Psychology in the Schools, Vol.

43(3), 2006
Published online in Wiley InterScience (www.interscience.wiley.com).

2006 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

DOI: 10.1002/pits.20149

ACADEMIC RESILIENCE AND ITS PSYCHOLOGICAL AND EDUCATIONAL

CORRELATES: A CONSTRUCT VALIDITY APPROACH
ANDREW J. MARTIN AND HERBERT W. MARSH

University of Western Sydney

This study examines educational and psychological correlates of academic resilience using withinnetwork and between-network validity approaches. Based on a sample of 402 Australian highschool students, a newly developed unidimensional academic resilience construct found withinnetwork validity by way of sound item and factor properties. In terms of between-network
validity, correlation, path analysis, and cluster analysis showed that five factors predict academic
resilience: self-efficacy, control, planning, low anxiety, and persistence. Hence, a 5-C model of
academic resilience is proposed: confidence (self-efficacy), coordination (planning), control,
composure (low anxiety), and commitment (persistence). Path analysis also showed that academic resilience subsequently predicts three educational and psychological outcomes: enjoyment of school, class participation, and general self-esteem. 2006 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

In a general sense, resilience has been defined as the process of, capacity for, or outcome of
successful adaptation despite challenging or threatening circumstances (Howard & Johnson, 2000).
In the academic context, it is defined as the the heightened likelihood of success in school and
other life accomplishments despite environmental adversities brought about by early traits, conditions, and experiences (Wang, Haertal, & Walberg, 1994, p. 46). Similarly, academically resilient students are those who sustain high levels of achievement motivation and performance
despite the presence of stressful events and conditions that place them at risk of doing poorly in
school and ultimately dropping out of school (Alva, 1991, p.19). Although there are many students who perform poorly and continue to perform poorly (Dauber, Alexander, & Entwisle, 1996),
there is a significant number of others who manage to turn around their academic fortunes (Jimerson, Egeland, & Teo, 1999). It is proposed that we can learn much from these students.
Although there has been substantial focus on resilience in terms of broader life events such as
being raised in a disadvantaged background, receiving poor parenting, or divorce (Lindstroem,
2001; Luthar & Cicchetti, 2000; Masten, 2001), there has been relatively less research focusing on
academic resilience. To date, the few studies that do deal with academic resilience are focused
on ethnic-minority groups and extreme underachievers (e.g., Finn & Rock, 1997); however, academic resilience is relevant to all students because at some point all students may experience some
level of poor performance, adversity, challenge, or pressure.
The present study adopts a construct validation approach to the empirical assessment of
academic resilience. Within-network studies explore the internal structure of a construct. Beginning with a logical analysis of internal consistency of the construct definition, measurement instruments, and generation of predictions, they typically employ empirical techniques such as exploratory
factor analysis, confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), and reliability analysis. Between-network
studies attempt to establish a logical, theoretically consistent pattern of relations between constructs. Such research considers these relations by adopting statistical procedures such as correlational, regression, or cluster analyses to examine relationships between measures and instruments.
The first step in establishing the between-network validity of the academic-resilience measure is to identify possible predictors of the construct. What research has been conducted links
academic resilience to factors within a variety of domains ranging from academic to family, peer,
sociodemographic, and psychological (Finn & Rock, 1997). In conducting research across domains,

Correspondence to: Andrew J. Martin, SELF Research Centre, Bankstown Campus, University of Western Sydney,
Locked Bag 1797, Penrith South DC, NSW 1797, Australia. E-mail: a.martin@uws.edu.au

267

268

Martin and Marsh

there is typically less detailed attention given to any one domain. This is most apparent in the
psychological domain, where there is typical focus on just self-esteem and locus of control. Necessarily, this limits the extent to which psychological and educational practitioners can address
more multidimensional approaches to enhancing students academic resilience. Hence, the aim of
this study is to explore the links between academic resilience and a more expansive number of
psychological and engagement dimensions.
Martin (2001, 2002, 2003a, 2003b) developed an expansive model of psychological and
behavioral engagement referred to as the Student Motivation and Engagement Wheel, which reflects
the thoughts, feelings, and behaviors underpinning academic engagement at school. The model
separates motivation into factors that reflect enhanced motivation and those that reflect reduced
motivation. These are called adaptive and maladaptive dimensions, respectively. As discussed
fully in Martin (2001, 2002, 2003b), adaptive dimensions comprise self-efficacy, valuing of school,
mastery orientation, persistence, planning, and study management. Maladaptive dimensions comprise anxiety, uncertain control, failure avoidance, and self-handicapping. Given that the Wheel
provides information that draws together a number of theoretical perspectives, it is proposed as an
encompassing and integrative way to understand the diversity of psychological and engagement
dimensions that underpin academic resilience. Hence, this model is used as a between-network
basis for exploring predictors of academic resilience in this study.
Also consistent with the between-network validation approach described previously is the
need to explore the possible differential relationships between the central construct and a set of
hypothesized outcome measures. Indeed, there is a host of noteworthy educational and psychological constructs that are conceptually relevant to academic resilience. This study proposes three
between-network constructs that provide a theoretically relevant basis for further examining the
validity of the academic-resilience measure: class participation and enjoyment of school (educational outcome constructs) and general self-esteem (a psychological outcome construct).
Together, these three represent a breadth of students experience at school and are hypothesized to
follow from students capacity to effectively deal with challenge, adversity, and setback in the
school setting. Conversely, it is hypothesized that students who not deal effectively with such
challenges are less inclined to participate in class, less likely to enjoy school, and more likely to
experience general negative affect in relation to the self. The three constructs also are proposed to
reflect the breadth of the self-system in terms of their behavioral, cognitive, and affective bases.
Class participation reflects a school-related behavioral measure, enjoyment of school reflects a
school-related cognitive-affective measure, and general self-esteem represents a more global affective measure.
Class participation is an important between-network, school-related behavioral outcome
measure because learning environments that foster student participation are found to enhance
students commitment to learning (Richter & Tjosvold, 1980) while a lack of participation is
found to lead to unsuccessful educational outcomes such as emotional withdrawal and poor identification with the school (Finn, 1989). Enjoyment of school is a feasible between-network, schoolrelated cognitive-affective outcome construct that shapes students willingness to attend school
as well as the goals they have in relation to their academic experience while at school and in their
further education and training beyond school (Elliot & Sheldon, 1997; Lee, Sheldon & Turban,
2003). Finally, it is well demonstrated that the school experience also shapes students general
feelings about self (Marsh, 1990), and so as a measure of global affect, general self-esteem is
considered a viable between-network outcome construct. Moreover, the fact that higher general
self-esteem also predicts enhanced socioemotional growth, enhanced occupational outcomes, and
even decreased likelihood of mortality (for a summary, see DuBois & Flay, 2004) underscores its
importance in students lives more broadly.
Psychology in the Schools

DOI: 10.1002/pits

Academic Resilience

269

The aims of the present study were twofold. The first aim was to explore the within-network
properties of a newly developed unidimensional measure of academic resilience. We do so by
examining the consistency of item means and variances, item distributional properties, corrected
item-total correlations, reliability coefficients with respective deletion of items, one-factor congeneric CFA loadings, and the invariance of the factor across gender. The second aim was to establish the between-network validity of academic resilience by identifying specific motivation and
engagement factors that underpin students academic resilience and the relationship between academic resilience and a set of hypothesized educational and psychological outcome constructs.
We do so through correlations, path analysis, and cluster analysis.
Method
Sample and Procedure
Respondents were 402 high-school students (72% girls; 28% boys) in Years 11 and 12 from
two schools. Teachers administered the instrument to students during class. The rating scale was
first explained, and a sample item was presented. Students were then asked to complete the instrument on their own and to return the completed instrument to the teacher at the end of class.
Materials
Three sets of measures were administered to students in the one testing session. The first set
comprised academic-resilience items, the second comprised between-network motivation and
engagement predictors, and the third comprised between-network educational and psychological
outcomes. For all items, students rated themselves on a scale of 1 (Strongly Disagree) to 7 (Strongly
Agree).
Academic resilience. Academic resilience (e.g., I think Im good at dealing with schoolwork pressures) refers to students ability to effectively deal with setback, challenge, adversity,
and pressure in the academic setting. It was assessed through six items (listed in Table 3).
Between-network predictors. The Student Motivation and Engagement Scale 1 (Martin, 2001,
2003b) was developed to measure each facet of the Student Motivation and Engagement Wheel.
The Scale comprises 40 items, in which four items assess each of the 10 facets in the Wheel. It
assesses motivation and engagement through six adaptive dimensions and four maladaptive dimensions. Sample items for each factor are presented in Table 1. Martin (2001, 2003b) previously
showed that the Student Motivation and Engagement Scale has a sound factor structure, comprises
reliable and approximately normally distributed dimensions, is significantly associated with literacy, numeracy, and achievement in mathematics and English, and is sensitive to age- and genderrelated differences in motivation.
Between-network outcomes. Consistent with the between-network approach specified earlier, it was of interest to explore the nature of relationships between academic resilience and a
conceptually relevant set of other educational and psychological constructs. To this end, students
also were administered items that explored their enjoyment of school, class participation, and
general self-esteem. Enjoyment of school (e.g., I enjoy being a student; Martin, in press; Martin
& Marsh, 2005) comprised four items which were rated on a scale of 1 (Strongly Disagree) to 7
(Strongly Agree). Class participation (e.g., I get involved in things we do in class; Martin, in
press; Martin & Marsh, 2005) comprised four items which were rated on the same scale.

A copy of the Student Motivation and Engagement Scale can be requested through www.ajmartinresearch.com.
Psychology in the Schools

DOI: 10.1002/pits

270

Martin and Marsh

Table 1
Student Motivation and Engagement Scale (SMES) Factors
Sample Item
Adaptive Dimensions
Self-efficacy
Mastery orientation
Valuing of school
Planning
Study management
Persistence

If I try hard, I believe I can do my schoolwork well.

I feel very pleased with myself when I really understand what
Im taught at school.
Learning at school is important to me.
Before I start an assignment I plan out how I am going to do it.
When I study, I usually study in places where I can concentrate.
If I cant understand my schoolwork at first, I keep going over
it until I understand it.

Adapted From
Midgley et al., 1997
Duda & Nicholls, 1992
Pintrich et al., 1991
Miller et al. 1996
Pintrich et al., 1991
Miller et al., 1996

Maladaptive Dimensions
Anxiety
Uncertain control
Failure avoidance
Self-handicapping

When exams and assignments are coming up, I worry a lot.

Im often unsure how I can avoid doing poorly at school.
Often the main reason I work at school is because I dont want
to disappoint my parents.
I sometimes dont study very hard before exams so I have an
excuse if I dont do as well as I hoped.

Pintrich & DeGroot, 1990

Connell, 1985
Harter et al., 1992
Midgley et al., 1996;
Strube, 1986

General self-esteem (e.g., Overall I have a lot to be proud of; Marsh, 1993) also comprised four
items which were rated on the same scale. Martin and Marsh (Martin, in press; Martin & Marsh,
2005) showed that these factors demonstrate distinct dimensionality and are reliable.
Psychometric properties of materials. Before conducting the central analyses of interest, it
was important to first test the psychometric properties of the entire set of measures. To do this,
CFA (described later) was conducted on the full set of items. The CFA yielded an acceptable fit to
the data, x 2 2,938.63, df 1,504, CFI .97, NNFI .97, and confirmed the strong factor
structure underpinning the instrument. The CFA loadings and reliability coefficients are shown in
Table 2. Taken together, there is a clear factor structure underpinning the set of measures, and each
factor is internally consistent.
On the basis of these strong psychometrics, subscale scores were subsequently calculated
through deriving the mean of each of its component items, thus generating one academicresilience subscale score, 10 predictor subscale scores consistent with the Student Motivation and
Engagement Wheel, and three outcome subscale scores. Each subscale score was retained on its
original scale of measurement, thereby yielding a mean/7 for each score.
Statistical Analysis
Within-network analyses. Before assessing links between central constructs and the hypothesized between-network validity criteria, the within-construct characteristics were explored. In the
present study, a number of within-network analyses were carried out to determine the psychometric properties of the unidimensional measure of academic resilience. In the first instance, a set of
item analyses was conducted encompassing assessment of consistency of item means and variances, analysis of distributional properties, corrected item-total correlations, and reliability coefficients with respective deletion of items. Also assessed were the one-factor congeneric loadings
Psychology in the Schools

DOI: 10.1002/pits

Academic Resilience

271

Table 2
CFA Factor Loadings and Cronbachs a for All Measures Used in the Study
Item 1

Item 2

Item 3

Item 4

Item 5

Item 6

Cronbachs a

.79
.81
.79
.83
.85
.84
.82
.82
.82
.85

Between-Network Predictors
Self-efficacy
Valuing school
Mastery orientation
Planning
Study management
Persistence
Anxiety
Uncertain control
Failure avoidance
Self-handicapping

.66
.60
.68
.74
.76
.66
.82
.68
.83
.69

.70
.77
.66
.80
.73
.73
.71
.67
.88
.83

.62
.69
.71
.68
.80
.80
.55
.78
.57
.81

.79
.80
.73
.75
.84
.84
.83
.81
.70
.77

Between-Network Outcomes
Enjoyment of school
Class participation
General esteem

.88
.82
.79

.89
.87
.80

.87
.90
.88

.78
.93
.84

.91
.93
.89

Academic resilience

.64

.74

.71

.84

.83

.81

.89

x 2 2,938.63, df 1,504, CFI .97, NNFI .97

of the hypothesized unidimensional academic-resilience measure by way of CFA (see Joreskog &
Sorbom, 2003).
Following analysis of items, the invariance of academic resilience was assessed across gender. The focus of most studies of the effects of gender has been on mean levelswhether there are
differences in mean levels for boys and girls; however, inadequate attention has been given to
gender differences in factor structure of target constructs and the question, for example, of whether
a given measure assesses the same construct with equal validity for males and for females. At a
pragmatic level, the implications of this issue are substantial. For example, unless there is reasonable support for the invariance across gender, it may not be justified to pool data across males and
females. Such concerns about factor structure invariance are most appropriately evaluated by
using CFA to determine whetherand howthe structure of academic resilience varies according
to gender. Invariance across age was not considered because the respondents comprised only
2-year groups separated by only 1 year.
Between-network analyses. Between-network analyses entailed zero order and partial correlations, path analysis using multiple linear regression, and cluster analysis. Correlations were
conducted in the first instance to identify salient predictors of academic resilience. To control for
collinearity among possible predictors, partial correlations were conducted in which all predictors
were included as covariates in any bivariate analysis. Having identified a set of possible predictors, a series of path analyses was conducted using multiple linear regression to determine the
relative salience of predictors of academic resilience as well as the relative salience of predictors
of enjoyment of school, class participation, and general self-esteem.
The final phase of analysis involved identifying cluster groupings of students based on their
scores on the key predictors. Cluster analysis is a multivariate technique whose primary purpose is
Psychology in the Schools

DOI: 10.1002/pits

272

Martin and Marsh

to group objects (in this case, students) based on characteristics they possess (in this case, their
scores on the key predictors). In the context of this study, cluster analysis classifies students so that
each student is similar to other students with respect to identified predictors. The determined
clusters should then demonstrate high internal homogeneity and high external heterogeneity (Hair,
Anderson, Tatham, & Black, 1995). It differs from factor analysis in that it groups students rather
than items and factors, and so is able to identify salient groupings of students that can then be
interpreted substantively. In this study, hierarchical cluster analysis is performed using a distance
measure (squared Euclidean distance) and Wards method of clusteringrecommended to avoid
chaining of observations found in linkage methods and to minimize the within-cluster differences (Hair et al., 1995). Determination of cluster numbers is carried out by inspecting relatively
large increases in the agglomeration (clustering) coefficients (see Norusis, 1994).
Results
Within-Network Validity: Item- and Factor-Level Analyses
The first component of within-network analyses comprised a set of item analyses that assessed
the consistency of item means and variances, analysis of distributional properties, corrected itemtotal correlations, and reliability coefficients with respective deletion of items. Findings are presented in Table 3. These findings show that there is consistency from item to item in terms of
means and variances. The distributional properties of each item approximate a normal distribution
as indicated by nonsignificant indices of skew and kurtosis. All corrected item-total correlations
are high, with item-total correlations increasing with subsequent item presentation. This pattern
also is reflected in the reliability coefficients derived when respective items are deleted from
analyses. Finally, all one-factor congeneric CFA loadings are high. Taken together, these data
demonstrate that the academic-resilience scale is valid from a within-network item-level perspective.
Having demonstrated within-network item-level validity, it was then considered important to
demonstrate within-network factor-level validity. This entailed assessment of the one-factor congeneric CFA fit indices and also the critical issue of invariance across gender. In terms of the
former, there was good fit of the data to the hypothesized factor (CFI .98, NNFI .96; see factor
loadings in Table 3). In terms of invariance across gender, the first multigroup CFA examined the

Table 3
Item Statistics for Academic Resilience

Cronbachs a .89
1. I believe Im mentally tough when it comes
to exams
2. I dont let study stress get on top of me
3. Im good at bouncing back from a poor mark
in my schoolwork
4. I think Im good at dealing with schoolwork
pressures
5. I dont let a bad mark affect my confidence
6. Im good at dealing with setbacks at school
(e.g., bad mark, negative feedback on my work)

Psychology in the Schools

DOI: 10.1002/pits

SD

Skew

Kurtosis

Corrected
Item-Total
Correlation

a if
item
deleted

CFA
Congeneric
Loading

4.39

1.40

.41

.23

.59

.89

.62

4.46
4.94

1.69
1.29

.38
.83

.74
.46

.67
.65

.88
.88

.72
.71

4.59

1.36

.51

.09

.77

.86

.81

4.58
4.76

1.45
1.38

.53
.73

.36
.06

.78
.77

.85
.86

.86
.84

Academic Resilience

273

Table 4
Invariance Tests Across Boys and Girls for Academic Resilience
CFI

NNFI

.98
.98
.97
.98
.97

.96
.97
.97
.97
.97

All parameters are free (no invariance)

LOADINGS are invariant
LOADINGS and UNIQUENESSES are invariant
LOADINGS and VARIANCE are invariant
LOADINGS, VARIANCE, and UNIQUENESSES are invariant

factor structure for boys and girls and allowed all factor loadings, uniquenesses, and variance to be
freely estimated. This model yielded an excellent fit to the data (CFI .98, NNFI .96). Although
this model is a good fit to the data, it is important to test formally for invariance between boys and
girls. The present study therefore examined the comparative fit indices for four additional models
across boys and girls. The first model holds the factor loadings invariant across boys and girls; the
second holds both factor loadings and uniquenesses invariant; the third holds factor loadings and
variance invariant; and the fourth holds factor loadings, uniquenesses, and variance invariant.
Results in Table 4 indicate that when successive elements of the factor structure are held
invariant across gender, the fit indices are predominantly comparable. Indeed, the application of
recommended criteria for evidence of lack of invariance (i.e., a change of 0.01 in fit indices; see
Cheung & Rensvold, 2002) indicates that there is relative invariance across all models. This
suggests that the factor loadings, uniquenesses, and factor variance are largely parallel for boys as
well as for girls. Taken together, these data suggest that in terms of our measure of academic
resilience, boys and girls are not substantially differentfurther evidence of within-network validity at the factor level.
Between-Network Validity: Identifying Possible Predictors
The first phase of between-network analyses involved zero order and partial correlations to
identify possible predictors of academic resilience. Accordingly, correlations between motivation
and engagement dimensions (the Wheel) with academic resilience were carried out. In the first
instance, this entailed zero order correlations. Findings are presented in Table 5. Not surprisingly,
all motivation and engagement factors were significantly correlated with academic resilience. But
as Martin (2001, 2003b) showed, many dimensions of the Wheel are significantly correlated, and
so it is important when identifying a set of possible predictors of academic resilience that such
collinearity is controlled for. Accordingly, a series of partial correlations was carried out such that
when a given part of the Wheel was correlated with academic resilience, the other dimensions of
the Wheel were used as covariates in that bivariate analysis. These partial correlations also are
presented in Table 5. These partial correlations reflect a more focused profile such that five factors
remain significantly correlated with academic resilience: self-efficacy, planning, persistence, anxiety (negatively), and uncertain control (negatively).
Between-Network Validity: Path Analysis of Predictors and Outcomes
Having identified a parsimonious set of possible predictors of academic resilience, path analysis was conducted to determine the relative contribution of these factors to academic resilience as
well as the impact of these and academic resilience on a set of hypothesized outcome constructs.
In this path analysis, (a) these five predictors were entered as exogenous variables predicting
Psychology in the Schools

DOI: 10.1002/pits

274

Martin and Marsh

Table 5
Determining Salient Predictors: Zero Order and Partial
Correlations With Academic Resilience
Academic Resilience

Self-efficacy
Mastery orientation
Valuing of school
Planning
Study management
Persistence
Anxiety
Uncertain control
Failure avoidance
Self-handicapping

Zero order r
(n 402)

Partial r
(n 391)

.33
.12
.12
.19
.13
.24
.66
.53
.36
.23

.19
.01
.02
.14
.02
.11
.60
.14
.02
.09

academic resilience, and (b) these five predictors and academic resilience were entered as predictors of the three educational and psychological outcomes: class participation, enjoyment of
school, and general self-esteem. Multiple linear regression was employed to model these relationships, and the full set of significant paths is presented in Figure 1 along with the associated
variance explained (adjusted R 2 ) for each criterion variable.
Data show that all five motivation and engagement factors remain significant predictors of
academic resilience, with anxiety being the strongest (negative) of the five. The data also show
that relative to the five motivation and engagement factors, academic resilience is the strongest
predictor of enjoyment of school, class participation, and general self-esteem, explaining substantial variance in outcomes over and above motivation and engagementhence, a vital mediating
factor. These data, it is argued, further demonstrate between-network validity of the academicresilience construct and the key factors underpinning it.
Between-Network Validity: Profiling Students and Relating Profiles to Academic Resilience
It also was of interest to determine student profiles in relation to the central construct academic resilience and the key factors that underpin it. An ability to separate students into conceptually and empirically compelling groups is further evidence of between-network validity of a
construct under study. As described earlier, cluster analysis is a multivariate technique whose
primary purpose is to group objects (in this case, students) based on characteristics they possess
(in this case, their scores on the key predictors). In the context of this study, cluster analysis
classifies students so that each student is similar to other students with respect to identified predictors. Ideally, a parsimonious solution is sought that identifies a manageable number of clusters.
One technique for determining the number of clusters is to identify relatively large increases in the
agglomeration coefficients (Hair et al., 1995). Notwithstanding this, in relation to cluster analysis
in particular, there is ultimately a degree of subjectivity and judgment in the selection of a best
model. To identify large relative increases in cluster homogeneity, the percentage change was
calculated for 10 to 2 clusters. These increases are shown in Table 6 along with coefficients for
each cluster.
Psychology in the Schools

DOI: 10.1002/pits

Figure 1. Statistically significant ( p .05) standardized b coefficients for multiple regression models predicting enjoyment of school, class participation, and general
self-esteem.

Academic Resilience

Psychology in the Schools

275

DOI: 10.1002/pits

276

Martin and Marsh

Table 6
Agglomeration Coefficients for Last 10 Clusters and Percentage Increases

Number of Clusters

Agglomeration Coefficient
(rounded)

Change in Coefficient
to Next Level
(%)

10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1

859
898
952
1012
1090
1205
1342
1550
1834
2450

5
6
6
8
11
11
15
18
34

The largest percentage increase was observed when moving from two to one cluster, and so
in the first instance a two-cluster solution appears most feasible. Notwithstanding this, it also was
of interest to examine the three- and four-cluster solution, which yielded relatively larger agglomeration coefficients as well. Inspection of academic resilience means for each solution indicated
that the two-cluster solution yielded profiles of students high and low in academic resilience
these two groups were significantly different in academic resilience, t(400) 11.93, p .001. The
three-cluster solution yielded student groups low, moderate, and high in academic resilience
these three groups also were significantly different from each other, F(2,399) 70.57, p .001.
The four-cluster solution yielded one student group low in academic resilience, one group moderate in academic resilience, and two groups relatively high in academic resiliencethere were
significant differences between these groups, F(3,398) 52.42, p .001, such that the first two
groups were significantly different from each other and from the latter two groups, but the latter
two groups were not significantly different from each other. In terms of academic resilience, then,
the four-cluster solution provided no distinct grouping-related yield over the three-cluster solution.
The three-cluster solution was ultimately selected as the most effective profile for academic
resilience because (a) it yielded a relatively high percentage in the agglomeration schedule, (b) it
yielded significantly distinct academic-resilience groups, (c) these groups comprised large cell
sizes, and (d) the notion that there are students evincing modest (vs. low and high) levels of
academic resilience is conceptually and pragmatically appealing.
The next phase of data analysis involved interpreting the three clusters. To do this, clusters
were profiled in terms of mean scores on each of the five predictors as well as academic resilience.
Cluster means are in Table 7.
These findings showed that Group 3 is high in self-efficacy, persistence, and planning, and
low in anxiety and uncertain control. It is this group that is academically resilient, and significantly more so than the other two groups. Group 1 also scored relatively high on the four adaptive
dimensions, but also scored high on anxiety and uncertain control. This group scored in the midrange of academic resilience. Group 2 reflects a mix of relatively low adaptive dimensions and
high maladaptive dimensions, and scored significantly lower in academic resilience than the other
two groups.
Psychology in the Schools

DOI: 10.1002/pits

Academic Resilience

277

Table 7
Cluster Profiles
Variables Entered into Cluster Analysis

Cluster 1 (n 146)
Cluster 2 (n 109)
Cluster 3 (n 147)

Validational Variable

Self-efficacy
(M/7)

Planning
(M/7)

Persistence
(M/7)

Anxiety
(M/7)

Control
(M/7)

Academic Resilience
(M/7)

5.93
4.93
6.08

4.84
3.54
5.03

5.46
4.23
5.62

5.08
4.67
3.35

3.78
4.18
2.26

4.35
3.94
5.40

Discussion
The present study sought to examine a measure of academic resilience. The data demonstrated within-network validity of the construct by way of sound item and factor statistics. In terms
of between-network validity, correlation, path analysis, and cluster analysis showed that five factors predict academic resilience: self-efficacy, control, planning, low anxiety, and persistence.
Hence, a 5-C model of academic resilience is proposed: confidence (self-efficacy), coordination
(planning), control, composure (low anxiety), and commitment (persistence). Path analyses also
showed that academic resilience subsequently predicts three educational and psychological outcomes: enjoyment of school, class participation, and general self-esteem over and above the
motivation and engagement factors underpinning academic resilience. The findings hold implications for pedagogy and psychological practice in that identifying the specific facets underpinning
academic resilience enables more targeted intervention and support to enhance students ability to
deal with setback, challenge, and pressure in the academic setting. Accordingly, there are specific
strategies practitioners can use to enhance students self-efficacy, control, planning, and persistence and to reduce their anxiety.
It has been suggested that educational research can oftentimes yield limited practical implications and applications, and that there is a need to combine research that advances scientific
understanding but which also has applied utility. Hence, it has recently been recommended that
there be given greater attention to use-inspired basic research (Pintrich, 2000). In view of this,
it is significant that the present data provide greater direction for specific intervention and practice
aimed at enhancing students academic resilience. Specifically, the present data suggest that intervention designed to target students academic resilience should revolve around students selfefficacy, control, persistence, planning, and anxiety. Briefly discussed next are some possible
directions for intervention and support as relevant to specific facets underpinning students academic resilience. These are suggestive rather than prescriptive and are aimed at showing that
inferring from the seminal research from which the constructs derive provides important structure
for intervention.
Academic self-efficacy is a significant predictor of academic resilience, and its development
can involve restructuring learning to maximize opportunities for success, for example, through
individualizing tasks where possible (Schunk & Miller, 2002), addressing and enhancing students
(negative) beliefs about themselves and their academic capacities (Bandura, 1997), and developing skills in effective goal setting (Locke & Latham, 2002) that are likely to lead to success and
which provide a basis for enhancement of ones self-efficacy.
Work in self-regulation and goal setting provides direction for enhancing students planning
and persistence, two other keys to students academic resilience. Encouraging students to set
effective goals (see Locke & Latham, 2002) and showing them how to work toward these goals are
Psychology in the Schools

DOI: 10.1002/pits

278

Martin and Marsh

important ways of enhancing persistence, particularly when students find the work challenging or
when resolution of target problems is not immediately forthcoming (Locke & Latham, 2002). It is
further suggested that a focus on developing students self-regulatory skills (Zimmerman, 2002) is
an important means of enhancing their capacity to plan, manage their study, and persist in the face
of challenge. This can encompass, among other things, using time more effectively, prioritizing,
being clear about what one is expected or required to do for assignments, homework, and study
programs, and developing strategies for checking schoolwork as it is done.
There are a number of ways to address students uncertain control. First, when students see
the connection between their effort and strategy (both controllable elements of their schoolwork)
and academic outcomes, they are likely to gain a greater sense of control over their ability to attain
or repeat success or avoid failure. Research suggests that showing students how effort and strategy
are key means of improvement and accomplishment enhances their sense of control (Martin,
Marsh, & Debus, 2001a, 2001b, 2003; Martin, Marsh, Williamson, & Debus, 2003). This can
encompass showing them how hard work and effective study strategies impact on achievement,
reviewing study skills in class, and giving students some choice (within sensible parameters) over
lesson objectives, assessment tasks, criteria for marking, and due dates for assignments (McInerney, 2000). Control also is developed by providing feedback in effective and consistent ways. For
example, it can be important for educators to provide task-based feedback on students work that
makes it very clear how they can improve (Martin et al., 2001a, 2001b, 2003). Additionally,
control is enhanced when educators administer rewards that are directly contingent on what students doinconsistent reward contingencies often create confusion and uncertainty in students
minds as to what they did to receive that reward (Thompson, 1994). It is suggested that control is
particularly pivotal for addressing students disengagement. Through chronic levels of low control, disengaged students have given up to the point of not even trying to avoid failure (Peterson,
Maier, & Seligman, 1993). These students believe there is little or nothing they can do to affect
academic outcomes in their life, and are generally disengaged from tasks and display a helpless
pattern of motivation (Covington, 1992).
A primary factor relevant to anxiety is a fear of failure (Covington, 1992; Martin & Marsh,
2003). Research has suggested that ways to reduce students fear of failure include (a) promoting
the belief that increased effort and more effective strategy enhances performance and does not
imply a lack of ability or intelligence (Covington & Omelich, 1979), (b) demonstrating that mistakes provide diagnostic information about how to improve, can be important ingredients for
future success, and do not imply that the student is lacking in worth (Covington, 1992), (c) downplaying where possible the emphasis on competition while promoting a classroom climate of
cooperation (Qin, Johnson, & Johnson, 1995), and (d) striving to rework students views on success so that it is seen more in terms of personal progress and improvement than in outperforming
others (Covington, 1992). Taken together, these are aimed at reducing links students make between
their achievement and their worth as a person, reducing the sting of fear in competitive environments, promoting a constructive view of poor performance, and shifting students focus onto
controllable elements such as effort and strategy and away from elements students believe are less
controllable or are more threatening to their self-worth. The joint operation of these factors reduces
students anxiety (Martin & Marsh, 2003).
Future Directions
The present study provides an expanded understanding of the psychological factors underpinning academic resilience; however, there are a number of potential limitations to consider when
interpreting findings and which provide some direction for further research. The data presented in
this study were self-reported. Although this is a logical and defensible methodology in its own
Psychology in the Schools

DOI: 10.1002/pits

Academic Resilience

279

right given the substantive focus, it is important to conduct research that examines the same
constructs using data derived from additional sources such as that from teachers and parents. It
also is important to recognize that the measures relate to school generally and not to specific
school subjects. It may be that the more focused the measures are on specific school subjects, the
more useful they are from an intervention perspective. Furthermore, the data were collected at
only one time point, and thus future longitudinal work is needed to explore the stability of constructs over time and perhaps some analysis of possible causal ordering that also incorporates
student achievement. Longitudinal research is particularly important given the substantive topic
under focusnamely, the ability to remain engaged over time.
Another issue concerns the extent to which students are aware of their orientation toward
particular dimensions of their academic life. For example, it may be that individuals are not
directly aware of their academic resilience or cannot access their self-protective motivations such
as self-handicapping; to the extent that this is the case, the present data are limited. Another issue
concerns the possibility that some students are not inclined to concede to constructs such as
academic resilience, anxiety, failure avoidance, uncertain control, or self-handicapping. While it
has been argued that individuals are prepared to admit to their self-protection, for example (Arkin
& Oleson, 1998), the present results must be interpreted with the possibility of defensive selfreports in mind.
It must be recognized that the focus of this study has been on individual-level academic
resilience and individual-level psychological and educational factors. There is a need for further
research to situate this studys findings within the context of home-, peer-, teacher-, and schoolrelated influences. Although the present study was specifically aimed at examining a diverse array
of psychological and educational dimensions, it is fully recognized that previous research has
shown home-, peer-, teacher-, and school-related influences to be relevant to general resilience
(see Masten & Coatsworth, 1998) and to academic resilience (Finn & Rock, 1997). There also
may be scope to explore class and school climates; that is, aiming for aggregate-level academic
resilience. Although the present study adopted an individual-differences approach to academic
resilience, it is recognized that class- and school-level factors also are potentially relevant. Work
that has assessed class-level goals has found that they are associated with patterns of behavior,
affect, and cognition (Urdan, Midgley, & Anderman, 1998). Indeed, advances in statistical software enable researchers to more accurately assess the relative influence of individual-, class-, and
school-level factors using multilevel modeling (see Bryk & Raudenbush, 1992; Goldstein, 2003);
therefore, future research can readily explore the influence of class- and school-level climates
relative to individual-level variation in academic resilience.
References
Alva, S.A. (1991). Academic invulnerability among Mexican-American students: The importance of protective and resources
and appraisals. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 13, 1834.
Arkin, R.M., & Oleson, K.C. (1998). Self-handicapping. In J.M. Darley & J. Cooper (Eds.), Attribution and social interaction: The legacy of Edward E. Jones. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: Freeman.
Bryk, A.S., & Raudenbush, S.W. (1992). Hierarchical linear models. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Cheung, G.W., & Rensvold, R.B. (2002). Evaluating goodness-of-fit indexes for testing measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling, 9, 233255.
Connell, J.P. (1985). A new multidimensional measure of childrens perceptions of control. Child Development, 56, 10181041.
Covington, M.V. (1992). Making the grade: A self-worth perspective on motivation and school reform. Cambridge, England:
Cambridge University Press.
Covington, M.V., & Omelich, C.L. (1979). Effort: The double-edged sword in school achievement. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 71, 169182.
Psychology in the Schools

DOI: 10.1002/pits

280

Martin and Marsh

Dauber, S.L., Alexander, K.L., & Entwisle, D.R. (1996). Tracking and transitions through the middle grades: Channeling
educational trajectories. Sociology of Education, 69, 290307.
DuBois, D.L., & Flay, B.R. (2004). The healthy pursuit of self-esteem: Comment on and alternative to the Croker and Park
(2004) formulation. Psychological Bulletin, 130, 415 420.
Duda, J.L., & Nicholls, J.G. (1992). Dimensions of achievement motivation in schoolwork and sport. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84, 290299.
Elliot, A.J., & Sheldon, K.M. (1997). Avoidance achievement motivation: A personal goals analysis. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 73, 171185.
Finn, J.D. (1989). Withdrawing from school. Review of Educational Research, 59, 117142.
Finn, J.D., & Rock, D.A. (1997). Academic success among students at risk for school failure. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 221234.
Goldstein, H. (2003). Multilevel statistical models (3rd ed.). London: Hodder Arnold.
Hair, J.F., Anderson, R.E., Tatham, R.L., & Black, W.C. (1995). Multivariate data analysis with readings. Englewood
Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Harter, S., Whitesell, N.R., & Kowalski, P. (1992). Individual differences in the effects of educational transitions on young
adolescents perceptions of competence and motivational orientation. American Educational Research Journal, 29,
777807.
Howard, S., & Johnson, B. (2000). What makes the difference? Children and teachers talk about resilient outcomes for
children at risk. Educational Studies, 26, 321337.
Jimerson, S., Egeland, B., & Teo, A. (1999). A longitudinal study of achievement trajectories: Factors associated with
change. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91, 116126.
Joreskog, K.G., & Sorbom, D. (2003). LISREL 8.54. Lincolnwood, IL: Scientific Software International.
Lee, F.K., Sheldon, K.M., & Turban, D.B. (2003). Personality and goal-striving process: The influence of achievement
goal patterns, goal level, and mental focus on performance and enjoyment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88,
256265.
Lindstroem, B. (2001). The meaning of resilience. International Journal of Adolescent Medicine and Health, 13, 712.
Locke, E.A., & Latham, G.P. (2002). Building practically useful theory of goal setting and task motivation. American
Psychologist, 57, 705717.
Luthar, S.S., & Cicchetti, D. (2000). The construct of resilience: Implications for interventions and social policies. Development and Psychopathology, 12, 857885.
Marsh, H.W. (1990). A multidimensional, hierarchical model of self-concept: Theoretical and empirical justification.
Educational Psychology Review, 2, 77172.
Marsh, H.W. (1993). The multidimensional structure of academic self-concept: Invariance over gender and age. American
Educational Research Journal, 30, 841860.
Martin, A.J. (2001). The Student Motivation Scale: A tool for measuring and enhancing motivation. Australian Journal of
Guidance and Counselling, 11, 120.
Martin, A.J. (2002). Motivation and academic resilience: Developing a model of student enhancement. Australian Journal
of Education, 14, 34 49.
Martin, A.J. (2003a). How to motivate your child for school and beyond. Sydney: Bantam.
Martin, A.J. (2003b). The Student Motivation Scale: Further testing of an instrument that measures school students
motivation. Australian Journal of Education, 47, 88106.
Martin, A.J. (in press). Personal bests (PBs): A proposed multidimensional model and empirical analysis. British Journal
of Educational Psychology.
Martin, A.J., & Marsh, H.W. (2003). Fear of failure: Friend or foe? Australian Psychologist, 38, 3138.
Martin, A.J., & Marsh, H.W. (2005). Motivating boys and motivating girls: Does teacher gender really make a difference?
Australian Journal of Education, 49, 320334.
Martin, A.J., Marsh, H.W., & Debus, R.L. (2001a). A quadripolar need achievement representation of self-handicapping
and defensive pessimism. American Educational Research Journal, 38, 583 610.
Martin, A.J., Marsh, H.W., & Debus, R.L. (2001b). Self-handicapping and defensive pessimism: Exploring a model of
predictors and outcomes from a self-protection perspective. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93, 87102.
Martin, A.J., Marsh, H.W., & Debus, R.L. (2003). Self-handicapping and defensive pessimism: A model of self-protection
from a longitudinal perspective. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 28, 136.
Martin, A.J., Marsh, H.W., Williamson, A., & Debus, R.L. (2003). Self-handicapping, defensive pessimism, and goal
orientation: A qualitative study of university students. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95, 617 628.
Masten, A.S. (2001). Ordinary magic: Resilience processes in development. American Psychologist, 56, 227238.
Masten, A.S., & Coatsworth, J.D. (1998). The development of competence in favourable and unfavourable environments:
Lessons from research on successful children. American Psychologist, 53, 205220.
Psychology in the Schools

DOI: 10.1002/pits

Academic Resilience

281

McInerney, D. (2000). Helping kids achieve their best. Sydney: Allen & Unwin.
Midgley, C., Arunkumar, R., & Urdan, T.C. (1996). If I dont do well tomorrow, theres a reason: Predictors of adolescents use of academic self-handicapping strategies. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88, 423 434.
Midgley, C., Maehr, M., Hicks, L., Roesser, R., Urdan, T., Anderman, E., et al. (1997). Patterns of adaptive learning
(PALS). Ann Arbor: University of Michigan.
Miller, R.B., Greene, B.A., Montalvo, G.P., Ravindran, B., & Nichols, J.D. (1996). Engagement in academic work: The
role of learning goals, future consequences, pleasing others, and perceived ability. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 21, 388 422.
Norusis, M.J. (1994). SPSS: Professional statistics. Chicago: SPSS Inc.
Peterson, C., Maier, S.F., & Seligman, M.E.P. (1993). Learned helplessness: A theory for the age of personal control. New
York: Oxford University Press.
Pintrich, P.R. (2000). Educational psychology at the millennium: A look back and a look forward. Educational Psychologist, 35, 221226.
Pintrich, P.R., & DeGroot, E. (1990). Motivational and self-regulated learning components of classroom academic performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 33 40.
Pintrich, P.R., Smith, D.A.F., Garcia, T., & McKeachie, W.J. (1991). A manual for the use of the Motivated Strategies for
Learning Questionnaire (MSLQ) (1991). Ann Arbor, MI: National Center for Research to Improve Postsecondary
Teaching and Learning.
Qin, Z., Johnson, D.W., & Johnson, R.T. (1995). Cooperative versus competitive efforts and problem solving. Review of
Educational Research, 65, 129144.
Richter, FFF.D., & Tjosvold, D. (1980). Effects of student participation in classroom decision making on attitudes, peer
interaction, motivation and learning. Journal of Applied Psychology, 65, 7480.
Schunk, D.H., & Miller, S.D. (2002). Self-efficacy and adolescents motivation. In F. Pajares & T. Urdan (Eds.), Academic
motivation of adolescents. Greenwich, CT: Information Age.
Strube, M.J. (1986). An analysis of the Self-Handicapping Scale. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 7, 211224.
Thompson, T. (1994). Self-worth protection: Review and implications for the classroom. Educational Review, 46, 259274.
Urdan, T.C., Midgley, C., & Anderman, E.M. (1998). The role of classroom goal structure in students use of selfhandicapping strategies. American Educational Research Journal, 35, 101122.
Wang, M.C., Haertal, G.D., & Walberg, H.J. (1994). Educational resilience in inner cities. In M.C. Wang & E.W. Gordon
(Eds.), Educational resilience in inner-city America: Challenges and prospects (pp. 4572). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Zimmerman, B.J. (2002). Achieving self-regulation: The trial and triumph of adolescence. In F. Pajares & T. Urdan (Eds.),
Academic motivation of adolescents (pp. 128). Greenwich, CT: Information Age.

Psychology in the Schools

DOI: 10.1002/pits