Figure 1
Adapted model of the FD completion
Table 1
Means and standard deviations for the FD postponement group and the FD completion on time group; t-test between the two groups
| Variables | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Range | Mean | SD | |
| Individual characteristics | |||
| Age | - | 24.46 | 5.06 |
| Parents’ education | 1–5 | 3.82 | 1.1 |
| Past performance | 1–5 | 3.01 | .81 |
| Perfectionism adaptive. | 1–5 | 3.5 | .77 |
| Perfectionism maladapt. | 1–5 | 2.74 | .83 |
| Negative emotional temp. | 1–5 | 2.33 | .72 |
| Positive emotional temp. | 1–5 | 3.6 | .64 |
| Social support | |||
| Perceived training guid. | 1–5 | 3.02 | .86 |
| Supervisor support | 1–5 | 3.9 | .79 |
| Peer support | 1–5 | 3.65 | .86 |
| Relatives’ support | 1–5 | 3.43 | .92 |
| Role conflict | 1–5 | 2.86 | .92 |
| Motivational beliefs | |||
| Self-efficacy | 1–5 | 3.63 | .65 |
| Intrinsic motivation | 1–5 | 3.62 | .86 |
| Extrinsic motivation | 1–5 | 4.01 | .71 |
| Task value | 1–5 | -.01 | 1.04 |
| Engagement | |||
| Positive emotions | 1–5 | 2.84 | .81 |
| Negative emotions | 1–5 | 2.41 | .86 |
| Self-regulation strategies | 1–5 | 3.01 | .88 |
| Deep-proc. strategies | 1–5 | 3.54 | .65 |
| Behavioral engagement | 1–5 | 3.64 | 1.04 |
| N = 268 | |||
Table 2
Discriminant fonction analyses on FD postponement
| Step 1 | Step 2 | Step 3 | Step 4 | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Variables | Cor. | DF | Cor. | DF | Cor. | Df | Cor. | Df |
| Social background | ||||||||
| Age | .67 | .69 | .50 | .39 | .48 | .37 | .35 | .31 |
| Parents’ education | .01 | .18 | .01 | .12 | .01 | .12 | .01 | .07 |
| Past performance | -.47 | -.45 | -.34 | -.30 | -.33 | -.29 | -.24 | -.22 |
| Perfectionistic striving | -.11 | .14 | -.08 | .04 | -.06 | .06 | -.05 | .10 |
| Self-criticism | .25 | .17 | .18 | .11 | .20 | .09 | .13 | .03 |
| Negative affects | .38 | .22 | .27 | -.05 | .26 | -.08 | .19 | .05 |
| Positive affects | -.50 | -.43 | -.37 | -.31 | -.36 | -.25 | -.26 | -.05 |
| Social support | ||||||||
| Perceived training guid. | -.12 | .13 | -.11 | .18 | -.08 | .03 | ||
| Supervisor support | -.19 | -.06 | -.18 | -.06 | -.13 | -.01 | ||
| Peer support | .01 | .22 | -.01 | .20 | .00 | .08 | ||
| Family support | -.20 | -.02 | -.19 | -.01 | -.14 | .02 | ||
| Role conflict | .80 | .72 | .78 | .64 | .55 | .32 | ||
| Motivational beliefs | ||||||||
| Self-efficacy | -.56 | -.27 | -.40 | .08 | ||||
| Intrinsic motivation | -.10 | -.09 | -.07. | .16 | ||||
| Extrinsic motivation | .01 | -.16 | .01 | -.08 | ||||
| Task value | -.03 | .23 | -.02 | .06 | ||||
| Engagement | ||||||||
| Positive emotions | -.17 | -.04 | ||||||
| Negative emotions | .32 | .24 | ||||||
| Self-regulation strategies | -.37 | .21 | ||||||
| Deep-proc. strategies | .10 | .08 | ||||||
| Behavioral engagement | -.77 | -.88 | ||||||
| Wilk’ λ | .89 | .81 | .80 | .67 | ||||
| Total correct classification | 66.6% | 80.35% | 80.55% | 83.7% | ||||
[i] Note: N = 268. As the sample comprised older students, we ran the final discriminant function analyses without these students (Age < 28; N = 241). Results indicated approximately same structure coefficient (e.g. role conflict = .56; age = .38; behavioral engagement = -.74)
Table 3
Intercorrelations between the independent study variables
| Variables | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 8 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Age | 1 | |||||
| 2. Past performance | -,11 | 1 | ||||
| 3. Positive Affect | -,01 | ,20** | 1 | |||
| 4. Role conflict | ,26** | -,08 | -,16** | 1 | ||
| 5. Self-efficacy | -,01 | ,24** | ,48** | -,51** | 1 | |
| 6. BE | -,05 | ,21** | ,37** | -,35** | ,52** | 1 |
[i] Note: N= 268 ; * p < .05 ; ** p < .001. BE = Behavioral Engagement
Figure 2
Path analyses. Nonsignificant paths are not shown. All paths are significant at .05