View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

Adolescent School Refusal and Academic Self-Efficacy: A Latent Profile and Regression Analysis

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Adolescent School Refusal and Academic Self-Efficacy: A Latent Profile and Regression Analysis
Language: English
Authors: María Pérez-Marco (ORCID 0000-0002-1857-9415), Carolina Gonzálvez (ORCID 0000-0002-7810-9044), Andrea Fuster-Rico (ORCID 0000-0003-2119-1451), María Vicent (ORCID 0000-0002-6254-4770), Aitana Fernández-Sogorb (ORCID 0000-0003-2709-1099), María Del Pilar Aparicio-Flores (ORCID 0000-0001-8043-4877)
Source: Psychology in the Schools. 2024 61(10):4041-4056.
Availability: Wiley. Available from: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 111 River Street, Hoboken, NJ 07030. Tel: 800-835-6770; e-mail: cs-journals@wiley.com; Web site: https://www.wiley.com/en-us
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 16
Publication Date: 2024
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Research
Education Level: High Schools
Secondary Education
Descriptors: Attendance, Truancy, School Phobia, Student School Relationship, Attendance Patterns, Student Behavior, Anxiety, Adolescents, High Schools, Stress Variables, Behavior Problems, Emotional Disturbances, Foreign Countries, Self Efficacy, Social Differences
Geographic Terms: Spain
DOI: 10.1002/pits.23263
ISSN: 0033-3085
1520-6807
Abstract: School refusal is a serious problem that negatively affects academic performance, connection to school, and socioemotional well-being of students. Numerous scientific works have suggested that school refusal is associated with internalizing problems. However, it is necessary to determine how this condition may affect certain academic variables, such as perceived academic self-efficacy. This study has three objectives: to identify school refusal profiles according to the Kearney and Silverman functional model (1990); to analyze differences in means based on the identified profiles of perceived academic self-efficacy; and to determine the predictive capacity of school refusal on perceived academic self-efficacy. Participants consisted of 2357 Spanish students (56.8% girls), aged 13-17 (M = 15.24, SD = 1.26). They were administered the School Refusal Assessment Scale-Revised (SRAS-R) and the Academic Situation-Specific Perceived Self-Efficacy Scale (ASSPSE). Three profiles of school refusal were identified using Latent Profile Analysis, and the differential functioning of these profiles was determined using the academic self-efficacy dimension. Mixed profiles of school refusal obtained the lowest mean scores on the academic self-efficacy dimension. The findings are discussed with regard to the importance of enhancing perceived academic self-efficacy to prevent school attendance problems in adolescents and young children.
Abstractor: As Provided
Entry Date: 2024
Accession Number: EJ1449154
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwHzN399AXrGAfUsPDkOChHDAAAA4zCB4AYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHSMIHPAgEAMIHJBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDGChRWhIBp9u6ZLvaAIBEICBm0SnML1hW_xt1PvFjIr5uZjeRkj_YqtouAD6tkfo64liQ4JZdphbqz-5SQH_ZGJPCEybrjqR7sgjePtiNXWheH-cRdhkZZacCbTssB4LBoPHVNv9SXzFHrlVmp9c-zblp_8KxnqTrhfV24cVURnt09wV4KZpcEEWuJTekAr4DbMxzzfkFR9q2FCDD2Kq2oPWW4K2fTyOKTXeleyK
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0180926039;pis01oct.24;2024Nov19.04:31;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0180926039-1">Adolescent school refusal and academic self‐efficacy: A latent profile and regression analysis </title> <p>School refusal is a serious problem that negatively affects academic performance, connection to school, and socioemotional well‐being of students. Numerous scientific works have suggested that school refusal is associated with internalizing problems. However, it is necessary to determine how this condition may affect certain academic variables, such as perceived academic self‐efficacy. This study has three objectives: to identify school refusal profiles according to the Kearney and Silverman functional model (1990); to analyze differences in means based on the identified profiles of perceived academic self‐efficacy; and to determine the predictive capacity of school refusal on perceived academic self‐efficacy. Participants consisted of 2357 Spanish students (56.8% girls), aged 13–17 (M = 15.24, SD = 1.26). They were administered the School Refusal Assessment Scale‐Revised (SRAS‐R) and the Academic Situation‐Specific Perceived Self‐Efficacy Scale (ASSPSE). Three profiles of school refusal were identified using Latent Profile Analysis, and the differential functioning of these profiles was determined using the academic self‐efficacy dimension. Mixed profiles of school refusal obtained the lowest mean scores on the academic self‐efficacy dimension. The findings are discussed with regard to the importance of enhancing perceived academic self‐efficacy to prevent school attendance problems in adolescents and young children.</p> <p>Practitioner points: School refusal is a serious problem that negatively affects academic performance, connection to school, and socio‐emotional well‐being of students, which may affect certain academic variables, such as perceived academic self‐efficacy.This study has three objectives: to identify school refusal profiles according to the Kearney and Silverman functional model (1990); to analyze differences in means based on the identified profiles of perceived academic self‐efficacy; and to determine the predictive capacity of school refusal on perceived academic self‐efficacy.Three profiles of school refusal were identified using Latent Profile Analysis, and the differential functioning of these profiles was determined using the academic self‐efficacy dimension. Mixed profiles of school refusal obtained the lowest mean scores on the academic self‐efficacy dimension.</p> <p>Keywords: academic self‐efficacy; adolescence; Latent Profile Analysis; school refusal behavior</p> <hd id="AN0180926039-2">INTRODUCTION</hd> <p>Lack of school attendance is a major concern worldwide, given its negative impact on academic performance, school connection, and social‐emotional well‐being (Heyne, [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref1">35</reflink>]; Kearney & Graczyk, [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref2">41</reflink>]; Kearney et al., [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref3">40</reflink>]; Vien et al., [<reflink idref="bib60" id="ref4">60</reflink>]; Zeinalipour, [<reflink idref="bib63" id="ref5">63</reflink>]). Because of the causal heterogeneity motivating student refusal to attend school, numerous terms have been used to refer to school attendance problems (SAPs) (e.g., school truancy, school refusal, school phobia, etc.). Given the lack of conceptual consensus, the construct of SAPs has been developed, encompassing the overall typology of (justified and unjustified) school absences (Niemi et al., [<reflink idref="bib52" id="ref6">52</reflink>]). This term covers all of the behavioral manifestations and difficulties in attending school, considering the entire spectrum of severity associated with this difficulty (Gonzálvez et al., [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref7">20</reflink>]; Havik & Ingul, [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref8">34</reflink>]; Kearney et al., [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref9">40</reflink>]).</p> <p>Of the SAPs considered, school refusal is defined as the student's persistent refusal or difficulty to attend or remain in school, with said student typically manifesting emotional difficulties and/or associated internalizing behaviors (Gonzálvez, Díaz‐Herrero, et al., [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref10">22</reflink>]; Gonzálvez, Kearney, et al., [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref11">29</reflink>]; Havik & Ingul, [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref12">34</reflink>]; Kearney, [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref13">39</reflink>]). School refusal has been associated with internalizing behavior problems (e.g., anxiety, depression, stress) (Gonzálvez, Díaz‐Herrero, et al., [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref14">24</reflink>]; Gonzálvez, Martín, et al., [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref15">30</reflink>]; Kwak & Rang, [<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref16">47</reflink>]; Tekin & Aydın, [<reflink idref="bib58" id="ref17">58</reflink>]), worse self‐concept (Gonzálvez et al., [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref18">21</reflink>]), or social inhibition and poor social skills (Finning et al., [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref19">14</reflink>]; Gonzálvez, Inglés, et al., [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref20">26</reflink>]; Kljakovic et al., [<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref21">44</reflink>]; Knollmann et al., [<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref22">45</reflink>]), among others.</p> <p>Despite the interest in determining which variables are associated with this problem, the majority of studies have analyzed its relationship with psychological variables explaining personality traits. Therefore, it is essential to determine how this condition affects variables associated with the academic field, such as perceived academic self‐efficacy (Finning et al., [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref23">14</reflink>]; Fisher et al., [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref24">15</reflink>]; Gonzálvez, Díaz‐Herrero, et al., [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref25">24</reflink>]; Gonzálvez, Sanmartín, et al., [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref26">32</reflink>]; Tekin & Aydın, [<reflink idref="bib58" id="ref27">58</reflink>]). There is also interest in determining how school refusal affects adolescents, given the increased prevalence of SAPs during the secondary school phase (Hilwerling et al., [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref28">37</reflink>]; Kearney et al., [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref29">40</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0180926039-3">School refusal profile</hd> <p>The school refusal issue requires a detailed analysis of the characteristics identifying the distinct types of students experiencing said refusal. However, this is a difficult task given the distinct causes underlying this school refusal behavior (Gonzálvez, Inglés, Fernández‐Sogorb, et al., [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref30">25</reflink>]; Gonzálvez, Inglés, Vicent, et al., [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref31">28</reflink>]; Gonzálvez, Sanmartín, et al., [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref32">32</reflink>]). Considering this premise of causal heterogeneity and the complexity of the construct, Kearney and Silverman ([[<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref33">42</reflink>]]) used a dimensional approach to develop a functional analysis model of school refusal behavior, including four possible reasons or functional conditions explaining continued SAPs in youth: (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref34">1</reflink>) avoidance of stimuli provoking negative affectivity, (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref35">2</reflink>) escape from adverse social and/or assessment situations, (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref36">3</reflink>) the search for attention from significant others, and (<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref37">4</reflink>) the search for tangible reinforcement outside of the school environment. In the first two functional conditions, school refusal behavior is maintained by negative reinforcement (e.g., to escape from school situations causing unrest), and in the last two, by positive reinforcement (e.g., attracting the attention of parents or devoting school time to more enjoyable activities).</p> <p>Various studies have considered this perspective to establish student profiles or groups displaying school refusal behavior, using cluster and latent class analyses (Delgado et al., [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref38">9</reflink>]; Gallé‐Tessonneau et al., [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref39">16</reflink>]; Gonzálvez et al., [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref40">20</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref41">21</reflink>]; Gonzálvez, Díaz‐Herrero, et al., [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref42">22</reflink>]; Knollmann et al., [<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref43">46</reflink>]; Maynard et al., [<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref44">50</reflink>]). One of the first studies to identify school refusal profiles based on this model was conducted by Dube and Orpinas ([<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref45">10</reflink>]). These authors identified three groups from a nonclinical sample of 99 US students with SAPs (<emph>M</emph> = 12.5; SD = 1.38; age range = 8–15 years). Specifically, a mixed school refusal behavior was determined, including explanatory factors based on positive and negative reinforcement, a group of school refusal behavior based on positive reinforcement, and a nonschool refusal group.</p> <p>Subsequent studies have confirmed these same profiles in a community sample, with the most frequently identified groups being: the Nonschool Refusal profile (low scores on the four explanatory factors), the moderately high School Refusal profile (high and moderately high scores on the four explanatory conditions), the High School Refusal profile (high scores on all four explanatory factors), and the Mixed School Refusal profile (high scores on the school refusal factors based on negative and positive reinforcement) (Delgado et al., [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref46">9</reflink>]; Fernández‐Sogorb et al., [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref47">13</reflink>]; Gonzálvez, Díaz‐Herrero, et al., [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref48">22</reflink>]; Gonzálvez, Kearney, et al., [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref49">29</reflink>]). Other studies have differentiated between other groups such as the profile of school refusal due to tangible reinforcements external to the school (high scores on the fourth factor of the functional model) and the profile of school refusal due to negative reinforcement (high scores on one or the first two factors of the functional model) (Delgado et al., [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref50">9</reflink>]; Gonzálvez, Díaz‐Herrero, et al., [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref51">22</reflink>]; Gonzálvez, Kearney, et al., [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref52">29</reflink>]; Gonzálvez et al., [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref53">23</reflink>]).</p> <p>In most of these investigations, the detected profiles were related to psychoeducational variables associated with school refusal behavior. The results from these analyses revealed that the most maladaptive patterns were the school refusal behavior profiles due to mixed reinforcement, the high school refusal profile, and the school refusal profile due to negative reinforcement, since students in these categories obtained higher scores on negative emotional states such as school anxiety or aggressive behaviors, as well as lower scores on social functioning and self‐concept (Delgado et al., [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref54">9</reflink>]; Gonzálvez et al., [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref55">23</reflink>]; Gonzálvez, Díaz‐Herrero, et al., [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref56">22</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0180926039-4">Profiles of school refusal and academic self‐efficacy</hd> <p>Currently, most of the variables associated with the analyzed profiles evaluate internalizing problems associated with personality, although this is an educational problem that requires clarification in terms of the effect of variables in the school environment. Perceived academic self‐efficacy may be of great interest in this sense since it has been positively associated with aspects of behavioral and school adaptation, and with high levels of perseverance, motivation, satisfaction, and academic performance (García‐Fernández et al., [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref57">19</reflink>]; Heyne et al., [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref58">36</reflink>]; Pérez‐Sánchez et al., [<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref59">54</reflink>]).</p> <p>Academic self‐efficacy refers to an individual's belief in his/her ability to successfully complete a task or achieve a specific objective in the academic realm (Bianchi et al., [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref60">3</reflink>]; Ribeiro et al., [<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref61">55</reflink>]; Wuthrich et al., [<reflink idref="bib61" id="ref62">61</reflink>]). Likewise, this idea represents a relevant component of student mental health and well‐being. The link between self‐efficacy beliefs and the level of academic performance, and, therefore, with school refusal behavior, is based on self‐regulation skills, their influence on life satisfaction, and the promotion of student motivation, school commitment, effort, and perseverance (Ercegovac et al., [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref63">11</reflink>]; Vien et al., [<reflink idref="bib60" id="ref64">60</reflink>]; Zamfir & Mocanu, [<reflink idref="bib62" id="ref65">62</reflink>]).</p> <p>Empirical evidence reveals that high expectations of self‐efficacy make up a preventive element that increases motivation and academic achievement, while also reducing the appearance of maladaptive behavior (Bianchi et al., [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref66">3</reflink>]; García‐Fernández et al., [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref67">17</reflink>]). Therefore, these beliefs may also affect the student's school refusal behavior since past studies have shown that the student's will to attend school may have as much or more impact as other factors from the school or family context (Bianchi et al., [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref68">3</reflink>]). This is because positive thoughts regarding academic self‐efficacy make it possible to determine higher‐order goals and to increase motivation to strive to successfully achieve and accomplish these goals (Atabey, [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref69">2</reflink>]).</p> <p>Furthermore, given the comorbidity of school refusal with internalizing disorders, academic self‐efficacy may be a main factor in increasing or reducing the appearance of these disorders (Atabey, [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref70">2</reflink>]; Christy & Mythili, [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref71">5</reflink>]). Individuals having low self‐efficacy believe that academic challenges are complex, attributing excessive meaning to them and making it difficult to find solutions to them. Furthermore, this group tends to have low expectations regarding the marked purposes, tending to procrastinate (Chen & Feng, [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref72">4</reflink>]; Christy & Mythili, [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref73">5</reflink>]). Consequently, the feeling of school commitment and permanence may be affected, leading to school refusal (Atabey, [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref74">2</reflink>]; Zeinalipour, [<reflink idref="bib63" id="ref75">63</reflink>]).</p> <p>Despite the impact of school refusal on a student's academic, social, and personal life, few studies have analyzed the relationship between school refusal and academic self‐efficacy in adolescents (Bianchi et al., [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref76">3</reflink>]; García‐Fernández et al., [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref77">19</reflink>]; Pérez‐Sánchez et al., [<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref78">54</reflink>]). Past studies have shown that academic self‐efficacy is a negative predictor of school refusal (in terms of factors I, II, and III of the functional model) (Bianchi et al., [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref79">3</reflink>]), although using an Italian adolescent population, thus somewhat distinct from this study that focuses on a Spanish population. However, no past studies have examined the relationship between school refusal behavior and this self‐belief.</p> <hd id="AN0180926039-5">This study</hd> <p>Given the negative consequences that students with school refusal may face in their overall development and the beneficial role of academic self‐efficacy in compensating fot these effects, the purpose is to find out how students who refuse school in Spain show differences in academic self‐efficacy. In this line, with respect to relationship between school refusal and perceived accademic self‐efficacy, no past studies have examined the relationship between school refusal and this self‐belief. For that reason, this study aims to (a) identify school refusal profiles based on the functional model of Kearney and Silverman ([<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref80">42</reflink>]); (b) analyze the differences in means based on the profiles identified for perceived academic self‐efficacy; and (c) to determine the predictive capacity of school refusal on perceived academic self‐efficacy. In accordance with the scientific literature, the following hypotheses have been formulated:</p> <hd id="AN0180926039-6">1 Hypothesis</hd> <p>It is anticipated that three school refusal profiles will be identified: mixed school refusal profile, nonschool refusal profile, and high school refusal profile (Gonzálvez et al., [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref81">23</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0180926039-7">2 Hypothesis</hd> <p>It is anticipated that students in the mixed profile and the high school refusal profile will have lower mean scores on perceived academic self‐efficacy (García‐Fernández et al., [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref82">19</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0180926039-8">3 Hypothesis</hd> <p>It is anticipated that school refusal is a negative predictor of perceived academic self‐efficacy (Bianchi et al., [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref83">3</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0180926039-9">METHODOLOGY</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0180926039-10">Participants</hd> <p>In this study, the sample consisted of 2357 Spanish students (56.8% girls), aged 13–17 (<emph>M</emph> = 15.24, SD = 1.26). Table 1 shows the sample distribution by sex and age. Random cluster sampling was used to select this sample. The <emph>χ</emph><sups>2</sups> test of homogeneity in the frequency distribution revealed an absence of statistically significant differences between the groups, in terms of age (<emph>χ</emph><sups>2</sups> = 5.09; <emph>p</emph> = 0.28).</p> <p>1 Table Distribution of the sample according to sex and age.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr valign="bottom"><th /><th>13 years</th><th>14 years</th><th>15 years</th><th>16 years</th><th>17 years</th><th>Total</th></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td>Boys</td><td>103</td><td>205</td><td>262</td><td>240</td><td>209</td><td>1019</td></tr><tr><td>4.4%</td><td>8.7%</td><td>11.1%</td><td>10.2%</td><td>8.9%</td><td>43.2%</td></tr><tr><td>Girls</td><td>110</td><td>306</td><td>348</td><td>293</td><td>281</td><td>1338</td></tr><tr><td>4.7%</td><td>13%</td><td>14.8%</td><td>12.4%</td><td>11.9%</td><td>56.8%</td></tr><tr><td>Total</td><td>213</td><td>511</td><td>610</td><td>533</td><td>490</td><td>2357</td></tr><tr><td>9%</td><td>21.7%</td><td>25.9%</td><td>22.6%</td><td>20.8%</td><td>100%</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <hd id="AN0180926039-11">Instruments</hd> <p> <emph>School Refusal Assessment Scale‐Revised</emph> (SRAS‐R; Kearney, [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref84">38</reflink>]), a self‐reporting measure for children and adolescents aged 8–17. The SRAS‐R assessed the relative influence of four functional conditions of school refusal behavior: (I) The avoidance of stimuli that provoke negative affectivity related to school (e.g., "How often do you feel bad when you go to school because you are afraid of something school‐related such as exams, the school bus, teachers, fire alarms, etc.?"); (II) Escaping from adverse social and assessment situations (e.g., "How often do you not go to school because it is hard to talk to the other children in school?"); (III) Seeking the attention of significant others (e.g., "How often do you prefer being with your parents to going to school?"); and (IV) Searching for tangible reinforcement outside of school (e.g., "When you aren't in school during the week (from Monday to Friday), how often do you leave home and do something fun?"). A 7‐point Likert‐like scale was used (0 = <emph>Never</emph>; 6 = <emph>Always</emph>) to assess the 24 included items. For this study, the Spanish version of the SRAS‐R (Gonzálvez et al., [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref85">27</reflink>]) was used, consisting of 18 items out of the originally proposed 24. In this study, the internal consistency coefficients were 0.74, 0.79, 0.77, and 0.72 for each of the four factors, respectively.</p> <p> <emph>Academic Situation‐Specific Perceived Self‐Efficacy Scale</emph> (ASSPSE; Palenzuela, [<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref86">53</reflink>]), consisting of 10 items to measure the expectations of self‐efficacy in specific situations of the educational context in adolescents and university students (e.g., "I consider myself sufficiently capable of successfully taking on any academic task"). Using a Likert‐like scale of 10 points, the 10 introduced items were assessed, although an abbreviated four‐point version was used in this study (1 = <emph>never</emph>; 4 = <emph>always</emph>) proposed by García‐Fernández et al. ([<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref87">18</reflink>]). In this study, the internal consistency coefficient of the instrument was 0.87 for the assessed factor.</p> <hd id="AN0180926039-12">Procedure</hd> <p>This study was approved by the Ethics Committee of the Universidad de Alicante (UA‐2023‐03‐07). A meeting was held with the directors of the schools selected for the study, to inform them of the proposed objectives and invite them to collaborate in the study. In addition, written parental consent was requested in advance. The instruments were applied collectively and anonymously, during school hours. The mean time spent administering the instruments was 15 min for the SRAS‐R and 5 min for the ASSPSE.</p> <hd id="AN0180926039-13">Data analysis</hd> <p>First, a correlational analysis was carried out, using the Pearson correlation coefficients, between the four factors of SRAS‐R and perceived academic self‐efficacy. The interpretation of the effect sizes was considered to be small if the value was between 0.10 and 0.29, moderate between 0.30 and 0.49, and large for values over 0.50 (Cohen, [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref88">7</reflink>]).</p> <p>Second, a <emph>Latent Profile Analysis</emph> (LPA) was performed to identify the school refusal profiles. The selection of the optimal profile was achieved through the theoretical interpretation of each model and considering the indices proposed by Song and Kim ([<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref89">56</reflink>]): the lowest values of the <emph>Bayesian Information Criteria</emph> (BIC) and the <emph>Akaike Information Criteria</emph> (AIC); entropy values close to 1; and <emph>p</emph> values lower than 0.05 for the <emph>Vuong‐Lo‐Mendell‐Rubin Likelihood‐Ratio Test</emph> (LRT) and the <emph>Bootstrap Likelihood Ratio Test</emph> (BLRT). In addition to these fit indices, each profile should not be considered a small group (containing less than 25 subjects). The data were standardized before performing the cluster analysis (each dimension of school refusal behavior was standardized separately), and the results were interpreted considering that <emph>z</emph> scores below −0.5, between −0.5 years +0.5, and +0.5 indicate low, average, and high levels of school refusal behavior, respectively (Cumming & Duda, [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref90">8</reflink>]).</p> <p>Third, an analysis of variance (ANOVA) was applied to analyze interclass differences in the mean scores of the academic self‐efficacy dimension. Using the Bonferroni method, post hoc tests were performed to determine which profiles had statistically significant differences with regard to academic self‐efficacy. Also, Cohen's effect size (<emph>d</emph>) was calculated to determine the size of the identified differences. According to Cohen ([<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref91">7</reflink>]), <emph>d</emph> values lower than 0.49, between 0.50 and 0.79, and above 0.80 indicate small, moderate, and large effect sizes, respectively.</p> <p>Finally, binary logistic regression was used through the forward stepwise regression procedure based on the Wald statistic, to analyze the predictive capacity of school refusal on high scores on academic self‐efficacy. This model allows us to estimate the probability of an event or result occurring (e.g., high score on academic self‐efficacy), versus what does not occur in the presence of one or more predictors (e.g., school refusal). This prediction capacity is estimated using the odds ratio (OR) statistic, with a positive prediction being the OR value over 1 and a negative prediction being a value less than 1. OR values that are equal to 1 indicate the absence of predictive capacity (De Maris, [<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref92">48</reflink>]).</p> <p>Data were analyzed using SPSS 28, Microsoft Excel 365, and MedCalc 19.</p> <hd id="AN0180926039-14">RESULTS</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0180926039-15">Correlations between school refusal and academic self‐efficacy</hd> <p>Correlations between the four conditions of school refusal behavior and perceived academic self‐efficacy were statistically significant and low in size (see Table 2). The first three factors of the SRAS‐R correlated negatively with perceived academic self‐efficacy while the fourth factor of the SRAS‐R revealed a positive correlation.</p> <p>2 Table Correlations between school refusal behavior and perceived academic self‐efficacy.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr valign="bottom"><th>SRAS‐R</th><th align="left">Academic self‐efficacy</th></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td>FI</td><td>–0.146<ext-link href="*" /></td></tr><tr><td>FII</td><td>–0.129<ext-link href="*" /></td></tr><tr><td>FIII</td><td>–0.089<ext-link href="*" /></td></tr><tr><td>FIV</td><td>0.081<ext-link href="*" /></td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>1 Abbreviations: FI, avoidance of school‐related stimuli that provoke negative affectivity; FII, escape from aversive social and/or evaluative situations at school; FIII, seeking attention from significant others; FIV, seeking tangible reinforcement outside the school environment; SRAS–R, Revised School Refusal Assessment Scale.</p> <p>2 * <emph>p</emph> < 0.001.</p> <hd id="AN0180926039-16">School refusal profiles</hd> <p>Latent profile models having between two and six classes were tested. The goodness of fit indices for each model are presented in Table 3. Although the solutions from four, five, and six classes reveal very low AIC and BIC values, solutions from four to six classes were rejected since the LRT index revealed <emph>p</emph> values over 0.05 and the solution from five classes, due to the inclusion of a class that did not reach the minimum number of individuals. Considering all of the criteria, the solution of three classes was selected as having the best fit.</p> <p>3 Table Fit statistics for each latent profile model.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr valign="bottom"><th>Models</th><th>AIC</th><th>BIC</th><th>BIC‐adjusted</th><th align="left">LRT</th><th align="left">LRT‐adjusted</th><th align="left">BLRT</th><th align="left">Entropy</th><th>Size</th></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td>2</td><td>24,664.32</td><td>24,739.27</td><td>24,697.96</td><td><0.001</td><td><0.001</td><td><0.001</td><td>0.835</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>3</td><td>24,192.16</td><td>24,295.93</td><td>24,238.74</td><td>0.003</td><td><0.001</td><td><0.001</td><td>0.801</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>4</td><td>23,940.48</td><td>24,073.08</td><td>24,000.01</td><td>0.243</td><td>0.249</td><td><0.001</td><td>0.823</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>5</td><td>23,773.26</td><td>23,934.68</td><td>23,845.72</td><td>0.004</td><td>0.004</td><td><0.001</td><td>0.789</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>6</td><td>23,608.94</td><td>23,799.19</td><td>23,694.34</td><td>0.240</td><td>0.245</td><td><0.001</td><td>0.783</td><td>0</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>3 Abbreviations: AIC, Akaike Information Criterion; BIC, Bayesian Information Criteria; BLRT, Bootstrap Likelihood Ratio Test; LRT, Vuong‐Lo‐Mendell‐Rubin Likelihood‐Ratio Test.</p> <p>Below, the three groups making up this model are presented. The first profile classified 1490 participants (63.2%), who reported low levels in the first two factors of SRAS‐R (–0.58 and –0.5) and scores with a decreasing tendency on the third and fourth factors (–0.44 and –0.2). Therefore, this profile was referred to as the <emph>Non school refusal profile</emph>. The second profile, the so‐called <emph>school refusal profile to avoid of stimuli provoking negative affectivity and attention seeking</emph>, was characterized by having high scores on factors I and III (0.7 and 0.55) and included 699 participants (29.65%). The third profile included 168 participants (7.13%), characterized by high levels on the first three factors of the SRAS‐R (1.86, 2.15, 1.27). Therefore, it was labeled the <emph>school refusal profile to avoid of stimuli provoking negative affectivity, escape from social and/or evaluative situations and attention seeking</emph> (see Figure 1).</p> <p> <img src="https://imageserver.ebscohost.com/img/embimages/rdk/PIS/01oct24/pits23263-fig-0001.jpg?ephost1=dGJyMNXb4kSepq84yOvqOLCmsE6epq5Srqa4SK6WxWXS" alt="pits23263-fig-0001.jpg" title="1 School refusal behavior profiles." /> </p> <p></p> <hd id="AN0180926039-18">School refusal and perceived academic self‐efficacy profiles</hd> <p>Statistically significant differences were found between all of the school refusal profiles and the academic self‐efficacy variable (<emph>F</emph> (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref93">2</reflink>, 2354) = 78.50; <emph>p</emph> < 0.001, <emph>η</emph><sups><emph>2</emph></sups> = 0.06) (see Table 4). The Non school refusal profile was the group having the highest mean scores on perceived academic self‐efficacy. On the contrary, the group having the lowest scores on perceived academic self‐efficacy was the school refusal profile to avoid of stimuli provoking negative affectivity, escape from social and/or evaluative situations and attention seeking.</p> <p>4 Table Means and standard deviations obtained by the three groups in the dimension of perceived academic self‐efficacy.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr valign="bottom"><th>Dimensions</th><th>Profile 1 (<italic>n</italic> = 1490)</th><th>Profile 2 (<italic>n</italic> = 699)</th><th>Porfile 3 (<italic>n</italic> = 168)</th><th>Statistical significance</th></tr><tr valign="bottom"><th><italic>M</italic></th><th>DT</th><th><italic>M</italic></th><th>DT</th><th><italic>M</italic></th><th>DT</th><th><italic>F</italic><sub>(2,2354)</sub></th><th><italic>p</italic></th><th><italic>η</italic><sup><italic>2</italic></sup></th></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td>Self‐efficacy</td><td>29.51</td><td>6.31</td><td>26.73</td><td>5.56</td><td>24.93</td><td>6.12</td><td>78.50</td><td><0.001</td><td>0.06</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>4 <emph>Note</emph>: Profile 1: Non School refusal; Profile 2: SR to avoid negative affectivity and attention seeking; Profile 3: SR to avoid negative affectivity, escape from social/evaluative situations and attention seeking.</p> <p>Table 5 reveals the post hoc comparisons (Cohen's <emph>d</emph>) with effect size values ranging between 0.32 and 0.73, which are considered low and moderate effect sizes, respectively. The largest effect size was found when comparing the Nonschool Refusal profile with the school refusal to avoid of stimuli provoking negative affectivity, escape from social and/or evaluative situations and attention seeking. On the contrary, the differences between the profiles were small in size upon comparing the Non school Refusal profile with the other mixed profiles.</p> <p>5 Table Cohen's d value for post hoc values between cluster groups of perceived academic self‐efficacy.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr valign="bottom"><th>Dimensions</th><th /><th align="left">Profile 1 vs. Profile 2</th><th align="left">Profile 1 vs. Profile 3</th><th align="left">Profile 2 vs. Profile 3</th></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td>Self‐efficacy</td><td>p</td><td><0.001</td><td><0.001</td><td>0.002</td></tr><tr><td /><td>d</td><td>0.46</td><td>0.73</td><td>0.32</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>5 <emph>Note</emph>: Profile 1: Non SR; Profile 2: SR to avoid negative affectivity and attention seeking; Profile 3: SR to avoid negative affectivity, escape from social/evaluative situations and attention seeking.</p> <hd id="AN0180926039-19">Predictive capacity of the school refusal behavior on perceived academic self‐efficacy</hd> <p>Table 6 presents the results of the binary logistic regression analysis for the probability of obtaining high scores on academic self‐efficacy based on the school refusal dimensions. The proportion of correctly classified cases ranges from 54.9% (FIV) to 63% (FI). The dimensions of SRAS‐R are a statistically significant predictor of academic self‐efficacy, except for the fourth factor. In addition, fit values were obtained for Nagelkerke's <emph>R</emph><sups><emph>2</emph></sups> which ranged between 0.12 for FI and 0.01 for FIV. The FI, FII, and FIII dimensions of the SRAS‐R negatively predicted high scores on academic self‐efficacy. More specifically, the OR reached 0.90 for both FI as well as FII and 0.95 for FIII. However, FIV positively predicted high scores on self‐efficacy, with this OR value being 1.02. In this way, the probability of having high scores of academic self‐efficacy is 10% lower for each point that increases the scores on FI and FII, and 5% for FIII. Furthermore, the probability of having high scores on academic self‐efficacy is 2% higher for each point that the scores on FIV increase.</p> <p>6 Table Binary logistic regression for the probability of presenting a high self‐efficacy score as a function of the school refusal variables.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr valign="bottom"><th>Variable</th><th /><th><italic>χ</italic><sup>2</sup></th><th align="left"><italic>R</italic><sup>2</sup></th><th align="left"><italic>B</italic></th><th align="left">E.T.</th><th align="left">Wald</th><th align="left"><italic>p</italic></th><th align="left">OR</th><th>95% CI</th></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td>FI</td><td>Correctly classified: 63%</td><td>107.99</td><td>0.12</td><td>−0.10</td><td>0.01</td><td>94.38</td><td><0.001</td><td>0.90</td><td>0.88–0.92</td></tr><tr><td /><td>Constant</td><td>1.57</td><td>0.16</td><td>94.02</td><td><0.001</td><td>4.81</td><td /></tr><tr><td>FII</td><td>Correctly classified: 62.8%</td><td>0.81.59</td><td>0.09</td><td>−0.09</td><td>0.01</td><td>71.16</td><td>0.000</td><td>0.90</td><td>0.88–0.93</td></tr><tr><td /><td>Constant</td><td>1.36</td><td>0.16</td><td>72.47</td><td><0.001</td><td>3.90</td><td /></tr><tr><td>FIII</td><td>Correctly classified: 59.2%</td><td>39.70</td><td>0.05</td><td>−0.05</td><td>0.01</td><td>37.79</td><td><0.001</td><td>0.95</td><td>0.93–0.97</td></tr><tr><td /><td>Constant</td><td>0.97</td><td>0.15</td><td>39.90</td><td><0.001</td><td>2.63</td><td /></tr><tr><td>FIV</td><td>Correctly classified: 54.9%</td><td>7.56</td><td>0.01</td><td>0.02</td><td>0.01</td><td>7.48</td><td>0.006</td><td>1.02</td><td>1.01–1.04</td></tr><tr><td /><td /><td /><td /><td>−0.41</td><td>0.19</td><td>4.48</td><td>0.034</td><td>0.65</td><td /></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>6 Abbreviations: <emph>B</emph>, regression coefficient; 95% CI, 95% confidence interval; E.T., standard error; OR, odd ratio; <emph>R</emph><sups>2</sups>, Nagelkerke square; Wald, Wald test; <emph>χ</emph><sups>2</sups>, chi‐squared.</p> <hd id="AN0180926039-20">DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS</hd> <p>This study had the following objectives: first, to identify profiles of school refusal based on the four factors proposed by the functional model (Kearney & Silverman, [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref94">42</reflink>]) using LPA; second, to examine the differences in academic self‐efficacy based on the different school refusal profiles that were previously identified in a large community sample of Spanish adolescents; and finally, to determine the predictive capacity of school refusal on academic self‐efficacy.</p> <hd id="AN0180926039-21">Profiles of school refusal behavior</hd> <p>In line with the results obtained from past studies (Delgado et al., [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref95">9</reflink>]; Dube & Orpinas, [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref96">10</reflink>]; Fernández‐Sogorb et al., [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref97">13</reflink>]; Gonzálvez et al., [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref98">23</reflink>]; Gonzálvez, Inglés, Fernández‐Sogorb, et al., [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref99">25</reflink>]; Gonzálvez, Kearney, et al., [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref100">29</reflink>]), it was anticipated that three profiles would be found: Nonschool Refusal Behavior, Mixed School Refusal Behavior, and High School Refusal Behavior. Despite using the SRAS‐R, as commonly used in past studies, our results have identified three groups, thus partially confirming the first hypothesis. The first profile, Non school refusal, coincided with the profile identified in past studies using community samples of adolescents, although presenting a higher prevalence percentage as compared with other studies, 63.22% (Delgado et al., [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref101">9</reflink>]; Dube & Orpinas, [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref102">10</reflink>]; prevalence: 22.2% and 24.22%, respectively, and Gonzálvez et al., [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref103">23</reflink>]; Gonzálvez, Díaz‐Herrero, et al., [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref104">22</reflink>]; Gonzálvez, Kearney, et al., [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref105">29</reflink>]; prevalence: 44.82%, 44.86%, 45.06%, respectively). Therefore, in the other two classes identified, the school refusal profile to avoid of stimuli provoking negative affectivity and attention seeking or school refusal profile to avoid of stimuli provoking negative affectivity, escape from social and/or evaluative situations and attention seeking were characterized by high scores on the first three factors and low scores on the fourth factor of the SRAS‐R. The only difference between these two profiles was that in the class of school refusal profile to avoid of stimuli provoking negative affectivity, escape from social and/or evaluative situations and attention seeking the scores on the first three factors of the SRAS‐R were higher than those of the school refusal profile to avoid of stimuli provoking negative affectivity and attention seeking. This profile type has been frequently identified in past studies on adolescents (Gonzálvez, Díaz‐Herrero, et al., [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref106">22</reflink>]; Gonzálvez, Kearney, et al., [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref107">29</reflink>]) and, considering the total of the prevalence percentages of both profiles, its prevalence was also higher than that of the past studies (29.66% and 7.13%, respectively). Therefore, the first hypothesis may be partially confirmed.</p> <p>It should be noted that the disparities in the quantity of school refusal profiles described in the scientific research may be more closely related to the specific characteristics of the participating sample than to the methods used to measure the concept (Çimşir & Ülker Tümlü, [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref108">6</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0180926039-22">School Refusal Behavior and perceived academic self‐efficacy</hd> <p>Regarding interclass differences in academic self‐efficacy, statistically significant and low‐magnitude differences were found between the distinct factors of School Refusal Behavior and academic self‐efficacy. Negative correlations existed between the first three factors of the SRAS‐R and academic self‐efficacy. This is possible given that these individuals, major school rejectors, tend to have a low academic self‐efficacy, often perceiving complex academic challenges and granting them excessive importance, having difficulties in finding solutions to the same (Ribeiro et al., [<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref109">55</reflink>]). In addition, they tend to have low academic expectations with regard to goals and they tend to procrastinate (Chen & Feng, [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref110">4</reflink>]; Svartdal et al., [<reflink idref="bib57" id="ref111">57</reflink>]).</p> <p>It should be mentioned, however, that the fourth factor of the SRAS‐R has demonstrated an opposite relationship as compared with the other factors on this scale and its relationship with academic self‐efficacy, being a positive predictor of this self‐belief. In past studies, this explanatory factor for school refusal has also displayed distinct functioning as compared with the other SARS‐R factors. This may be due to the specific characteristics of the community sample, the methodology used in the study, or the difficulty of understanding the items associated with this factor, which may generate potential errors in interpretation (Gonzálvez et al., [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref112">23</reflink>]; Gonzálvez, Martín, et al., [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref113">30</reflink>]; Zubeidat et al., [<reflink idref="bib64" id="ref114">64</reflink>]). Therefore, further research is necessary to analyze this issue.</p> <p>The school refusal profile to avoid of stimuli provoking negative affectivity and attention seeking and school refusal profile to avoid of stimuli provoking negative affectivity, escape from social and/or evaluative situations and attention seeking received significantly lower scores on academic self‐efficacy as compared with the other nonschool refusal profile. These results partially confirm the second hypothesis proposing that adolescents with a mixed and high profile will have lower scores on academic self‐efficacy (García‐Fernández et al., [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref115">19</reflink>]).</p> <p>Therefore, the results of this analysis reveal that the least adaptive patterns were the mixed school refusal profiles with high scores on FI and FIII as well as those with high scores on FI, FII, and FIII, coinciding with past studies that suggested that these profiles were associated with higher scores on negative emotional states, school anxiety, aggressive behavior, and lower scores on social functioning and self‐concept (Delgado et al., [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref116">9</reflink>]; Gonzálvez et al., [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref117">23</reflink>]; Gonzálvez, Inglés, Fernández‐Sogorb, et al., [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref118">25</reflink>]).</p> <p>When comparing the different profiles and considering the magnitude of the effect sizes, adolescents in the school refusal profile to avoid of stimuli provoking negative affectivity, escape from social and/or evaluative situations and attention seeking received the lowest scores on academic self‐efficacy. In other words, youth belonging to this profile, followed closely by the profile of school refusal to avoid of stimuli provoking negative affectivity and attention seeking, had lower scores on academic self‐efficacy and associated behaviors such as low belief in their own goals, difficulty finding solutions, and so forth (Zysberg & Schwabsky, [<reflink idref="bib65" id="ref119">65</reflink>]).</p> <p>On the other hand, the highest scores on perceived academic self‐efficacy were obtained by the Non school Refusal Behavior profile. These results were corroborated through the analysis of effect sizes. Upon comparing the school refusal profile to avoid of stimuli provoking negative affectivity, escape from social and/or evaluative situations and attention seeking with the Non school Refusal Behavior profile, effect sizes were high on this variable. Similarly, comparisons between the school refusal to avoid of stimuli provoking negative affectivity and attention seeking and Non school Refusal Behavior groups revealed moderate to high effect sizes for this self‐belief. It should be noted that in the comparison between the school refusal profile to avoid of stimuli provoking negative affectivity and attention seeking (FI, FIII) and school refusal profile to avoid of stimuli provoking negative affectivity, escape from social and/or evaluative situations and attention seeking (FI, FII, FIII), no significant results were found in terms of effect sizes, or they were small in magnitude.</p> <p>Finally, regarding the predictive and discriminatory capacity of School Refusal Behavior with regard to perceived academic self‐efficacy, it was found that the first three SRAS‐R dimensions were statistically significant negative predictors of academic self‐efficacy, whereas the fourth factor revealed a positive trend. These results coincide with those of past studies and allow us to confirm the third hypothesis (Bianchi et al., [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref120">3</reflink>]). This may be because some behaviors associated with school refusal such as stress, anxiety, depression, social inhibition, aggression, or insufficient social skills (Finning et al., [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref121">14</reflink>]; Gonzálvez et al., [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref122">23</reflink>]; Gonzálvez, Díaz‐Herrero, et al., [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref123">22</reflink>]; Gonzálvez, Inglés, et al., [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref124">26</reflink>]; Gonzálvez, Kearney, et al., [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref125">29</reflink>]; Gonzálvez, Sanmartín, et al., [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref126">31</reflink>]; Havik & Ingul, [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref127">34</reflink>]; Kearney, [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref128">39</reflink>]; Kljakovic et al, [<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref129">44</reflink>]; Knollmann et al., [<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref130">45</reflink>]; Vicent et al., [<reflink idref="bib59" id="ref131">59</reflink>]) influence the development of perceived academic self‐efficacy. Furthermore, the negative self‐expectations of an individual and self‐concept and self‐esteem may have negative repercussions on the appearance of positive academic self‐efficacy (Aqeel & Rehna, [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref132">1</reflink>]; García‐Fernández et al., [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref133">17</reflink>]; Matsuura et al., [<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref134">49</reflink>]). Hence, the importance of working on other more emotional variables that affect school rejection, such as emotional intelligence and related strategies. It would be useful for pedagogical settings and also for clinicians to resolve conflict with school in adolescents throug emotional intelligence (Hafsa et al., [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref135">33</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0180926039-23">Limitations and future research lines</hd> <p>Although this study offers a relevant contribution to the research, it has certain limitations that must be considered. First, the data were obtained through self‐reporting techniques, which may result in bias due to the influence of social desirability effects. Second, the data were collected from schools located exclusively in the Spanish province of Alicante (Spain), and thus it is not possible to extrapolate to other cultures in a generalized manner. Therefore, it would be interesting to conduct a similar study in other countries, to make comparisons and determine if cultural differences affect the relationship between school refusal behavior and academic self‐efficacy. Finally, although the current study offers information on the relationship between school refusal and the development of low academic self‐efficacy, it is not possible to conclude that this relationship represents a negative trend over time. It would be useful to include longitudinal data to examine the refusal behavior of students with regard to perceived academic self‐efficacy throughout the distinct educational phases.</p> <hd id="AN0180926039-24">Practical implications</hd> <p>Despite the limitations of this research, it is an innovative contribution to the psychology and education fields. On the one hand, it facilitates the understanding of the relationship between school refusal and academic self‐efficacy from a dual perspective, considering both the variable and the individual characteristics. It is also one of the few international studies using an adolescent sample to attempt to understand how school refusal behavior and academic self‐efficacy may predict and differentiate between one another. Therefore, it offers valuable information for educators, increasing the understanding of how academic self‐efficacy, an adaptive trait in children and youth, may be affected differently based on the diverse school refusal profiles existing in the classrooms. In addition, by identifying the impact of school refusal behavior during adolescence, it is possible to better understand how this problem affects youth, given that in this life phase, an increase has been detected in the incidence rate. To improve student academic self‐belief, and therefore, help prevent school refusal behavior, educators should reinforce students on tasks that they complete successfully, while offering academic advising sessions, guidance, and workshops to encourage and awaken their skills and abilities in the academic setting (Farley, [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref136">12</reflink>]; Moussa, [<reflink idref="bib51" id="ref137">51</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0180926039-25">ACKNOWLEDGMENTS</hd> <p>This work has been funded by the Conselleria de Educación, Universidades y Empleo [CIAICO/2022/078], the Erasmus + program [2022‐1‐ES01‐KA220‐SCH‐000088733], and the University Teacher Training Grants FPU 2022 of the Ministry of Universities [FPU22/03428].</p> <hd id="AN0180926039-26">CONFLICT OF INTEREST STATEMENT</hd> <p>The authors declare no conflict of interest.</p> <hd id="AN0180926039-27">DATA AVAILABILITY STATEMENT</hd> <p>The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.</p> <ref id="AN0180926039-28"> <title> REFERENCES </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref34" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> Aqeel, M., & Rehna, T. (2020). Association among school refusal behavior, self‐esteem, parental school involvement and aggression in punctual and truant school‐going adolescents: A multilevel analysis. International Journal of Human Rights in Health Care, 13 (5), 385 – 404. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJHRH-06-2020-0041</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref35" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> Atabey, N. (2020). Future expectations and self‐efficacy of high school students as a predictor of sense of school belonging. Education and Science, 45 (201), 125 – 141. https://doi.org/10.15390/EB.2020.8315</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref36" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Bianchi, D., Cavicchiolo, E., Manganelli, S., Lucidi, F., Chirico, A., Girelli, L., Cozzolino, M., & Alivernini, F. (2022). School absenteeism and self‐efficacy in very‐low‐income students in Italy: Cross‐lagged relationships and differential effects of immigrant background. Children and Youth Services Review, 136, 106446. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2022.106446</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref37" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Chen, Z., & Feng, T. (2022). Neural connectome features of procrastination: Current progress and future direction. Brain and Cognition, 161, 105882. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bandc.2022.105882</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref71" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Christy, X. I., & Mythili, T. (2020). Self‐esteem, self‐efficacy and academic performance among adolescents. Journal of Indian Association for Child and Adolescent Mental Health, 16 (2), 123 – 135. https://doi.org/10.1177/0973134220200209</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref108" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Çimşir, E., & Ülker Tümlü, G. (2022). The roles of latent perfectionism classes in academicians' tendencies toward workaholism, useless superiority effort and narcissism. The Journal of General Psychology, 149 (4), 524 – 549. https://doi.org/10.1080/00221309.2021.1922342</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref88" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Erlbaum.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref90" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Cumming, J., & Duda, J. L. (2012). Profiles of perfectionism, body‐related concerns, and indicators of psychological health in vocational dance students: An investigation of the 2 × 2 model of perfectionism. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 13, 729 – 738. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychsport.2012.05.004</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref38" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Delgado, B., Martinez‐Monteagudo, M. C., Ruiz‐Esteban, C., & Rubio, E. (2019). Latent class analysis of school refusal behavior and its relationship with cyberbullying during adolescence. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 1916. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01916</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Dube, S. R., & Orpinas, P. (2009). Understanding excessive school absenteeism as school refusal behavior. Children & Schools, 31, 87 – 95. https://doi.org/10.1093/cs/31.2.87</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ercegovac, I. R., Maglica, T., & Ljubetic, M. (2021). The relationship between self‐esteem, self‐efficacy, family and life satisfaction, loneliness, and academic achievement during adolescence. Croatian Journal of Education, 23 (1), 65 – 83. https://doi.org/10.15516/cje.v23i0.4049</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Farley, H. (2020). Promoting self‐efficacy in patients with chronic disease beyond traditional education: A literature review. Nursing Open, 7 (1), 30 – 41. https://doi.org/10.1002/nop2.382</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Fernández‐Sogorb, A., González, C., & Pino‐Juste, M. (2022). Comprendiendo el comportamiento de rechazo escolar en la adolescencia: Perfiles de riesgo y estilo atribucional ante los resultados académicos. Revista de Psicodidáctica, 28, 35 – 43. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psicod.2022.11.001</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Finning, K., Ukoumunne, O. C., Ford, T., Danielson‐Waters, E., Shaw, L., Romero De Jager, I., Stentiford, L., & Moore, D. A. (2019). The association between anxiety and poor attendance at school – A systematic review. Child and Adolescent Mental Health, 24, 205 – 216. https://doi.org/10.1111/camh.12322</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Fisher, A. C., Dunkake, I., & Ricking, H. (2022). Risk factors for school based anxiety: An empirical study. Zeitschrift für Kinder‐ und Jugendpsychiatrie und Psychotherapie, 50, 447 – 456. https://doi.org/10.1024/1422-4917/a000880</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gallé‐Tessonneau, M., Bach‐Johnsen, D., & Keppens, G. (2019). The relationship between mental health and school absenteeism in a community sample of French secondary school students: Four profiles derived from cluster analysis. European Journal of Education and Psychology, 12, 77 – 90. https://doi.org/10.30552/ejep.v12i1.242</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> García‐Fernández, J. M., Ingés, C. J., Díaz‐Herrero, A., Lagos, N., Torregrosa, M. S., & Gonzálvez, C. (2016). Capacidad predictiva de la autoeficacia académica sobre las dimensiones del autoconcepto en una muestra de adolescentes chilenos. Estudios sobre Educación, 30, 31 – 50. https://doi.org/10.15581/004.30.31-50</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> García‐Fernández, J. M., Inglés, C. J., Torregrosa, M. S., Ruiz‐Esteban, C., Díaz‐Herrero, Á., Pérez‐Fernández, E., & Martínez‐Monteagudo, M. C. (2010). Propiedades psicométricas de la Escala de Autoeficacia Percibida Específica de Situaciones académicas en una muestra de estudiantes españoles de Educación Secundaria Obligatoria. European Journal of Education and Psychology, 3 (1), 61 – 74</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> García‐Fernández, J. M., Pérez‐Sánchez, A., Vicent, M., Gonzálvez, C., Nunes, M. I., & San Martín, N. (2014). School refusal and perceived academic self‐efficacy in a sample of Chilean adolescents, INPACT 2014: International Psychological Applications Conference and Trends (p. 290).</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gonzálvez, C., Díaz‐Herrero, Á., Sanmartín, R., Vicent, M., Pérez‐Sánchez, A. M., & García‐Fernández, J. M. (2019a). Identifying risk profiles of school refusal behavior: Differences in social anxiety and family functioning among Spanish adolescents. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 16, 3731. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16193731</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gonzálvez, C., Díaz‐Herrero, A., Sanmartín, R., Vicent, M., Pérez‐Sánchez, A. M., & García‐Fernández, J. M. (2019b). Subtyping of adolescents with school refusal behavior: Exploring differences across profiles in self‐concept. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 16 (23): 4780. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16234780</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gonzálvez, C., Díaz‐Herrero, A. ́, Sanmartín, R., Vicent, M., Fernández‐Sogorb, A., & García‐Fernández, J. M. (2020). Testing the functional profiles of school refusal behavior and clarifying their relationship with school anxiety. Frontiers in Public Health, 8, 598915. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2020.598915</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gonzálvez, C., Díaz‐Herrero, A., Vicent, M., Sanmartín, R., Aparicio‐Flores, M. P., & García‐Fernández, J. M. (2023). Typologies of Spanish youth with school refusal behavior and their relationship with aggression. Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment and Trauma, 97, 1779 – 1797. https://doi.org/10.1080/10926771.2023.2234840</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gonzálvez, C., Díaz‐Herrero, Á., Vicent, M., Sanmartín, R., Fernández‐Sogorb, A., & Ruiz‐Esteban, C. (2021). Affective profiles and anxiety or non‐anxiety‐related reasons for school refusal behavior: Latent profile analysis in Spanish adolescents. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 666218. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.666218</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gonzálvez, C., Inglés, C. J., Fernández‐Sogorb, A., Sanmartín, R., Vicent, M., & García‐Fernández, J. M. (2020). Profiles derived from the School Refusal Assessment Scale‐Revised and its relationship to anxiety. Educational Psychology, 40 (6), 767 – 780. https://doi.org/10.1080/01443410.2018.1530734</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gonzálvez, C., Inglés, C. J., Kearney, C. A., Sanmartín, R., Vicent, M., & García‐Fernández, J. M. (2019). Relationship between school refusal behavior and social functioning: A cluster analysis approach. European Journal of Education and Psychology, 12 (1), 17 – 29. https://doi.org/10.30552/ejep.v12i1.238</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gonzálvez, C., Inglés, C. J., Kearney, C. A., Vicent, M., Sanmartín, R., & García‐Fernández, J. M. (2016). School Refusal Assessment Scale‐Revised: Factorial invariance and latent means differences across gender and age in Spanish children. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 234267. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.02011</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gonzálvez, C., Inglés, C. J., Vicent, M., Calderón‐Guevara, C. M., Lagos‐San Martín, N., Sanmartín, R., & García‐Fernández, J. M. (2020). Perfiles de rechazo escolar: Identificación y comparación entre adolescentes ecuatorianos y chilenos. Interdisciplinaria, 37 (1), 191 – 203. https://doi.org/10.16888/interd.2020.37.2.1</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gonzálvez, C., Kearney, C. A., Jiménez‐Ayala, C. E., Sanmartín, R., Vicent, M., Inglés, C. J., & García‐Fernández, J. M. (2018). Functional profiles of school refusal behavior and their relationship with depression, anxiety, and stress. Psychiatry Research, 269, 140 – 144. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychres.2018.08.069</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gonzálvez, C., Martín, M., Vicent, M., & Sanmartín, R. (2021). School refusal behavior and aggression in Spanish adolescents. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 669438. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.669438</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gonzálvez, C., Sanmartín, R., Vicent, M., & García‐Fernández, J. M. (2021). Exploring different types of school refusers through latent profile analysis and school‐related stress associations. Science Progress, 104 (3). https://doi.org/10.1177/00368504211029464</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gonzálvez, C., Sanmartín, R., Vicent, M., Inglés, C. J., Aparicio‐Flores, M. P., & García‐Fernández, J. M. (2018). Academic self‐attributions for success and failure in mathematics and school refusal. Psychology in the Schools, 55, 366 – 376. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.22117</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hafsa, S., Aqeel, M., & Shuja, K. H. (2021). The moderating role of emotional intelligence between inter‐parental conflicts and loneliness in male and female adolescents. Nature‐Nurture Journal of Psychology, 1 (1), 38 – 48.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Havik, T., & Ingul, J. M. (2022). How to understand school refusal. Frontiers in Education, 6, 715177. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2021.715177</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Heyne, D. (2019). Developments in classification, identification, and intervention for school refusal and other attendance problems: Introduction to the special series. Cognitive and behavioral Practice, 26, 1 – 7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cbpra.2018.12.003</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Heyne, D., King, N., Tonge, B., Rollings, S., Pritchard, M., Young, D., & Myerson, N. (1998). The self‐efficacy questionnaire for school situations: Development and psychometric evaluation. Behaviour Change, 15 (1), 31 – 40. https://doi.org/10.1017/S081348390000588X</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hilwerling, L., Linnenbank, M., Flockert, H., Wedemeyer, M., Warnking, G., Blanke, J., Berlage, P., Schomberg, D., & Weglage, J. (2022). School absenteeism ‐ Requirements for a successful therapeutic approach. Klinische Padiatrie, 232 (5), 265 – 268. https://doi.org/10.1055/a-1198-5684</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kearney, C. A. (2002). Identifying the function of school refusal behavior: A revision of the school refusal assessment scale. Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment, 24, 235 – 245. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1020774932043</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kearney, C. A. (2016). Managing school absenteeism at multiple tiers: An evidence‐based and practical guide for professionals. Oxford University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kearney, C. A., Gonzálvez, C., Graczyk, P. A., & Fornander, M. J. (2019). Reconciling contemporary approaches to school attendance and school absenteeism: Toward promotion and nimble response, global policy review and implementation, and future adaptability (Part 1). Frontiers in Psychology, 10 (2222). https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.02222</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kearney, C. A., & Graczyk, P. A. (2020). A multidimensional, multi‐tiered system of supports model to promote school attendance and address school absenteeism. Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review, 23 (2), 316 – 337. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10567-020-00317-1</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kearney, C. A., & Silverman, W. K. (1990). A preliminary analysis of a functional model of assessment and treatment for school refusal behavior. Behavior Modification, 14 (3), 340 – 366. https://doi.org/10.1177/01454455900143007</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kearney, C. A., & Silverman, W. K. (1993). Measuring the function of school refusal behavior: The school refusal assessment scale. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 22 (1), 85 – 96. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15374424jccp2201_9</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kljakovic, M., Kelly, A., & Richardson, A. (2021). School refusal and isolation: The perspectives of five adolescent school refusers in London, UK. Clinical Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 26 (4), 1089 – 1101. https://doi.org/10.1177/13591045211025782</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Knollmann, M., Reissner, V., & Hebebrand, J. (2019). Towards a comprehensive assessment of school absenteeism: Development and initial validation of the inventory of school attendance problems. European Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 28, 399 – 414. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00787-018-1204-2</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Knollmann, M., Reissner, V., Kiessling, S., & Hebebrand, J. (2013). Differentielle klassifikation schulvermeidenden verhaltens. Zeitschrift für Kinder‐ und Jugendpsychiatrie und Psychotherapie, 41, 335 – 345. https://doi.org/10.1024/1422-4917//a000248</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kwak, J. Y., & Rang, W. H. (2019). A case study on person‐centered art therapy for reducing school refusal and depression of an adolescent. Korean Journal of Art Therapy, 26 (6), 1135 – 1157. https://doi.org/10.35594/kata.2019.26.6.007</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> De Maris, A. (2003). Logistic regression. In J. A. Schinka, & W. F. Velicer (Eds.), Research methods in psychology (pp. 509 – 532). John Wiley & Sons.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Matsuura, H., Iwasaka, H., Nezu, S., Ota, T., Okazaki, K., Yamamuro, K., Nakanishi, Y., Kishimoto, N., Iida, J., & Kishimoto, T. (2020). Influence of self‐esteem and psychiatric diagnosis on health‐related quality of life in children and adolescents with school refusal behavior. Neuropsychiatric Disease and Treatment, 16, 847 – 858. https://doi.org/10.2147/NDT.S246651</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Maynard, B. R., Salas‐Wright, C. P., Vaughn, M. G., & Peters, K. E. (2012). Who are truant youth? Examining distinctive profiles of truant youth using latent profile analysis. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 41, 1671 – 1684. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-012-9788-1</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Moussa, N. M. (2023). Promoting academic achievement: The role of self‐efficacy in predicting students' success in the higher education settings. Psychological Science and Education, 28 (2), 18 – 29. https://doi.org/10.17759/pse.2023280202</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Niemi, S., Lagerström, M., & Alanko, K. (2022). School attendance problems in adolescent with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, 1017619. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.1017619</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Palenzuela, D. (1983). Construcción y validación de una escala de autoeficacia percibida específica de situaciones académicas. Análisis y Modificación de conducta, 9 (21), 185 – 219.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pérez‐Sánchez, A., García‐Fernández, J. M., Vicent, M., Gonzálvez, C., Inglés, J. C., & San Martín, N. (2014). Academic self‐efficacy influences the attitude and interest in the school in a sample of Chilean adolescents, INPACT 2014: International Psychological Applications Conference and Trends (p. 294).</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ribeiro, M., Fernandes, A., & Fernandes, A. (2020). Academic self‐efficacy in Portuguese public higher education students, 14th International Technology, Education and Development Conference (inted2020) (pp. 7995 – 8002). <ulink href="http://hdl.handle.net/10198/20973">http://hdl.handle.net/10198/20973</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Song, H., & Kim, H. (2019). Value‐based profiles of visitors to a world heritage site: The case of Suwon Hwaseong fortress (in South Korea). Sustainability, 11, 132. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11010132</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Svartdal, F., Sæle, R. G., Dahl, T. I., Nemtcan, E., & Gamst‐Klaussen, T. (2022). Study habits and procrastination: The role of academic self‐efficacy. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 66 (7), 1141 – 1160. https://doi.org/10.1080/00313831.2021.1959393</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tekin, I., & Aydın, S. (2022). School refusal and anxiety among children and adolescents: A systematic scoping review. New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development, 2022 (185), 43 – 65. https://doi.org/10.1002/cad.20484</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Vicent, M., Inglés, C. J., Sanmartín, R., Gonzálvez, C., & García‐Fernández, J. M. (2018). Aggression profiles in the Spanish child population: Differences in perfectionism, school refusal and affect. Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience, 12, 12. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnbeh.2018.00012</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Vien, V., Heyne, D., Cheng Kueh, Y., & Husain, M. (2019). El cuestionario de autoeficacia en malayo para situaciones escolares: Desarrollo, confiabilidad y validez entre adolescentes tempranos en la escuela primaria. European Journal of Education and Psychology, 12 (1), 91 – 108. https://doi.org/10.30552/ejep.v12i1.243</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wuthrich, V. M., Belcher, J., Kilby, C., Jagiello, T., & Lowe, C. (2021). Tracking stress, depression, and anxiety across the final year of secondary school: A longitudinal study. Journal of School Psychology, 88, 18 – 30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2021.07.004</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Zamfir, A. M., & Mocanu, C. (2020). Perceived academic self‐efficacy among Romanian upper secondary education studentsv. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 17 (13), 4689. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17134689</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Zeinalipour, H. (2022). School connectedness, academic self‐efficacy, and academic performance: Mediating role of hope. Psychological Reports, 125 (4), 2052 – 2068. https://doi.org/10.1177/00332941211006926</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Zubeidat, I., Fernández, A., & Sierra, J. C. (2006). Ansiedad y Fobia Social: Revisión de los Autoinformes más utilizados en población adulta e infanto‐juvenil. Revista Terapia Psicológica, 24 (1), 71 – 86. https://<ulink href="http://www.redalyc.org/pdf/785/78524108.pdf">www.redalyc.org/pdf/785/78524108.pdf</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Zysberg, L., & Schwabsky, N. (2021). School climate, academic self‐efficacy and student achievement. Educational Psychology, 41 (4), 467 – 482. https://doi.org/10.1080/01443410.2020.1813690</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By María Pérez‐Marco; Carolina Gonzálvez; Andrea Fuster‐Rico; María Vicent; Aitana Fernández‐Sogorb and María Del Pilar Aparicio‐Flores</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author; Author; Author; Author; Author</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib35" firstref="ref1"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib41" firstref="ref2"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib40" firstref="ref3"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib60" firstref="ref4"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib63" firstref="ref5"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib52" firstref="ref6"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref7"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib34" firstref="ref8"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref10"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib29" firstref="ref11"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib39" firstref="ref13"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib24" firstref="ref14"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib30" firstref="ref15"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib47" firstref="ref16"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib58" firstref="ref17"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref18"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref19"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl18" bibid="bib26" firstref="ref20"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl19" bibid="bib44" firstref="ref21"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl20" bibid="bib45" firstref="ref22"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl21" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref24"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl22" bibid="bib32" firstref="ref26"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl23" bibid="bib37" firstref="ref28"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl24" bibid="bib25" firstref="ref30"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl25" bibid="bib28" firstref="ref31"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl26" bibid="bib42" firstref="ref33"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl27" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref39"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl28" bibid="bib46" firstref="ref43"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl29" bibid="bib50" firstref="ref44"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl30" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref45"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl31" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref47"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl32" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref53"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl33" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref57"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl34" bibid="bib36" firstref="ref58"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl35" bibid="bib54" firstref="ref59"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl36" bibid="bib55" firstref="ref61"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl37" bibid="bib61" firstref="ref62"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl38" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref63"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl39" bibid="bib62" firstref="ref65"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl40" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref67"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl41" bibid="bib38" firstref="ref84"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl42" bibid="bib27" firstref="ref85"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl43" bibid="bib53" firstref="ref86"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl44" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref87"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl45" bibid="bib56" firstref="ref89"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl46" bibid="bib48" firstref="ref92"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl47" bibid="bib57" firstref="ref111"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl48" bibid="bib64" firstref="ref114"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl49" bibid="bib65" firstref="ref119"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl50" bibid="bib31" firstref="ref126"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl51" bibid="bib59" firstref="ref131"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl52" bibid="bib49" firstref="ref134"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl53" bibid="bib33" firstref="ref135"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl54" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref136"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl55" bibid="bib51" firstref="ref137"></nolink>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1449154
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: Adolescent School Refusal and Academic Self-Efficacy: A Latent Profile and Regression Analysis
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22María+Pérez-Marco%22">María Pérez-Marco</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1857-9415">0000-0002-1857-9415</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Carolina+Gonzálvez%22">Carolina Gonzálvez</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7810-9044">0000-0002-7810-9044</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Andrea+Fuster-Rico%22">Andrea Fuster-Rico</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2119-1451">0000-0003-2119-1451</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22María+Vicent%22">María Vicent</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6254-4770">0000-0002-6254-4770</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Aitana+Fernández-Sogorb%22">Aitana Fernández-Sogorb</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2709-1099">0000-0003-2709-1099</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22María+Del+Pilar+Aparicio-Flores%22">María Del Pilar Aparicio-Flores</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8043-4877">0000-0001-8043-4877</externalLink>)
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Psychology+in+the+Schools%22"><i>Psychology in the Schools</i></searchLink>. 2024 61(10):4041-4056.
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: Wiley. Available from: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 111 River Street, Hoboken, NJ 07030. Tel: 800-835-6770; e-mail: cs-journals@wiley.com; Web site: https://www.wiley.com/en-us
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 16
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2024
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Research
– Name: Audience
  Label: Education Level
  Group: Audnce
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22High+Schools%22">High Schools</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Secondary+Education%22">Secondary Education</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Attendance%22">Attendance</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Truancy%22">Truancy</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22School+Phobia%22">School Phobia</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Student+School+Relationship%22">Student School Relationship</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Attendance+Patterns%22">Attendance Patterns</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Student+Behavior%22">Student Behavior</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Anxiety%22">Anxiety</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Adolescents%22">Adolescents</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22High+Schools%22">High Schools</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Stress+Variables%22">Stress Variables</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Behavior+Problems%22">Behavior Problems</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Emotional+Disturbances%22">Emotional Disturbances</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Foreign+Countries%22">Foreign Countries</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Self+Efficacy%22">Self Efficacy</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Social+Differences%22">Social Differences</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Geographic Terms
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Spain%22">Spain</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1002/pits.23263
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 0033-3085<br />1520-6807
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: School refusal is a serious problem that negatively affects academic performance, connection to school, and socioemotional well-being of students. Numerous scientific works have suggested that school refusal is associated with internalizing problems. However, it is necessary to determine how this condition may affect certain academic variables, such as perceived academic self-efficacy. This study has three objectives: to identify school refusal profiles according to the Kearney and Silverman functional model (1990); to analyze differences in means based on the identified profiles of perceived academic self-efficacy; and to determine the predictive capacity of school refusal on perceived academic self-efficacy. Participants consisted of 2357 Spanish students (56.8% girls), aged 13-17 (M = 15.24, SD = 1.26). They were administered the School Refusal Assessment Scale-Revised (SRAS-R) and the Academic Situation-Specific Perceived Self-Efficacy Scale (ASSPSE). Three profiles of school refusal were identified using Latent Profile Analysis, and the differential functioning of these profiles was determined using the academic self-efficacy dimension. Mixed profiles of school refusal obtained the lowest mean scores on the academic self-efficacy dimension. The findings are discussed with regard to the importance of enhancing perceived academic self-efficacy to prevent school attendance problems in adolescents and young children.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2024
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1449154
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1449154
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1002/pits.23263
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 16
        StartPage: 4041
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Attendance
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Truancy
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: School Phobia
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Student School Relationship
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Attendance Patterns
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Student Behavior
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Anxiety
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Adolescents
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: High Schools
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Stress Variables
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Behavior Problems
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Emotional Disturbances
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Foreign Countries
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Self Efficacy
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Social Differences
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Spain
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: Adolescent School Refusal and Academic Self-Efficacy: A Latent Profile and Regression Analysis
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: María Pérez-Marco
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Carolina Gonzálvez
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Andrea Fuster-Rico
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: María Vicent
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Aitana Fernández-Sogorb
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: María Del Pilar Aparicio-Flores
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 10
              Type: published
              Y: 2024
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 0033-3085
            – Type: issn-electronic
              Value: 1520-6807
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 61
            – Type: issue
              Value: 10
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Psychology in the Schools
              Type: main
ResultId 1