. Hoboken, NJ: Jossey-Bass.


National Science Foundation, National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics. (2013).Women, minorities, and persons with disabilities in science and engineering: 2013.Special report NSF 13–304. Arlington, VA: author. Retrieved from www.nsf.gov/statistics/wmpd/2013/pdf/nsf13304_digest.pdf

Nauta, M. M., Epperson, D. L., & Kahn, J. H. (1998). A multiple-groups analysis of predictors ofhigher level career aspirations among women in mathematics, science, and engineering majors.Journal of Counseling Psychology, 45, 483–496. doi: 10.1037/0022-0167.45.4.483.

Nauta, M. M., Kahn, J. H., Angell, W.W., & Cantarelli, E. A. (2002). Identifying the antecedent inthe relation between career interests and self-efficacy: It is one, the other, or both? Journal ofCounseling Psychology, 49, 290–301. doi: 10.1037/0022-0167.49.3.290.

O’Brien, V., Martinez-Pons, M., & Kopala, M. (1999). Mathematics self-efficacy, ethnic identity, gen-der, and career interests related to mathematics and science. Journal of Educational Research,92, 231–235. doi: 10.1080/00220679909597600.

Paglis, L. L., Green, S. G., & Bauer, T. N. (2006). Does adviser mentoring add value? A longitudinalstudy of mentoring and doctoral student outcomes. Research in Higher Education, 47, 451–476.doi: 10.1007/s11162-005-9003-2.

Poirer, J. M., Tanenbaum, C., Storey, C., Kirshstein, R., & Rodriguez, C. (2009). The road to the STEMprofessoriate for underrepresented minorities: A review of the literature. Report to the NationalScience Foundation, Alliances for Graduate Education and the Professoriate. Retrieved fromhttp://www.air.org/files/AGEP_Lit_Review_10–26–09.pdf

Shaw, E. J., & Barbuti, S. (2010). Patterns of persistence in intended college major with a focus onSTEM majors. NACADA Journal, 30(2), 19–34.

Sheffield, S. L.-M. (2006). Women and science: Social impact and interaction. New Brunswick, NJ:Rutgers University.

Shih, M., Sanchez, D. T., & Ho, G. C. (2010). Costs and benefits of switching among multiple socialidentities. In R. J. Crisp (Ed.), The psychology of social and cultural diversity (pp. 62–83).New York: Wiley-Blackwell.

Spelke, E. S., & Grace, A. D. (2007). Sex, math, and science. In S. J. Ceci & W. M. Williams (Eds.), Whyaren’t more women in science? Top researchers debate the evidence (pp. 57–67). Washington,D.C.: American Psychological Association.

Stout, J. G., Dasgupta, N., Hunsinger, M., & McManus, M. A. (2011). STEMing the tide: Using ingroupexperts to inoculate women’s self-concept in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics(STEM). Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 100, 255–270. doi: 10.1037/a0021385.

Syed, M., Azmitia, M., & Cooper, C. R. (2011). Identity and academic success among underrepresentedethnic minorities: An interdisciplinary review and integration. Journal of Social Issues, 67,442–468. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-4560.2011.01709.x.

Taylor, V., Erwin, K., Ghose, M., & Perry-Thornton, E. (2001). Models to increase enrollment ofminority females in science-based careers. Journal of the National Medical Association, 93,74–77.

U.S. Department of Education. (2002). A profile of the Ronald E. McNair Postbaccalaureate Achieve-ment Program: 1999–2000. Washington, DC: Office of Postsecondary Education.

Valian, V. (2007). Women at the top in science – and elsewhere. In S. J. Ceci, & W. M. Williams(Eds.), Why aren’t more women in science? Top researchers debate the evidence (pp. 47–56).Washington, D.C.: American Psychological Association.

Watson, G. B., & Glaser, E. M. (1994). Watson-Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisal Form S manual.San Antonio, TX: Harcourt Brace.

Weber, R. P. (1990). Basic content analysis (2nd ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Wesley Schultz, P. P., Hernandez, P. R., Woodcock, A., Estrada, M., Chance, R. C., Aguilar, M., &

Serpe, R. T. (2011). Patching the pipeline: Reducing educational disparities in the sciencesthrough minority training programs. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 33, 95–114.doi:10.3102/0162373710392371.

Xie, Y., & Shauman, K. (2003). Women in science. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University.Zeldin, A. L., Britner, S. L., & Pajares, F. (2008). A comparative study of the self-efficacy beliefs

of successful men and women in mathematics, science, and technology careers. Journal ofResearch in Science Teaching, 45, 1036–1058. doi: 10.1002/tea.20195.


DAVID MACPHEE, Department of Human Development and Family Studies,Colorado State University.

SAMANTHA FARRO is now at the Veterans Integrated Service Network 19,Mental Illness Research Education and Clinical Center, Denver VA MedicalCenter.

SILVIA SARA CANETTO, Department of Psychology, Colorado StateUniversity.

academic self-efficacy and performance of underrepresented stem majors: gender, ethnic, and social...

Documents