Follow Us On
Móvil: +56 9 4906 1392 E-mail: info@adaptiva.cl
Dropout Prediction

The Rationale Behind Adaptiva® College Dropout Predictive Model

This section provides a review of the literature and theoretical framework leading to the establishment of the foundations of the Adaptiva® college dropout prediction model.

Dropout Theories
Psychometric Instruments

Since the 1970s, several theoretical developments have allowed a better and more comprehensive understanding of the college dropout phenomenon. Consistent themes in theoretical literature include academic, non-academic, socio-economic, institutional, and integration factors (Aljohani, 2016).

Figure 1
Historical timeline of student retention models for the past eight decades

Note. Own elaboration based on Manyanga et al., 2017.

Traditionally, college dropout theoretical models are divided into five major groups, depending on the perspective and emphasis that such models put on the explanatory variables:

  1. Psychological Models focus on personality traits that differentiate graduating students from dropouts. Among the factors highlighted by these theories are students’ actions and behaviors, previous behaviors (Eaton & Bean, 1995), initial expectations (Peterson, 1993), vocational maturity (Perry et al., 1999), levels of anxiety or stress (Napoli & Wortman, 1998), and achievement behaviors (Ethington, 1990).
  2. Sociological models are based on the influence of factors beyond the subject’s control and psychological traits. For Spady (1970), the student withdraws from the university context due to the impossibility of social integration, a situation influenced by the support of the family environment. According to this theory, the lack of regulations, the practice of values that are too different from those of the conventional group, and the difficulty of affiliating or integrating into structures influence the attitude of abandonment.
  3. Economic models, in which the decision to drop out depends on the consideration of social and economic benefits associated with tertiary studies.
  4. Organizational models approach dropout from the institution perspective, considering the mechanisms of financial aid to the student, the quality of the teaching, and the own experiences in the classroom (Braxton et al., 1997). According to Tillman (2002), factors such as access to health services, sports and cultural activities, availability of books, infrastructure, and indicators such as the number of students per teacher are crucial to student retention.
  5. Finally, integration models highlight the process of student adaptation and integration into the university system in terms of goals and institution commitment. Tinto (1975) explains the permanence process in higher education as a function of adjustment between student and institution, acquired from academic and social experiences. In subsequent revisions of the original model of institutional departure, Tinto (1993) stated that college consists of educational and social systems. Students need to integrate into both systems to persist in their institutions. Academic integration can be understood as the student’s academic performance and intellectual development, while social integration can be defined as students’ interaction with college society. The student’s pre-entry attributes, such as family background, skills and abilities, and prior schooling, shape their initial goals and commitments.

Thus, theoretical models have evolved towards more comprehensive conceptualizations of the college dropout phenomenon. Comprehensive models represent a synthesis of the most relevant factors considered in previous research, such as individual, academic, institutional, and socio-economic factors (Bean, 1980, 1982; Behr et al.., 2020; Díaz, 2008; Nora and Rendon, 1990; Pascarella, 1980; St. John et al., 1997; Swail, 2003). The variety of theoretical approaches to explaining college dropout confirms the phenomenon’s complexity. These approaches coincide in assessing the interaction of a series of factors that explain withdrawal. Alban & Mauricio’s (2019) review identified 110 factors commonly used to predict college dropout, classified according to the five traditional, model-based dimensions: personal, academic, economic, social, and institutional.

Figure 2
Swail’s (2003) Geometric Model of Student Persistence and Achievement

Note. Own elaboration based on Swail, 2003.

While college dropout predictive models mainly consider academic, economic, and psychosocial factors in explaining dropout, models adding psychological, social, and integration perceptions to these variables, such as motivation, commitment, and linkage between student and academic community, exhibit better explanatory results than those that do not. According to a meta-analysis carried out by Robbins et al. (2004) in 109 studies on dropout and academic performance, combining traditional factors with psychosocial and integration variables contributes incrementally to dropout prediction, thus relieving the need to re-evaluate persistence and college dropout models to incorporate crucial psychosocial variables.

Figure 3
Combining Multiple Psychosocial and Study Skill Factors (PSFs) and Traditional Predictors to Predict Retention

Note. Own elaboration based on Robbins et al., 2004.

Given the growing relevance of psychosocial and integration factors in predicting college dropout and performance, a number of psychometric instruments have been developed to consider the wide range of variables that literature has associated with students’ post-enrollment experiences. These instruments include the ACT Engage College (ACT Inc., 2016), the College Student Inventory (Stratil et al., n.d.), the College Success Factors Index (CENGAGE, n.d.), the Transition to College Inventory (Pickering et al., 2003), and the Student Adaptation to College Questionnaire (Taylor & Pastor, 2007). Since these instruments were not specifically built to predict college dropout, they are not based on dimensions reported by the theoretical literature.

Figure 1
ACT Engage College domains

Note. Own elaboration based on ACT, 2015.

Our model uses an idiosyncratic psychometric instrument to collect students’ psychosocial perceptions and adjustments to college life. The questionnaire is based on comprehensive retention theories and models such as Astin’s Involvement Theory (1984), Bean’s Student Attrition Model (1981), Bean & Eaton’s Psychological Model (2000), Cabrera, Castaneda, Nora, & Hengstler’s Integrated Model (1992), and Tinto’s Integrated Model, and Tinto’s Student Integration Model (1975). The instrument consists of ten dimensions:

  •    – Academic Integration, the positive views of instruction, instructors, and own intellectual growth;
  •    – Financial Strain, the financial worries and difficulties, the sense of disadvantage relative to others;
  •    – Social Integration, the sense of belonging, shared values, and similarity to others at college;
  •    – Degree Commitment, the personal importance and value that students and their supportive network place on degree completion;
  •    – Collegiate Stress, the feelings of distress, pressure, and sacrifice;
  •    – Advising Effectiveness, the positive views of advising and school communication processes;
  •    – Academic Conscientiousness, the timely performance of academic responsibilities;
  •    – Institutional Commitment, the confidence in college choice, the feelings of loyalty;
  •    – Academic Motivation, the interest and enjoyment in academic tasks, the willingness to spend extra time; and
  •    – Academic Efficacy, the confidence in academic skills and outcomes.

Diverse studies show the structural validity and predictive capacity of the psychometric instrument on student retention. Findings indicate that the questionnaire improves dropout prediction concerning socio-demographic and academic performance data generally present in the institutions’ databases. Such findings indicate that evaluating students’ interactions with the academic and social environment of the institutions is critical in predicting college dropout.