View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

Chicken or Egg? On the Relation between Course Performance and First-Year Students' Well-Being and Self-Efficacy

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Chicken or Egg? On the Relation between Course Performance and First-Year Students' Well-Being and Self-Efficacy
Language: English
Authors: Lize Vanderstraeten (ORCID 0000-0002-4046-1560), Evelien Opdecam (ORCID 0000-0001-9459-3019), Patricia Everaert (ORCID 0000-0003-1976-3836)
Source: Accounting Education. 2025 34(4):435-469.
Availability: Routledge. Available from: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. 530 Walnut Street Suite 850, Philadelphia, PA 19106. Tel: 800-354-1420; Tel: 215-625-8900; Fax: 215-207-0050; Web site: http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 35
Publication Date: 2025
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Research
Education Level: Higher Education
Postsecondary Education
Descriptors: Academic Achievement, College Freshmen, Accounting, Business Education, Self Efficacy, Well Being, Pass Fail Grading
DOI: 10.1080/09639284.2024.2354766
ISSN: 0963-9284
1468-4489
Abstract: Prior studies suggest associations between course performance and well-being and self-efficacy, although what comes first in this effect remains unclear. This study contributes to the research on noncognitive aspects of learning of first-year students, and examines the bidirectional relation between, on the one hand, students' well-being and self-efficacy, and on the other hand, their course performance in an accounting course. The study investigates first-year undergraduate students and their performance in an accounting course, measured as the grade and ensuing pass/fail mark. Longitudinal survey data were collected at three data collection moments during two consecutive semesters. The results lead to three main findings. First, well-being a few weeks before the examination moment affects course performance (grade) in accounting, while self-efficacy does not. Second, students who passed the course had higher well-being and self-efficacy in the next semester than those who failed. Third, students who passed, reported a higher increase in well-being and self-efficacy after the examination moment, than those who failed. Analyses controlled for students' age, gender, and high school performance. The empirical results provide valuable longitudinal insights into the important role of well-being and self-efficacy in relation to course performance, and vice versa. Implications for theory and practice are provided.
Abstractor: As Provided
Entry Date: 2025
Accession Number: EJ1478548
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwHIpS010_ukNZu6eDz8YQ07AAAA4zCB4AYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHSMIHPAgEAMIHJBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDJoNNndThAzZN6oz1wIBEICBmynXItDVx48uGhicBuoUy_SMgyCfZIB0phF4Okwo7YoXzywEc7Dxcbwpt1wRs5aI0SREKS1vUs3GvaLnQqcJCF83EXF36Km8NdpcHRHJcCrzc5KgqkQM1aJnVfcL3bqDiJ7i92Lc1dXI15AIN78XxHivsL14qZB0GQ_Bnn-KYsONcBI8nvR7YEKw8iRO4VcNrGgiUq2ro2LVzRz0
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0186911504;5cb01aug.25;2025Jul29.03:28;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0186911504-1">Chicken or egg? On the relation between course performance and first-year students' well-being and self-efficacy </title> <p>Prior studies suggest associations between course performance and well-being and self-efficacy, although what comes first in this effect remains unclear. This study contributes to the research on noncognitive aspects of learning of first-year students, and examines the bidirectional relation between, on the one hand, students' well-being and self-efficacy, and on the other hand, their course performance in an accounting course. The study investigates first-year undergraduate students and their performance in an accounting course, measured as the grade and ensuing pass/fail mark. Longitudinal survey data were collected at three data collection moments during two consecutive semesters. The results lead to three main findings. First, well-being a few weeks before the examination moment affects course performance (grade) in accounting, while self-efficacy does not. Second, students who passed the course had higher well-being and self-efficacy in the next semester than those who failed. Third, students who passed, reported a higher increase in well-being and self-efficacy after the examination moment, than those who failed. Analyses controlled for students' age, gender, and high school performance. The empirical results provide valuable longitudinal insights into the important role of well-being and self-efficacy in relation to course performance, and vice versa. Implications for theory and practice are provided.</p> <p>Keywords: Academic performance; course performance; introductory accounting course; first-year students; self-efficacy; well-being</p> <hd id="AN0186911504-2">Introduction</hd> <p>In recent years, accounting education has shown increased interest in the topics of well-being and self-efficacy (e.g. Beatson et al., [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref1">8</reflink>]; van Vuuren et al., [<reflink idref="bib99" id="ref2">99</reflink>]). This study examines the bidirectional relation between, on the one hand, students' well-being and self-efficacy, and on the other hand, their course performance in accounting. The particular relevance of this research question, given current findings in accounting education literature, is threefold.</p> <p>First, well-being and self-efficacy are considered individual strengths that are crucial for accountants to deal with stress in the workplace and job-related tensions (Jones et al., [<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref3">47</reflink>]; Molina-Sánchez et al., [<reflink idref="bib60" id="ref4">60</reflink>]; Salehi et al., [<reflink idref="bib73" id="ref5">73</reflink>]; Smith et al., [<reflink idref="bib79" id="ref6">79</reflink>]). Of topical concern is the stress-afflicted role of accounting professionals, their ensuing vulnerability for low well-being and mental problems, and the importance of resilience and coping skills in their working environment (Jones et al., [<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref7">47</reflink>]; Molina-Sánchez et al., [<reflink idref="bib60" id="ref8">60</reflink>]; Smith et al., [<reflink idref="bib79" id="ref9">79</reflink>]; Smith & Emerson, [<reflink idref="bib80" id="ref10">80</reflink>]). The everchanging accounting profession is challenged by issues such as job dissatisfaction, underperformance, and burnout, which, in turn, leads to staff turnover (Chong & Monroe, [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref11">21</reflink>]; Smith et al., [<reflink idref="bib82" id="ref12">82</reflink>]). As argued by these scholars, staff turnover is a costly and increasingly prevalent problem for the accounting industry, especially among junior accounting professionals. Well-being and self-efficacy are personal resources that aid accounting professionals in coping with these challenges and demands (Jones et al., [<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref13">47</reflink>]; Molina-Sánchez et al., [<reflink idref="bib60" id="ref14">60</reflink>]; Salehi et al., [<reflink idref="bib73" id="ref15">73</reflink>]; Smith et al., [<reflink idref="bib79" id="ref16">79</reflink>]).</p> <p>Second, research suggests that accounting students carry over insufficient levels of well-being and self-efficacy (including high levels of burnout, stress, emotional exhaustion, and depersonalisation, and low levels of perceived personal accomplishment) from semester and semester, and eventually, from their student years into the workforce (Law, [<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref17">50</reflink>]). Therefore, by investigating students' well-being and self-efficacy, this study pursues recent scholarly ideas that accounting education research should focus on prohibiting ill-prepared accounting graduates from entering the labour market (Tharapos, [<reflink idref="bib93" id="ref18">93</reflink>]; Tharapos & Marriott, [<reflink idref="bib94" id="ref19">94</reflink>]). To prepare students for the accounting profession, accounting educators should not only focus on cocreating knowledge with their students, but also on emotional intelligence and individual strengths (e.g. self-confidence, coping skills, resilience) (de Bruyn, [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref20">26</reflink>]; McPhail, [<reflink idref="bib59" id="ref21">59</reflink>]; Tharapos, [<reflink idref="bib93" id="ref22">93</reflink>]; Tsiligiris & Bowyer, [<reflink idref="bib96" id="ref23">96</reflink>]; Webb & Chaffer, [<reflink idref="bib101" id="ref24">101</reflink>]). This study focuses on well-being and self-efficacy as individual strengths of students.</p> <p>As a third important finding from prior research, accounting students are, already before the onset of their professional career, highly susceptible to suffer from low well-being (van Vuuren et al., [<reflink idref="bib99" id="ref25">99</reflink>]), a lack of coping strategies and help-seeking behaviour (Ison et al., [<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref26">44</reflink>]), and insufficient self-efficacy (Byrne et al., [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref27">17</reflink>]), leading to increased academic burnout and dropout intentions (Emerson et al., [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref28">33</reflink>]; Klussman et al., [<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref29">49</reflink>]). Accounting students with adequate well-being and self-efficacy are better equipped to navigate the stressful academic environment of university (e.g. interactions with peers and staff, help seeking, managing workloads and expectations); all of this may lead to better academic performance and lower dropout intentions, and consequently, completing their accounting degree and progressing to the accounting profession (Byrne et al., [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref30">17</reflink>]; Smith et al., [<reflink idref="bib84" id="ref31">84</reflink>]). Understanding students' well-being and self-efficacy in relation to their academic functioning is thus particularly interesting.</p> <p>Referring to the vital role of accounting education on a university level in understanding and enhancing students' well-being and self-efficacy, this study explores the relation between, on the one hand, the well-being and self-efficacy, and on the other hand, course performance in accounting, of first-year undergraduate students. By means of a longitudinal design, well-being and self-efficacy are measured at three moments throughout the academic year. The specific research aim of the current study is threefold. First, it assesses the extent to which well-being and self-efficacy during a semester – measured at the start and at the end of the semester – influence students' course performance in accounting. Second, this study examines the impact of course performance on students' subsequent well-being and self-efficacy. The third objective is to explore if, and how, academic experiences of success or failure (i.e. passing or failing the accounting course) affect how students' well-being and self-efficacy change from one semester to another.</p> <p>The cohort of first-year students in accounting is especially relevant to investigate for several reasons. First, recent work established that first-year performance on an introductory accounting course is a crucial predictor of a student's subsequent academic performance in later years, and is therefore critical to understand academic progression and to prevent attrition (Everaert et al., [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref32">36</reflink>]; Sithole et al., [<reflink idref="bib78" id="ref33">78</reflink>]). Previous research in accounting education has investigated first-year students and their academic performance, mainly in relation to their learning approaches, goal orientations, expectations of learning, and ability or prior knowledge (Byrne & Flood, [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref34">16</reflink>]; Duff & Mladenovic, [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref35">31</reflink>]; Everaert et al., [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref36">35</reflink>]; Huikku et al., [<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref37">43</reflink>]; Lucas & Meyer, [<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref38">53</reflink>]). Furthermore, some studies have documented on the relation between academic performance of first-year accounting students and their self-efficacy (Byrne et al., [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref39">17</reflink>]; Viviers et al., [<reflink idref="bib100" id="ref40">100</reflink>]). Second, the first-year student cohort is the largest one within accounting education, and introductory accounting courses are being taught in various undergraduate programmes (e.g. business, administration, engineering). Duff and Mladenovic ([<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref41">31</reflink>]) argue that such a first accounting course is crucial to motivate students to pursue an accounting degree, and eventually, a professional accounting career. Previous studies argued that career aspirations in accounting are often developed early on, and that the choice for the accounting major is usually already determined during or after the first undergraduate year, influenced by their perceived learning experiences during the first introductory accounting course (Geiger & Ogilby, [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref42">38</reflink>]; Issa et al., [<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref43">45</reflink>]; Sugahara & Dellaportas, [<reflink idref="bib89" id="ref44">89</reflink>]). A third reason first-year accounting students form an interesting research sample, is that they are a particularly vulnerable group, due to their transition from secondary to higher education (Auerbach et al., [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref45">1</reflink>]; Postareff et al., [<reflink idref="bib70" id="ref46">70</reflink>]). Dropout of students is most problematic during and after the first undergraduate year (Tinto, [<reflink idref="bib95" id="ref47">95</reflink>]), and this is also the case for accounting student populations specifically (Pilonato & Monfardini, [<reflink idref="bib68" id="ref48">68</reflink>]). According to Coertjens et al. ([<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref49">22</reflink>]), one of the most critical periods for students extends from university arrival to their first formal assessment experience, which usually is an exam period after the first semester. Furthermore, during students' first undergraduate year, sufficient levels of well-being and self-efficacy are demonstrated to be crucial in shaping, among others, their academic performance and retention later on (Denovan & Macaskill, [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref50">27</reflink>]; Morton et al., [<reflink idref="bib62" id="ref51">62</reflink>]; Postareff et al., [<reflink idref="bib70" id="ref52">70</reflink>]; Wilcox & Nordstokke, [<reflink idref="bib102" id="ref53">102</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0186911504-3">Contributions</hd> <p>The present study contributes to the existing accounting literature in several ways. First, it explores well-being and self-efficacy as noncognitive aspects of academic performance (Han et al., [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref54">42</reflink>]). Recent educational literature claims that noncognitive factors are equally important, if not even more important, than cognitive factors in shaping learning outcomes (e.g. Han et al., [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref55">42</reflink>]; Stankov et al., [<reflink idref="bib88" id="ref56">88</reflink>]). Although noncognitive personal qualities are an increasingly important area in the field of accounting education (e.g. Beatson et al., [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref57">9</reflink>]; de Bruyn, [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref58">26</reflink>]; Tsiligiris & Bowyer, [<reflink idref="bib96" id="ref59">96</reflink>]), few studies have systematically considered well-being and self-efficacy as noncognitive aspects of learning with students in the field of accounting. Nevertheless, well-being and self-efficacy are relevant to consider in the context of accounting students and their learning outcomes (Beatson et al., [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref60">8</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref61">9</reflink>]; Dull et al., [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref62">32</reflink>]), as well as in the context of the accounting profession (Duff & Marriott, [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref63">30</reflink>]; Law, [<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref64">50</reflink>]; Smith et al., [<reflink idref="bib79" id="ref65">79</reflink>]; Tharapos & Marriott, [<reflink idref="bib94" id="ref66">94</reflink>]). Relatedly, this study contributes to the literature that studies reciprocal relationships between noncognitive aspects of learning and students' academic performance, answering to the scholarly call for more longitudinal data to examine temporal order and causality in this regard (Marsh & O'Mara, [<reflink idref="bib58" id="ref67">58</reflink>]).</p> <p>Second, this study contributes to the current knowledge in accounting education by means of its positive psychology perspective. Positive psychology is the study of flourishing, strengths, and optimal functioning, and stands in stark contrast with the problem-oriented perspective of psychopathology and ill-functioning (Keyes, [<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref68">48</reflink>]; Pajares, [<reflink idref="bib65" id="ref69">65</reflink>]) (see below). Even though the positive psychology theory has gained ground in the social sciences, there remains, to the best of our knowledge, a lack of evidence in the field of accounting that adopted this theoretical approach. Nevertheless, as mentioned above, some accounting education studies are dedicated to particular variables of students' individual strengths that are also central to positive psychology theory, such as well-being, self-efficacy and resilience (Beatson et al., [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref70">9</reflink>]; Byrne et al., [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref71">17</reflink>]; Molina-Sánchez et al., [<reflink idref="bib60" id="ref72">60</reflink>]; Smith et al., [<reflink idref="bib84" id="ref73">84</reflink>]). Overall, adopting a positive psychology approach has the benefit of not overlooking accounting students who are flourishing, as well as those who are languishing but not reporting psychopathological problems (Suldo & Shaffer, [<reflink idref="bib90" id="ref74">90</reflink>]).</p> <p>Third, the present study answers to the recurring call for more empirical and student-centred research in accounting education (Duff & Marriott, [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref75">30</reflink>]; Tharapos & Marriott, [<reflink idref="bib94" id="ref76">94</reflink>]). Furthermore, recent work in accounting education have called for more longitudinal data collection methods, to better understand changes in students' well-being and self-efficacy over time (Smith & Emerson, [<reflink idref="bib81" id="ref77">81</reflink>]; Viviers et al., [<reflink idref="bib100" id="ref78">100</reflink>]).</p> <p>Finally, the setting of this study offers added value. The study took place in the context of an open-admission university in a Western European country, therefore covering an area that has remained underexplored in accounting education (Duff & Mladenovic, [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref79">31</reflink>]; Marriott et al., [<reflink idref="bib57" id="ref80">57</reflink>]).</p> <p>The remainder of this article is structured as follows. The next section presents the theoretical framework, leading to the hypotheses development. The third section presents the methodology used. The results are presented in the fourth section, followed by a discussion of these findings. Finally, the conclusions of this study are summarised.</p> <hd id="AN0186911504-4">Theoretical framework and prior research</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0186911504-5">Theoretical framework: positive psychology</hd> <p>In recent years, student well-being and self-efficacy are high on both the research agenda and the policy agenda of higher education institutions. This is also the case in the field of accounting education (e.g. Beatson et al., [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref81">8</reflink>]; Smith & Emerson, [<reflink idref="bib81" id="ref82">81</reflink>]). In the past, a psychopathological approach or deficit approach (i.e. a traditional, problem-focused psychology approach to detect, for instance, anxiety or depression) was often adopted to examine students' personal factors in relation to their learning outcomes, in general (e.g. Morton et al., [<reflink idref="bib62" id="ref83">62</reflink>]) as well as in the field of accounting (e.g. Callimaci et al., [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref84">18</reflink>]; van Vuuren et al., [<reflink idref="bib99" id="ref85">99</reflink>]). This traditional psychopathological approach stands in contrast with the positive psychology approach, which is adopted in the present study.</p> <p>Positive psychology has been defined as 'the study of human strengths and optimal functioning', and its main objective is 'to foster research on the positive personal traits and dispositions that are thought to contribute to subjective well-being and psychological health' (Pajares, [<reflink idref="bib65" id="ref86">65</reflink>], p. 27). The field of the positive psychology was first introduced at the beginning of this century (Seligman & Csikszentmihalyi, [<reflink idref="bib75" id="ref87">75</reflink>]) and has been attracting increasing interest in general psychology literature since the last decade (Gilman et al., [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref88">40</reflink>]). Nevertheless, to date, it is still being severely overshadowed by the traditional study of psychopathology (Gilman et al., [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref89">40</reflink>]; Pajares, [<reflink idref="bib65" id="ref90">65</reflink>]; Seligman & Csikszentmihalyi, [<reflink idref="bib75" id="ref91">75</reflink>]). However, abundant evidence suggests that the mere absence of ill-being or pathology is insufficient to explain well-being and human flourishing (e.g. Keyes, [<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref92">48</reflink>]; Sin & Lyubomirsky, [<reflink idref="bib77" id="ref93">77</reflink>]). Psychopathology and optimal functioning should not be considered as opposite ends of a one-dimensional continuum (Diener et al., [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref94">29</reflink>]). This indicates the relevance and materiality of adopting a positive psychology perspective (Renshaw et al., [<reflink idref="bib71" id="ref95">71</reflink>]).</p> <p>Similarly, the absence of psychopathological problems may not fully explain students' motivation, learning outcomes, and academic performance (Gilman et al., [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref96">40</reflink>]; Suldo & Shaffer, [<reflink idref="bib90" id="ref97">90</reflink>]). It has been established that low well-being can occur when no psychopathological problems are reported, and that adolescents in this group (low psychopathology and low well-being) deserve important attention, as they are often forgotten (Keyes, [<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref98">48</reflink>]). Moreover, Suldo and Shaffer ([<reflink idref="bib90" id="ref99">90</reflink>]) called this group the 'vulnerable youth' and demonstrated diminished academic functioning (e.g. lower motivation, academic self-concept, academic performance, and poor interpersonal relationships), compared to peers with better well-being and similarly low psychopathology. This again illustrates the purpose of positive psychology, to not overlook positive resources of optimal functioning. Increasingly often, higher education studies build on positive psychology theory to investigate students' optimal functioning and capacity to handle the stresses and academic demands inherent to their student identity and learning processes (Barkham et al., [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref100">5</reflink>]; Parks, [<reflink idref="bib66" id="ref101">66</reflink>]; Salami, [<reflink idref="bib72" id="ref102">72</reflink>]; Sorrenti et al., [<reflink idref="bib87" id="ref103">87</reflink>]).</p> <p>Scholarly research lists a substantial number of positive psychology constructs, which implicate personal resources of strength: e.g. well-being, self-efficacy, happiness, life satisfaction, resilience (Gilman et al., [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref104">40</reflink>]; Renshaw et al., [<reflink idref="bib71" id="ref105">71</reflink>]; Seligman & Csikszentmihalyi, [<reflink idref="bib75" id="ref106">75</reflink>]; Shoshani & Steinmetz, [<reflink idref="bib76" id="ref107">76</reflink>]; Sorrenti et al., [<reflink idref="bib87" id="ref108">87</reflink>]). The current study adopts a positive psychology approach to investigate the well-being and self-efficacy, two central constructs in positive psychology (Maddux, [<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref109">54</reflink>]; Seligman & Csikszentmihalyi, [<reflink idref="bib75" id="ref110">75</reflink>]), of first-year students in an accounting course.</p> <hd id="AN0186911504-6">Well-being and self-efficacy</hd> <p>One central positive psychology construct is well-being. Well-being is said to be multifaceted in nature (e.g. Shoshani & Steinmetz, [<reflink idref="bib76" id="ref111">76</reflink>]), which is also reflected in the fundamental works of Ed Diener (Diener, [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref112">28</reflink>]; Diener et al., [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref113">29</reflink>]). He introduced essential insights on well-being and defined well-being as 'a person's cognitive and affective evaluations of his or her life ... [including] emotional reactions to events as well as cognitive judgments of satisfaction and fulfilment' (Diener et al., [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref114">29</reflink>], p. 63).</p> <p>Another central construct in the positive psychology field is self-efficacy (Maddux, [<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref115">54</reflink>]). The fundamental premise of self-efficacy was laid out by Albert Bandura, who defined self-efficacy as the beliefs in one's own capabilities to perform certain tasks, to cope with certain difficulties, and to control the way in which one acts and performs, which, in turn, is crucial for psychological adjustment and optimal functioning (Bandura, [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref116">2</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref117">3</reflink>]; Bandura et al., [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref118">4</reflink>]). Self-efficacy beliefs are considered an important antecedent of academic success: highly self-efficacious students have higher expectations for their own academic performance and better actual academic performance, whereas low self-efficacy can dramatically hinder the academic performance of even the most high-ability students (Bandura, [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref119">2</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref120">3</reflink>]; Chemers et al., [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref121">20</reflink>]).</p> <p>The link between well-being and self-efficacy has been demonstrated by several positive psychology scholars (e.g. Renshaw et al., [<reflink idref="bib71" id="ref122">71</reflink>]). Self-efficacy shapes an individual's affective reactions to challenging situations, as it is strongly related to one's capacity of coping with stressful thoughts or circumstances, and it enables to seek help from others (Bandura, [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref123">2</reflink>]; Pajares, [<reflink idref="bib64" id="ref124">64</reflink>]). Moreover, high self-efficacious students recover more effectively after adversity or disappointment, they challenge these negative experiences into additional effort in the future (Chemers et al., [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref125">20</reflink>]), and they report higher well-being (Solberg et al., [<reflink idref="bib86" id="ref126">86</reflink>]). Although well-being and self-efficacy have recently received increasing attention in higher education literature, few studies have investigated both constructs jointly, and in relation to learning outcomes of first-year students. Studying well-being and self-efficacy together enables understanding into how these concepts interrelate and jointly contribute to academic performance. Reciprocal effects are expected, of both well-being and self-efficacy on academic performance, as will be elaborated on in the next section.</p> <hd id="AN0186911504-7">Hypotheses development</hd> <p>Recent literature increasingly focused on well-being and self-efficacy of accounting students. However, these variables have mostly been studied independently (e.g. Beatson et al., [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref127">8</reflink>]; van Vuuren et al., [<reflink idref="bib99" id="ref128">99</reflink>]). The current study adds to this existing literature through a positive psychology perspective, in contrast with the psychopathological or problem-focused approach that was often adopted in previous accounting education studies. Nevertheless, despite a different theoretical approach, those prior studies adopting a psychopathological or problem-focused approach will also be considered for the development of the hypotheses, given their indirect link with the research objective and key variables of this study.</p> <p>Previous research on accounting students reported rather alarming prevalence rates of mental problems; this might indicate low well-being, although not to be considered as opposite ends of a one-dimensional continuum (Diener et al., [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref129">29</reflink>]), see below. In a study on postgraduate accounting students, van Vuuren et al. ([<reflink idref="bib99" id="ref130">99</reflink>]) found that more than one-third reported mild to severe anxiety and more than half of the students reported mild to severe signs of depression. Unfortunately, the accounting education discipline is characterised by stigma, as students have very little help-seeking intentions when dealing with mental problems (Ison et al., [<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref131">44</reflink>]). According to several studies, accounting and business students show a higher vulnerability to mental distress and are less likely to seek help when faced with mental difficulties, compared with students in other disciplines (Chang et al., [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref132">19</reflink>]; Dahlin et al., [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref133">25</reflink>]; Erekson et al., [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref134">34</reflink>]; Lipson et al., [<reflink idref="bib52" id="ref135">52</reflink>]; Vansteenkiste et al., [<reflink idref="bib98" id="ref136">98</reflink>]). Notably, help-seeking is one of the key aspects of self-efficacy (Beatson et al., [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref137">8</reflink>]), which again links the above-mentioned findings to the focus of the present research.</p> <p>In a recent study, Smith and Emerson ([<reflink idref="bib81" id="ref138">81</reflink>]) demonstrated a significant association between psychological distress and resilience as an important strength. While detecting psychological distress aligns with the psychopathological (problem-focused) approach, resilience relates to the positive psychology perspective, as it covers an essential coping mechanism that contributes to well-being (Smith & Emerson, [<reflink idref="bib81" id="ref139">81</reflink>]). Importantly, accounting students need sufficient psychological strengths and coping skills (i.e. positive resources) to manage psychological distress (Lim et al., [<reflink idref="bib51" id="ref140">51</reflink>]; Smith et al., [<reflink idref="bib84" id="ref141">84</reflink>]), linking the psychopathological perspective and the positive psychology perspective. This view is supported by Ghaderi and Salehi ([<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref142">39</reflink>]), who found a negative association between accounting students' self-efficacy and the prevalence of mental problems. Specific findings on the self-efficacy of accounting students are yet somewhat inconsistent. Ghaderi and Salehi ([<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref143">39</reflink>]) demonstrated that accounting students have a higher self-efficacy than management students, whilst Smith et al. ([<reflink idref="bib83" id="ref144">83</reflink>]) presented the opposite result for accounting students compared with business students. These findings might possibly depend on the particular study context, as these scholars do not offer explanations on differences between specific majors. In the context of an introductory accounting course, Beatson et al. ([<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref145">7</reflink>]) illustrated high levels of self-efficacy with first-year students, resulting in positive self-beliefs on their academic organisation and future academic performance. Contrastingly, Byrne et al. ([<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref146">17</reflink>]) indicated that first-year accounting students have insufficient self-efficacy, leading to the inability to study effectively and to estimate the efforts needed to succeed.</p> <p>In sum, students' well-being and self-efficacy are of topical interest in the field of accounting education, although previous research offers varying and sometimes opposing findings and mostly focuses on problem-focused constructs. Additional research from a positive psychology perspective can therefore be of added value.</p> <p>From a positive psychology perspective, it is vital to address accounting students' well-being and self-efficacy in relation to their course performance in accounting. This also aligns with the existing body of literature on noncognitive aspects of learning and academic performance (Han et al., [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref147">42</reflink>]; Stankov et al., [<reflink idref="bib88" id="ref148">88</reflink>]). As already explained, both well-being and self-efficacy may be instrumental to students' academic success (Bandura, [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref149">3</reflink>]; Chemers et al., [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref150">20</reflink>]). Although scholarly findings in the accounting discipline have not yet demonstrated the effect of well-being on learning outcomes from a positive psychology perspective, some studies have looked at similar constructs from a psychopathological or problem-focused perspective. Among others, Gabre and Kumar ([<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref151">37</reflink>]) showed that the negative relation between perceived stress and grade point average (GPA) only applies to female accounting students. Furthermore, Duff and Mladenovic ([<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref152">31</reflink>]) found that students with the lowest academic performance reported the highest level of worry. Remarkably, Dull et al. ([<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref153">32</reflink>]) indicated that psychopathological problems, such as anxiety, occur with both low-performing as well as high-performing accounting students. The positive effect of self-efficacy on subsequent course performance has, on the contrary, already been affirmed by accounting scholars (Beatson et al., [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref154">8</reflink>]; Blondeel et al., [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref155">11</reflink>]; Dull et al., [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref156">32</reflink>]; Viviers et al., [<reflink idref="bib100" id="ref157">100</reflink>]). To date, little attention has been paid to combining well-being and self-efficacy, to jointly explain academic performance in accounting courses. Consequently, responding to scholarly suggestions (e.g. Morton et al., [<reflink idref="bib62" id="ref158">62</reflink>]), this study aims to explore the effect of first-year students' well-being and self-efficacy on their subsequent performance in an accounting course. Based on the existing literature cited above, a positive effect of well-being and self-efficacy on course performance is expected.</p> <p> <emph>H1a</emph>: Students with higher well-being will perform better on the accounting course.</p> <p> <emph>H1b</emph>: Students with higher self-efficacy will perform better on the accounting course.</p> <p>The relation between noncognitive student traits (e.g. well-being and self-efficacy) and learning outcomes can be reciprocal, as they 'mutually interact, forming a dynamic system' (Biggs et al., [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref159">10</reflink>], p. 135). Therefore, the next hypotheses build further on the reciprocal effects model of Marsh and O'Mara ([<reflink idref="bib58" id="ref160">58</reflink>]), claiming that students' self-conceptions and their academic performance are – rather than forming a one-way relation – a mutually reinforcing and interacting system. These scholars call for different moments of data collection to provide evidence on temporal order and causality. With the remainder of the hypotheses, the present study aims to extend the current body of knowledge on the reciprocal effects between noncognitive student traits – more specifically, well-being and self-efficacy – and academic performance. The fundamental research of Bandura ([<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref161">2</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref162">3</reflink>]) asserts performance accomplishments as a key source of self-efficacy, described as 'enactive mastery'. This implies that a successful experience, such as passing an exam, will affect a student's self-perceived cognition and will lead to high self-efficacy. The reverse effect also holds: if a student's effort is not rewarded by ensuing academic success, but instead results in a failure experience (e.g. failing an exam), this will have a demotivating effect and may result in low self-efficacy afterwards (Bandura, [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref163">2</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref164">3</reflink>]). Although there are four main sources of self-efficacy (i.e. enactive mastery, vicarious experiences, verbal persuasion, and physiological and affective states), enactive mastery experiences have the strongest effect on self-efficacy, as they are perceived as the most authentic or reality-driven evidence of an individual's capability (Bandura, [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref165">3</reflink>]). Importantly, feedback on an individual's achievement (such as results on one's course performance, often a grade or a pass/fail mark) can thus stir enactive mastery experiences, as previously argued (Beatson et al., [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref166">6</reflink>]; Byrne et al., [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref167">17</reflink>]).</p> <p>As such, the next hypotheses will differentiate between students who passed the exam and students who failed, and will explore how this affects students' later well-being and self-efficacy. Chemers et al. ([<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref168">20</reflink>]) found that first-year students with higher academic performance report less stress and better academic and social adjustment. Furthermore, Dull et al. ([<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref169">32</reflink>]) demonstrated that accounting students who achieved better prior test performance in accounting, later reported higher levels of self-efficacy, in comparison with lower performing students. In line with this, Jafri ([<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref170">46</reflink>]) found that high-performing students are characterised by higher levels of well-being and self-efficacy, compared with low-performing students. As such, based on Jafri's ([<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref171">46</reflink>]) approach to compare high-performing and low-performing students, well-being and self-efficacy is hypothesised to differ based on students' course performance (pass/fail) in the previous semester.</p> <p> <emph>H2a</emph>: Students who passed the accounting course in the previous semester will report a higher well-being, compared with students who failed the accounting course.</p> <p> <emph>H2b</emph>: Students who passed the accounting course in the previous semester will report a higher self-efficacy, compared with students who failed the accounting course.</p> <p>Finally, the present study also examines how students' well-being and self-efficacy change from one semester to the next. Several accounting scholars suggested to measure well-being and self-efficacy longitudinally, to monitor changes over time (Dull et al., [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref172">32</reflink>]; van Vuuren et al., [<reflink idref="bib99" id="ref173">99</reflink>]; Viviers et al., [<reflink idref="bib100" id="ref174">100</reflink>]). Broader higher education literature has already established that students' well-being and self-efficacy fluctuate throughout their first undergraduate year (Bowman, [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref175">13</reflink>]; Conley et al., [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref176">23</reflink>]; Cooke et al., [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref177">24</reflink>]; Denovan & Macaskill, [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref178">27</reflink>]; Maricuțoiu & Sulea, [<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref179">55</reflink>]). A recurring finding is that first-year students' well-being decreases during the first semester, and then stabilises during the second semester; the transition to higher education poses developmental challenges to students, often acutely raising distress and mitigating well-being and individual strengths, but these challenges are usually alleviated from the second semester at university onwards (Conley et al., [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref180">23</reflink>]; Vanderstraeten et al., [<reflink idref="bib97" id="ref181">97</reflink>]). To understand the dynamics underlying these changes in well-being and self-efficacy, the effect of enactive mastery (performance accomplishments in the form of feedback on an individual's achievement) (Bandura, [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref182">3</reflink>]) may be of added value. This implies that an experience of success, such as the feedback that one has passed a course, will positively influence a student's self-perceived cognition, and this may lead to higher self-efficacy. In this regard, previous accounting literature has already suggested to construct a deeper understanding of how students' self-efficacy changes in response to feedback on academic performance (Beatson et al., [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref183">6</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref184">7</reflink>]; Dull et al., [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref185">32</reflink>]). From the field of positive psychology, a similar call for longitudinal research was raised, to examine how well-being and self-efficacy change following academic experiences of success or failure (e.g. Suldo & Shaffer, [<reflink idref="bib90" id="ref186">90</reflink>]). With the next hypotheses, the present study attempts to answer to these suggestions, by providing insight into how course performance in accounting affects the changes in well-being and self-efficacy throughout the academic year. Consequently, the final hypotheses are proposed.</p> <p> <emph>H3a</emph>: Students who passed the accounting course will report a more positive change in their well-being, compared with students who failed the accounting course.</p> <p> <emph>H3b</emph>: Students who passed the accounting course will report a more positive change in their self-efficacy, compared with students who failed the accounting course.</p> <p>With answers to these hypotheses, the present study aims to inform educational literature and educational practice, by shedding light on the bidirectional relation between, on the one hand, well-being and self-efficacy, and on the other hand, students' course performance in accounting. To test the hypotheses, the effects of students' high school performance, age, and gender will be controlled for, similar to previous accounting education studies on academic performance and noncognitive aspects of learning (Beatson et al., [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref187">6</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref188">8</reflink>]; Dull et al., [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref189">32</reflink>]; Everaert et al., [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref190">36</reflink>]; Huikku et al., [<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref191">43</reflink>]). High school performance is demonstrated to be an important factor in accounting students' course performance (Everaert et al., [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref192">35</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref193">36</reflink>]). On the effects of gender and age on academic performance of accounting students, previous research does not offer conclusiveness (Beatson et al., [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref194">6</reflink>]; Dull et al., [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref195">32</reflink>]; Everaert et al., [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref196">35</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref197">36</reflink>]; Huikku et al., [<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref198">43</reflink>]). To the best of our knowledge, no previous accounting education research has examined the relation between students' gender and age, and their well-being; however, some studies have demonstrated that female accounting students are more likely to suffer from mental distress, while age does not have an effect in this regard (Dull et al., [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref199">32</reflink>]). Age is not demonstrated to correlate with self-efficacy of accounting students, whilst the effect of gender is inconclusive (Beatson et al., [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref200">6</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref201">8</reflink>]; Dull et al., [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref202">32</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0186911504-8">Materials and methods</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0186911504-9">Educational setting</hd> <p>This study was conducted during two academic years, 2020–2021 (Y1) and 2021–2022 (Y2), in a first-year undergraduate programme at the Faculty of Economics and Business Administration of a major university in Western Europe. Similar to many Western European countries, this university has an open-admission system, without any formal admission procedures before enrolment, and tuition fees are rather low (around €1,000/year). Therefore, first-year students are heterogeneous in terms of their socioeconomic status, secondary education background, prior knowledge, attitudes, and skills (Pinxten et al., [<reflink idref="bib69" id="ref203">69</reflink>]).</p> <p>Participants were first-year undergraduate students in the programme of Business Economics, who took the accounting course under study as part of their curriculum. As the programme is taught in the domestic language of the university, no international students participated in this study.</p> <p>At the university under study, an academic year consists of two semesters of twelve weeks of classes. The first semester (September–December) is followed by Christmas break and then the first exam period (January). In the beginning of February, students have one week of spring break, during which their course grades and ensuing pass/fail marks are announced. Afterwards, the second semester starts (February–May), followed by the second exam period (June). The resit exam period (August) comprises all courses failed in the first and second semester.</p> <p>This study will consider students' course performance on the first introductory accounting course in the first semester (first examination period), similar to the approach of Huikku et al. ([<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref204">43</reflink>]). This course is mandatory in the first semester (twelve weeks) of the first-year programme. Classes (lectures and tutorials) are taught by the same instructor for all students, adding to the internal validity of the design. While the university under study has several university-wide and faculty-wide support initiatives to enhance students' well-being and self-efficacy, there were no particular course-specific practices to particularly support well-being and self-efficacy, other than principles on teaching quality in accounting (Byrne & Flood, [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref205">15</reflink>]). Course performance (grade on 20) is measured by the score obtained on the on campus (closed book) summative exam (19 out of 20), and participation on two intermediate tests (1 out of 20). The exam consists of multiple-choice questions and comprehensive open-ended exercises. The examination method of the course is designed to assess students' mastery of the material covered and their ability to integrate different types of information, rather than their capacity to simply retain factual course content. No prior knowledge on accounting subjects is assumed in this course, as not all students have had prior study in accounting in secondary education, similar to the research context of Duff and Mladenovic ([<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref206">31</reflink>]).</p> <p>It should be noted that the first year of data (Y1, October 2020–February 2021) was collected during the second wave of the COVID-19 pandemic. During this period, several restrictions affected the educational context. Classes were often organised online or in a hybrid format, face masks were obligatory, and social activities were prohibited. Pandemic-related restrictions were similar to other European countries (Marinoni et al., [<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref207">56</reflink>]). In the second year of data collection (Y2, October 2021–February 2022), the measures related to COVID-19 had become very limited. Classes were again organised on campus. The examination format was the same in both years: a closed book summative paper-based exam on campus. Both years of data did not differ extensively in terms of course performance, well-being, and self-efficacy (see below), adding to mixed and inconclusive – possibly context-dependent – results from prior research (e.g. Sorrenti et al., [<reflink idref="bib87" id="ref208">87</reflink>]; Vanderstraeten et al., [<reflink idref="bib97" id="ref209">97</reflink>]). The analyses to test the hypotheses will include the year in which data were collected as a covariate, to control for potential effects of COVID-19.</p> <hd id="AN0186911504-10">Design and procedure</hd> <p>The research design takes the form of a field study: first-year students were invited to participate in quantitative surveys at three different moments throughout their first undergraduate year. As such, this study follows the example of several other scholars, who underlined the value of monitoring first-year students longitudinally throughout their first year, especially at the beginning and at the end of their first semester, and during their second semester (Conley et al., [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref210">23</reflink>]; Cooke et al., [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref211">24</reflink>]). Figure 1 offers a timeline of the different data collection moments. First, data on the students' well-being and self-efficacy were collected in the third week of the first semester (Sem<subs>1</subs>Week<subs>3</subs>, indicated as t<subs>1</subs>). This is in line with Beatson et al. ([<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref212">6</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref213">8</reflink>]), who recommend to first let students get used to their courses and the newness of the university context. A second data collection moment was organised at the second to last week of the first semester (Sem<subs>1</subs>Week<subs>11</subs>, indicated as t<subs>2</subs>), based on Byrne et al. ([<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref214">17</reflink>]) and Gore ([<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref215">41</reflink>]). The latter argued that self-efficacy at the end of the semester is more predictive of course performance, compared with self-efficacy at the start of the semester. In the week before the start of the second semester (spring break), students receive their grades, and ensuing pass/fail marks, they obtained for the first semester courses. The third data collection moment took place in the third week of the second semester (Sem<subs>2</subs>Week<subs>3</subs>, indicated as t<subs>3</subs>).</p> <p>Graph: Figure 1. Timeline of the study design.</p> <p>All first-year students enrolled in the mandatory accounting course were invited to take part in the online surveys during class time. Participation was always voluntary, and students were informed that their participation would not have any consequence on their course grades. Ethical approval was obtained. Data from different surveys and course performance were linked using student identifiers. All respondents gave their informed consent. Students did not fill in their name and were assured data would be processed confidentially and exclusively for research purposes. Researcher bias is aimed to be minimised, as the researcher operated entirely independently from the instructor of the course.</p> <hd id="AN0186911504-11">Participants</hd> <p>The total sample of this study comprises 772 students. Figure 2 displays the subsamples of the different data collection moments and the attrition. The potential population of students enrolled in the course was 515 first-year students in Y1 and 518 first-year students in Y2. Of these first-year student populations, 503 students in Y1 and 485 students in Y2 took the exam of the introductory accounting course in the examination period in January (after the first semester) and therefore reported on the course performance measure (study population). Respectively 396 and 376 (totalling 772, i.e. study sample) of these students participated at one or more data collection moments (t<subs>1</subs>, t<subs>2</subs>, or t<subs>3</subs>), forming the sample of the present study. As such, the study sample comprises 79% of the population in Y1 and 78% in Y2. As the hypotheses each consider data from one or two data collection moments, all students participating in at least one survey are included in the sample of the current study. Consequently, different sample sizes exist for the different data collection moments. 203 students participated at all three survey moments (i.e. 21% of the study population), of which 169 students reported data for all study variables (well-being and self-efficacy) and all control variables included in the analyses of this study (i.e. 17% of the study population); 34 students did not report at least one study variable or one control variable (i.e. age, gender, high school performance, cf. below). To test the hypotheses, all analyses will be conducted for the subsample for which complete data is available (<emph>n</emph> = 169), see below. This subsample of students providing complete data (<emph>n </emph>= 169) is representative for the total study sample (<emph>n</emph> = 772) in terms of their demographic characteristics (i.e. gender and age). Furthermore, all analyses will be repeated for the larger subsample of available data for that specific analysis.</p> <p>Graph: Figure 2. Breakdown of the sample.</p> <hd id="AN0186911504-12">Measures</hd> <p>The measure on course performance in accounting is operationalised by the final grade (score on 20) a student obtained for the introductory accounting course. The minimum grade for passing the course is 10 out of 20; a score below 10 implies the student failed the course.[<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref216">1</reflink>] Hence, course performance in accounting is operationalised in two ways: a continuous variable (score on 20) and a dummy variable (pass or fail). The second main variable is well-being. This was measured by a six-item version of the Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Well-Being Scale (WEMWBS), adapted from Tennant et al. ([<reflink idref="bib92" id="ref217">92</reflink>]) and similar to Stankov et al. ([<reflink idref="bib88" id="ref218">88</reflink>]), rated on a five-point Likert scale (e.g. 'In the last two weeks, I have been feeling good about myself.'). The WEMWBS is a widely used instrument to measure the well-being of university students (e.g. Bore et al., [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref219">12</reflink>]; Brooker & Vu, [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref220">14</reflink>]). Third, self-efficacy was measured by means of the General Self-Efficacy Scale (GSES, Schwarzer & Jerusalem, [<reflink idref="bib74" id="ref221">74</reflink>]), consisting of 10 items and measured on a four-point Likert scale (e.g. 'I am confident that I could deal efficiently with unexpected events.'). The GSES has also been widely validated with university student populations (e.g. Maricuțoiu & Sulea, [<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref222">55</reflink>]; Morton et al., [<reflink idref="bib62" id="ref223">62</reflink>]). Internal consistency of the WEMWBS and GSES is sufficient at all data collection moments (cf. α scores in Table 2 below) and in line with previous research (e.g. Maricuțoiu & Sulea, [<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref224">55</reflink>]; Morton et al., [<reflink idref="bib62" id="ref225">62</reflink>]; Stankov et al., [<reflink idref="bib88" id="ref226">88</reflink>]). Considering H3a-H3b, the change in students' well-being and self-efficacy from t<subs>2</subs> to t<subs>3</subs> is calculated[<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref227">2</reflink>] and indicated as Δ(t<subs>3</subs>-t<subs>2</subs>). Additionally, data were collected on students' age, gender, and high school GPA. High school GPA is included as a control variable, following the example of Beatson et al. ([<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref228">8</reflink>]) and Huikku et al. ([<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref229">43</reflink>]), and will be called high school performance in the remainder of this study. Appendix B presents the measurement items.</p> <hd id="AN0186911504-13">Data analysis</hd> <p>In the next section, descriptive statistics and a correlation table are reported. To answer the hypotheses, several steps were involved in analysing the data. For each hypothesis, independent sample <emph>t</emph> tests indicate differences between students who passed and failed the accounting exam regarding their well-being and self-efficacy, following the methods of Jafri ([<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref230">46</reflink>]). Depending on the hypothesis, <emph>t</emph> test results are supplemented by multiple linear regression analyses or analyses of covariance (ANCOVA). These analyses control for the effects of the covariates age, gender, high school performance, and year, similar to the methods of Beatson et al. ([<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref231">8</reflink>]) and Dull et al. ([<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref232">32</reflink>]). Unfortunately, data on the covariates were not available for all students, due to the voluntary and longitudinal nature of the surveys. As mentioned above, complete data (i.e. well-being and self-efficacy at all three survey moments, and all covariates) were available for a subsample of 169 students. Every analysis to test the hypotheses (regression and ANCOVA) has been executed for this sample of 169 students. As a means to validate these results, every hypothesis was also tested on the larger sample of data available for that specific analysis (additional analyses reported as notes below the tables), although the issue of missing data implies consistently changing subsamples sizes.</p> <hd id="AN0186911504-14">Results</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0186911504-15">Descriptive statistics</hd> <p>Of the 772 students included in the sample, 585 students (76%) passed the introductory accounting course, while 187 students (24%) failed. Table 1 presents descriptive statistics. Students' well-being and self-efficacy were lowest at t<subs>2</subs>, at the end of the first semester. Furthermore, Table 1 depicts differences between students who passed and students who failed the introductory accounting course, by means of independent sample <emph>t</emph> tests. The results indicate that students who passed, had performed significantly better in secondary education (high school performance). An additional chi-square test (not tabulated) points out a significant gender difference between students who passed or failed the course, χ²(<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref233">1</reflink>, 772) = 8.79, <emph>p</emph> =.003. Female students are more likely than male students to pass the accounting course. Consequently, gender will be included as a covariate in the hypotheses testing. Moreover, Table 1 does not indicate any significant differences between students who passed and who failed, with regard to well-being and self-efficacy in the first semester (t<subs>1</subs> and t<subs>2</subs>). In the second semester (t<subs>3</subs>), however, students who passed the accounting course report higher well-being, compared with those who failed. Additionally, students who passed, seem to experience a more favourable change in their well-being and self-efficacy from t<subs>2</subs> to t<subs>3</subs>, although the difference in well-being is only marginal.</p> <p>Table 1. Descriptive statistics and independent sample <emph>t</emph> tests.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><td>Variable</td><td><italic>n</italic></td><td>Min</td><td>Max</td><td>Mean</td><td>SD</td><td>Passed</td><td>Failed</td><td><italic>t</italic></td><td><italic>p</italic></td><td>Cohen's <italic>d</italic></td></tr><tr><td><italic>n</italic></td><td>Mean</td><td><italic>n</italic></td><td>Mean</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Well-being t<sub>1</sub></td><td char=".">557</td><td char=".">2.00</td><td char=".">5.00</td><td char=".">3.68</td><td char=".">0.54</td><td char=".">431</td><td char=".">3.68</td><td char=".">126</td><td char=".">3.66</td><td char=".">0.29</td><td char=".">.774</td><td char=".">0.029</td></tr><tr><td>Self-efficacy t<sub>1</sub></td><td char=".">558</td><td char=".">2.00</td><td char=".">4.00</td><td char=".">3.16</td><td char=".">0.33</td><td char=".">431</td><td char=".">3.15</td><td char=".">127</td><td char=".">3.21</td><td char=".">−1.64</td><td char=".">.101</td><td char=".">−0.166</td></tr><tr><td>Well-being t<sub>2</sub></td><td char=".">327</td><td char=".">1.00</td><td char=".">4.83</td><td char=".">3.13</td><td char=".">0.67</td><td char=".">270</td><td char=".">3.14</td><td char=".">57</td><td char=".">3.11</td><td char=".">0.27</td><td char=".">.789</td><td char=".">0.039</td></tr><tr><td>Self-efficacy t<sub>2</sub></td><td char=".">327</td><td char=".">1.00</td><td char=".">3.90</td><td char=".">3.08</td><td char=".">0.39</td><td char=".">270</td><td char=".">3.06</td><td char=".">57</td><td char=".">3.12</td><td char=".">−1.02</td><td char=".">.310</td><td char=".">−0.148</td></tr><tr><td>Well-being t<sub>3</sub></td><td char=".">575</td><td char=".">1.33</td><td char=".">5.00</td><td char=".">3.58</td><td char=".">0.77</td><td char=".">458</td><td char=".">3.65</td><td char=".">117</td><td char=".">3.33</td><td char=".">4.06</td><td char="."><bold><.001</bold></td><td char=".">0.421</td></tr><tr><td>Self-efficacy t<sub>3</sub></td><td char=".">585</td><td char=".">1.10</td><td char=".">4.00</td><td char=".">3.16</td><td char=".">0.43</td><td char=".">464</td><td char=".">3.17</td><td char=".">121</td><td char=".">3.13</td><td char=".">0.91</td><td char=".">.362</td><td char=".">0.093</td></tr><tr><td>Well-being Δ(t<sub>2</sub>-t<sub>1</sub>)</td><td char=".">254</td><td char=".">−2.17</td><td char=".">1.00</td><td char=".">−0.52</td><td char=".">0.59</td><td char=".">212</td><td char=".">−0.50</td><td char=".">42</td><td char=".">−0.58</td><td char=".">0.81</td><td char=".">.421</td><td char=".">0.136</td></tr><tr><td>Self-efficacy Δ(t<sub>2</sub>-t<sub>1</sub>)</td><td char=".">255</td><td char=".">−1.70</td><td char=".">0.89</td><td char=".">−0.08</td><td char=".">0.33</td><td char=".">212</td><td char=".">−0.08</td><td char=".">43</td><td char=".">−0.14</td><td char=".">1.24</td><td char=".">.217</td><td char=".">0.207</td></tr><tr><td>Well-being Δ(t<sub>3</sub>-t<sub>2</sub>)</td><td char=".">252</td><td char=".">−1.50</td><td char=".">2.33</td><td char=".">0.49</td><td char=".">0.74</td><td char=".">216</td><td char=".">0.52</td><td char=".">36</td><td char=".">0.30</td><td char=".">1.71</td><td char=".">.088<sup>m</sup></td><td char=".">0.308</td></tr><tr><td>Self-efficacy Δ(t<sub>3</sub>-t<sub>2</sub>)</td><td char=".">254</td><td char=".">−1.00</td><td char=".">1.40</td><td char=".">0.07</td><td char=".">0.35</td><td char=".">218</td><td char=".">0.08</td><td char=".">36</td><td char=".">−0.04</td><td char=".">1.99</td><td char=".">.<bold>047</bold></td><td char=".">0.359</td></tr><tr><td>Course performance (grade on 20)</td><td char=".">772</td><td char=".">0.00</td><td char=".">20.00</td><td char=".">12.52</td><td char=".">4.17</td><td char=".">585</td><td char=".">14.33</td><td char=".">187</td><td char=".">6.86</td><td char=".">40.72</td><td char="."><bold><.001</bold></td><td char=".">2.794</td></tr><tr><td>Age</td><td char=".">772</td><td char=".">17.00</td><td char=".">22.00</td><td char=".">18.06</td><td char=".">0.42</td><td char=".">585</td><td char=".">18.05</td><td char=".">187</td><td char=".">18.12</td><td char=".">−2.01</td><td char=".">.045</td><td char=".">−0.167</td></tr><tr><td>High school performance</td><td char=".">495</td><td char=".">40.00</td><td char=".">100.00</td><td char=".">73.65</td><td char=".">6.62</td><td char=".">402</td><td char=".">74.54</td><td char=".">93</td><td char=".">69.80</td><td char=".">6.48</td><td char="."><bold><.001</bold></td><td char=".">0.746</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>1 <sups>m</sups> = marginally significant.</p> <p>As the sample comprises two years of data, additional analyses offer insights into how these subsamples differ from each other. Appendix A includes independent sample <emph>t</emph> tests to examine differences between the student samples of both years. The analyses to test the hypotheses will include the year as a covariate to control for any of these differences.</p> <p>Pearson correlation coefficients are depicted in Table 2. Evidently, well-being measures are highly intercorrelated at different data collection moments, and the same applies to the self-efficacy measures. As expected, a strong, positive correlation is demonstrated between well-being and self-efficacy (<emph>r</emph> =.43, <emph>p</emph> <.001 at t<subs>1</subs>; <emph>r</emph> =.46, <emph>p</emph> <.001 at t<subs>2</subs>; <emph>r</emph> =.41, <emph>p</emph> <.001 at t<subs>3</subs>). Remarkably, there is no significant correlation between course performance and any well-being or self-efficacy measure, except with well-being on t<subs>3</subs> (<emph>r</emph> =.19, <emph>p</emph> <.001). The same is true for the dummy variable on course performance (pass/fail). Gender is significantly correlated with most of the well-being and self-efficacy measures. Female students are characterised by lower well-being and self-efficacy at all data collection moments, as well as by better high school performance and better course performance, compared with male students.</p> <p>Table 2. Correlation matrix.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><td>Variable</td><td>α</td><td>1</td><td>2</td><td>3</td><td>4</td><td>5</td><td>6</td><td>7</td><td>8</td><td>9</td><td>10</td><td>11</td><td>12</td><td>13</td><td>14</td><td>15</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>1. Well-being t<sub>1</sub></td><td>.71</td><td>1</td><td char="." /><td char="." /><td char="." /><td char="." /><td char="." /><td char="." /><td char="." /><td char="." /><td char="." /><td char="." /><td char="." /><td char="." /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>2. Self-efficacy t<sub>1</sub></td><td>.78</td><td char=".">.43**</td><td>1</td><td char="." /><td char="." /><td char="." /><td char="." /><td char="." /><td char="." /><td char="." /><td char="." /><td char="." /><td char="." /><td char="." /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>3. Well-being t<sub>2</sub></td><td>.74</td><td char=".">.51**</td><td char=".">.26**</td><td>1</td><td char="." /><td char="." /><td char="." /><td char="." /><td char="." /><td char="." /><td char="." /><td char="." /><td char="." /><td char="." /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>4. Self-efficacy t<sub>2</sub></td><td>.83</td><td char=".">.29**</td><td char=".">.58**</td><td char=".">.46**</td><td>1</td><td char="." /><td char="." /><td char="." /><td char="." /><td char="." /><td char="." /><td char="." /><td char="." /><td char="." /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>5. Well-being t<sub>3</sub></td><td>.82</td><td char=".">.39**</td><td char=".">.32**</td><td char=".">.49**</td><td char=".">.40**</td><td>1</td><td char="." /><td char="." /><td char="." /><td char="." /><td char="." /><td char="." /><td char="." /><td char="." /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>6. Self-efficacy t<sub>3</sub></td><td>.85</td><td char=".">.28**</td><td char=".">.61**</td><td char=".">.37**</td><td char=".">.69**</td><td char=".">.41**</td><td>1</td><td char="." /><td char="." /><td char="." /><td char="." /><td char="." /><td char="." /><td char="." /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>7. Well-being Δ(t<sub>2</sub>-t<sub>1</sub>)</td><td>-</td><td char=".">−.33**</td><td char=".">−.10</td><td char=".">.64**</td><td char=".">.16**</td><td char=".">.13</td><td char=".">.00</td><td>1</td><td char="." /><td char="." /><td char="." /><td char="." /><td char="." /><td char="." /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>8. Self-efficacy Δ(t<sub>2</sub>-t<sub>1</sub>)</td><td>-</td><td char=".">−.09</td><td char=".">−.29**</td><td char=".">.19**</td><td char=".">.61**</td><td char=".">.12</td><td char=".">.19**</td><td char=".">.29**</td><td>1</td><td char="." /><td char="." /><td char="." /><td char="." /><td char="." /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>9. Well-being Δ(t<sub>3</sub>-t<sub>2</sub>)</td><td>-</td><td char=".">.04</td><td char=".">.10</td><td char=".">−.37**</td><td char=".">−.01</td><td char=".">.62**</td><td char=".">.21**</td><td char=".">−.41**</td><td char=".">−.07</td><td>1</td><td char="." /><td char="." /><td char="." /><td char="." /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>10. Self-efficacy Δ(t<sub>3</sub>-t<sub>2</sub>)</td><td>-</td><td char=".">.09</td><td char=".">.08</td><td char=".">−.09</td><td char=".">−.32**</td><td char=".">.18**</td><td char=".">.49**</td><td char=".">−.19**</td><td char=".">−.47**</td><td char=".">.27**</td><td>1</td><td char="." /><td char="." /><td char="." /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>11. Course performance: grade</td><td>-</td><td char=".">−.02</td><td char=".">−.03</td><td char=".">.02</td><td char=".">−.04</td><td char=".">.19**</td><td char=".">.03</td><td char=".">.10</td><td char=".">.08</td><td char=".">.09</td><td char=".">.05</td><td>1</td><td char="." /><td char="." /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>12. Course performance: pass/fail</td><td>-</td><td char=".">.01</td><td char=".">−.07</td><td char=".">.01</td><td char=".">−.06</td><td char=".">.17**</td><td char=".">.04</td><td char=".">.05</td><td char=".">.08</td><td char=".">.11</td><td char=".">.12*</td><td char=".">.77**</td><td>1</td><td char="." /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>13. Age</td><td>-</td><td char=".">−.05</td><td char=".">.03</td><td char=".">.11*</td><td char=".">.01</td><td char=".">−.01</td><td char=".">.07</td><td char=".">.18**</td><td char=".">−.03</td><td char=".">−.12</td><td char=".">.03</td><td char=".">−.09*</td><td char=".">−.07*</td><td>1</td><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>14. Gender<sup>a</sup></td><td>-</td><td char=".">−.17**</td><td char=".">−.23**</td><td char=".">−.23**</td><td char=".">−.19**</td><td char=".">−.10*</td><td char=".">−.22**</td><td char=".">−.08</td><td char=".">.02</td><td char=".">.02</td><td char=".">−.06</td><td char=".">.08*</td><td char=".">.11**</td><td char=".">−.01</td><td>1</td><td /></tr><tr><td>15. High school performance</td><td>-</td><td char=".">−.04</td><td char=".">.06</td><td char=".">.04</td><td char=".">.09</td><td char=".">.02</td><td char=".">.05</td><td char=".">.07</td><td char=".">.04</td><td char=".">−.04</td><td char=".">.01</td><td char=".">.39**</td><td char=".">.28**</td><td char=".">−.02</td><td char=".">.16**</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>16. Year<sup>b</sup></td><td>-</td><td char=".">.00</td><td char=".">.09*</td><td char=".">.18**</td><td char=".">.13*</td><td char=".">.03</td><td char=".">.08*</td><td char=".">.14*</td><td char=".">.01</td><td char=".">−.09</td><td char=".">−.09</td><td char=".">−.01</td><td char=".">−.06</td><td char=".">−.01</td><td>−.02</td><td char=".">.10*</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <ulist> <item>2 Notes: <sups>a</sups>0 = male, 1 = female. <sups>b</sups>0 = Year 1, 1 = Year 2. α indicates the Cronbach's alpha coefficients.</item> <item>3 *<emph>p</emph> <.05; **<emph>p</emph> <.01.</item> </ulist> <hd id="AN0186911504-16">Hypotheses testing</hd> <p>H1 assumes an effect of well-being and self-efficacy on course performance in accounting. The independent <emph>t</emph> test results from Table 1 did not indicate any significant differences, neither in well-being on t<subs>1</subs> or t<subs>2</subs>, nor in self-efficacy on t<subs>1</subs> or t<subs>2</subs>, between students who passed and failed the accounting course. To test H1, multiple linear regression analyses were conducted to examine the degree to which students' prior well-being and self-efficacy (i.e. in the first semester, on t<subs>1</subs> and t<subs>2</subs>) explained course performance. Table 3 presents the results of the regression analyses with exam grade as a (continuous) dependent variable. Regression model 1 includes well-being and self-efficacy on t<subs>1</subs>, but does only demonstrate a marginally significant effect of well-being on students' course performance. In this model, only high school performance is significantly predictive of course performance in accounting. Regression model 2 includes well-being and self-efficacy on t<subs>2</subs>. In this model, next to high school performance, well-being t<subs>2</subs> is also shown to have a positive significant effect on course performance. In sum, H1a is supported, with reference to the effect of well-being t<subs>2</subs> on later course performance, and a similar though only marginal effect of well-being t<subs>1</subs>. H1b is not supported, as there is no demonstrated effect of self-efficacy on later performance on the accounting course.</p> <p>Table 3. Linear regression on course performance for accounting (H1a-H1b).</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><td /><td>Model 1 (t<sub>1</sub>)</td><td>Model 2 (t<sub>2</sub>)</td></tr><tr><td><italic>B</italic></td><td>SE</td><td>β</td><td><italic>p</italic></td><td>VIF</td><td><italic>B</italic></td><td>SE</td><td>β</td><td><italic>p</italic></td><td>VIF</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Age</td><td char=".">−0.58</td><td char=".">0.95</td><td char=".">−.04</td><td char=".">.544</td><td char=".">1.02</td><td char=".">−1.37</td><td char=".">0.99</td><td char=".">−.11</td><td char=".">.168</td><td char=".">1.12</td></tr><tr><td>Gender<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn6">a</xref></td><td char=".">0.56</td><td char=".">0.56</td><td char=".">.08</td><td char=".">.316</td><td char=".">1.15</td><td char=".">0.84</td><td char=".">0.56</td><td char=".">.12</td><td char=".">.134</td><td char=".">1.17</td></tr><tr><td>High school performance</td><td char=".">0.17</td><td char=".">0.04</td><td char=".">.34</td><td char="."><bold><.001</bold></td><td char=".">1.08</td><td char=".">0.15</td><td char=".">0.04</td><td char=".">.31</td><td char="."><bold><.001</bold></td><td char=".">1.08</td></tr><tr><td>Year<sup>b</sup></td><td char=".">0.34</td><td char=".">0.54</td><td char=".">.05</td><td char=".">.529</td><td char=".">1.07</td><td char=".">0.00</td><td char=".">0.53</td><td char=".">.00</td><td char=".">.996</td><td char=".">1.04</td></tr><tr><td>Well-being t<sub>1</sub></td><td char=".">1.04</td><td char=".">0.58</td><td char=".">.16</td><td char=".">.077<sup>m</sup></td><td char=".">1.50</td><td char="." /><td char="." /><td char="." /><td char="." /><td char="." /></tr><tr><td>Self-efficacy t<sub>1</sub></td><td char=".">−1.30</td><td char=".">0.95</td><td char=".">−.12</td><td char=".">.172</td><td char=".">1.53</td><td char="." /><td char="." /><td char="." /><td char="." /><td char="." /></tr><tr><td>Well-being t<sub>2</sub></td><td char="." /><td char="." /><td char="." /><td char="." /><td char="." /><td char=".">1.10</td><td char=".">0.47</td><td char=".">.21</td><td char=".">.<bold>021</bold></td><td char=".">1.50</td></tr><tr><td>Self-efficacy t<sub>2</sub></td><td char="." /><td char="." /><td char="." /><td char="." /><td char="." /><td char=".">−0.40</td><td char=".">0.69</td><td char=".">−.05</td><td char=".">.568</td><td char=".">1.29</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <ulist> <item>4 Model 1 notes: <emph>n</emph> = 169, <emph>R</emph>² =.14, Adj. <emph>R</emph>² =.11, <emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref234">6</reflink>, 162) = 4.47, <emph>p</emph> <.001.</item> <item>5 Model 2 notes: <emph>n </emph>= 169, <emph>R</emph>² =.15, Adj. <emph>R</emph>² =.12, <emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref235">6</reflink>, 162) = 4.87, <emph>p </emph><.001.</item> <item>6 0 = male, 1 = female. <sups>b</sups>0 = Year 1, 1 = Year 2. <sups>m</sups> = marginally significant.</item> <item>7 All VIFs were below 2, indicating no problems of multicollinearity.</item> <item>8 Binomial logistic regression models on course performance as a dummy variable (pass/fail) provide similar results as regression models 1 and 2.</item> <item>9 Additional to model 1, linear regression analysis on <emph>n</emph> = 329 (i.e. all students reporting well-being t<subs>1</subs>, self-efficacy t<subs>1</subs>, and all covariates) provide similar results; however, the effect of well-being t<subs>1</subs> is not significant according to that analysis (<emph>p</emph> =.565). The effect of self-efficacy t<subs>1</subs> is similarly insignificant (<emph>p </emph>=.511).</item> <item>10 Additional to model 2, linear regression analysis on <emph>n</emph> = 217 (i.e. all students reporting well-being t<subs>2</subs>, self-efficacy t<subs>2</subs>, and all covariates) provide similar results: significant effect of well-being t<subs>2</subs> (<emph>p</emph> =.015), and a lack of significance of self-efficacy t<subs>2</subs> (<emph>p</emph> =.324).</item> </ulist> <p>H2 supposes a relation between first-year students' course performance in accounting, and their well-being and self-efficacy in the subsequent semester (t<subs>3</subs>). As was yet summarised in Table 1, independent sample <emph>t</emph> tests compared students who passed and those who failed the accounting course, and indicated a significant difference between both groups in well-being on t<subs>3</subs> in favour of the students who passed, but not in self-efficacy on t<subs>3</subs>. To examine H2, analyses of covariance (ANCOVA) were performed, with age, gender, high school performance, and year as covariates (Table 4). First, Table 4 Panel A shows a significant difference in well-being t<subs>3</subs> between students who passed (EM mean = 3.76) and those who failed (EM mean = 3.23) the introductory accounting course a few weeks earlier, after controlling for age, gender, high school performance, and year, in accordance with H2a. Second, ANCOVA presented in Table 4 Panel B reveals a significant difference in self-efficacy t<subs>3</subs> between students who previously passed (EM mean = 3.18) and those who failed (EM mean = 2.94) the accounting course, after controlling for age, gender, high school performance, and year, in line with H2b. In summary, both H2a and H2b are supported: students who passed the accounting course, later reported higher well-being and self-efficacy, than students who failed.</p> <p>Table 4. Analyses of covariance to test H2a-H2b.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><td /><td>SS</td><td>df</td><td>MS</td><td><italic>F</italic></td><td><italic>p</italic></td><td>η²</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Panel A: Well-being t<sub>3</sub> as dependent variable (H2a)</td></tr><tr><td>Corrected model</td><td char=".">11.61</td><td char=".">5</td><td char=".">2.32</td><td char=".">4.10</td><td char=".">.<bold>002</bold></td><td char=".">.11</td></tr><tr><td>Intercept</td><td char=".">0.00</td><td char=".">1</td><td char=".">0.00</td><td char=".">0.00</td><td char=".">.984</td><td char=".">.00</td></tr><tr><td>Age</td><td char=".">0.49</td><td char=".">1</td><td char=".">0.49</td><td char=".">0.86</td><td char=".">.354</td><td char=".">.01</td></tr><tr><td>Gender</td><td char=".">7.16</td><td char=".">1</td><td char=".">7.16</td><td char=".">12.65</td><td char="."><bold><.001</bold></td><td char=".">.07</td></tr><tr><td>High school performance</td><td char=".">0.00</td><td char=".">1</td><td char=".">0.00</td><td char=".">0.00</td><td char=".">.980</td><td char=".">.00</td></tr><tr><td>Year</td><td char=".">0.41</td><td char=".">1</td><td char=".">0.41</td><td char=".">0.72</td><td char=".">.398</td><td char=".">.00</td></tr><tr><td><bold>Course performance: pass or fail</bold></td><td char=".">4.61</td><td char=".">1</td><td char=".">4.61</td><td char=".">8.15</td><td char=".">.<bold>005</bold></td><td char=".">.05</td></tr><tr><td>Error</td><td char=".">92.24</td><td char=".">163</td><td char=".">0.57</td><td char="." /><td char="." /><td char="." /></tr><tr><td>Total</td><td char=".">2420.17</td><td char=".">169</td><td char="." /><td char="." /><td char="." /><td char="." /></tr><tr><td>Corrected total</td><td char=".">103.84</td><td char=".">168</td><td char="." /><td char="." /><td char="." /><td char="." /></tr><tr><td /></tr><tr><td>Panel B: Self-efficacy t<sub>3</sub> as dependent variable (H2b)</td></tr><tr><td>Corrected model</td><td char=".">4.27</td><td char=".">5</td><td char=".">0.85</td><td char=".">4.56</td><td char="."><bold><.001</bold></td><td char=".">.12</td></tr><tr><td>Intercept</td><td char=".">0.00</td><td char=".">1</td><td char=".">0.00</td><td char=".">0.00</td><td char=".">.996</td><td char=".">.00</td></tr><tr><td>Age</td><td char=".">0.26</td><td char=".">1</td><td char=".">0.26</td><td char=".">1.38</td><td char=".">.242</td><td char=".">.01</td></tr><tr><td>Gender</td><td char=".">3.02</td><td char=".">1</td><td char=".">3.02</td><td char=".">16.12</td><td char="."><bold><.001</bold></td><td char=".">.09</td></tr><tr><td>High school performance</td><td char=".">0.54</td><td char=".">1</td><td char=".">0.54</td><td char=".">2.88</td><td char=".">.092<sup>m</sup></td><td char=".">.02</td></tr><tr><td>Year</td><td char=".">0.01</td><td char=".">1</td><td char=".">0.01</td><td char=".">0.03</td><td char=".">.862</td><td char=".">.00</td></tr><tr><td><bold>Course performance: pass or fail</bold></td><td char=".">0.93</td><td char=".">1</td><td char=".">0.93</td><td char=".">4.99</td><td char=".">.<bold>027</bold></td><td char=".">.03</td></tr><tr><td>Error</td><td char=".">30.51</td><td char=".">163</td><td char=".">0.19</td><td char="." /><td char="." /><td char="." /></tr><tr><td>Total</td><td char=".">1712.61</td><td char=".">169</td><td char="." /><td char="." /><td char="." /><td char="." /></tr><tr><td>Corrected total</td><td char=".">34.78</td><td char=".">168</td><td char="." /><td char="." /><td char="." /><td char="." /></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <ulist> <item>11 <sups>m</sups> = marginally significant.</item> <item>12 Levene's test and normality checks were carried out and the assumptions met.</item> <item>13 Additional to Panel A, ANCOVA on <emph>n</emph> = 483 (i.e. all students reporting well-being t<subs>3</subs> and all covariates) provides similar results: a significant difference in well-being t<subs>3</subs> (<emph>p</emph> <.001).</item> <item>14 Additional to Panel B, ANCOVA on <emph>n</emph> = 493 (i.e. all students reporting self-efficacy t<subs>3</subs> and all covariates) provides similar results, though the significant difference in self-efficacy t<subs>3</subs> is only marginally significant according to that analysis (<emph>p</emph> =.073).</item> </ulist> <p>With the final hypotheses, changes (Δ) in well-being and self-efficacy from before the exam (t<subs>2</subs>) to after the exam (t<subs>3</subs>) are assumed to differ between students who passed and failed the course. In other words, the variables that are studied in terms of H3 are well-being Δ(t<subs>3</subs>-t<subs>2</subs>) (H3a) and self-efficacy Δ(t<subs>3</subs>-t<subs>2</subs>) (H3b). From the <emph>t</emph> test results in Table 1, it appears that students who passed the accounting course, experienced a marginally stronger increase in their well-being (<emph>t </emph>= 1.71, <emph>p </emph>=.088) and a significantly stronger increase in their self-efficacy (<emph>t </emph>= 1.99, <emph>p </emph>=.047) from t<subs>2</subs> (end of the first semester) to t<subs>3</subs> (beginning of the second semester), compared with students who failed. Table 5 provides ANCOVA results on the changes in well-being and self-efficacy from t<subs>2</subs> to t<subs>3</subs>. First, Table 5 Panel A demonstrates that the well-being of students who passed (EM mean = 0.58) increased significantly more (<emph>p </emph>=.025) from t<subs>2</subs> to t<subs>3</subs>, compared with the well-being of students who failed (EM mean = 0.19), while controlling for age, gender, high school performance, year, and well-being t<subs>2.</subs>[<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref236">3</reflink>] Second, Table 5 Panel B indicates that students who passed (EM mean = 0.09), experienced a more positive change (<emph>p </emph>=.020) in their self-efficacy from t<subs>2</subs> to t<subs>3</subs>, than students who failed (EM mean = −0.10), while controlling for age, gender, high school performance, year, and self-efficacy t<subs>2</subs>. Therefore, H3a and H3b are supported: students who passed the accounting course, reported a more positive change in their well-being and self-efficacy, than students who failed.</p> <p>Table 5. Analyses of covariance to test H3a-H3b.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><td /><td>SS</td><td>df</td><td>MS</td><td><italic>F</italic></td><td><italic>p</italic></td><td>η²</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Panel A: Well-being Δ(t<sub>3</sub>-t<sub>2</sub>) as dependent variable (H3a)</td></tr><tr><td>Corrected model</td><td char=".">18.58</td><td char=".">6</td><td char=".">3.10</td><td char=".">6.55</td><td char="."><bold><.001</bold></td><td char=".">.20</td></tr><tr><td>Intercept</td><td char=".">0.83</td><td char=".">1</td><td char=".">0.83</td><td char=".">1.76</td><td char=".">.186</td><td char=".">.01</td></tr><tr><td>Age</td><td char=".">0.24</td><td char=".">1</td><td char=".">0.24</td><td char=".">0.51</td><td char=".">.477</td><td char=".">.00</td></tr><tr><td>Gender</td><td char=".">1.08</td><td char=".">1</td><td char=".">1.08</td><td char=".">2.29</td><td char=".">.132</td><td char=".">.01</td></tr><tr><td>High school performance</td><td char=".">0.14</td><td char=".">1</td><td char=".">0.14</td><td char=".">0.29</td><td char=".">.593</td><td char=".">.00</td></tr><tr><td>Year</td><td char=".">0.00</td><td char=".">1</td><td char=".">0.00</td><td char=".">0.00</td><td char=".">.955</td><td char=".">.00</td></tr><tr><td>Well-being t<sub>2</sub></td><td char=".">13.75</td><td char=".">1</td><td char=".">13.75</td><td char=".">29.07</td><td char="."><bold><.001</bold></td><td char=".">.15</td></tr><tr><td><bold>Course performance: pass or fail</bold></td><td char=".">2.42</td><td char=".">1</td><td char=".">2.42</td><td char=".">5.12</td><td char=".">.<bold>025</bold></td><td char=".">.03</td></tr><tr><td>Error</td><td char=".">76.61</td><td char=".">162</td><td char=".">0.47</td><td char="." /><td char="." /><td char="." /></tr><tr><td>Total</td><td char=".">143.94</td><td char=".">169</td><td char="." /><td char="." /><td char="." /><td char="." /></tr><tr><td>Corrected total</td><td char=".">95.19</td><td char=".">168</td><td char="." /><td char="." /><td char="." /><td char="." /></tr><tr><td /></tr><tr><td>Panel B: Self-efficacy Δ(t<sub>3</sub>-t<sub>2</sub>) as dependent variable (H3b)</td></tr><tr><td>Corrected model</td><td char=".">3.82</td><td char=".">6</td><td char=".">0.64</td><td char=".">6.06</td><td char="."><bold><.001</bold></td><td char=".">.18</td></tr><tr><td>Intercept</td><td char=".">0.08</td><td char=".">1</td><td char=".">0.08</td><td char=".">0.78</td><td char=".">.380</td><td char=".">.00</td></tr><tr><td>Age</td><td char=".">0.22</td><td char=".">1</td><td char=".">0.22</td><td char=".">2.08</td><td char=".">.152</td><td char=".">.01</td></tr><tr><td>Gender</td><td char=".">0.85</td><td char=".">1</td><td char=".">0.85</td><td char=".">8.10</td><td char=".">.<bold>005</bold></td><td char=".">.05</td></tr><tr><td>High school performance</td><td char=".">0.03</td><td char=".">1</td><td char=".">0.03</td><td char=".">0.31</td><td char=".">.576</td><td char=".">.00</td></tr><tr><td>Year</td><td char=".">0.17</td><td char=".">1</td><td char=".">0.17</td><td char=".">1.62</td><td char=".">.205</td><td char=".">.01</td></tr><tr><td>Self-efficacy t<sub>2</sub></td><td char=".">2.53</td><td char=".">1</td><td char=".">2.53</td><td char=".">24.11</td><td char="."><bold><.001</bold></td><td char=".">.13</td></tr><tr><td><bold>Course performance: pass or fail</bold></td><td char=".">0.58</td><td char=".">1</td><td char=".">0.58</td><td char=".">5.55</td><td char=".">.<bold>020</bold></td><td char=".">.03</td></tr><tr><td>Error</td><td char=".">17.02</td><td char=".">162</td><td char=".">0.11</td><td char="." /><td char="." /><td char="." /></tr><tr><td>Total</td><td char=".">21.55</td><td char=".">169</td><td char="." /><td char="." /><td char="." /><td char="." /></tr><tr><td>Corrected total</td><td char=".">20.85</td><td char=".">168</td><td char="." /><td char="." /><td char="." /><td char="." /></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <ulist> <item>15 Levene's test and normality checks were carried out and the assumptions met.</item> <item>16 Additional to Panel A, ANCOVA on <emph>n</emph> = 216 (i.e. all students reporting well-being on t<subs>2</subs> and t<subs>3</subs>, and all covariates) provides similar results: a significant difference in well-being Δ(t<subs>3</subs>-t<subs>2</subs>) (<emph>p</emph> =.007).</item> <item>17 Additional to Panel B, ANCOVA on <emph>n</emph> = 218 (i.e. all students reporting self-efficacy on t<subs>2</subs> and t<subs>3</subs>, and all covariates) provides similar results: a significant difference in self-efficacy Δ(t<subs>3</subs>-t<subs>2</subs>) (<emph>p</emph> =.009).</item> </ulist> <p>Appendix C offers additional analyses disaggregated by gender. Remarkably, these analyses do not entirely support the results presented in this section. However, it should be noted that the available data for these analyses were limited (especially female students who failed the course), making it therefore inappropriate to draw conclusions from these data to test the hypotheses for male and female students.</p> <hd id="AN0186911504-17">Discussion</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0186911504-18">Summary of the findings</hd> <p>The current study examined the bidirectional relation between, on the one hand, well-being and self-efficacy, and on the other hand, course performance in accounting. The study results can be summarised into three main findings.</p> <p>First, regression analyses showed that students' well-being a few weeks before the exam of the introductory accounting course (t<subs>2</subs>) is positively related to their course performance on the exam (H1a supported), which is in line with earlier studies (e.g. Duff & Mladenovic, [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref237">31</reflink>]; Suldo & Shaffer, [<reflink idref="bib90" id="ref238">90</reflink>]). Well-being at the start of the semester (t<subs>1</subs>) only marginally affects course performance. Students' self-efficacy, neither at the start of the semester nor a few weeks before the exam, however, significantly affects their course performance (H1b not supported).</p> <p>Second, ANCOVA were conducted to distinguish differences in post-examination levels (t<subs>3</subs>) of well-being and self-efficacy, between students who passed the accounting course and those who failed. With respect to well-being, the results indicated that students who passed, have a significantly higher well-being at the start of the next semester (t<subs>3</subs>), compared with students who failed the course (H2a supported), conforming previous literature (e.g. Chemers et al., [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref239">20</reflink>]; Jafri, [<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref240">46</reflink>]). The difference between students who passed and who failed regarding their self-efficacy at t<subs>3</subs> was also significant (H2b supported).</p> <p>A third finding concerns the change (Δ) in well-being and self-efficacy from before the examination moment (t<subs>2</subs>) to after the examination moment (t<subs>3</subs>). ANCOVA demonstrated significant differences between students who passed the accounting course and those who failed. Students who passed, reported a significantly higher increase in their well-being (H3a supported) and self-efficacy (H3b supported), than students who failed. The latter demonstrates the effect of enactive mastery (Bandura, [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref241">3</reflink>]) in the context of an accounting course: an experience of success (performance accomplishment) in the form of feedback on individual academic achievements positively affects a student's self-perceived cognition, leading to higher self-efficacy.</p> <hd id="AN0186911504-19">Implications for theory</hd> <p>The current study has several implications for theory. First, the correlations between students' well-being and self-efficacy imply a clear association between both traits, thus in line with previous studies on accounting students (Ghaderi & Salehi, [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref242">39</reflink>]; Smith et al., [<reflink idref="bib84" id="ref243">84</reflink>]) and contributing to the existing accounting education literature by means of a positive psychology perspective. This study illustrates that well-being and self-efficacy – although covering distinct concepts – deserve to be jointly considered in the ongoing debate on noncognitive traits of accounting students.</p> <p>Second, the effects of gender illustrate lower levels of well-being and self-efficacy reported by female students, as well as a different nature of the bidirectional relations between well-being, self-efficacy and course performance, when comparing male and female students. As previous studies on this issue are not at all unequivocal (Byrne et al., [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref244">17</reflink>]; Conley et al., [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref245">23</reflink>]; Dull et al., [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref246">32</reflink>]), follow-up analyses are advised to further explore these gender differences in more detail with more available data.</p> <p>Third, the hypothesis on the effect of self-efficacy on later course performance was not supported. Two opposing effects might be in place: both a positive and a negative effect of self-efficacy on course performance. The work of Mooi ([<reflink idref="bib61" id="ref247">61</reflink>]) may offer clarification on the potential negative effect (possibly cancelling out the hypothesised positive effect): students with low self-efficacy may underestimate their own capabilities beforehand and may feel a greater need to put more effort into preparing for exams, leading to better results by doing so, whilst high self-efficacious students may sometimes be overconfident or overoptimistic and may not perceive the urgency to invest additional time and energy into their courses, which may lead to underachievement. In line with this, Teixeira et al. ([<reflink idref="bib91" id="ref248">91</reflink>]) argue that students' overconfidence could go both ways, leading to either increased learning motivation, or, adversely, to a lack of awareness or reflection on the skills they still need to acquire or enhance. Another explanation for the non-significant effect of self-efficacy may be the significant effect of high school performance. Contrary to other empirical evidence which states that self-efficacy beliefs outperform prior learning (in secondary education) in predicting course performance (Beatson et al., [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref249">8</reflink>]), the present study indicates high school performance as a very crucial factor in predicting first-year students' course performance in accounting. As such, besides noncognitive aspects, cognitive aspects also play a vital role in students' performance on an accounting course.</p> <p>As a fourth implication to theory, the analyses confirm the enactive mastery effect with the sample of first-year undergraduate students in the context of an accounting course: the successful experience of passing the course leads to higher well-being and self-efficacy afterwards, compared with the experience of failing the course. Furthermore, the theory on reciprocal effects (Marsh & O'Mara, [<reflink idref="bib58" id="ref250">58</reflink>]) is illustrated by this study in terms of students' well-being and their course performance in accounting, as the data demonstrate that well-being affects course performance (H1a), and course performance, in turn, affects subsequent well-being (H2a and H3a).</p> <hd id="AN0186911504-20">Implications for practice</hd> <p>The current study involves several lessons learnt for the accounting education practice. First, the data indicated a significant impact of well-being on later course performance. Consequently, this study reinforces the idea that accounting educators should actively try to enhance students' well-being and that this, in turn, affects students' academic achievement and later degree completion, and eventually, progression to the accounting profession (Law, [<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref251">50</reflink>]; Smith et al., [<reflink idref="bib84" id="ref252">84</reflink>]). Policies and interventions to structurally strengthen accounting students' well-being, are encouraged (e.g. practices to facilitate meaningful and supportive student-staff and student-student interactions, workshops on resilience and coping mechanisms) (Bowman, [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref253">13</reflink>]; Conley et al., [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref254">23</reflink>]).</p> <p>Second, the data imply that students' well-being and self-efficacy change throughout an academic year. First-year students report the lowest level of well-being at the end of the first semester, while approaching their first examination period in higher education. Hence, university educators should be aware of the time in which these students may experience the lowest well-being and thus could benefit most from additional support. In other words, universities could provide several supplementary activities during the first semester in preparation for first-year students' first exam period in higher education (e.g. structural support for students to develop adequate study strategies) (Coertjens et al., [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref255">22</reflink>]).</p> <p>Third, the analyses point out the vulnerability of students who did not pass the first semester accounting course: their well-being and self-efficacy may be compromised at the start of the following semester. University educators should be aware of the heightened susceptibility of these students after they perceived a failure experience. Additional attention should therefore be paid to low-performing students after the examination results of the first semester are announced, by means of both formally embedded policies and informal low-threshold conversations initiated by student counsellors or teaching staff. Furthermore, as previously argued, feedback might be an important source of enactive mastery experiences or performance accomplishments (Beatson et al., [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref256">6</reflink>]). The decrease in students' well-being and self-efficacy could thus be mitigated by specific, detailed, and constructive feedback on their exam and course performance; this enables students to obtain a realistic view of their own abilities and the areas they still need to work on, and thereby stimulates them to strengthen (Bandura, [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref257">3</reflink>]; Byrne et al., [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref258">17</reflink>]; Maricuțoiu & Sulea, [<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref259">55</reflink>]). Feedback can also be provided regarding students' study methods and attitudes, providing hands-on suggestions to grow and improve in the future (i.e. in the second semester of their first year at university). The latter is called 'feed-forward': a cognitive-focused approach that is discussed in several positive psychology works (Snyder et al., [<reflink idref="bib85" id="ref260">85</reflink>]) as well as in the accounting education discipline (Perera et al., [<reflink idref="bib67" id="ref261">67</reflink>]).</p> <p>Fourth and finally, the findings of this study, in combination with previous research on accounting students' employability skills and noncognitive aspects of learning (e.g. de Bruyn, [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref262">26</reflink>]; Tsiligiris & Bowyer, [<reflink idref="bib96" id="ref263">96</reflink>]), feed into topical discussions on providing sufficient in-class opportunities to focus on other aspects than just accounting knowledge. Supportive learning environments should foster students' individual strengths such as well-being and self-efficacy, to help them thrive in their accounting degree and, in the long term, in the accounting profession.</p> <hd id="AN0186911504-21">Limitations and future research</hd> <p>This study measured well-being and self-efficacy at different data collection moments, using the WEMWBS and GSES. These methods of measurement are commonly used to investigate higher education students (e.g. Brooker & Vu, [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref264">14</reflink>]; Morton et al., [<reflink idref="bib62" id="ref265">62</reflink>]), and deliberately chosen as they provide reliable measures. Nevertheless, these instruments might imply certain a first limitation of this study, in that they are self-reported and provide a rather general view of students' functioning. Alternative measurements focus on students' course-specific functioning, such as academic self-efficacy or test anxiety specific to accounting courses (Beatson et al., [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref266">6</reflink>]; Blondeel et al., [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref267">11</reflink>]). Future studies in accounting education could integrate both general and course-specific noncognitive student traits (Dull et al., [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref268">32</reflink>]; Gore, [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref269">41</reflink>]), to uncover how these jointly affect course performance in accounting. Second, several other factors might have a crucial effect on course performance, but were not included in this study (e.g. motivation, effort, attendance). Third, due to the nature of the longitudinal data collection method and the voluntary participation in the surveys, self-selection bias might have occurred. Fourth, data collection during the first year of this study (Y1, October 2020–February 2021) took place during the second wave of the COVID-19 pandemic, which possibly affected students' well-being, self-efficacy, and course performance (e.g. Callimaci et al., [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref270">18</reflink>]; Sorrenti et al., [<reflink idref="bib87" id="ref271">87</reflink>]; Vanderstraeten et al., [<reflink idref="bib97" id="ref272">97</reflink>]). The differences between both years of data were assessed (see Appendix A) and the effect has been controlled for in the analyses to test the hypotheses.</p> <p>The findings of the present study entail several opportunities for future research. First, future studies could develop a more detailed picture of the complex effects of noncognitive aspects of learning of accounting students. According to previous evidence, high-performing, successful students can often be divided into two categories: those who report a high level of well-being and feeling of competence, and those who experience severe stress and self-doubt (Dull et al., [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref273">32</reflink>]; Postareff et al., [<reflink idref="bib70" id="ref274">70</reflink>]). The question arises if an 'ideal level' of these noncognitive traits can be linked to optimally performing in accounting courses (Callimaci et al., [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref275">18</reflink>]). A detailed profiling analysis to identify different student types – in terms of both cognitive and noncognitive traits – may offer more insights into whether or not 'people will perform best under moderate amounts of stress' (Nonis et al., [<reflink idref="bib63" id="ref276">63</reflink>], p. 600) in accounting education settings. Second, the gender differences in the bidirectional relations between, on the one hand, well-being and self-efficacy, and on the other hand, can be further explored in follow-up research. Although Appendix C hinted at differences between male and female students, the available data is insufficient to draw conclusions on these gender differences, complementary to the findings of this study as discussed above. Larger sample sizes are needed for a more detailed exploration of these gender differences, allowing for interesting future research questions. Third, an issue that currently remains unanswered is the effect of self-efficacy on accounting students' course performance in the second semester. Gore ([<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref277">41</reflink>]) argued in this regard that for first-year students, the relation between self-beliefs and academic performance is stronger in the second semester, as these students are already more experienced based on relevant university experiences during their first semester in higher education. Hence, a relevant addition to this study would be to also include more data from the second semester, including a second semester accounting course. Fourth, this study solely includes students who participated in the exam of the accounting course, and who took part in the data collection moments during official class time. Nevertheless, interesting research questions lie within the influence of well-being and self-efficacy on attendance, effort, and dropout intentions of first-year accounting students (Smith et al., [<reflink idref="bib84" id="ref278">84</reflink>]). Fifth, in addition to the current study sample, investigating postgraduate students who major in accounting, therefore closer to the profession, also provides for interesting future research questions. Finally, this study described that student well-being and self-efficacy are subject to change throughout time. Hence, future intervention studies in accounting education could aspire to enhance students' well-being and self-efficacy through course-specific policies and practices, and in doing so, to strengthen the mental resources of these students while they become the accountants of the future.</p> <hd id="AN0186911504-22">Conclusion</hd> <p>This study elaborates on the personal resources of well-being and self-efficacy in relation to students' course performance and academic progression in the field of accounting. The results show that students' well-being a few weeks before the examination moment of an accounting course predicts their course performance, while self-efficacy does not. Successful course completion is associated with higher well-being and self-efficacy in the next semester, as well as a higher increase in well-being and self-efficacy over time. In sum, the findings of this study therefore underscore the bidirectional nature – the chicken or egg – of the relation between course performance and student well-being. With regard to self-efficacy, the data only supports unidirectional relation: from course performance to self-efficacy. This study emphasises the need for accounting educators to move beyond only knowledge acquisition, to understand students' optimal functioning and to create supportive learning environments that foster well-being and self-efficacy. This way, educators can better equip students to navigate the stressful academic environment of university and, eventually, the challenging accounting profession.</p> <hd id="AN0186911504-23">Acknowledgements</hd> <p>We would like to thank the participants of the EAA annual conference (2022, Bergen), the BAFA Accounting Education SIG annual conference (2022, Glasgow; 2023, Durham), the Accounting Research Day (2023, Ghent), and the Accounting Education Cluster of RMIT University, for their constructive comments on earlier versions of this paper.</p> <hd id="AN0186911504-24">Disclosure statement</hd> <p>No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).</p> <hd id="AN0186911504-25">Data availability statement</hd> <p>The data presented in this study are available on request from the corresponding author. The data are not publicly available due to privacy restrictions.</p> <hd id="AN0186911504-26">Appendices</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0186911504-27">Appendix A. Analyses to Compare Both Years of Data</hd> <p>Table A1. Independent samples <emph>t</emph> tests to compare both years of data.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><td>Variable</td><td>Year 1</td><td>Year 2</td></tr><tr><td><italic>n</italic></td><td>Mean</td><td><italic>SD</italic></td><td><italic>n</italic></td><td>Mean</td><td><italic>SD</italic></td><td><italic>t</italic></td><td><italic>p</italic></td><td>Cohen's <italic>d</italic></td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Well-being t<sub>1</sub></td><td char=".">282</td><td char=".">3.68</td><td char=".">0.55</td><td char=".">275</td><td char=".">3.68</td><td char=".">0.54</td><td char=".">0.04</td><td char=".">.971</td><td char=".">0.003</td></tr><tr><td>Self-efficacy t<sub>1</sub></td><td char=".">282</td><td char=".">3.14</td><td char=".">0.33</td><td char=".">276</td><td char=".">3.19</td><td char=".">0.33</td><td char=".">−2.08</td><td char=".">.<bold>038</bold></td><td char=".">−0.176</td></tr><tr><td>Well-being t<sub>2</sub></td><td char=".">163</td><td char=".">3.01</td><td char=".">0.67</td><td char=".">164</td><td char=".">3.25</td><td char=".">0.64</td><td char=".">−3.24</td><td char=".">.<bold>001</bold></td><td char=".">−0.358</td></tr><tr><td>Self-efficacy t<sub>2</sub></td><td char=".">163</td><td char=".">3.02</td><td char=".">0.43</td><td char=".">164</td><td char=".">3.13</td><td char=".">0.35</td><td char=".">−2.43</td><td char=".">.<bold>016</bold></td><td char=".">−0.269</td></tr><tr><td>Well-being t<sub>3</sub></td><td char=".">299</td><td char=".">3.56</td><td char=".">0.76</td><td char=".">276</td><td char=".">3.61</td><td char=".">0.79</td><td char=".">−0.80</td><td char=".">.425</td><td char=".">−0.067</td></tr><tr><td>Self-efficacy t<sub>3</sub></td><td char=".">301</td><td char=".">3.12</td><td char=".">0.41</td><td char=".">284</td><td char=".">3.19</td><td char=".">0.44</td><td char=".">−1.97</td><td char=".">.<bold>049</bold></td><td char=".">−0.163</td></tr><tr><td>Well-being Δt<sub>2</sub>-t<sub>1</sub></td><td char=".">132</td><td char=".">−0.60</td><td char=".">0.65</td><td char=".">122</td><td char=".">−0.43</td><td char=".">0.52</td><td char=".">−2.32</td><td char=".">.<bold>021</bold></td><td char=".">−0.289</td></tr><tr><td>Self-efficacy Δt<sub>2</sub>-t<sub>1</sub></td><td char=".">132</td><td char=".">−0.08</td><td char=".">0.38</td><td char=".">123</td><td char=".">−0.07</td><td char=".">0.27</td><td char=".">−0.22</td><td char=".">.823</td><td char=".">−0.028</td></tr><tr><td>Well-being Δt<sub>3</sub>-t<sub>2</sub></td><td char=".">126</td><td char=".">0.55</td><td char=".">0.76</td><td char=".">126</td><td char=".">0.42</td><td char=".">0.70</td><td char=".">1.41</td><td char=".">.161</td><td char=".">0.177</td></tr><tr><td>Self-efficacy Δt<sub>3</sub>-t<sub>2</sub></td><td char=".">126</td><td char=".">0.10</td><td char=".">0.37</td><td char=".">128</td><td char=".">0.03</td><td char=".">0.32</td><td char=".">1.48</td><td char=".">.141</td><td char=".">0.185</td></tr><tr><td>Course performance (grade)</td><td char=".">396</td><td char=".">12.55</td><td char=".">3.93</td><td char=".">376</td><td char=".">12.48</td><td char=".">4.41</td><td char=".">0.24</td><td char=".">.812</td><td char=".">0.017</td></tr><tr><td>Age</td><td char=".">298</td><td char=".">18.08</td><td char=".">0.49</td><td char=".">286</td><td char=".">18.06</td><td char=".">0.39</td><td char=".">0.23</td><td char=".">.815</td><td char=".">0.017</td></tr><tr><td>High school performance</td><td char=".">247</td><td char=".">73.00</td><td char=".">6.31</td><td char=".">248</td><td char=".">74.29</td><td char=".">6.87</td><td char=".">−2.16</td><td char=".">.<bold>031</bold></td><td char=".">−0.194</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <hd id="AN0186911504-28">Appendix B. Measurement</hd> <p>Table B1. Measurement items.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><td>Variable</td><td>Item(s)</td><td>Survey moment</td></tr><tr><td>t<sub>1</sub></td><td>t<sub>2</sub></td><td>t<sub>3</sub></td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Well-being</td><td>• <italic>I feel optimistic about the future.</italic></td><td>x</td><td>x</td><td>x</td></tr><tr><td>• <italic>I feel relaxed.</italic></td><td>x</td><td>x</td><td>x</td></tr><tr><td>• <italic>I feel interested in other people.</italic></td><td>x</td><td>x</td><td>x</td></tr><tr><td>• <italic>I feel interested in new things.</italic></td><td>x</td><td>x</td><td>x</td></tr><tr><td>• <italic>I feel confident.</italic></td><td>x</td><td>x</td><td>x</td></tr><tr><td>• <italic>I feel good about myself.</italic></td><td>x</td><td>x</td><td>x</td></tr><tr><td>On a 5-point Likert scale<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn18">a</xref> Source: Stankov et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr88">2014</xref>) and Tennant et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr92">2007</xref>)</td></tr><tr><td>Self-efficacy</td><td>• <italic>I can always manage to solve difficult problems if I try hard enough.</italic></td><td>x</td><td>x</td><td>x</td></tr><tr><td>• <italic>If someone opposes me, I can find the means and ways to get what I want.</italic></td><td>x</td><td>x</td><td>x</td></tr><tr><td>• <italic>It is easy for me to stick to my aims and accomplish my goals.</italic></td><td>x</td><td>x</td><td>x</td></tr><tr><td>• <italic>I am confident that I could deal efficiently with unexpected events.</italic></td><td>x</td><td>x</td><td>x</td></tr><tr><td>• <italic>Thanks to my resourcefulness, I know how to handle unforeseen situations.</italic></td><td>x</td><td>x</td><td>x</td></tr><tr><td>• <italic>I can solve most problems if I invest the necessary effort.</italic></td><td>x</td><td>x</td><td>x</td></tr><tr><td>• <italic>I can remain calm when facing difficulties because I can rely on my coping abilities.</italic></td><td>x</td><td>x</td><td>x</td></tr><tr><td>• <italic>When I am confronted with a problem, I can usually find several solutions.</italic></td><td>x</td><td>x</td><td>x</td></tr><tr><td>• <italic>If I am in trouble, I can usually think of a solution.</italic></td><td>x</td><td>x</td><td>x</td></tr><tr><td>• <italic>I can usually handle whatever comes my way.</italic></td><td>x</td><td>x</td><td>x</td></tr><tr><td>On a 4-point Likert scale<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn19">b</xref> Source: Schwarzer and Jerusalem (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr74">1995</xref>)</td></tr><tr><td>Course performance</td><td>• Continuous: Grade on 20</td></tr><tr><td>• Dummy: Pass or fail mark</td></tr><tr><td>Gender</td><td><italic>What is your gender?</italic></td><td>x</td><td>x</td><td>x</td></tr><tr><td>High school performance</td><td><italic>At the end of your final year in high school, what was your GPA (%)?</italic></td><td>x</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <ulist> <item>18 Verbal anchors of these items include the following: completely disagree (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref279">1</reflink>); rather disagree (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref280">2</reflink>); neutral (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref281">3</reflink>); rather agree (<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref282">4</reflink>); completely agree (<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref283">5</reflink>).</item> <item>19 Verbal anchors of these items include the following: not at all true (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref284">1</reflink>); hardly true (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref285">2</reflink>); moderately true (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref286">3</reflink>); exactly true (<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref287">4</reflink>).</item> </ulist> <hd id="AN0186911504-29">Appendix C. Analyses disaggregated by gender</hd> <p>Table C1. Correlations for study variables disaggregated by gender.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><td>Variable</td><td>1</td><td>2</td><td>3</td><td>4</td><td>5</td><td>6</td><td>7</td><td>8</td><td>9</td><td>10</td><td>11</td><td>12</td><td>13</td><td>14</td><td>15</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>1. Well-being t<sub>1</sub></td><td>1</td><td char=".">.42**</td><td char=".">.48**</td><td char=".">.21*</td><td char=".">.47**</td><td char=".">.26**</td><td char=".">−.45**</td><td char=".">−.15</td><td char=".">.18</td><td char=".">.09</td><td char=".">.04</td><td char=".">.06</td><td char=".">−.05</td><td char=".">−.04</td><td char=".">.03</td></tr><tr><td>2. Self-efficacy t<sub>1</sub></td><td char=".">.41**</td><td>1</td><td char=".">.15</td><td char=".">.48**</td><td char=".">.29**</td><td char=".">.57**</td><td char=".">−.26**</td><td char=".">−.39**</td><td char=".">.19</td><td char=".">.19</td><td char=".">.03</td><td char=".">.02</td><td char=".">.03</td><td char=".">.15</td><td char=".">.10</td></tr><tr><td>3. Well-being t<sub>2</sub></td><td char=".">.50**</td><td char=".">.28**</td><td>1</td><td char=".">.36**</td><td char=".">.37**</td><td char=".">.17*</td><td char=".">.57**</td><td char=".">.20*</td><td char=".">−.39**</td><td char=".">−.19*</td><td char=".">.08</td><td char=".">.00</td><td char=".">.07</td><td char=".">.13</td><td char=".">.16</td></tr><tr><td>4. Self-efficacy t<sub>2</sub></td><td char=".">.30**</td><td char=".">.62**</td><td char=".">.47**</td><td>1</td><td char=".">.20*</td><td char=".">.53**</td><td char=".">.12</td><td char=".">.62**</td><td char=".">−.10</td><td char=".">−.42**</td><td char=".">.05</td><td char=".">.01</td><td char=".">−.05</td><td char=".">.25**</td><td char=".">.14</td></tr><tr><td>5. Well-being t<sub>3</sub></td><td char=".">.30**</td><td char=".">.30**</td><td char=".">.53**</td><td char=".">.50**</td><td>1</td><td char=".">.30**</td><td char=".">−.04</td><td char=".">−.03</td><td char=".">.71**</td><td char=".">.12</td><td char=".">.18**</td><td char=".">.08</td><td char=".">−.08</td><td char=".">.04</td><td char=".">.02</td></tr><tr><td>6. Self-efficacy t<sub>3</sub></td><td char=".">.25**</td><td char=".">.61**</td><td char=".">.43**</td><td char=".">.73**</td><td char=".">.47**</td><td>1</td><td char=".">−.15</td><td char=".">.00</td><td char=".">.16</td><td char=".">.54**</td><td char=".">.02</td><td char=".">.03</td><td char=".">.00</td><td char=".">.14*</td><td char=".">.02</td></tr><tr><td>7. Well-being Δ(t<sub>2</sub>-t<sub>1</sub>)</td><td char=".">−.28**</td><td char=".">−.03</td><td char=".">.69**</td><td char=".">.18*</td><td char=".">.26**</td><td char=".">.08</td><td>1</td><td char=".">.35**</td><td char=".">−.48**</td><td char=".">−.27**</td><td char=".">.09</td><td char=".">−.02</td><td char=".">.16</td><td char=".">.16</td><td char=".">.11</td></tr><tr><td>8. Self-efficacy Δ(t<sub>2</sub>-t<sub>1</sub>)</td><td char=".">-.02</td><td char=".">−.22**</td><td char=".">.21*</td><td char=".">.63**</td><td char=".">.29**</td><td char=".">.36**</td><td char=".">.25**</td><td>1</td><td char=".">−.23*</td><td char=".">−.62**</td><td char=".">.07</td><td char=".">.05</td><td char=".">.01</td><td char=".">.10</td><td char=".">.04</td></tr><tr><td>9. Well-being Δ(t<sub>3</sub>-t<sub>2</sub>)</td><td char=".">−.10</td><td char=".">.02</td><td char=".">−.38**</td><td char=".">.07</td><td char=".">.58**</td><td char=".">.26**</td><td char=".">−.35**</td><td char=".">.08</td><td>1</td><td char=".">.27**</td><td char=".">.13</td><td char=".">.12</td><td char=".">−.21*</td><td char=".">−.02</td><td char=".">−.05</td></tr><tr><td>10. Self-efficacy Δ(t<sub>3</sub>-t<sub>2</sub>)</td><td char=".">.05</td><td char=".">−.06</td><td char=".">−.05</td><td char=".">−.28**</td><td char=".">.21*</td><td char=".">.45**</td><td char=".">−.13</td><td char=".">−.32**</td><td char=".">.28**</td><td>1</td><td char=".">−.01</td><td char=".">.11</td><td char=".">−.05</td><td char=".">−.04</td><td char=".">−.12</td></tr><tr><td>11. Course performance: grade</td><td char=".">−.04</td><td char=".">−.05</td><td char=".">.04</td><td char=".">−.05</td><td char=".">.20**</td><td char=".">.06</td><td char=".">.13</td><td char=".">.07</td><td char=".">.06</td><td char=".">.11</td><td>1</td><td char=".">.73**</td><td char=".">−.10</td><td char=".">.42**</td><td char=".">−.03</td></tr><tr><td>12. Course performance: pass/fail</td><td char=".">.01</td><td char=".">−.09</td><td char=".">.08</td><td char=".">−.05</td><td char=".">.24**</td><td char=".">.08</td><td char=".">.11</td><td char=".">.10</td><td char=".">.09</td><td char=".">.16</td><td char=".">.79**</td><td>1</td><td char=".">−.13*</td><td char=".">.30**</td><td char=".">−.06</td></tr><tr><td>13. Age</td><td char=".">−.05</td><td char=".">.03</td><td char=".">.16*</td><td char=".">.06</td><td char=".">.05</td><td char=".">.14*</td><td char=".">.22*</td><td char=".">−.09</td><td char=".">.00</td><td char=".">.17</td><td char=".">−.09</td><td char=".">−.03</td><td>1</td><td char=".">.04</td><td char=".">.00</td></tr><tr><td>14. High school performance</td><td char=".">.00</td><td char=".">.03</td><td char=".">.07</td><td char=".">.04</td><td char=".">.04</td><td char=".">.06</td><td char=".">.01</td><td char=".">−.02</td><td char=".">−.08</td><td char=".">.09</td><td char=".">.36**</td><td char=".">.25**</td><td char=".">−.08</td><td>1</td><td char=".">.13</td></tr><tr><td>15. Year<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn21">a</xref></td><td char=".">−.03</td><td char=".">.08</td><td char=".">.19*</td><td char=".">.13</td><td char=".">.03</td><td char=".">.09</td><td char=".">.16</td><td char=".">−.01</td><td char=".">−.12</td><td char=".">−.07</td><td char=".">.01</td><td char=".">−.06</td><td char=".">−.02</td><td char=".">.10</td><td>1</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <ulist> <item>20 Notes: The results for the female sample are shown above the diagonal. The results for the male sample are shown below the diagonal.</item> <item>21 0 = Year 1, 1 = Year 2. *<emph>p</emph> <.05; **<emph>p</emph> <.01.</item> </ulist> <p>Table C2. Regression models to test H1 disaggregated by gender.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><td>Model 1 (t<sub>1</sub>)</td><td>Model 2 (t<sub>2</sub>)</td></tr><tr><td><italic>B</italic></td><td>SE</td><td>β</td><td><italic>p</italic></td><td>VIF</td><td><italic>B</italic></td><td>SE</td><td>β</td><td><italic>p</italic></td><td>VIF</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Panel A. Regression models on course performance in accounting for the male sample</td></tr><tr><td>Age</td><td char=".">−1.54</td><td char=".">1.27</td><td char=".">−.09</td><td char=".">.225</td><td char=".">1.03</td><td char=".">−1.08</td><td char=".">1.86</td><td char=".">−.06</td><td char=".">.562</td><td char=".">1.10</td></tr><tr><td>High school performance</td><td char=".">0.15</td><td char=".">0.04</td><td char=".">.25</td><td char="."><bold><.001</bold></td><td char=".">1.01</td><td char=".">0.20</td><td char=".">0.05</td><td char=".">.35</td><td char="."><bold><.001</bold></td><td char=".">1.05</td></tr><tr><td>Year <xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn24">b</xref></td><td char=".">−0.35</td><td char=".">0.56</td><td char=".">−.05</td><td char=".">.536</td><td char=".">1.01</td><td char=".">0.08</td><td char=".">0.77</td><td char=".">.01</td><td char=".">.917</td><td char=".">1.05</td></tr><tr><td>Well-being t<sub>1</sub></td><td char=".">−1.29</td><td char=".">0.60</td><td char=".">−.18</td><td char=".">.<bold>033</bold></td><td char=".">1.26</td></tr><tr><td>Self-efficacy t<sub>1</sub></td><td char=".">1.18</td><td char=".">0.92</td><td char=".">.11</td><td char=".">.199</td><td char=".">1.28</td></tr><tr><td>Well-being t<sub>2</sub></td><td char=".">0.92</td><td char=".">0.64</td><td char=".">.15</td><td char=".">.154</td><td char=".">1.42</td></tr><tr><td>Self-efficacy t<sub>2</sub></td><td char=".">−0.43</td><td char=".">0.96</td><td char=".">−.05</td><td char=".">.655</td><td char=".">1.31</td></tr><tr><td>Panel B. Regression models on course performance in accounting for the female sample</td></tr><tr><td>Model 1 (t<sub>1</sub>)</td><td>Model 2 (t<sub>2</sub>)</td></tr><tr><td><italic>B</italic></td><td>SE</td><td>β</td><td><italic>p</italic></td><td>VIF</td><td><italic>B</italic></td><td>SE</td><td>β</td><td><italic>p</italic></td><td>VIF</td></tr><tr><td>Age</td><td char=".">0.25</td><td char=".">0.89</td><td char=".">.02</td><td char=".">.776</td><td char=".">1.03</td><td char=".">−0.72</td><td char=".">0.93</td><td char=".">−.07</td><td char=".">.437</td><td char=".">1.05</td></tr><tr><td>High school performance</td><td char=".">0.25</td><td char=".">0.04</td><td char=".">.45</td><td char="."><bold><.001</bold></td><td char=".">1.07</td><td char=".">0.20</td><td char=".">0.05</td><td char=".">.40</td><td char="."><bold><.001</bold></td><td char=".">1.08</td></tr><tr><td>Year <xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn24">b</xref></td><td char=".">−0.40</td><td char=".">0.55</td><td char=".">−.05</td><td char=".">.476</td><td char=".">1.03</td><td char=".">−0.37</td><td char=".">0.60</td><td char=".">−.06</td><td char=".">.538</td><td char=".">1.06</td></tr><tr><td>Well-being t<sub>1</sub></td><td char=".">0.80</td><td char=".">0.55</td><td char=".">.13</td><td char=".">.142</td><td char=".">1.34</td></tr><tr><td>Self-efficacy t<sub>1</sub></td><td char=".">−0.57</td><td char=".">1.06</td><td char=".">−.05</td><td char=".">.590</td><td char=".">1.38</td></tr><tr><td>Well-being t<sub>2</sub></td><td char=".">1.25</td><td char=".">0.58</td><td char=".">.22</td><td char=".">.<bold>032</bold></td><td char=".">1.25</td></tr><tr><td>Self-efficacy t<sub>2</sub></td><td char=".">−0.95</td><td char=".">0.91</td><td char=".">−.10</td><td char=".">.302</td><td char=".">1.27</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <ulist> <item>22 Panel A Model 1 notes: <emph>n</emph> = 174, <emph>R</emph>² =.10, Adj. <emph>R</emph>² =.07, <emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref288">5</reflink>, 169) = 3.77, <emph>p</emph> =.003. Panel A Model 2 notes: <emph>n </emph>= 109, <emph>R</emph>² =.15, Adj. <emph>R</emph>² =.11, <emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref289">5</reflink>, 104) = 3.79, <emph>p </emph>=.003.</item> <item>23 Panel B Model 1 notes: <emph>n</emph> = 153, <emph>R</emph>² =.20, Adj. <emph>R</emph>² =.17, <emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref290">5</reflink>, 148) = 7.32, <emph>p</emph> <.001. Panel B Model 2 notes: <emph>n </emph>= 107, <emph>R</emph>² =.20, Adj. <emph>R</emph>² =.16, <emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref291">5</reflink>, 102) = 4.97, <emph>p </emph><.001.</item> <item>24 0 = Year 1, 1 = Year 2. <sups>m</sups> = marginally significant. All VIFs were below 2, indicating no problems of multicollinearity.</item> </ulist> <p>Table C3. Analyses of covariance to test H2a disaggregated by gender.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><td>SS</td><td>df</td><td>MS</td><td><italic>F</italic></td><td><italic>p</italic></td><td>η²</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Panel A: ANCOVA on well-being t<sub>3</sub> (H2a) for the male sample</td></tr><tr><td>Corrected model</td><td char=".">12.01</td><td char=".">4</td><td char=".">3.00</td><td char=".">5.64</td><td char="."><.001</td><td char=".">.08</td></tr><tr><td>Intercept</td><td char=".">0.55</td><td char=".">1</td><td char=".">0.55</td><td char=".">1.04</td><td char=".">.309</td><td char=".">.00</td></tr><tr><td>Age</td><td char=".">2.87</td><td char=".">1</td><td char=".">2.87</td><td char=".">5.38</td><td char=".">.<bold>021</bold></td><td char=".">.02</td></tr><tr><td>High school performance</td><td char=".">0.05</td><td char=".">1</td><td char=".">0.05</td><td char=".">0.10</td><td char=".">.752</td><td char=".">.00</td></tr><tr><td>Year</td><td char=".">0.40</td><td char=".">1</td><td char=".">0.40</td><td char=".">0.75</td><td char=".">.389</td><td char=".">.00</td></tr><tr><td><bold>Course performance: pass or fail</bold></td><td char=".">9.37</td><td char=".">1</td><td char=".">9.37</td><td char=".">17.60</td><td char="."><bold><.001</bold></td><td char=".">.06</td></tr><tr><td>Error</td><td char=".">139.49</td><td char=".">262</td><td char=".">0.53</td></tr><tr><td>Total</td><td char=".">3855.12</td><td char=".">267</td></tr><tr><td>Corrected total</td><td char=".">151.51</td><td char=".">266</td></tr><tr><td>Panel B: ANCOVA on well-being t<sub>3</sub> (H2a) for the female sample</td></tr><tr><td>Corrected model</td><td char=".">1.08</td><td char=".">4</td><td char=".">0.27</td><td char=".">0.52</td><td char=".">.718</td><td char=".">.01</td></tr><tr><td>Intercept</td><td char=".">1.32</td><td char=".">1</td><td char=".">1.32</td><td char=".">2.56</td><td char=".">.111</td><td char=".">.01</td></tr><tr><td>Age</td><td char=".">0.00</td><td char=".">1</td><td char=".">0.00</td><td char=".">0.00</td><td char=".">.971</td><td char=".">.00</td></tr><tr><td>High school performance</td><td char=".">0.01</td><td char=".">1</td><td char=".">0.01</td><td char=".">0.03</td><td char=".">.866</td><td char=".">.00</td></tr><tr><td>Year</td><td char=".">0.00</td><td char=".">1</td><td char=".">0.00</td><td char=".">0.00</td><td char=".">.972</td><td char=".">.00</td></tr><tr><td><bold>Course performance: pass or fail</bold></td><td char=".">0.88</td><td char=".">1</td><td char=".">0.88</td><td char=".">1.71</td><td char=".">.193</td><td char=".">.01</td></tr><tr><td>Error</td><td char=".">108.45</td><td char=".">211</td><td char=".">0.51</td></tr><tr><td>Total</td><td char=".">2833.56</td><td char=".">216</td></tr><tr><td>Corrected total</td><td char=".">109.52</td><td char=".">215</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <ulist> <item>25 Panel A notes: Passed male students (<emph>n = </emph>208): EM Mean = 3.83, Failed male students (<emph>n </emph>= 59): EM Mean = 3.36.</item> <item>26 Panel B notes: Passed female students (<emph>n = </emph>186): EM Mean = 3.58, Failed female students (<emph>n </emph>= 30): EM Mean = 3.38.</item> </ulist> <p>Table C4. Analyses of covariance to test H2b disaggregated by gender.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><td>SS</td><td>df</td><td>MS</td><td><italic>F</italic></td><td><italic>p</italic></td><td>η²</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Panel A: ANCOVA on self-efficacy t<sub>3</sub> (H2b) for the male sample</td></tr><tr><td>Corrected model</td><td char=".">2.11</td><td char=".">4</td><td char=".">0.53</td><td char=".">2.97</td><td char=".">.020</td><td char=".">.04</td></tr><tr><td>Intercept</td><td char=".">0.07</td><td char=".">1</td><td char=".">0.07</td><td char=".">0.42</td><td char=".">.519</td><td char=".">.00</td></tr><tr><td>Age</td><td char=".">1.08</td><td char=".">1</td><td char=".">1.08</td><td char=".">6.07</td><td char=".">.<bold>014</bold></td><td char=".">.02</td></tr><tr><td>High school performance</td><td char=".">0.05</td><td char=".">1</td><td char=".">0.05</td><td char=".">0.27</td><td char=".">.603</td><td char=".">.00</td></tr><tr><td>Year</td><td char=".">0.31</td><td char=".">1</td><td char=".">0.31</td><td char=".">1.76</td><td char=".">.186</td><td char=".">.01</td></tr><tr><td><bold>Course performance: pass or fail</bold></td><td char=".">0.80</td><td char=".">1</td><td char=".">0.80</td><td char=".">4.48</td><td char=".">.<bold>035</bold></td><td char=".">.02</td></tr><tr><td>Error</td><td char=".">47.86</td><td char=".">269</td><td char=".">0.18</td></tr><tr><td>Total</td><td char=".">2964.48</td><td char=".">274</td></tr><tr><td>Corrected total</td><td char=".">49.97</td><td char=".">273</td></tr><tr><td>Panel B: ANCOVA on self-efficacy t<sub>3</sub> (H2b) for the female sample</td></tr><tr><td>Corrected model</td><td char=".">0.71</td><td char=".">4</td><td char=".">0.18</td><td char=".">1.11</td><td char=".">.355</td><td char=".">.02</td></tr><tr><td>Intercept</td><td char=".">0.95</td><td char=".">1</td><td char=".">0.95</td><td char=".">5.92</td><td char=".">.016</td><td char=".">.03</td></tr><tr><td>Age</td><td char=".">0.03</td><td char=".">1</td><td char=".">0.03</td><td char=".">0.20</td><td char=".">.657</td><td char=".">.00</td></tr><tr><td>High school performance</td><td char=".">0.60</td><td char=".">1</td><td char=".">0.60</td><td char=".">3.76</td><td char=".">.054<sup>m</sup></td><td char=".">.02</td></tr><tr><td>Year</td><td char=".">0.01</td><td char=".">1</td><td char=".">0.01</td><td char=".">0.04</td><td char=".">.835</td><td char=".">.00</td></tr><tr><td><bold>Course performance: pass or fail</bold></td><td char=".">0.00</td><td char=".">1</td><td char=".">0.00</td><td char=".">0.01</td><td char=".">.924</td><td char=".">.00</td></tr><tr><td>Error</td><td char=".">34.20</td><td char=".">214</td><td char=".">0.16</td></tr><tr><td>Total</td><td char=".">2079.92</td><td char=".">219</td></tr><tr><td>Corrected total</td><td char=".">34.91</td><td char=".">218</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <ulist> <item>27 Panel A notes: Passed male students (<emph>n = </emph>213): EM Mean = 3.29, Failed male students (<emph>n </emph>= 61): EM Mean = 3.16.</item> <item>28 Panel B notes: Passed female students (<emph>n = </emph>187): EM Mean = 3.06, Failed female students (<emph>n </emph>= 32): EM Mean = 3.05.</item> </ulist> <p>Table C5. Analyses of covariance to test H3a disaggregated by gender.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><td>SS</td><td>df</td><td>MS</td><td><italic>F</italic></td><td><italic>p</italic></td><td>η²</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Panel A: ANCOVA on well-being Δ(t3-t2) (H3a) for the male sample</td></tr><tr><td>Corrected model</td><td char=".">14.70</td><td char=".">5</td><td char=".">2.94</td><td char=".">6.12</td><td char="."><.001</td><td char=".">.23</td></tr><tr><td>Intercept</td><td char=".">0.01</td><td char=".">1</td><td char=".">0.01</td><td char=".">0.03</td><td char=".">.864</td><td char=".">.00</td></tr><tr><td>Age</td><td char=".">0.20</td><td char=".">1</td><td char=".">0.20</td><td char=".">0.42</td><td char=".">.520</td><td char=".">.00</td></tr><tr><td>High school performance</td><td char=".">0.43</td><td char=".">1</td><td char=".">0.43</td><td char=".">0.90</td><td char=".">.345</td><td char=".">.01</td></tr><tr><td>Year</td><td char=".">0.00</td><td char=".">1</td><td char=".">0.00</td><td char=".">0.00</td><td char=".">.997</td><td char=".">.00</td></tr><tr><td>Well-being t<sub>2</sub></td><td char=".">12.79</td><td char=".">1</td><td char=".">12.79</td><td char=".">26.62</td><td char="."><bold><.001</bold></td><td char=".">.21</td></tr><tr><td><bold>Course performance: pass or fail</bold></td><td char=".">2.85</td><td char=".">1</td><td char=".">2.85</td><td char=".">5.94</td><td char=".">.<bold>017</bold></td><td char=".">.05</td></tr><tr><td>Error</td><td char=".">49.49</td><td char=".">103</td><td char=".">0.48</td></tr><tr><td>Total</td><td char=".">90.05</td><td char=".">109</td></tr><tr><td>Corrected total</td><td char=".">64.19</td><td char=".">108</td></tr><tr><td>Panel B: ANCOVA on well-being Δ(t3-t2) (H3a) for the female sample</td></tr><tr><td>Corrected model</td><td char=".">11.02</td><td char=".">5</td><td char=".">2.20</td><td char=".">4.80</td><td char="."><.001</td><td char=".">.19</td></tr><tr><td>Intercept</td><td char=".">0.93</td><td char=".">1</td><td char=".">0.93</td><td char=".">2.02</td><td char=".">.158</td><td char=".">.02</td></tr><tr><td>Age</td><td char=".">0.42</td><td char=".">1</td><td char=".">0.42</td><td char=".">0.91</td><td char=".">.343</td><td char=".">.01</td></tr><tr><td>High school performance</td><td char=".">0.01</td><td char=".">1</td><td char=".">0.01</td><td char=".">0.02</td><td char=".">.879</td><td char=".">.00</td></tr><tr><td>Year</td><td char=".">0.10</td><td char=".">1</td><td char=".">0.10</td><td char=".">0.22</td><td char=".">.641</td><td char=".">.00</td></tr><tr><td>Well-being t<sub>2</sub></td><td char=".">8.08</td><td char=".">1</td><td char=".">8.08</td><td char=".">17.59</td><td char="."><bold><.001</bold></td><td char=".">.15</td></tr><tr><td><bold>Course performance: pass or fail</bold></td><td char=".">0.66</td><td char=".">1</td><td char=".">0.66</td><td char=".">1.45</td><td char=".">.232</td><td char=".">.01</td></tr><tr><td>Error</td><td char=".">46.40</td><td char=".">101</td><td char=".">0.46</td></tr><tr><td>Total</td><td char=".">92.39</td><td char=".">107</td></tr><tr><td>Corrected total</td><td char=".">57.42</td><td char=".">106</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <ulist> <item>29 Panel A notes: Passed male students (<emph>n = </emph>90): EM Mean = 0.57, Failed male students (<emph>n </emph>= 19): EM Mean = 0.11.</item> <item>30 Panel B notes: Passed female students (<emph>n = </emph>99): EM Mean = 0.59, Failed female students (<emph>n </emph>= 8): EM Mean = 0.29.</item> </ulist> <p>Table C6. Analyses of covariance to test H3b disaggregated by gender.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><td>SS</td><td>df</td><td>MS</td><td><italic>F</italic></td><td><italic>p</italic></td><td>η²</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Panel A: ANCOVA on self-efficacy Δ(t3-t2) (H3b) for the male sample</td></tr><tr><td>Corrected model</td><td char=".">2.48</td><td char=".">5</td><td char=".">0.50</td><td char=".">5.03</td><td char="."><.001</td><td char=".">.19</td></tr><tr><td>Intercept</td><td char=".">0.57</td><td char=".">1</td><td char=".">0.57</td><td char=".">5.76</td><td char=".">.018</td><td char=".">.05</td></tr><tr><td>Age</td><td char=".">0.69</td><td char=".">1</td><td char=".">0.69</td><td char=".">7.00</td><td char=".">.<bold>009</bold></td><td char=".">.06</td></tr><tr><td>High school performance</td><td char=".">0.11</td><td char=".">1</td><td char=".">0.11</td><td char=".">1.08</td><td char=".">.302</td><td char=".">.01</td></tr><tr><td>Year</td><td char=".">0.05</td><td char=".">1</td><td char=".">0.05</td><td char=".">0.54</td><td char=".">.465</td><td char=".">.01</td></tr><tr><td>Self-efficacy t<sub>2</sub></td><td char=".">1.22</td><td char=".">1</td><td char=".">1.22</td><td char=".">12.33</td><td char="."><bold><.001</bold></td><td char=".">.11</td></tr><tr><td><bold>Course performance: pass or fail</bold></td><td char=".">0.51</td><td char=".">1</td><td char=".">0.51</td><td char=".">5.19</td><td char=".">.<bold>025</bold></td><td char=".">.05</td></tr><tr><td>Error</td><td char=".">10.28</td><td char=".">104</td><td char=".">0.10</td></tr><tr><td>Total</td><td char=".">13.98</td><td char=".">110</td></tr><tr><td>Corrected total</td><td char=".">12.77</td><td char=".">109</td></tr><tr><td>Panel B: ANCOVA on self-efficacy Δ(t3-t2) (H3b) for the female sample</td></tr><tr><td>Corrected model</td><td char=".">3.17</td><td char=".">5</td><td char=".">0.63</td><td char=".">6.08</td><td char="."><.001</td><td char=".">.23</td></tr><tr><td>Intercept</td><td char=".">0.31</td><td char=".">1</td><td char=".">0.31</td><td char=".">2.93</td><td char=".">.090</td><td char=".">.03</td></tr><tr><td>Age</td><td char=".">0.14</td><td char=".">1</td><td char=".">0.14</td><td char=".">1.32</td><td char=".">.254</td><td char=".">.01</td></tr><tr><td>High school performance</td><td char=".">0.05</td><td char=".">1</td><td char=".">0.05</td><td char=".">0.43</td><td char=".">.512</td><td char=".">.00</td></tr><tr><td>Year</td><td char=".">0.09</td><td char=".">1</td><td char=".">0.09</td><td char=".">0.85</td><td char=".">.358</td><td char=".">.01</td></tr><tr><td>Self-efficacy t<sub>2</sub></td><td char=".">2.55</td><td char=".">1</td><td char=".">2.55</td><td char=".">24.42</td><td char="."><bold><.001</bold></td><td char=".">.19</td></tr><tr><td><bold>Course performance: pass or fail</bold></td><td char=".">0.12</td><td char=".">1</td><td char=".">0.12</td><td char=".">1.15</td><td char=".">.286</td><td char=".">.01</td></tr><tr><td>Error</td><td char=".">10.64</td><td char=".">102</td><td char=".">0.10</td></tr><tr><td>Total</td><td char=".">13.99</td><td char=".">108</td></tr><tr><td>Corrected total</td><td char=".">13.81</td><td char=".">107</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <ulist> <item>31 Panel A notes: Passed male students (<emph>n = </emph>91): EM Mean = 0.14, Failed male students (<emph>n </emph>= 19): EM Mean = −0.05.</item> <item>32 Panel B notes: Passed female students (<emph>n = </emph>100): EM Mean = 0.05, Failed female students (<emph>n </emph>= 8): EM Mean = −0.08.</item> </ulist> <ref id="AN0186911504-30"> <title> Notes </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref45" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> Similar to many higher education settings in Europe, the passing grade of 10 out of 20 is the applied standard of all courses at the university in which this study is conducted. Students pass every course unit for which their course grade after assessment is at least 10 out of 20. For this, they receive a credit certificate following the closing of the examination period.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref116" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> Changes are calculated by subtracting a previous level from a later level. A negative Δ therefore implies a decrease of well-being or self-efficacy. A positive Δ indicates an increase in well-being or self-efficacy.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref117" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> To assess the change in well-being and self-efficacy, the initial level is included as a control variable. For instance, a student with a very high (resp. low) well-being at t<subs>2</subs> can simply not report an even higher (resp. lower) well-being at t<subs>3</subs>, and is therefore unable to report a very positive (resp. negative) change in well-being from t<subs>2</subs> to t<subs>3</subs>.</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <ref id="AN0186911504-31"> <title> References </title> <blist> <bibtext> Auerbach, R. P., Mortier, P., Bruffaerts, R., Alonso, J., Benjet, C., Cuijpers, P., Demyttenaere, K., Ebert, D. D., Green, J. G., Hasking, P., Murray, E., Nock, M. K., Pinder-Amaker, S., Sampson, N. A., Stein, D. J., Vilagut, G., Zaslavsky, A. M., & Kessler, R. C. (2018). WHO world mental health surveys international college student project: Prevalence and distribution of mental disorders. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 127 (7), 623 – 638. https://doi.org/10.1037/abn0000362</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84 (2), 191 – 215. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.84.2.191</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. W.H. Freeman and Company.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref118" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Bandura, A., Caprara, G. V., Barbaranelli, C., Gerbino, M., & Pastorelli, C. (2003). Role of affective self-regulatory efficacy in diverse spheres of psychosocial functioning. Child Development, 74 (3), 769 – 782. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8624.00567</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref100" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Barkham, M., Broglia, E., Dufour, G., Fudge, M., Knowles, L., Percy, A., Turner, A., & Williams, C. (2019). Towards an evidence-base for student wellbeing and mental health: Definitions, developmental transitions and data sets. Counselling and Psychotherapy Research, 19 (4), 351 – 357. https://doi.org/10.1002/CAPR.12227</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref166" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Beatson, N. J., Berg, D. A. G., & Smith, J. K. (2018). The impact of mastery feedback on undergraduate students' self-efficacy beliefs. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 59, 58 – 66. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stueduc.2018.03.002</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref145" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Beatson, N. J., Berg, D. A. G., & Smith, J. K. (2019). The Sheldon effect: Fixed mindset does not always mean fragile confidence. Accounting Education, 28 (5), 532 – 552. https://doi.org/10.1080/09639284.2019.1661858</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref1" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Beatson, N. J., Berg, D. A. G., & Smith, J. K. (2020). The influence of self-efficacy beliefs and prior learning on performance. Accounting & Finance, 60 (2), 1271 – 1294. https://doi.org/10.1111/ACFI.12440</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref57" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Beatson, N. J., de Lange, P., Tharapos, M., O'Connell, B., Smith, J., Scott, S., & Greatbanks, R. (2024). An examination of self-efficacy and sense of belonging on accounting student achievement. Accounting & Finance, 64 (1), 723 – 738. https://doi.org/10.1111/acfi.13160</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Biggs, J., Kember, D., & Leung, D. Y. P. (2001). The revised two-factor study process questionnaire: R-SPQ-2F. The British Journal of Educational Psychology, 71 (1), 133 – 149. https://doi.org/10.1348/000709901158433</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Blondeel, E., Everaert, P., & Opdecam, E. (2023). Does practice make perfect? The effect of online formative assessments on students' self-efficacy and test anxiety. The British Accounting Review, 101189. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.BAR.2023.101189</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Bore, M., Pittolo, C., Kirby, D., Dluzewska, T., & Marlin, S. (2016). Predictors of psychological distress and well-being in a sample of Australian undergraduate students. Higher Education Research & Development, 35 (5), 869 – 880. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2016.1138452</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Bowman, N. A. (2010). The development of psychological well-being among first-year college students. Journal of College Student Development, 51 (2), 180 – 200. https://doi.org/10.1353/CSD.0.0118</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Brooker, A., & Vu, C. (2020). How do university experiences contribute to students' psychological wellbeing? Student Success, 11 (2), 99 – 108. https://doi.org/10.5204/ssj.1676</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Byrne, M., & Flood, B. (2003). Assessing the teaching quality of accounting programmes: An evaluation of the course experience questionnaire. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 28 (2), 135 – 145. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602930301668</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Byrne, M., & Flood, B. (2008). Examining the relationships among background variables and academic performance of first year accounting students at an Irish university. Journal of Accounting Education, 26 (4), 202 – 212. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JACCEDU.2009.02.001</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Byrne, M., Flood, B., & Griffin, J. (2014). Measuring the academic self-efficacy of first-year accounting students. Accounting Education, 23 (5), 407 – 423. https://doi.org/10.1080/09639284.2014.931240</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Callimaci, A., Fortin, A., Lux, G., Caron, M.-A., & Smaili, N. (2023). Academic and non-academic factors explaining anxiety among accounting students: Evidence from the COVID-19 pandemic. Accounting Education, Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1080/09639284.2023.2232342</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Chang, W.-P., Stuart, H., & Chen, S.-P. (2022). Alcohol use, drug use, and psychological distress in university students: Findings from a Canadian campus survey. International Journal of Mental Health and Addiction, 20 (4), 2366 – 2381. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11469-021-00519-w</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Chemers, M. M., Hu, L. T., & Garcia, B. F. (2001). Academic self-efficacy and first year college student performance and adjustment. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93 (1), 55 – 64. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.93.1.55</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Chong, V. K., & Monroe, G. S. (2015). The impact of the antecedents and consequences of job burnout on junior accountants' turnover intentions: A structural equation modelling approach. Accounting & Finance, 55 (1), 105 – 132. https://doi.org/10.1111/ACFI.12049</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Coertjens, L., Brahm, T., Trautwein, C., & Lindblom-Ylänne, S. (2017). Students' transition into higher education from an international perspective. Higher Education, 73 (3), 357 – 369. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-016-0092-y</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Conley, C. S., Kirsch, A. C., Dickson, D. A., & Bryant, F. B. (2014). Negotiating the transition to college: Developmental trajectories and gender differences in psychological functioning, cognitive-affective strategies, and social well-being. Emerging Adulthood, 2 (3), 195 – 210. https://doi.org/10.1177/2167696814521808</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cooke, R., Bewick, B., Barkham, M., Bradley, M., & Audin, K. (2006). Measuring, monitoring and managing the psychological well-being of first year university students. British Journal of Guidance and Counselling, 34 (4), 505 – 517. https://doi.org/10.1080/03069880600942624</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Dahlin, M., Nilsson, C., Stotzer, E., & Runeson, B. (2011). Mental distress, alcohol use and help-seeking among medical and business students: A cross-sectional comparative study. BMC Medical Education, 11 (1), 92. https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6920-11-92</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> de Bruyn, M. (2023). Emotional intelligence capabilities that can improve the non-technical skills of accounting students. Accounting Education, 32 (1), 61 – 89. https://doi.org/10.1080/09639284.2022.2032221</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Denovan, A., & Macaskill, A. (2017). Stress and subjective well-being among first year UK undergraduate students. Journal of Happiness Studies, 18 (2), 505 – 525. https://doi.org/10.1007/S10902-016-9736-Y</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Diener, E. (2000). Subjective well-being: The science of happiness and a proposal for a national index. American Psychologist, 55 (1), 34 – 43. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.55.1.34</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Diener, E., Lucas, R. E., & Oishi, S. (2002). Subjective well-being: The science of happiness and life satisfaction. In C. R. Snyder, & S. Lopez (Eds.), Handbook of positive psychology (pp. 463 – 473). Oxford University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Duff, A., & Marriott, N. (2017). The teaching-research gestalt in accounting: A cluster analytic approach. The British Accounting Review, 49 (4), 413 – 428. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.BAR.2017.05.001</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Duff, A., & Mladenovic, R. (2015). Antecedents and consequences of accounting students' approaches to learning: A cluster analytic approach. The British Accounting Review, 47 (3), 321 – 338. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.BAR.2014.06.003</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Dull, R. B., Schleifer, L. L. F., & McMillan, J. J. (2015). Achievement goal theory: The relationship of accounting students' goal orientations with self-efficacy, anxiety, and achievement. Accounting Education, 24 (2), 152 – 174. https://doi.org/10.1080/09639284.2015.1036892</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Emerson, D. J., Hair, J. F., & Smith, K. J. (2023). Psychological distress, burnout, and business student turnover: The role of resilience as a coping mechanism. Research in Higher Education, 64 (2), 228 – 259. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11162-022-09704-9</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Erekson, D., Schmuck, D., Lynn, A., Toth, L., Hoskin, J. M., & Morrison, S. (2023). The relationship between declared major, therapy utilization rates, and psychological functioning among college students. Journal of College Student Psychotherapy, 37 (4), 318 – 334. https://doi.org/10.1080/87568225.2022.2039576</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Everaert, P., Opdecam, E., & Maussen, S. (2017). The relationship between motivation, learning approaches, academic performance and time spent. Accounting Education, 26 (1), 78 – 107. https://doi.org/10.1080/09639284.2016.1274911</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Everaert, P., Opdecam, E., & van der Heijden, H. (2024). Predicting first-year university progression using early warning signals from accounting education: A machine learning approach. Accounting Education, 33 (1), 1 – 26. https://doi.org/10.1080/09639284.2022.2145570</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gabre, H., & Kumar, G. (2012). The effects of perceived stress and Facebook on accounting students' academic performance. Accounting and Finance Research, 1 (2), 87 – 100. https://doi.org/10.5430/afr.v1n2p87</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Geiger, M. A., & Ogilby, S. M. (2000). The first course in accounting: Students' perceptions and their effect on the decision to major in accounting. Journal of Accounting Education, 18 (2), 63 – 78. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0748-5751(00)00011-7</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ghaderi, A. R., & Salehi, M. (2011). A study of the level of self-efficacy, depression and anxiety between accounting and management students: Iranian evidence. World Applied Sciences Journal, 12 (8), 1299 – 1306.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gilman, R., Huebner, E. S., & Furlong, M. J. (2014). Toward a science and practice of positive psychology in schools: A conceptual framework. In M. J. Furlong, R. Gilman, & E. S. Huebner (Eds.), Handbook of positive psychology in schools (pp. 3 – 11). Routledge.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gore, P. A. (2006). Academic self-efficacy as a predictor of college outcomes: Two incremental validity studies. Journal of Career Assessment, 14 (1), 92 – 115. https://doi.org/10.1177/1069072705281367</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Han, C., Farruggia, S. P., & Solomon, B. J. (2022). Effects of high school students' noncognitive factors on their success at college. Studies in Higher Education, 47 (3), 572 – 586. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2020.1770715</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Huikku, J., Myllymäki, E. R., & Ojala, H. (2022). Gender differences in the first course in accounting: An achievement goal approach. The British Accounting Review, 54 (3), 101081. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.BAR.2022.101081</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ison, I., Shonhiwa, T., & Hogan, M. (2020). Advancing mental health awareness and resilience in accounting students. Journal of Accounting, Ethics and Public Policy, 21 (3), 389 – 398. https://ssrn.com/abstract=3703033</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Issa, H., Sannella, A., & Cohen, M. (2022). Student perceptions of the first accounting course and majoring in accounting. Journal of Research In Business Education, 62 (1), 18 – 38. https://jrbe.nbea.org/index.php/jrbe/article/view/8</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Jafri, M. H. (2013). A study of the relationship of psychological capital and students' performance. Business Perspectives and Research, 1 (2), 9 – 16. https://doi.org/10.1177/2278533720130202</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Jones, A., Norman, C. S., & Wier, B. (2010). Healthy lifestyle as a coping mechanism for role stress in public accounting. Behavioral Research in Accounting, 22 (1), 21 – 41. https://doi.org/10.2308/bria.2010.22.1.21</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Keyes, C. L. M. (2006). Mental health in adolescence: Is America's youth flourishing? American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 76 (3), 395 – 402. https://doi.org/10.1037/0002-9432.76.3.395</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Klussman, K., Lindeman, M. I. H., Nichols, A. L., & Langer, J. (2021). Fostering stress resilience among business students: The role of stress mindset and self-connection. Psychological Reports, 124 (4), 1462 – 1480. https://doi.org/10.1177/0033294120937440</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Law, D. W. (2010). A measure of burnout for business students. Journal of Education for Business, 85 (4), 195 – 202. https://doi.org/10.1080/08832320903218133</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lim, Y. M., Tam, C. L., & Lee, T. H. (2013). Perceived stress, coping strategy and general health: A study on accounting students in Malaysia. Journal of Arts, Science and Commerce, 4 (1), 88 – 95.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lipson, S. K., Zhou, S., Wagner, B., Beck, K., & Eisenberg, D. (2016). Major differences: Variations in undergraduate and graduate student mental health and treatment utilization across academic disciplines. Journal of College Student Psychotherapy, 30 (1), 23 – 41. https://doi.org/10.1080/87568225.2016.1105657</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lucas, U., & Meyer, J. H. F. (2005). 'Towards a mapping of the student world': The identification of variation in students' conceptions of, and motivations to learn, introductory accounting. The British Accounting Review, 37 (2), 177 – 204. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.BAR.2004.10.002</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Maddux, J. E. (2002). Self-efficacy: The power of believing you can. In C. R. Snyder & S. J. Lopez (Eds.), Handbook of positive psychology (pp. 277 – 287). Oxford University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Maricuțoiu, L. P., & Sulea, C. (2019). Evolution of self-efficacy, student engagement and student burnout during a semester. A multilevel structural equation modeling approach. Learning and Individual Differences, 76. Article number 101785. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2019.101785</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Marinoni, G., van 't Land, H., & Jensen, T. (2020). The impact of COVID-19 on higher education around the world: IAU Global Survey Report. https://<ulink href="http://www.iau-aiu.net/IMG/pdf/iau%5fcovid19%5fand%5fhe%5fsurvey%5freport%5ffinal%5fmay%5f2020.pdf">www.iau-aiu.net/IMG/pdf/iau%5fcovid19%5fand%5fhe%5fsurvey%5freport%5ffinal%5fmay%5f2020.pdf</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Marriott, N., Stoner, G., Fogarty, T., & Sangster, A. (2014). Publishing characteristics, geographic dispersion and research traditions of recent international accounting education research. The British Accounting Review, 46 (3), 264 – 280. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.BAR.2013.11.003</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Marsh, H. W., & O'Mara, A. (2008). Reciprocal effects between academic self-concept, self-esteem, achievement, and attainment over seven adolescent years: Unidimensional and multidimensional perspectives of self-concept. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 34 (4), 542 – 552. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167207312313</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> McPhail, K. (2004). An emotional response to the state of accounting education: Developing accounting students' emotional intelligence. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 15 (4–5), 629 – 648. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1045-2354(03)00050-9</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Molina-Sánchez, H., Ariza-Montes, A., Ortiz-Gómez, M., & Leal-Rodríguez. (2019). The subjective well-being challenge in the accounting profession: The role of job resources. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 16 (17), 3073. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16173073</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mooi, T. L. (2006). Self-efficacy and student performance in an accounting course. Journal of Financial Reporting and Accounting, 4 (1), 129 – 146. https://doi.org/10.1108/19852510680001586</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Morton, S., Mergler, A., & Boman, P. (2014). Managing the transition: The role of optimism and self-efficacy for first-year Australian university students. Australian Journal of Guidance and Counselling, 24 (1), 90 – 108. https://doi.org/10.1017/jgc.2013.29</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Nonis, S. A., Hudson, G. I., Logan, L. B., & Ford, C. W. (1998). Influence of perceived control over time on college students' stress and stress-related outcomes. Research in Higher Education, 39 (5), 587 – 605. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1018753706925</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pajares, F. (1996). Self-efficacy beliefs in academic settings. Review of Educational Research, 66 (4), 543 – 578. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543066004543</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pajares, F. (2001). Toward a positive psychology of academic motivation. The Journal of Educational Research, 95 (1), 27 – 35. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220670109598780</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Parks, A. C. (2011). The state of positive psychology in higher education: Introduction to the special issue. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 6 (6), 429 – 431. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439760.2011.637729</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Perera, L., Nguyen, H., & Watty, K. (2014). Formative feedback through summative tutorial-based assessments: The relationship to student performance. Accounting Education, 23 (5), 424 – 442. https://doi.org/10.1080/09639284.2014.947093</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pilonato, S., & Monfardini, P. (2020). Performance measurement systems in higher education: How levers of control reveal the ambiguities of reforms. The British Accounting Review, 52 (3), 100908. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.BAR.2020.100908</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pinxten, M., Van Soom, C., Peeters, C., De Laet, T., & Langie, G. (2019). At-risk at the gate: Prediction of study success of first-year science and engineering students in an open-admission university in Flanders—any incremental validity of study strategies? European Journal of Psychology of Education, 34 (1), 45 – 66. https://doi.org/10.1007/S10212-017-0361-X</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Postareff, L., Mattsson, M., Lindblom-Ylänne, S., & Hailikari, T. (2017). The complex relationship between emotions, approaches to learning, study success and study progress during the transition to university. Higher Education, 73 (3), 441 – 457. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-016-0096-7</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Renshaw, T. L., Furlong, M. J., Dowdy, E., Rebelez, J., Smith, D. C., O'Malley, M. D., Lee, S., & Strom, I. F. (2014). Covitality: A synergistic conception of adolescents' mental health. In M. J. Furlong, R. Gilman, & E. S. Huebner (Eds.), Handbook of positive psychology in schools (pp. 12 – 32). Routledge.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Salami, S. (2010). Emotional intelligence, self-efficacy, psychological well-being and students' attitudes: Implications for quality education. European Journal of Educational Studies, 2 (3), 247 – 257.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Salehi, M., Seyyed, F., & Farhangdoust, S. (2020). The impact of personal characteristics, quality of working life and psychological well-being on job burnout among Iranian external auditors. International Journal of Organization Theory & Behavior, 23 (3), 189 – 205. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJOTB-09-2018-0104</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Schwarzer, R., & Jerusalem, M. (1995). Generalized self-efficacy scale. In J. Weinman, S. Wright, & M. Johnston (Eds.), Measures in health psychology: A user's portfolio. Causal and c ontrol beliefs (pp. 35 – 37). NFER-NELSON.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Seligman, M. E. P., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2000). Positive psychology. An introduction. The American Psychologist, 55 (1), 5 – 14. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.55.1.5</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Shoshani, A., & Steinmetz, S. (2014). Positive psychology at school: A school-based intervention to promote adolescents' mental health and well-being. Journal of Happiness Studies, 15 (6), 1289 – 1311. https://doi.org/10.1007/S10902-013-9476-1</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sin, N. L., & Lyubomirsky, S. (2009). Enhancing well-being and alleviating depressive symptoms with positive psychology interventions: A practice-friendly meta-analysis. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 65 (5), 467 – 487. https://doi.org/10.1002/JCLP.20593</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sithole, S. T. M., Ran, G., de Lange, P., Tharapos, M., O'Connell, B., & Beatson, N. (2023). Data mining: Will first-year results predict the likelihood of completing subsequent units in accounting programs? Accounting Education, 32 (4), 409 – 444. https://doi.org/10.1080/09639284.2022.2075707</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Smith, K. J., Derrick, P. L., & Koval, M. R. (2010). Stress and its antecedents and consequences in accounting settings: An empirically derived theoretical model. In V. Arnold (Ed.), Advances in accounting behavioral research (Vol. 13, pp. 113 – 142). Emerald Group Publishing Limited. https://doi.org/10.1108/S1475-1488(2010)0000013009</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Smith, K. J., & Emerson, D. J. (2017). An analysis of the relation between resilience and reduced audit quality within the role stress paradigm. Advances in Accounting, 37, 1 – 14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adiac.2017.04.003</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Smith, K. J., & Emerson, D. J. (2021). Resilience, psychological distress, and academic burnout among accounting students. Accounting Perspectives, 20 (2), 227 – 254. https://doi.org/10.1111/1911-3838.12254</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Smith, K. J., Emerson, D. J., & Everly, G. S. (2017). Stress arousal and burnout as mediators of role stress in public accounting. In K. E. Karim (Ed.), Advances in accounting behavioral research (Vol. 20, pp. 79 – 116). Emerald Publishing Limited. https://doi.org/10.1108/S1475-148820170000020004</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Smith, K. J., Emerson, D. J., Haight, T. D., Mauldin, S., & Wood, B. G. (2019). An examination of the psychometric properties of the Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale-10 (CD-RISC10) among accounting and business students. Journal of Accounting Education, 47, 48 – 62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaccedu.2019.01.002</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Smith, K. J., Haight, T. D., Emerson, D. J., Mauldin, S., & Wood, B. G. (2020). Resilience as a coping strategy for reducing departure intentions of accounting students. Accounting Education, 29 (1), 77 – 108. https://doi.org/10.1080/09639284.2019.1700140</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Snyder, C. R., Rand, K. L., & Sigmon, D. R. (2002). Hope theory: A member of the positive psychology family. In C. R. Snyder, & S. J. Lopez (Eds.), Handbook of positive psychology (pp. 231 – 243). Oxford University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Solberg, V. S., Gusavac, N., Hamann, T., Felch, J., Johnson, J., Lamborn, S., & Torres, J. (1998). The adaptive success identity plan (ASIP): A career intervention for college students. The Career Development Quarterly, 47 (1), 48 – 95. https://doi.org/10.1002/J.2161-0045.1998.TB00728.X</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sorrenti, L., Caparello, C., & Filippello, P. (2022). The mediating role of optimism and resilience in the association between COVID-19-related stress, subjective well-being, hopelessness, and academic achievement in Italian university students. Journal of Positive School Psychology, 6 (6), 5496 – 5515. https://journalppw.com/index.php/jpsp/article/view/8447</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Stankov, L., Morony, S., & Lee, Y. P. (2014). Confidence: The best non-cognitive predictor of academic achievement? Educational Psychology, 34 (1), 9 – 28. https://doi.org/10.1080/01443410.2013.814194</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sugahara, S., & Dellaportas, S. (2018). Bringing active learning into the accounting classroom. Meditari Accountancy Research, 26 (4), 576 – 597. https://doi.org/10.1108/MEDAR-01-2017-0109</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Suldo, S. M., & Shaffer, E. J. (2008). Looking beyond psychopathology: The dual-factor model of mental health in youth. School Psychology Review, 37 (1), 52 – 68. https://doi.org/10.1080/02796015.2008.12087908</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Teixeira, C., Gomes, D., & Borges, J. (2015). Introductory accounting students' motives, expectations and preparedness for higher education: Some Portuguese evidence. Accounting Education, 24 (2), 123 – 145. https://doi.org/10.1080/09639284.2015.1018284</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tennant, R., Hiller, L., Fishwick, R., Platt, S., Joseph, S., Weich, S., Parkinson, J., Secker, J., & Stewart-Brown, S. (2007). The Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Well-Being Scale (WEMWBS): Development and UK validation. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 5 (1), 63. https://doi.org/10.1186/1477-7525-5-63</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tharapos, M. (2022). Opportunity in an uncertain future: Reconceptualising accounting education for the post-COVID-19 world. Accounting Education, 31 (6), 640 – 651. https://doi.org/10.1080/09639284.2021.2007409</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tharapos, M., & Marriott, N. (2020). Beauty is in the eye of the beholder: Research quality in accounting education. The British Accounting Review, 52 (5), 100934. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.BAR.2020.100934</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tinto, V. (2012). Leaving college: Rethinking the causes and cures of student attrition. University of Chicago press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tsiligiris, V., & Bowyer, D. (2021). Exploring the impact of 4IR on skills and personal qualities for future accountants: A proposed conceptual framework for university accounting education. Accounting Education, 30 (6), 621 – 649. https://doi.org/10.1080/09639284.2021.1938616</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Vanderstraeten, L., Opdecam, E., Everaert, P., & Beyers, W. (2023). The effect of COVID-19 on the well-being of first-year university students. Educational Psychology, 43 (5), 407 – 429. https://doi.org/10.1080/01443410.2023.2223787</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Vansteenkiste, M., Duriez, B., Simons, J., & Soenens, B. (2006). Materialistic values and well-being among business students: Further evidence of their detrimental effect. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 36 (12), 2892 – 2908. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0021-9029.2006.00134.x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> van Vuuren, J. C., Bodenstein, K., & Oberholzer, M. (2021). Exploring the psychological well-being of postgraduate accounting students at a South African university. South African Journal of Accounting Research, 35 (3), 219 – 238. https://doi.org/10.1080/10291954.2021.1887440</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Viviers, H. A., De Villiers, R. R., & van der Merwe, N. (2023). The impact of self-efficacy beliefs on first-year accounting students' performance: A South African perspective. Accounting Education, 32 (6), 646 – 669. https://doi.org/10.1080/09639284.2022.2089047</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Webb, J., & Chaffer, C. (2016). The expectation performance gap in accounting education: A review of generic skills development in UK accounting degrees. Accounting Education, 25 (4), 349 – 367. https://doi.org/10.1080/09639284.2016.1191274</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wilcox, G., & Nordstokke, D. (2019). Predictors of university student satisfaction with life, academic self-efficacy, and achievement in the first year. Canadian Journal of Higher Education, 49 (1), 104 – 124. https://doi.org/10.7202/1060826AR</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Lize Vanderstraeten; Evelien Opdecam and Patricia Everaert</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author; Author</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib99" firstref="ref2"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib47" firstref="ref3"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib60" firstref="ref4"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib73" firstref="ref5"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib79" firstref="ref6"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib80" firstref="ref10"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref11"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib82" firstref="ref12"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib50" firstref="ref17"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib93" firstref="ref18"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib94" firstref="ref19"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib26" firstref="ref20"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib59" firstref="ref21"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib96" firstref="ref23"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib101" firstref="ref24"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib44" firstref="ref26"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref27"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl18" bibid="bib33" firstref="ref28"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl19" bibid="bib49" firstref="ref29"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl20" bibid="bib84" firstref="ref31"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl21" bibid="bib36" firstref="ref32"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl22" bibid="bib78" firstref="ref33"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl23" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref34"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl24" bibid="bib31" firstref="ref35"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl25" bibid="bib35" firstref="ref36"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl26" bibid="bib43" firstref="ref37"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl27" bibid="bib53" firstref="ref38"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl28" bibid="bib100" firstref="ref40"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl29" bibid="bib38" firstref="ref42"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl30" bibid="bib45" firstref="ref43"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl31" bibid="bib89" firstref="ref44"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl32" bibid="bib70" firstref="ref46"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl33" bibid="bib95" firstref="ref47"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl34" bibid="bib68" firstref="ref48"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl35" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref49"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl36" bibid="bib27" firstref="ref50"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl37" bibid="bib62" firstref="ref51"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl38" bibid="bib102" firstref="ref53"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl39" bibid="bib42" firstref="ref54"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl40" bibid="bib88" firstref="ref56"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl41" bibid="bib32" firstref="ref62"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl42" bibid="bib30" firstref="ref63"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl43" bibid="bib58" firstref="ref67"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl44" bibid="bib48" firstref="ref68"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl45" bibid="bib65" firstref="ref69"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl46" bibid="bib90" firstref="ref74"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl47" bibid="bib81" firstref="ref77"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl48" bibid="bib57" firstref="ref80"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl49" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref84"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl50" bibid="bib75" firstref="ref87"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl51" bibid="bib40" firstref="ref88"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl52" bibid="bib77" firstref="ref93"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl53" bibid="bib29" firstref="ref94"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl54" bibid="bib71" firstref="ref95"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl55" bibid="bib66" firstref="ref101"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl56" bibid="bib72" firstref="ref102"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl57" bibid="bib87" firstref="ref103"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl58" bibid="bib76" firstref="ref107"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl59" bibid="bib54" firstref="ref109"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl60" bibid="bib28" firstref="ref112"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl61" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref121"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl62" bibid="bib64" firstref="ref124"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl63" bibid="bib86" firstref="ref126"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl64" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref132"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl65" bibid="bib25" firstref="ref133"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl66" bibid="bib34" firstref="ref134"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl67" bibid="bib52" firstref="ref135"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl68" bibid="bib98" firstref="ref136"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl69" bibid="bib51" firstref="ref140"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl70" bibid="bib39" firstref="ref142"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl71" bibid="bib83" firstref="ref144"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl72" bibid="bib37" firstref="ref151"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl73" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref155"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl74" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref159"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl75" bibid="bib46" firstref="ref170"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl76" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref175"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl77" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref176"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl78" bibid="bib24" firstref="ref177"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl79" bibid="bib55" firstref="ref179"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl80" bibid="bib97" firstref="ref181"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl81" bibid="bib69" firstref="ref203"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl82" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref205"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl83" bibid="bib56" firstref="ref207"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl84" bibid="bib41" firstref="ref215"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl85" bibid="bib92" firstref="ref217"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl86" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref219"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl87" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref220"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl88" bibid="bib74" firstref="ref221"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl89" bibid="bib61" firstref="ref247"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl90" bibid="bib91" firstref="ref248"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl91" bibid="bib85" firstref="ref260"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl92" bibid="bib67" firstref="ref261"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl93" bibid="bib63" firstref="ref276"></nolink>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1478548
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: Chicken or Egg? On the Relation between Course Performance and First-Year Students' Well-Being and Self-Efficacy
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Lize+Vanderstraeten%22">Lize Vanderstraeten</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4046-1560">0000-0002-4046-1560</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Evelien+Opdecam%22">Evelien Opdecam</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9459-3019">0000-0001-9459-3019</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Patricia+Everaert%22">Patricia Everaert</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1976-3836">0000-0003-1976-3836</externalLink>)
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Accounting+Education%22"><i>Accounting Education</i></searchLink>. 2025 34(4):435-469.
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: Routledge. Available from: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. 530 Walnut Street Suite 850, Philadelphia, PA 19106. Tel: 800-354-1420; Tel: 215-625-8900; Fax: 215-207-0050; Web site: http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 35
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2025
– 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="%22Higher+Education%22">Higher Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Postsecondary+Education%22">Postsecondary Education</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Academic+Achievement%22">Academic Achievement</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22College+Freshmen%22">College Freshmen</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Accounting%22">Accounting</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Business+Education%22">Business Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Self+Efficacy%22">Self Efficacy</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Well+Being%22">Well Being</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Pass+Fail+Grading%22">Pass Fail Grading</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1080/09639284.2024.2354766
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 0963-9284<br />1468-4489
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: Prior studies suggest associations between course performance and well-being and self-efficacy, although what comes first in this effect remains unclear. This study contributes to the research on noncognitive aspects of learning of first-year students, and examines the bidirectional relation between, on the one hand, students' well-being and self-efficacy, and on the other hand, their course performance in an accounting course. The study investigates first-year undergraduate students and their performance in an accounting course, measured as the grade and ensuing pass/fail mark. Longitudinal survey data were collected at three data collection moments during two consecutive semesters. The results lead to three main findings. First, well-being a few weeks before the examination moment affects course performance (grade) in accounting, while self-efficacy does not. Second, students who passed the course had higher well-being and self-efficacy in the next semester than those who failed. Third, students who passed, reported a higher increase in well-being and self-efficacy after the examination moment, than those who failed. Analyses controlled for students' age, gender, and high school performance. The empirical results provide valuable longitudinal insights into the important role of well-being and self-efficacy in relation to course performance, and vice versa. Implications for theory and practice are provided.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2025
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1478548
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1478548
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1080/09639284.2024.2354766
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 35
        StartPage: 435
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Academic Achievement
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: College Freshmen
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Accounting
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Business Education
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Self Efficacy
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Well Being
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Pass Fail Grading
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: Chicken or Egg? On the Relation between Course Performance and First-Year Students' Well-Being and Self-Efficacy
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Lize Vanderstraeten
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Evelien Opdecam
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Patricia Everaert
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 01
              Type: published
              Y: 2025
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 0963-9284
            – Type: issn-electronic
              Value: 1468-4489
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 34
            – Type: issue
              Value: 4
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Accounting Education
              Type: main
ResultId 1