View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

The Academic Threat Appraisal Ratio Scale (ATARS): Insights into Attainment, Academic Progression, and Retention in Higher Education

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: The Academic Threat Appraisal Ratio Scale (ATARS): Insights into Attainment, Academic Progression, and Retention in Higher Education
Language: English
Authors: Simon Cassidy (ORCID 0000-0001-6156-8941)
Source: British Journal of Educational Psychology. 2026 96(1):90-107.
Availability: Wiley. Available from: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 111 River Street, Hoboken, NJ 07030. Tel: 800-835-6770; e-mail: cs-journals@wiley.com; Web site: https://www.wiley.com/en-us
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 18
Publication Date: 2026
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Research
Education Level: Higher Education
Postsecondary Education
Descriptors: Measures (Individuals), Risk Assessment, Stress Variables, Performance, Higher Education, At Risk Students, Potential Dropouts, Dropout Characteristics, College Freshmen, Academic Failure, Self Efficacy, Predictor Variables
DOI: 10.1111/bjep.12780
ISSN: 0007-0998
2044-8279
Abstract: Background: Previous studies examining threat appraisal and the influence of stress on human performance conclude that a challenge state leads to better performance than a threat state. Despite its potential, threat appraisal, particularly using self-report measures, has been the subject of limited investigation in applied higher educational contexts. Aims: The study explored the potential of self-report academic threat appraisal to explain academic progression and drop out in first-year students and investigated associations between self-report academic threat appraisal and relevant non-cognitive factors. Sample: The sample comprised 186 first-year undergraduate university students. Method: Students completed a newly adapted self-report threat appraisal measure, the Academic Threat Appraisal Ratio Scale (ATARS), at the beginning of their degree course. End-of-year grade point average and academic progression were also measured along with self-report measures of academic self-efficacy, academic resilience, grit, and mindset. Results: Findings revealed that a significantly greater proportion of students eliciting a challenge state progressed at first attempt, and of those students failing to progress at first attempt, a significantly greater proportion had elicited a threat state (X[superscript 2] (1) = 4.445, p = 0.035). Furthermore, academic threat appraisal was identified as a significant predictor of academic progression, while academic self-efficacy was identified as a significant predictor of academic threat appraisal. Conclusions: Evidence supports self-report academic threat appraisal as a significant factor in student attainment and academic progression in higher education, suggesting that the ATARS offers a relatively simple, valid, and scalable tool for early screening of students, enabling targeted student support.
Abstractor: As Provided
Entry Date: 2026
Accession Number: EJ1496079
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwFshhJmhj8thYJRI5pz2QExAAAA4zCB4AYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHSMIHPAgEAMIHJBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDMwIUT0VkLL0517PVwIBEICBm_x-zxBKqyy_59mirGjg7hDkpUqbp6FxCSZxmB-nZhKSGT6VDBqm3-HeLRlJ1Kf7Zx4UzMbmi90JDycP1KEoWiGtahhZo7r-F0wydMlC7T1fzuzvy6YK6CI9JFVI0ZlTtGAiL8Ifee6qV0n_K89qH2F1XUg5l0BKEOs0hYVlN9agspGjGUyB7cy7Yn0kXv021KGQOfzIqmgFdmD7
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0191428611;6kx01mar.26;2026Feb10.05:03;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0191428611-1">The Academic Threat Appraisal Ratio Scale (ATARS): Insights into attainment, academic progression, and retention in higher education </title> <p>Background: Previous studies examining threat appraisal and the influence of stress on human performance conclude that a challenge state leads to better performance than a threat state. Despite its potential, threat appraisal, particularly using self‐report measures, has been the subject of limited investigation in applied higher educational contexts. Aims: The study explored the potential of self‐report academic threat appraisal to explain academic progression and drop out in first‐year students and investigated associations between self‐report academic threat appraisal and relevant non‐cognitive factors. Sample: The sample comprised 186 first‐year undergraduate university students. Method: Students completed a newly adapted self‐report threat appraisal measure, the Academic Threat Appraisal Ratio Scale (ATARS), at the beginning of their degree course. End‐of‐year grade point average and academic progression were also measured along with self‐report measures of academic self‐efficacy, academic resilience, grit, and mindset. Results: Findings revealed that a significantly greater proportion of students eliciting a challenge state progressed at first attempt, and of those students failing to progress at first attempt, a significantly greater proportion had elicited a threat state (χ2 (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref1">1</reflink>) = 4.445, p =.035). Furthermore, academic threat appraisal was identified as a significant predictor of academic progression, while academic self‐efficacy was identified as a significant predictor of academic threat appraisal. Conclusions: Evidence supports self‐report academic threat appraisal as a significant factor in student attainment and academic progression in higher education, suggesting that the ATARS offers a relatively simple, valid, and scalable tool for early screening of students, enabling targeted student support.</p> <p>Keywords: academic progression; attainment; challenge‐threat; higher education; retention; threat appraisal</p> <hd id="AN0191428611-2">INTRODUCTION</hd> <p>Persistent high student drop out (non‐continuation) rates (Jack, [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref2">27</reflink>]), particularly evident in the first year of university (van Rooij et al., [<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref3">54</reflink>]), and a continued focus on access, retention, attainment, and academic progression as key performance metrics in higher education (Hillman, [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref4">25</reflink>]), make the search for explanatory factors and meaningful interventions a priority for the sector (Webb et al., [<reflink idref="bib57" id="ref5">57</reflink>]). This may, in part, explain evidence of intensified interest in factors other than university entry grades—determined by standardized tests such as A‐levels and SATs reflecting cognitive skills and ability—to help explain student achievement and success. Furthermore, in their review of the literature, Webb et al. ([<reflink idref="bib57" id="ref6">57</reflink>]) note that 'the likelihood of a student remaining in university can be attributed to a number of factors beyond their academic ability when they enter their first year' (p. 5). Despite this, cognitive skills and ability involving reasoning and problem‐solving have traditionally provided the focus for work examining educative processes and student employment potential. However, a shift in more recent research towards recognizing the critical role played by non‐cognitive factors in educational achievement and success has been noted, together with the suggestion that their influence may be more important than that of cognitive factors (Khine, [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref7">29</reflink>]). Whilst not devoid of cognitive processing (Borghans et al., [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref8">6</reflink>]; Sommerfeld, [<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref9">50</reflink>]), non‐cognitive factors can be thought of as distinct from or less reliant on cognitive skills and abilities (i.e., non‐intellective, Magnano et al., [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref10">34</reflink>]) and include a range of psychological constructs. The present study examines the significance of threat appraisal, involving perceived demands and resources, as one factor with the potential to contribute to a greater understanding of student attainment and academic progression in higher education.</p> <hd id="AN0191428611-3">Non‐cognitive factors</hd> <p>A potential catchall for any factor other than standardized test scores, the term non‐cognitive has been applied broadly in the literature (Reynolds et al., [<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref11">46</reflink>]). However, prevalent examples of non‐cognitive skills and factors commonly encountered in the literature examining student success, and whose influence is well‐established, include self‐efficacy, grit, mindset, and more recently, academic resilience.</p> <p>Self‐efficacy involves self‐judgements about perceived capabilities to execute a course of action required to achieve desired levels of performance and attain goals, and it is therefore involved in the regulation of perceived task difficulty, persistence, and effort (Honicke et al., [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref12">26</reflink>]). Honicke et al. ([<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref13">26</reflink>]) refers to 'decades of research [that] highlight the positive effects of self‐efficacy on academic achievement' (p. 1936). Examples includes McIlroy ([<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref14">37</reflink>]) who report an association between academic self‐efficacy and academic performance in sixth form students, and one recent study and mediation analysis by Meng and Zang ([<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref15">38</reflink>]) who report both direct and indirect (via academic engagement) effects of self‐efficacy on academic achievement in Chinese university students.</p> <p>Conceptualized by Duckworth et al. ([<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref16">17</reflink>], p. 1087), grit is defined as 'perseverance and passion for long‐term goals' and is comprised of consistency of interests and perseverance of effort. It is unrelated to IQ, but essential to high achievement. Individuals high in grit are described as 'gritty', whose advantage [over those of equal intelligence] is stamina (Duckworth et al., [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref17">17</reflink>]). Using path analysis, Alhabadi and Karpinski ([<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref18">1</reflink>]) demonstrated a positive association (mediated by students' self‐efficacy) between grit dimensions 'perseverance of effort 'and 'consistency of interest' and self‐reported GPA in American university students. Grit has also been reported as an independent predictor of overall academic success in samples of Australian university health professional students (Carlo et al., [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref19">8</reflink>]) and of student retention in samples of US military cadets (Duckworth et al., [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref20">17</reflink>]). A recent review and meta‐analysis focusing on research conducted between 2007 and 2020 offers further evidence for the positive association between overall grit and academic achievement (Lam & Zhou, [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref21">32</reflink>]).</p> <p>The mindset concept relates to implicit theories of intelligence held by individuals. That is, intelligence viewed as fixed, unchanging and stable—a fixed or entity mindset—versus intelligence viewed as malleable, with the potential to develop and change—a growth or incremental mindset (Dweck, [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref22">18</reflink>]). In their review and meta‐analysis of the influence of mindset on academic achievement, Costa and Faria ([<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref23">12</reflink>]) conclude that the evidence supports a direct significant positive association between incremental (growth) mindset and academic performance, and provide an account of the characteristics of students who adopt a fixed mindset that helps illustrate the potential implications for education. This includes the tendency for fixed mindset students to adopt performance goals over learning goals, to prioritize assessment over learning to demonstrate ability and seek positive evaluations, to be less likely to select tasks perceived to be challenging, and to attribute poor performance to lack of ability so fail to increase effort or adopt effective remedial strategies when faced with challenges and setbacks. De Castella and Byrne ([<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref24">14</reflink>]) provide evidence for the adverse effects of a fixed mindset in students, reporting a significant negative association between entity (fixed) mindset and self‐reported academic performance.</p> <p>Finally, resilience, commonly defined by the capacity to 'bounce back', involves facing adversity with recovery to normal pre‐adversity levels of functioning (or even achieving growth) post‐adversity. Applied in an education context using context‐specific measures of resilience, academic resilience is defined as the 'capacity to overcome acute and/or chronic adversity that is seen as a major threat to a student's educational development' (Martin, [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref25">36</reflink>], p. 488) and is comprised of three contributing factors: increased perseverance; increased reflecting and adaptive help‐seeking; and increased avoidance of negative affect and emotional response (Cassidy, [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref26">9</reflink>]). Exploring the association between resilience and student success in a 4‐year longitudinal study in a large sample of German students, Bittmann ([<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref27">4</reflink>]) reports significant positive correlations between resilience and student self‐reported grades, and significant negative correlations between resilience and students' intention to drop out. These effects, demonstrating the association between resilience and better outcomes for students, were consistent at different points in the longitudinal study.</p> <p>The evidence demonstrating an association between non‐cognitive factors and student achievement and success is convincing, with Frantz et al. ([<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref28">23</reflink>]) referring to the growing body of literature specifically examining the pertinence of non‐cognitive factors and skills in relation to student retention. However, applying this knowledge and understanding in higher education practice, involving measuring and interpreting the gamut of potentially relevant non‐cognitive factors and skills in large student populations, is burdensome for both students and staff and may not be readily scalable in a meaningful or viable way at an institutional level. In short, pursuing whole‐university student retention interventions that are reliant on the assessment of non‐cognitive factors and skills measured using traditional psychometric tools is likely to prove a 'hard sell' to staff, students, and senior leaders as key stakeholders. There is merit, therefore, in exploring alternative, more pragmatic approaches that are feasible in the reality of everyday higher education practice yet still offer valid insight into factors related to student achievement and success. Threat appraisal, involving evaluation of perceived task demands against perceived personal resources and shown to predict future performance in other fields, may be one such alternative with the potential to offer greater utility in applied higher education practice.</p> <hd id="AN0191428611-4">Threat appraisal</hd> <p>Underpinned by transactional models of stress such as that proposed by Lazarus and Folkman ([<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref29">33</reflink>]), threat appraisal is an individual's subjective interpretation of a difficult or stressful situation according to perceived demands of the situation (<emph>primary</emph> appraisal) and perceived available personal resources to meet those demands (<emph>secondary</emph> appraisal). This leads to challenge and threat evaluations and associated challenge and threat states that influence an individual's motivation to action and performance (Krok et al., [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref30">30</reflink>]; Vine et al., [<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref31">55</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref32">56</reflink>]). Threat appraisals are based on expectations regarding prospective, potentially stressful situations and events, so are, as Tomaka et al. ([<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref33">53</reflink>]) note, a priori. Within a biopsychosocial model of challenge‐threat, Blascovich ([<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref34">5</reflink>]) uses motivated performance situations, described as goal‐relevant and task engaging such as exams, to contextualize challenge‐threat as approach‐avoidance motivation, where 'challenge results when an individual's evaluated resources outweigh situational demands and threat results when evaluated situational demands outweigh an individual's resources' (p. 432). A threat state has been associated with higher self‐reported stress, differences in physiological reactivity between challenge and threat groups, and, critically, poorer task performance (Tomaka et al., [<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref35">53</reflink>]).</p> <p>In a series of validation studies, Blascovich ([<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref36">5</reflink>]) demonstrated the association between subjective and objective measures of threat appraisal. Both pre‐task self‐report evaluations of situational demands and personal resources (i.e., subjective measure of threat appraisal) and cardiovascular responses captured during task performance (i.e., objective measure of threat appraisal) were aligned with previously defined cardiovascular patterns of physiological toughness and weakness reported by Dienstbier ([<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref37">15</reflink>]). While challenge‐threat studies in the main continue to rely primarily on physiological measures of threat appraisal (e.g., Smith et al., [<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref38">49</reflink>]), in a novel application of challenge‐threat, Vine et al. ([<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref39">56</reflink>]) used a self‐report measure of threat appraisal to establish the relationship between stress response and performance in commercial airline pilots. Findings showed that in a highly stressful engine failure at take‐off simulation, pilots' performance (based on flight instructor assessment and simulator metrics) was associated with self‐report threat appraisal, where poorer performance was associated with self‐reported threat state. Similar results have been reported in studies using self‐report threat appraisal in other fields including competitive sport (Moore et al., [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref40">40</reflink>]) and medical training (Vine et al., [<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref41">55</reflink>]), which Vine et al. cite, referring to consistent evidence that, when compared with a threat state, a challenge state predicts superior performance.</p> <p>Whilst there are examples of the application of threat appraisal in academic and educational contexts, these are relatively limited, often restricted to the use of cardiovascular indices of threat appraisal, and with inconsistent or mixed findings. Seery et al. ([<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref42">48</reflink>]), for instance, reported a significant association between cardiovascular markers that differentiate challenge and threat states and academic performance in undergraduate students, where relative challenge state predicted better end of term self‐reported GPA. Smith et al. ([<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref43">49</reflink>]) on the other hand, also using only cardiovascular indices of challenge‐threat, failed to find a significant association between threat appraisal and academic performance using various measures of performance, including verbal and non‐verbal presentation skills and averaged annual module scores. Malkoc et al. ([<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref44">35</reflink>]) offer one recent example where self‐report threat appraisal measures were employed. Using two adapted four‐item self‐report scales as separate measures of challenge and threat, Malkoc et al. reported an indirect relationship between threat appraisal and academic performance in Austrian university students during the COVID‐19 pandemic, where a threat state was positively related to unpleasant emotions, which in turn were directly negatively related to exam performance. Though focussing on fear appeals in high school maths exam performance, Putwain and colleagues have used self‐report methods of threat appraisal, including visual analogue scales (Symes & Putwain, [<reflink idref="bib51" id="ref45">51</reflink>]) and items from the revised Teachers Use of Fear Appeals Questionnaire (Putwain et al., [<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref46">44</reflink>]; Putwain & Symes, [<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref47">43</reflink>]) to explore challenge and threat states. Their findings demonstrated the mediating role of threat appraisal in determining students' response to fear appeals, with increased engagement and performance related to challenge, and less engagement and lower achievement related to threat (Putwain et al., [<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref48">45</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref49">41</reflink>]). Although somewhat limited relative to the established non‐cognitive factors already discussed, the examples cited offer evidence of the potential utility of threat appraisal in educational contexts, where as Tomaka et al. ([<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref50">53</reflink>], p. 258) note, 'two simple cognitive judgements' regarding situational demands and personal resources to cope with those demands have been shown to predict subsequent behaviour and performance.</p> <p>The prevalence of motivated performance situations in education and learning contexts has been noted (Blascovich, [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref51">5</reflink>]). However, much of the work investigating threat appraisal, both in education and in other fields, involves participants completing well‐defined tasks in a pre‐specified and limited timeframes temporally close to when threat appraisal measures are taken, where the individual is active—rather than passive—in that there is the capacity to actively engage and perform in the task, such as an arithmetic test used by Tomaka et al. ([<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref52">53</reflink>]). Though valid, these tasks may not confer the same level of authenticity in a higher education context as the task of completing a degree programme. Though less well‐defined and following a more protracted trajectory than tasks traditionally featured in threat appraisal studies, completing an academic degree remains—it is argued—an active task that satisfies the core characteristics of a motivated goal‐relevant performance situation described by Blascovich ([<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref53">5</reflink>]). That is, undertaking a degree is potentially stressful in nature, involves engagement in a task that is personally goal‐relevant for the student, and requires instrumental (cognitive, affective, behavioural) actions evaluated by the student and others against standards. Meeting these standards is necessary for the student to continue and attain the self‐relevant goal of successfully completing their degree, with the potential, it is suggested, for such top‐down goal‐directed attentional control to be compromised by threat states in a similar way to that suggested by Vine et al. ([<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref54">55</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref55">56</reflink>]) in the case of performance in other tasks. Referring to attention control theory (Eysenck et al., [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref56">20</reflink>]), Vine et al. ([<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref57">55</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref58">56</reflink>]) argue that attentional control may underlie some of the processes by which threat appraisal influences task performance. That is, threat states induce anxiety, disrupting the balance in attentional control so that ineffective bottom‐up stimulus‐driven attentional control is dominant over more effective goal‐directed top‐down attentional control. Though not stated explicitly by Vine et al. ([<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref59">55</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref60">56</reflink>]), the implication is that the balance in attentional control is maintained when a challenge state prevails.</p> <hd id="AN0191428611-5">Present study</hd> <p>Despite its potential, threat appraisal, particularly using self‐report measures, has been the subject of only limited investigation in applied higher educational contexts. Self‐report threat appraisal therefore forms the primary focus for the present study, which seeks to investigate factors explaining student achievement and success and how these factors can inform interventions aimed at improving retention, attainment, and academic progression.</p> <p>As a recent development, examples of self‐report threat appraisal measures reported in the literature are limited. Malkoc et al. ([<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref61">35</reflink>]) and Feldhammer‐Kahr et al. ([<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref62">21</reflink>]) each developed or adapted multi‐item scales measuring challenge and threat appraisals based on Drach‐Zahavy and Erez's ([<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref63">16</reflink>]) longer 12‐item challenge‐threat scale comprising separate primary and secondary threat challenge appraisals. Usually demonstrating good reliability, both scales use multiple items to reflect the same fundamental principles of cognitive appraisal theory and primary demand and secondary resource appraisals captured in the two‐item cognitive appraisal ratio developed by Tomaka et al. ([<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref64">53</reflink>]). Importantly however, using only single items to assess each of the demand and resource components of threat appraisal affords the cognitive appraisal ratio the arguable advantage, in the context of the present study at least, of greater utility in educational practice. As Vine et al. ([<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref65">56</reflink>]) suggests, it is an example of valid and 'expedient self‐report measures that can be easily collected in applied environments' (p. 474). It has also been shown to align closely with, and be predictive of, cardiovascular indices of threat appraisal, where patterns of cardiac output and peripheral resistance differentiate distinct challenge and threat states (Moore et al., [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref66">40</reflink>]; Vine et al., [<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref67">55</reflink>]).</p> <p>Adapting the two‐item self‐report threat appraisal measure used by Vine et al. ([<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref68">56</reflink>]), comprising items from Tomaka et al.'s ([<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref69">53</reflink>]) cognitive appraisal ratio for use in an educational context (i.e., the Academic Threat Appraisal Ratio Scale, ATARS), the present study has two aims. First, with inconsistent and mixed findings in threat appraisal studies in educational contexts that rely on cardiovascular indices of threat appraisal, the study explores self‐report threat appraisal, reported to predict future performance (Vine et al., [<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref70">56</reflink>]), as a potentially scalable approach in a higher education to identify students at risk of dropping out through poor attainment and failure to progress. Findings have the potential to inform practice around supporting students and the design and implementation of interventions mitigating non‐continuation, improving attainment and retention. In line with findings from previous threat appraisal studies, significant differences in student attainment and academic progression according to self‐report primary and secondary appraisals of demands and resources involved in successfully completing their degree are anticipated, where a challenge state is associated with higher GPA and increased likelihood of academic progression to their second year at first attempt. Second, with limited extant research focusing on antecedents of threat appraisal in educational contexts (Smith et al., [<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref71">49</reflink>]), the study also aims to gain insight into the association between self‐report academic threat appraisal and relevant non‐cognitive factors and skills. Expanding our understanding in this way could lead to the development of educational practice that helps foster challenge, over threat, states. Examples of studies offeing evidence regarding antecedents of threat appraisal include Zandara et al. ([<reflink idref="bib59" id="ref72">59</reflink>]) who report a negative association between dispositional optimism and threat state in a sample of university students, and Moore et al. ([<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref73">39</reflink>]) who found that pre‐test manipulation of perceived required effort to complete a task significantly affected self‐report challenge‐threat states in a sample undergraduate students. Evidence of the association between threat appraisal and academic self‐efficacy (Putwain et al., [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref74">42</reflink>]) and academic buoyancy—a construct similar to academic resilience—(Symes et al., [<reflink idref="bib52" id="ref75">52</reflink>]) has been reported in high school students. Given the emphasis on personal resources during secondary appraisal, significant positive associations between a challenge state and academic self‐efficacy, academic resilience, grit, and growth mindset are anticipated in the present study. Figure 1 represents the hypothesized associations explored in the study, where academic self‐efficacy, academic resilience, grit, and mindset serve as antecedents of threat appraisal, which in turn is associated with GPA and academic progression.</p> <p> <img src="https://imageserver.ebscohost.com/img/embimages/rdk/6KX/01mar26/bjep12780-fig-0001.jpg?ephost1=dGJyMNXb4kSepq84yOvqOLCmsE6epq5Srqa4SK6WxWXS" alt="bjep12780-fig-0001.jpg" title="1 Hypothesized associations between antecedent factors (academic self‐efficacy, academic resilience, grit, mindset), academic threat appraisal, and outcome variables (academic progression and GPA)." /> </p> <p></p> <hd id="AN0191428611-7">METHOD</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0191428611-8">Design</hd> <p>The study adopted a psychometric questionnaire‐based survey design employing self‐report measures of academic threat appraisal, academic self‐efficacy, academic resilience, grit, and mindset, together with student attainment and academic progression data. Correlational analysis was used to explore associations between self‐report academic threat appraisal and end of first year GPA (0%–100%), academic progression (pass/fail to progress to second year at first attempt), academic self‐efficacy, academic resilience, grit, and mindset, whilst a between‐subject approach was employed to examine differences in academic progression between student groups (i.e., challenge state vs. threat state). The potential of self‐report academic threat appraisal to predict GPA and academic progression was also examined as well as the potential of academic self‐efficacy, academic resilience, grit, and mindset to predict self‐report academic threat appraisal.</p> <hd id="AN0191428611-9">Participants</hd> <p>Participants included 186 first‐year undergraduate students recruited from a university in the United Kingdom (<emph>M</emph><subs>age</subs> = 19.82, SD 3.65, non‐disclosed 5.9%; identifying as cisgender women 82.3%, identifying as cisgender men 16.7%, non‐disclosed 1%; White 68.3%, Asian or Asian British 16.7% [Indian 2.7%, Pakistani 8.6%, Bangladeshi 2.7%, Chinese 1.6%, any other Asian background 1%], Black or Black British 8% [Caribbean 1.6%, African 5.9%, any other Black background 0.5%], mixed‐race 3.2%, other ethnic group 1.6%, non‐disclosed 2.2%. All students were studying psychology single or joint with counselling or criminology honours degrees courses with comparable entry requirements (single honours 70.4%, joint honours 28.5%, not specified 1.1%). Participants had the option of not responding to any of the demographic questions. All non‐responses are reported as 'non‐disclosed' or 'not specified' and excluded as missing values from demographic data analysis. Similarly, if participants did not complete a construct measure, or progression or GPA data were not available, these were treated as missing values and excluded from that part of the analysis using the 'exclude cases pairwise' missing data function in SPSS. Missing data included academic threat appraisal 2.2%; academic resilience 1.6%; academic self‐efficacy 1.1%; grit 1.1%; mindset 1.1%; GPA 6.1%; and academic progression 9.6%. Power analysis performed to estimate sample size for a regression models with one and four predictors indicated a minimum sample of 81 and 125 respectively to achieve power of.8 with alpha of.05 and effect <emph>f</emph><sups>2</sups> = 0.1 as per (Behnke & Kaczmarek, [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref76">3</reflink>]) who report smaller effect sizes as typical in challenge threat index and performance studies.</p> <hd id="AN0191428611-10">Study measures</hd> <p>As in other areas of psychological investigation (e.g., pain management, Campbell et al., [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref77">7</reflink>]), studies of non‐cognitive factors and skills in education carry some risk of conceptual overlap. For instance, academic resilience, academic self‐efficacy, and grit all share perseverance as a common element in their conceptual understanding, whilst self‐efficacy has been described as a component in conceptualizations of resilience (Baluszek et al., [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref78">2</reflink>]). The present study, it is argued, mitigates the risk of conceptual overlap by selecting constructs and associated construct measures that can be considered sufficiently distinct and are represented as such by the selected measures. Academic resilience, for example, includes reflection and emotional response components, whilst grit includes passion and goals in addition to perseverance.</p> <hd id="AN0191428611-11">The Academic Threat Appraisal Ratio Scale (ATARS)</hd> <p>Developed for the purposes of the present study, the ATARS (Appendix A) comprises two items adapted from the cognitive appraisal ratio (Tomaka et al., [<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref79">53</reflink>]) and the work of Vine et al. ([<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref80">56</reflink>]): Item A (<emph>Demands</emph>), 'On a scale of 1 to 6, how demanding do you think your degree course will be?' (1 'Not at all' to 6 'Extremely' demanding); Item B (<emph>Resources</emph>), 'On a scale of 1 to 6, how able are you to cope with the demands of your degree course?' (1 'Not at all able' to 6 'Extremely able'). Subtracting the score for Item A from the score for Item B produces a Demand Resource Evaluation Score (DRES), (Item<subs>B</subs> – Item<subs>A</subs> = DRES). The DRES represents academic threat appraisal on a scale −5 to 5. Positive scores, where perceived resources equal or outweigh perceived demands, is interpreted as a <emph>challenge</emph> state, and negative scores, where perceived demands outweigh perceived resources is interpreted as a <emph>threat</emph> state. Both DRES and academic challenge‐threat dichotomy (i.e., positive DRES = challenge state; negative DRES = threat state) were used as measures of academic threat appraisal in separate analyses conducted as part of the study.</p> <hd id="AN0191428611-12">The General Academic Self‐Efficacy (GASE) scale (Cassidy & Eachus, 2002)</hd> <p>The GASE scale is a 23‐item unidimensional context‐specific self‐report measure of academic self‐efficacy developed specifically for use in academic contexts with students. The measure includes negatively and positively worded items rated on a 9‐point scale from 1 'completely in disagreement' to 9 'very much in agreement'. Example items include, 'I know I have the ability to complete this course successfully'. Negatively worded items (e.g., 'I have some doubts about my ability to grasp some of the topics taught on this course') are reverse scored so higher total scores represent higher academic self‐efficacy. The GASE scale has a theoretical range of 23–207 with the original authors reporting good internal and external reliability (<emph>α</emph> = .86, <emph>r</emph> = .71) and construct validity for the scale (Cassidy & Eachus, [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref81">10</reflink>]). Consistent with previous evidence, the present study reported high internal reliability for the GASE (<emph>α</emph> = .89).</p> <hd id="AN0191428611-13">The Academic Resilience Scale (ARS‐30) (Cassidy, 2016)</hd> <p>Using vignette methodology, the ARS‐30 is a 30‐item multidimensional context‐specific self‐report measure of academic resilience developed specifically for use in academic contexts with students. After considering a vignette depicting academic‐related adversity, items are rated on a 5‐point Likert scale from strongly agree to strongly disagree. Example items include, 'I would see the situation as a challenge'. Scores are produced for total academic resilience (theoretical range 30–150) and for the three subscale dimensions of perseverance, reflecting and adaptive help‐seeking, and negative affect and emotional response. Negatively worded items (e.g., 'I would just give up') are reverse scored so higher scores represent greater academic resilience. The ARS‐30 has emerged in the recent literature as one of the most commonly used measures of academic resilience (Cui et al., [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref82">13</reflink>]), with the original authors citing evidence supporting its reliability (total score <emph>α</emph> = .90, perseverance <emph>α</emph> = .83, reflecting and adaptive help‐seeking <emph>α</emph> = .78, and negative affect and emotional response <emph>α</emph> = .80) and construct validity (<emph>r</emph> = .49) (Cassidy, [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref83">9</reflink>]). Consistent with previous evidence, the present study reported high internal reliability for the ARS‐30 (total score <emph>α</emph> = .90, perseverance <emph>α</emph> = .82, reflecting and adaptive help‐seeking <emph>α</emph> = .82, and negative affect and emotional response <emph>α</emph> = .80).</p> <hd id="AN0191428611-14">The 12‐Item Grit Scale (Duckworth et al., 2007)</hd> <p>The scale is a self‐report measure of grit comprising 12 items rated on a 5‐point scale from 1 'not at all like me', to 5 'very much like me'. Example items include, 'I have achieved a goal that took years of work'. Negative items (e.g., 'I often set a goal but later choose to pursue a different one') are reverse scored to higher scores represent more grit. Summing all items and dividing by 12 gives a total grit score, where 5 represents 'extremely gritty' and 1 represents 'not at all gritty'. In a series of studies involving success outcomes (e.g., educational attainment, retention, and GPA) in samples including undergraduate students, the original authors cite convincing evidence for the reliability (<emph>α</emph> = .77 to.83) and validity (<emph>r</emph> = .14 to.68) of the Grit scale. Whilst the original authors identified two factors, consistency of interest and perseverance of efforts, they recommend using the total score, derived from the 12 items, based on its superior predictive validity. Consistent with previous evidence, the present study reported acceptable internal consistency reliability for the 12‐Item Grit scale (<emph>α</emph> = .79).</p> <hd id="AN0191428611-15">The Implicit Theories of Intelligence Scale (ITIS) (Dweck, 1999, 2006)</hd> <p>The ITIS is an 8‐item self‐report measure of fixed vs. growth mindsets reflecting an individual's implicit theory of intelligence as fixed or malleable/changeable. The measure includes four entity items (e.g., 'You have a certain amount of intelligence, and you really can't do much to change it') and four incremental items (e.g., 'You can change even your basic intelligence level considerably') focusing on intelligence. Items are rated on a 6‐point scale from 1'strongly agree' to 6 'strongly disagree', with Incremental items are reverse scored so that higher scores are indicative of a growth mindset. The ITIS yields good reliability (<emph>α</emph> = .82 to.97) and construct validity (Costa & Faria, [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref84">12</reflink>]). Consistent with previous evidence, the present study reported high internal reliability for the ITIS (<emph>α</emph> = .92).</p> <hd id="AN0191428611-16">Attainment and academic progression</hd> <p>End of first‐year GPA (i.e., averaged mean mark across modules; range 0%–100%) provided the measure of student attainment, whilst academic progression at first attempt was measured according to whether students achieved a GPA of 40% or above after completing 120 course credits and therefore passed their first year and progressed to their second year without re‐assessment. Not progressing included students who had failed to achieve a GPA of 40% as a result of failing assessments or failing to submit work for assessment, or who had withdrawn from the course or interrupted their studies. Whilst previous studies have used self‐report GPA, some authors report concerns regarding the reliability of self‐reported GPA (Kuncel et al., [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref85">31</reflink>]), prompting the use of <emph>actual</emph> GPA, retrieved from student data, in the present study to ensure greater reliability.</p> <hd id="AN0191428611-17">Procedure</hd> <p>Following approval from the University of Salford Research, Innovation and Academic Engagement Ethics Approval Panel (application approval number HSCR15‐101), all participants received a participant information sheet and provided written informed consent before being invited to complete the battery of psychometric measures (paper‐and‐pencil method) during scheduled lectures and seminars. This included assurances regarding confidentiality of responses and the use of participants codes to anonymize data to help mitigate social desirability effects. All measures were completed in a single session, with an estimated time to complete of 15 min. Environmental conditions were consistent in that all participants completed the measures in the presence of other students and a tutor in similar teaching spaces and during normal teaching hours of 9 AM and 5 PM. The order in which measures were presented in the battery, and in theory completed by participants, was alternated across measures as a method of partial counterbalancing to help mitigate order effects. Whilst participants were not rewarded or compensated, measures were completed in allotted time during scheduled teaching sessions and participation in psychological research was relevant and of value to their studies. After completing the measures, participants received a debrief sheet including a reminder of the purpose of the study, details of data management, and contact details for academic support services and the principal investigator.</p> <hd id="AN0191428611-18">RESULTS</hd> <p>Table 1 shows that more students (58.2%) reported a threat state than reported a challenge state (41.8%). Chi‐square and independent samples <emph>t</emph>‐tests confirmed a significant difference between the observed and expected proportions of students reporting challenge and threat states (<emph>χ</emph><sups>2</sups> (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref86">1</reflink>) = 4.945, <emph>p</emph> = .026) and that, as would be expected, students reporting a challenge state had significantly higher DRES than students reporting a threat state, with a large effect size (<emph>t</emph>(<reflink idref="bib180" id="ref87">180</reflink>) = 17.36, <emph>p</emph> < .001; <emph>d</emph> = 2.63).</p> <p>1 TABLE Academic threat appraisal summary statistics.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><th align="left" /><th align="left"><italic>N</italic></th><th align="left">%</th><th align="left">Mean DRES (SD)</th><th align="left">Min/max</th><th align="left">Theoretical range</th></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td align="left">Challenge</td><td align="char" char=".">76</td><td align="char" char=".">41.8</td><td align="char" char="(">0.37 (0.69)</td><td align="left">0 to 4</td><td align="left">0 to 5</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Threat</td><td align="char" char=".">106</td><td align="char" char=".">58.2</td><td align="char" char="(">−1.52 (0.75)</td><td align="left">−4 to −1</td><td align="left">−5 to −1</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Total sample</td><td align="char" char=".">182</td><td align="char" char=".">100</td><td align="char" char="(">−0.73 (1.18)</td><td align="left">−4 to 4</td><td align="left">−5 to 5</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>Tables 2 and 3 (and Figures A1 and A2, Appendix B) illustrate a significant association between self‐reported academic threat appraisal and academic progression at first attempt. A challenge state was associated with a greater likelihood of students progressing at first attempt (76.5%), whilst a threat state was associated with a greater likelihood of students failing to progress at first attempt (70.4%) (<emph>χ</emph><sups>2</sups> (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref88">1</reflink>) = 4.445, <emph>p</emph> = .035).</p> <p>2 TABLE Academic progression at first attempt by academic challenge–threat dichotomy.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><th align="left" /><th align="left">Challenge</th><th align="left">Threat</th></tr><tr><th align="left"><italic>N</italic></th><th align="left">%</th><th align="left"><italic>N</italic></th><th align="left">%</th></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td align="left">Progress</td><td align="char" char=".">52</td><td align="char" char=".">76.5</td><td align="char" char=".">59</td><td align="char" char=".">60.8</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Non‐progression</td><td align="char" char=".">16</td><td align="char" char=".">23.5</td><td align="char" char=".">38</td><td align="char" char=".">39.2</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Total</td><td align="char" char=".">68</td><td align="char" char=".">100</td><td align="char" char=".">97</td><td align="char" char=".">100</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>3 TABLE Academic challenge‐threat dichotomy by progression at first attempt.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><th align="left" /><th align="left">Academic progression</th><th align="left">Non‐progression</th></tr><tr><th align="left"><italic>N</italic></th><th align="left">%</th><th align="left"><italic>N</italic></th><th align="left">%</th></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td align="left">Challenge</td><td align="char" char=".">52</td><td align="char" char=".">46.8</td><td align="char" char=".">16</td><td align="char" char=".">29.6</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Threat</td><td align="char" char=".">59</td><td align="char" char=".">53.2</td><td align="char" char=".">38</td><td align="char" char=".">70.4</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Total</td><td align="char" char=".">111</td><td align="char" char=".">100</td><td align="char" char=".">54</td><td align="char" char=".">100</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>Correlation coefficients presented in Table 4 show small (Cohen, [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref89">11</reflink>]) significant positive correlations between academic progression at first attempt and both DRES (<emph>r</emph><subs>pb</subs> = .18) and academic challenge–threat dichotomy (<emph>r</emph><subs>pb</subs> = .16). No significant correlations between academic threat appraisal indexes and GPA were found (<emph>p</emph> > .05).</p> <p>4 TABLE Correlation coefficients [95% CI] for academic threat appraisal with GPA and academic progression.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><th align="left" /><th align="left">GPA</th><th align="left">Progress 1st attempt</th></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td align="left">1. DRES</td><td align="char" char="[">.13 [−.03,.28]</td><td align="char" char="[">.18** [.03,.33]</td></tr><tr><td align="left">2. Challenge‐Threat Dichotomy</td><td align="char" char="[">.06 [−.10,.22]</td><td align="char" char="[">.16* [.01,.31]</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>1 *<emph>p</emph> < .05, **<emph>p</emph> < .01.</p> <p>Correlation coefficients presented in Table 5 show significant small to medium (Cohen, [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref90">11</reflink>]) positive correlations between DRES and academic self‐efficacy (<emph>r</emph> = .41), academic resilience (<emph>r</emph> = .29), grit (<emph>r</emph> = .16), and mindset (<emph>r</emph> = .16), and between academic challenge‐threat dichotomy and academic self‐efficacy (<emph>r</emph><subs>pb</subs> = .29), academic resilience (<emph>r</emph><subs>pb</subs> = .18), and mindset (<emph>r</emph><subs>pb</subs> = .16).</p> <p>5 TABLE Correlation coefficients [95% CI] for academic threat appraisal with non‐cognitive factors.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><th align="left" /><th align="left">Academic self‐efficacy</th><th align="left">Academic resilience</th><th align="left">Grit</th><th align="left">Mindset</th></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td align="left">1. DRES</td><td align="char" char="[">.41** [.28,.53]</td><td align="char" char="[">.29** [.15,.42]</td><td align="char" char="[">.16* [.01,.30]</td><td align="char" char="[">.16* [.01,.29]</td></tr><tr><td align="left">2. Challenge‐threat dichotomy</td><td align="char" char="[">.29** [.15,.42]</td><td align="char" char="[">.18** [.04,.32]</td><td align="char" char="[">.12 [−.03,.26]</td><td align="char" char="[">.16* [.02,.30]</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>2 *<emph>p</emph> < .05, **<emph>p</emph> < .01.</p> <hd id="AN0191428611-19">Regression analysis</hd> <p>Based on the outcome of the correlational analysis (Tables 4 and 5) and the study's primary focus on academic threat appraisal, simple and multiple linear regression and non‐linear binary logistic regression analyses were conducted to determine (i) whether academic threat appraisal as a continuous DRES and as a dichotomous challenge‐threat categorical variable predicted student academic progression at first attempt, and (ii) whether academic self‐efficacy, academic resilience, grit, and mindset predicted academic threat appraisal measured as a continuous DRES and as a challenge‐threat dichotomy. Collinearity tests indicated that multicollinearity was not a concern, with all independent variables falling below even the most conservative VIF threshold of 3 and exceeding tolerance of 0.1 (academic self‐efficacy VIF = 2.42, Tolerance = .414; academic resilience VIF = 1.90, Tolerance = .527; grit VIF = 1.67, Tolerance = .60; mindset VIF = 1.21, Tolerance = .826).</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> Results of the binary logistic regression were significant, indicating that academic threat appraisal as both a continuous DRES and as a challenge‐threat dichotomy were significant predictors of academic progression at first attempt. With DRES as the predictor, the model was statistically significant (<emph>χ</emph><sups>2</sups> (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref91">1</reflink>) = 5.637, <emph>p</emph>  = .018), explaining 4.7% (Nagelkerke <emph>R</emph><sups>2</sups>  = .047, effect size = small, Cohen, [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref92">11</reflink>]) of variance in academic progression at first attempt (<emph>B</emph>  = .351, Wald = 5.305, <emph>p</emph>  = .021, Exp(<emph>B</emph>) 1.421). With academic challenge‐threat dichotomy as the predictor, the model was also statistically significant (<emph>χ</emph><sups>2</sups> (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref93">1</reflink>) = 4.547, <emph>p</emph>  = .033), explaining 3.8% (Nagelkerke <emph>R</emph><sups>2</sups>  = .038, effect size = small, Cohen, [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref94">11</reflink>]) of variance in academic progression at first attempt (<emph>B</emph>  = −.739, Wald = 4.366, <emph>p</emph>  = .037, Exp(<emph>B</emph>) 2.093). Percentage classification accuracy predicting student academic progression at first attempt was 69.1% and 67.3% for DRES and academic challenge‐threat models respectively. Odds ratios for both models (DRES Exp(<emph>B</emph>) = 1.421 95% CI [1.054, 1.915]; academic challenge‐threat dichotomy Exp(<emph>B</emph>) = 2.093, 95% CI [1.047, 4.186]) indicated that the odds of students progressing at first attempt increased with increased challenge (over threat), such that higher DRES, reflecting a challenge state, was associated with increased likelihood of students progressing at first attempt, and students who reported a challenge [vs. threat] state were 2.093 times as likely to progress at first attempt.</item> <p></p> <item> Multiple linear regression analysis used to predict DRES from academic self‐efficacy, academic resilience, grit, and mindset resulted in a significant model, explaining 18.8% of variance in DRES (<emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref95">4</reflink>, 175) = 10.15, <emph>R</emph><sups>2</sups> = .188, <emph>p</emph> < .001, effect size = medium, Cohen, [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref96">11</reflink>]). However, only academic self‐efficacy was identified as a significant predictor of academic threat appraisal DRES (<emph>B</emph> = −.03, <emph>t</emph>(<reflink idref="bib175" id="ref97">175</reflink>) = 4.69, <emph>p</emph> < .001). Multiple binary logistic regre0ssion analysis predicting academic challenge‐threat dichotomy from academic self‐efficacy, academic resilience, grit, and mindset also resulted in a statistically significant model (<emph>χ</emph><sups>2</sups> (<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref98">4</reflink>) = 18.578, <emph>p</emph> < .001), explaining 13.2% (Nagelkerke <emph>R</emph><sups>2</sups> = .132, effect size = medium, Cohen, [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref99">11</reflink>]) of variance in academic challenge‐threat dichotomy. Again, only academic self‐efficacy was identified as a significant predictor of academic challenge‐threat dichotomy (<emph>B</emph> = .036, Wald = 9.23, <emph>p</emph> = .002, Exp(B) 1.037). Percentage classification accuracy predicting academic challenge‐threat dichotomy was 65%. Odds ratio for the model (Exp(<emph>B</emph>) = 1.037, 95% CI [1.013, 1.061] indicated that the odds of students reporting a challenge state increased with increased academic self‐efficacy.</item> </ulist> <hd id="AN0191428611-20">DISCUSSION</hd> <p>The study was prompted by a need for practical and scalable approaches addressing issues relevant to improving student retention in higher education and the potential—with only relatively limited extant evidence in educational contexts (Smith et al., [<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref100">49</reflink>])—of self‐report threat appraisal to offer unique insight into student attainment and academic progression. The two principal aims of the study were to first establish whether self‐report academic threat appraisal was associated with, and a predictor of, student attainment and academic progression, and second, given the relative paucity of research examining antecedents of threat appraisal (Moore et al., [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref101">39</reflink>]) and specifically in higher education, to investigate the relationship between self‐report academic threat appraisal and non‐cognitive factors commonly explored in the context of student performance.</p> <p>With regards to the first aim, findings revealed a significant association between self‐report academic threat appraisal and student attainment and academic progression. A significantly greater proportion of students eliciting a challenge state at the start of their degree course progressed to their second year at first attempt compared with students who had elicited a threat state. Furthermore, of those students who failed to progress to their second year at first attempt, a significantly greater proportion had elicited a threat state at the start of their degree. In addition, academic threat appraisal, measured as both a DRES and as a challenge‐threat dichotomy, was identified as a significant predictor of academic progression at first attempt, where a challenge state predicted a greater likelihood of academic progression to the second year at first attempt. The variance in academic progression accounted for by self‐report threat appraisal (3.8% and 4.7%) was comparable to the level of explained variance in academic performance (3.9%) using physiological measures of threat appraisal reported by Seery et al. ([<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref102">48</reflink>]). Percentage accuracy classification models for both DRES and academic challenge‐threat dichotomy exceeded the suggested minimum benchmark of 67% reported in other fields of psychology to be 'clinically useful' predictive accuracy (Forsell et al., [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref103">22</reflink>]). Whilst not definitive, this benchmark suggests that findings reported here may have practical significance in informing decisions in educational practice. The association between a challenge state and improved performance in a motivated performance situation is relatively well evidenced in other fields and contexts (e.g., Moore et al., [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref104">40</reflink>]; Vine et al., [<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref105">55</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref106">56</reflink>]), and to some extent in education (e.g., Malkoc et al., [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref107">35</reflink>]; Putwain et al., [<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref108">45</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref109">41</reflink>]; Seery et al., [<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref110">48</reflink>]). This association has not however, to the author's knowledge, previously been demonstrated in a similar higher education context using the two‐item cognitive appraisal ratio (Tomaka et al., [<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref111">53</reflink>]) adapted to garner self‐report academic threat appraisal in university students, and utilizing objectively recorded GPA rather than self‐report GPA (shown previously to be unreliable, Kuncel et al., [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref112">31</reflink>]). Whilst no significant association between DRES or academic challenge‐threat dichotomy and end of first‐year GPA was found, a similar lack of association has been reported elsewhere using cardiovascular indices of threat appraisal and measures of academic performance (e.g., Smith et al., [<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref113">49</reflink>]). Smith et al. ([<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref114">49</reflink>]) suggests a number of factors that might explain such 'indifferent findings' or the lack of association, including the variety of tasks used in studies, students' relative interest in the task, delay between threat appraisal evaluation and performance task, sensitivity of measures, and the potential that threat appraisal itself facilitates performance through compensatory strategies and increased effort. It is possible that one or more of these factors contributed in part to the lack of association reported in the present study, but it is also suggested that GPA alone fails to capture fully all aspects involved in determining student academic progression. On this point, Smith et al. ([<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref115">49</reflink>]) consider the possible inadequacy of performance as the singular predicted outcome, highlighting the potential value of exploring other relevant outcome factors that might reveal important interactions with threat appraisal and performance. Malkoc et al. ([<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref116">35</reflink>]) have previously reported an indirect effect of self‐report threat appraisal on performance, with unpleasant emotions as the mediating factor. Motivation, underpinned by expectancy value theory which posits that increased motivation is a function of both valuing the task and an expectation of successful completion of the task (Wigfield & Eccles, [<reflink idref="bib58" id="ref117">58</reflink>]), is another plausible candidate for a mediating factor in the relationship between threat appraisal and academic performance.</p> <p>With regards to the study's second principal aim of exploring non‐cognitive antecedents of self‐report academic threat appraisal, significant positive correlations were reported between a challenge state and academic self‐efficacy, academic resilience, grit, and mindset. However, only academic self‐efficacy was identified as a significant predictor of academic threat appraisal, where greater academic self‐efficacy predicted a challenge state. Despite Smith et al. ([<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref118">49</reflink>]) previously reporting a lack of significant association between cardiovascular indices of threat appraisal and academic self‐efficacy, a significant association has been reported in other studies using self‐report methods (Putwain et al., [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref119">42</reflink>]), so was anticipated. The relationship can, it is suggested, be explained in terms of the reliance of demand resource evaluations (i.e., threat appraisal) on secondary appraisals of perceived personal resources, which would certainly include evaluations of personal capabilities and competence—defined within the self‐efficacy construct in particular (Gallagher, [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref120">24</reflink>])—as key determinants of successful outcomes. Furthermore, in existing evidence demonstrating the relevance of non‐cognitive factors to student performance (Frantz et al., [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref121">23</reflink>]; Khine, [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref122">29</reflink>]), self‐efficacy emerges as the strongest non‐cognitive predictor of GPA (Robbins et al., [<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref123">47</reflink>]). The lack of predictive power of academic resilience, grit, and mindset reported in the present study may therefore be explained by evidence of a dominant influence of academic self‐efficacy in the regression models and should not lead to their dismissal as relevant factors in understanding threat appraisal in students. In fact, these constructs, reflecting adaptive responses in adverse academic situations, perseverance and passion, and beliefs regarding ability as fixed or something that can be further developed, are likely to add significant insight into attempts to model academic threat appraisal, warranting further investigation. Future studies should integrate mediation and moderation approaches into their design, considering both direct and indirect effects of these non‐cognitive factors on threat appraisal, employ longitudinal designs with multiple data points capturing the temporal trajectory of academic threat appraisal, and include other pertinent student success outcome variables beyond GPA and academic progression.</p> <p>The study has some limitations worthy of highlighting and considering when both interpreting findings and planning future investigations. Students classified as not progressing at first attempt did not constitute a homogenous group. The group included students who had failed assessments, failed to submit assessments, withdrawn permanently from the course at different stages, or who had interrupted their studies. It is plausible that academic threat appraisal interacts with the reason for non‐progression where, for instance, its association with performance means that it explains student failure due to poor performance but does not explain failure to submit assessments or student withdrawal, where other factors such as intention to drop out could be more prevalent. Finally, students with missing academic progression data (9.6%) were excluded from analysis involving progression. Whilst doing so was considered justified, it is probable that these students had withdrawn from their course and could, arguably, have been included in the non‐progression group. Future studies should therefore consider a finer‐grained analysis of how academic threat appraisal relates to and interacts with the range of circumstances governing student non‐progression.</p> <p>There are two suggested avenues for future academic threat appraisal studies to focus their efforts. These involve the need for further validation of the ATARS as a measure of threat appraisal in higher education and evidence regarding optimal timing for students to complete the measure. For instance, validation studies should subject the ATARS to review by content experts (Jenn, [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref124">28</reflink>]), in this case, university students, to ensure that students understand the question items as intended, and that this understanding is consistent across students and student groups, including cultural variations. Furthermore, studies incorporating traditional physiological measures of threat appraisal and existing multi‐item self‐report threat appraisal measures, such as those developed by Malkoc et al. ([<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref125">35</reflink>]) and Feldhammer‐Kahr et al. ([<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref126">21</reflink>]), alongside the ATARS will offer further insight into the validity of the ATARS as a newly developed self‐report measure of academic threat appraisal in educational contexts. Whilst there is no question that the ATARS should be completed prospectively in anticipation of completing the degree course (i.e., the motivated performance situation), test‐retest reliability studies would help determine if there is a critical point at which students should complete the measure when, for example, there is adequate understanding of the task. Finally, previously demonstrated in other fields (Moore et al., [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref127">40</reflink>]), exploring the potential for manipulating academic threat appraisal in higher education to foster a greater propensity for challenge over threat is another valuable avenue for future studies in the area.</p> <hd id="AN0191428611-21">CONCLUSION</hd> <p>In line with studies in other fields (e.g., More et al., 2013; Vine et al., [<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref128">56</reflink>]) and in different educational contexts and levels (e.g., Putwain et al., [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref129">41</reflink>]), the present study provides evidence supporting self‐report academic threat appraisal as a significant factor in student attainment and academic progression in higher education. Findings suggest that self‐report academic threat appraisal, measured using the ATARS, may offer a relatively simple, valid, and scalable solution for early screening of students, enabling targeted student support. Thus, educators and future researchers should consider recruiting all new students to complete the ATARS, the outcome of which might then form the basis to reflection, education, intervention, support, and practice and policy revision involving both students and staff. Significant associations with academic threat appraisal suggest academic resilience, grit, mindset, and in particular academic self‐efficacy, as possible underlying mechanisms explaining the influence of threat appraisal on attainment and academic progression. For this reason, support focused on developing students' awareness, understanding, and skills in these areas, as well as direct manipulation of threat appraisal previously demonstrated by Moore et al. ([<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref130">40</reflink>]), may help foster threat appraisals more likely to lead to challenge—rather than threat— states, helping improve attainment, academic progression, and ultimately, retention in higher education. The ATARS may offer a suitable tool by which to evaluate such interventions geared towards promoting completing a degree as an achievable challenge, rather than a threat to be avoided. This could include adapting the ATARS for use with incremental tasks such as completing a dissertation, an exam, group project, or presentation. Importantly, the responsibility for embedding and engaging with a 'challenge culture' should be shared between those likely to benefit, which includes staff, students, and senior leadership as key stakeholders. Whilst not notwithstanding the value of other established non‐cognitive factors and skills, screening students using the ATARS as a measure of self‐report academic threat appraisal could prove to be a small hack with big benefits for higher education.</p> <hd id="AN0191428611-22">AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS</hd> <p> <bold>Simon Cassidy:</bold> Conceptualization; investigation; writing – original draft; methodology; writing – review and editing; formal analysis.</p> <hd id="AN0191428611-23">CONFLICT OF INTEREST STATEMENT</hd> <p>The authors declare no conflict of interest.</p> <hd id="AN0191428611-24">DATA AVAILABILITY STATEMENT</hd> <p>The data that support the findings of this study are available on request from the corresponding author. The data are not publicly available due to privacy or ethical restrictions.</p> <hd id="AN0191428611-25">A APPENDIX Academic Threat Appraisal Ratio Scale (ATARS)</hd> <p>Thinking about your degree course, answer the following two questions by placing a tick in one of the boxes from 1 ('Not at all') to 6 ('Extremely'):</p> <p></p> <p> <ephtml> <table><tbody valign="top"><tr><td align="left"><p>A. On a scale of 1 to 6, how demanding do you think your degree course will be?</p></td><td align="left"><p>Not at all demanding</p></td><td align="left"><p>1</p></td><td align="left"><p>2</p></td><td align="left"><p>3</p></td><td align="left"><p>4</p></td><td align="left"><p>5</p></td><td align="left"><p>6</p></td><td align="left"><p>Extremely demanding</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>B. On a scale of 1 to 6, how able are you to cope with the demands of your degree course?</p></td><td align="left"><p>Not at all able</p></td><td align="left"><p>1</p></td><td align="left"><p>2</p></td><td align="left"><p>3</p></td><td align="left"><p>4</p></td><td align="left"><p>5</p></td><td align="left"><p>6</p></td><td align="left"><p>Extremely able</p></td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p> <emph>Scoring</emph>: Subtracting the score for item A (demands) from the score for item B (resources) gives a demand resource evaluation score (DRES), i.e., Item<subs>B</subs> – Item<subs>A</subs> = DRES.</p> <p>A positive score (where resources equal or outweight demands) is interpreted as an academic <emph>challenge</emph> state, and a negative score (where demands outweigh resources) is interpreted as an academic <emph>threat</emph> state.</p> <p>Note: It is suggested that the ATARS can be adapted by, for instance, adding 'this year', 'this semester', etc. to the end of each question to specify a particular upcoming part of the academic course, or substituting 'degree course' for 'exam', dissertation', 'presentation', etc. to specify a particular academic task or situation.</p> <hd id="AN0191428611-26">B APPENDIX</hd> <p> <img src="https://imageserver.ebscohost.com/img/embimages/rdk/6KX/01mar26/bjep12780-fig-0002.jpg?ephost1=dGJyMNXb4kSepq84yOvqOLCmsE6epq5Srqa4SK6WxWXS" alt="bjep12780-fig-0002.jpg" title="A1 Progression at first attempt by academic challenge‐threat dichotomy." /> </p> <p></p> <p> <img src="https://imageserver.ebscohost.com/img/embimages/rdk/6KX/01mar26/bjep12780-fig-0003.jpg?ephost1=dGJyMNXb4kSepq84yOvqOLCmsE6epq5Srqa4SK6WxWXS" alt="bjep12780-fig-0003.jpg" title="A2 Academic challenge‐threat dichotomy by progression at first attempt." /> </p> <p></p> <ref id="AN0191428611-29"> <title> Footnotes </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref1" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> Academic progression is determined using UK GPA pass/fail standards (i.e., 40% and 120 credits completed).</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <ref id="AN0191428611-30"> <title> REFERENCES </title> <blist> <bibtext> Alhabadi, A., & Karpinski, A. (2020). Grit, self‐efficacy, achievement orientation goals, and academic performance in university students. Internatiomnal Journal of Adolescence and Youth, 25 (1), 519 – 535. https://doi.org/10.1080/02673843.2019.1679202</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref78" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> Baluszek, J. B., Bronnick, K. K., & Wiig, S. (2023). The relations between resilience and self‐efficacy among healthcare practitioners in context of the COVID‐19 pandemic – A rapid review. International Journal of Health Governance, 28 (2), 152 – 164. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJHG‐11‐2022‐0098</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref76" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Behnke, M., & Kaczmarek, L. D. (2018). Successful performance and cardiovascular markers of challenge and threat. International Journal of Psychophysiology, 130, 73 – 79. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpsycho.2018.04.007</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref27" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Bittmann, F. (2021). When problems just bounce back: About the relation between resilience and academic success in German tertiary education. SN Applied Sciences, 1 (2), 65. https://doi.org/10.1007/s43545‐021‐00060‐6</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref34" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Blascovich, J. (2008). Challenge and threat. In A. J. Elliot (Ed.), Handbook of approach and avoidance motivation (pp. 431 – 445). Psychology Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref8" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Borghans, L., Duckworth, A. L., Heckman, J. J., & ter Weel, B. (2008). The economics and psychology of personality traits. The Journal of Human Resources, 43 (4), 972 – 1059. https://doi.org/10.3368/jhr.43.4.972</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref77" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Campbell, P., Bishop, A., Dunn, K. M., & Main, C. J. (2013). Conceptual overlap of psychological constructs in low back pain. Pain, 154 (9), 1783 – 1791. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pain.2013.05.035</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref19" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Carlo, M., Judd, B., Chipchase, L., Blackstock, F., & Peiris, C. L. (2022). Grit, resilience, mindset, and academic success in physical therapist students: A cross‐sectional, multicenter study. Physical Therapy Rehabilitation Journal, 102 (6), 1 – 10.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref26" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Cassidy, S. (2016). The Academic Resilience Scale (ARS‐30): A new multidimensional construct measure. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 1787. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01787</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cassidy, S., & Eachus, P. (2002). In the Development of the General self‐Efficacy (GASE) Scale (Ed.), The British Psychological Society Annual Conference. The British Psychological Society.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ : Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Costa, A., & Faria, L. (2018). Implicit theories of intelligence and academic achievement: A meta‐analytic review. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, 829. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00829</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cui, T., Wang, C., & Xu, J. (2023). Validation of academic resilience scales adapted in a collective culture. Frontiers in Psychology, 14, 1114285. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1114285</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> De Castella, K., & Byrne, D. (2015). My intelligence may be more malleable than yours: The revised implicit theories of intelligence (self‐theory) scale is a better predictor of achievement, motivation, and student disengagement. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 30, 245 – 267.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Dienstbier, R. A. (1989). Arousal and physiological toughness: Implications for mental and physical health. Psychological Review, 96 (1), 84 – 100.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Drach‐Zahavy, A., & Erez, M. (2002). Challenge versus threat effects on the goal–performance relationship. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 88 (2), 667 – 682. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0749‐5978(02)00004‐3</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Duckworth, A. L., Peterson, C., Mathews, M. D., & Kelly, D. R. (2007). Grit: Perseverance and passion for long‐term goals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92 (6), 1087 – 1101.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Dweck, C. (1999). Self‐theories: Their role in motivation, personality, and development. Psychology Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Dweck, C. (2006). Mindset: The new psychology of success. Random House.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Eysenck, M. W., Derakshan, N., Santos, R., & Calvo, M. G. (2007). Anxiety and cognitive performance: Attentional control theory. Emotion, 7 (2), 336 – 353. https://doi.org/10.1037/1528‐3542.7.2.336</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Feldhammer‐Kahr, M., Tulis, M., Leen‐Thomele, E., Dreisiebner, S., Macher, D., Arendasy, M., & Paechter, M. (2021). It's a challenge, not a threat: Lecturers' satisfaction during the Covid‐19 summer semester of 2020. Psychology, Frontiers, 12, 638898. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.638898</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Forsell, E., Jernelöv, S., Blom, K., & Kaldo, V. (2022). Clinically sufficient classification accuracy and key predictors of treatment failure in a randomized controlled trial of internet‐delivered cognitive behavior therapy for insomnia. Internet Interventions, 29, 100554. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.invent.2022.100554</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Frantz, J., Cupido‐Masters, J., Mosajee, F., & Smith, M. R. (2022). Non‐cognitive support for postgraduate studies: A systematic review. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 773910. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.773910</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gallagher, M. W. (2012). Self‐efficacy. In V. S. Ramachandran (Ed.), The encyclopedia of human behavior (2nd ed., pp. 314 – 320). Academic Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hillman, N. (2024). 'Dropouts or stopouts or comebackers or potential completers?': Non‐continuation of students in the UK. Higher Education Policy Institute.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Honicke, T., Broadbent, J., & Fuller‐Tyszkiewicz, M. (2023). The self‐efficacy and academic performance reciprocal relationship: The influence of task difficulty and baseline achievement on learner trajectory. Higher Education Research and Development, 42 (8), 936 – 1953. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2023.2197194</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Jack, P. (2023). More than 40,000 students drop out of UK university courses. Times Higher Education.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Jenn, N. C. (2006). Designing a questionnaire. Malaysian Family Physician: The Official Journal of the Academy of Family Physicians of Malaysia, 1 (1), 32 – 35.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Khine, M. S. (2016). Non‐cognitive skills and factors in educational success and academic acievement. In M. S. Khine & S. Areepattamannil (Eds.), Non‐cognitive skills and factors in educational attainment (pp. 3 – 12). Sense Publishers.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Krok, D., Telka, E., Szcześniak, M., & Falewicz, A. (2023). Threat appraisal, resilience, and health behaviors in recovered COVID‐19 patients: The serial mediation of coping and meaning‐making. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 20 (4), 3649. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph20043649</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kuncel, N. R., Crede, M., & Thoma, L. L. (2005). Averages, class ranks, and test scores: A meta‐analysis and review of the literature. Review of Educational Research, 75 (1), 63 – 82.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lam, K. K., & Zhou, M. (2022). Grit and academic achievement: A comparative cross‐cultural meta‐analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 114 (1), 593 – 621.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lazarus, R., & Folkman, S. (1984). Stress, appraisal, and coping. Springer.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Magnano, P., Boerch, D., & Patrizi, P. (2020). The effect of non‐intellective competencies and academic performance on school satisfaction. Education Sciences, 10 (222), 1 – 19. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci10090222</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Malkoc, S., Macher, D., Hasenhütl, S., & Paechter, M. (2023). Good performance in difficult times? Threat and challenge as contributors to achievement emotions and academic performance during the COVID‐19 outbreak. Frontiers in Psychology, 14, 1 – 13. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1264860</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Martin, A. J. (2013). Academic buoyancy and academic resilience: Exploring 'everyday' and 'classic' resilience in the face of academic adversity. School Psychology International, 34, 488 – 500. https://doi.org/10.1177/0143034312472759</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> McIlroy, D., Poole, K., Ursavas, O. F., & Moriarty, A. (2015). Distal and proximal associates of academic performance at secondary level: A mediation model of personality and self‐efficacy. Learning and Individual Differences, 38, 1 – 9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2015.01.004</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Meng, Q., & Zang, Q. (2023). The influence of academic self‐efficacy on university students'. Sustainability, 15 (5767), 1 – 14. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15075767</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Moore, L. J., Vine, S. J., Wilson, M. R., & Freeman, P. (2014). Examining the antecedents of challenge and threat states: The influence of perceived required effort and support availability. International Journal of Psychophysiology, 93, 267 – 273. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpsycho.2014.05.009</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Moore, L. J., Wilson, M. R., Vine, S. J., Coussens, A. H., & Freeman, P. (2013). Champ or chump?: Challenge and threat states during pressurized competition. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 35, 551 – 562. https://doi.org/10.1123/jsep.35.6.551</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Putwain, D. W., Nicholson, N. J., & Kutik, G. (2023). Warning students of the consequences of examination failure: An effective strategy for promoting student engagement? Journal of Educational Psychology, 115 (1), 36 – 54. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000741</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Putwain, D. W., Remedios, R., & Symes, W. (2015). Experiencing fear appeals as a challenge or a threat influences attainment value and academic self‐efficacy. Learning and Instruction, 40, 21 – 28. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2015.07.007</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Putwain, D. W., & Symes, W. (2014). The perceived value of maths and academic self‐efficacy in the appraisal of fear appeals used prior to a high‐stakes test as threatening or challenging. Social Psycholology of Education, 17, 229 – 248. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11218‐014‐9249‐7</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Putwain, D. W., Symes, W., & McCaldin, T. (2019). Teacher use of loss‐focused, utility value messages, prior to high‐stakes examinations, and their appraisal by students. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 37 (2), 169 – 180. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734282917724905</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Putwain, D. W., Symes, W., & Wilkinson, H. M. (2017). Fear appeals, engagement, and examination performance: The role of challenge and threat appraisals. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 87, 16 – 31. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjep.12132</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Reynolds, K., Bazemore, C., Hanebuth, C., Hendren, S., & Horn, M. (2021). The relationship of non‐cognitive factors to academic and clinical performance in graduate rehabilitation science students in the United States: A systematic review. Journal of Educational Evaluation for Health Professions, 18 (31), 1 – 10. https://doi.org/10.3352/jeehp.2021.18.31</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Robbins, S. B., Lauver, K., Davis, D., Langley, R., & Carlstrom, A. (2004). Do psychosocial and study skill factors predict college outcomes? A meta‐analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 13 (2), 261 – 288. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033‐2909.130.2.261</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Seery, M. D., Weisbuch, M., Heteny, M. A., Hetenyi, M. A., & Blascovich, J. (2010). Cardiovascular measures independently predict performance in a university course. Psychophysiology, 47, 537 – 539. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469‐8986.2009.00945.x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Smith, M., Runswick, R. O., Jweiss, M., & Birch, P. (2022). Examining the theory of challenge and threat states in athletes: Do predictions extend to academic performance? Educational Psychology, 42 (9), 1127 – 1144. https://doi.org/10.1080/01443410.2022.2069229</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sommerfeld, A. (2011). Recasting Non‐Cognitive Factors in College Readiness as What They Truly Are: Non‐Academic Factors. Journal of College Admission, 213, 18 – 22.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Symes, W., & Putwain, D. W. (2016). The role of attainment value, academic self‐efficacy, and message frame in the appraisal of value‐promoting messages. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 86, 446 – 460. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjep.12117</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Symes, W., Putwain, D. W., & Remedios, R. (2015). The enabling and protective role in the appraisal of fear appeals used prior to high stakes examinations. School Psychology International, 36 (6), 605 – 619. https://doi.org/10.1177/0143034315610622</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tomaka, J., Blascovich, J., Kelsey, R. M., & Leitten, C. L. (1993). Subjective, physiological, and behavioral effects of threat and challenge appraisal. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65 (2), 248 – 260. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022‐3514.65.2.248</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> van Rooij, E., Jansen, E., & van de Grift, W. (2017). First‐year university students' academic success: The importance of academic adjustment. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 33, 749 – 767. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10212‐017‐0347‐8</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Vine, S. J., Freeman, P., Moore, L. J., Chandra‐Ramanan, R., & Wilson, M. R. (2013). Evaluating stress as a challenge is associated with superior attentional control and motor skill performance: Testing the predictions of the biopsychosocial model of challenge and threat. Ournal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 19 (3), 185 – 194. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0034106</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Vine, S. J., Uiga, L., Lavric, A., Moore, L. J., Tsaneva‐Atanasova, K., & Wilson, M. R. (2015). Individual reactions to stress predict performance during a critical aviation incident. Anxiety, Stress, and Coping, 28 (4), 467 – 477. https://doi.org/10.1080/10615806.2014.986722</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Webb, O., Wuness, L., & Cotton, D. (2017). Enhancing access, retention, attainment and progression in higher education. Higher Education Academy.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wigfield, A., & Eccles, J. (2000). Expectancy–value theory of achievement motivation. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25 (1), 68 – 81. https://doi.org/10.1006/ceps.1999.1015</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Zandara, M., Villada, C., Hidalgo, V., & Salvador, A. (2018). Assessing the antecedents and consequences of threat appraisal of an acute psychosocial stressor: The role of optimism, displacement behavior, and physiological responses. Stress, 21 (4), 304 – 311. https://doi.org/10.1080/10253890.2018.1449830</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Simon Cassidy</p> <p>Reported by Author</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib27" firstref="ref2"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib54" firstref="ref3"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib25" firstref="ref4"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib57" firstref="ref5"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib29" firstref="ref7"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib50" firstref="ref9"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib34" firstref="ref10"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib46" firstref="ref11"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib26" firstref="ref12"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib37" firstref="ref14"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib38" firstref="ref15"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref16"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib32" firstref="ref21"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref22"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref23"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref24"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib36" firstref="ref25"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl18" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref28"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl19" bibid="bib33" firstref="ref29"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl20" bibid="bib30" firstref="ref30"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl21" bibid="bib55" firstref="ref31"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl22" bibid="bib56" firstref="ref32"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl23" bibid="bib53" firstref="ref33"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl24" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref37"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl25" bibid="bib49" firstref="ref38"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl26" bibid="bib40" firstref="ref40"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl27" bibid="bib48" firstref="ref42"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl28" bibid="bib35" firstref="ref44"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl29" bibid="bib51" firstref="ref45"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl30" bibid="bib44" firstref="ref46"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl31" bibid="bib43" firstref="ref47"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl32" bibid="bib45" firstref="ref48"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl33" bibid="bib41" firstref="ref49"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl34" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref56"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl35" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref62"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl36" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref63"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl37" bibid="bib59" firstref="ref72"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl38" bibid="bib39" firstref="ref73"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl39" bibid="bib42" firstref="ref74"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl40" bibid="bib52" firstref="ref75"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl41" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref81"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl42" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref82"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl43" bibid="bib31" firstref="ref85"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl44" bibid="bib180" firstref="ref87"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl45" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref89"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl46" bibid="bib175" firstref="ref97"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl47" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref103"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl48" bibid="bib58" firstref="ref117"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl49" bibid="bib24" firstref="ref120"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl50" bibid="bib47" firstref="ref123"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl51" bibid="bib28" firstref="ref124"></nolink>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1496079
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: The Academic Threat Appraisal Ratio Scale (ATARS): Insights into Attainment, Academic Progression, and Retention in Higher Education
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Simon+Cassidy%22">Simon Cassidy</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6156-8941">0000-0001-6156-8941</externalLink>)
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22British+Journal+of+Educational+Psychology%22"><i>British Journal of Educational Psychology</i></searchLink>. 2026 96(1):90-107.
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: Wiley. Available from: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 111 River Street, Hoboken, NJ 07030. Tel: 800-835-6770; e-mail: cs-journals@wiley.com; Web site: https://www.wiley.com/en-us
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 18
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2026
– 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="%22Measures+%28Individuals%29%22">Measures (Individuals)</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Risk+Assessment%22">Risk Assessment</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Stress+Variables%22">Stress Variables</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Performance%22">Performance</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Higher+Education%22">Higher Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22At+Risk+Students%22">At Risk Students</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Potential+Dropouts%22">Potential Dropouts</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Dropout+Characteristics%22">Dropout Characteristics</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22College+Freshmen%22">College Freshmen</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Academic+Failure%22">Academic Failure</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Self+Efficacy%22">Self Efficacy</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Predictor+Variables%22">Predictor Variables</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1111/bjep.12780
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 0007-0998<br />2044-8279
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: Background: Previous studies examining threat appraisal and the influence of stress on human performance conclude that a challenge state leads to better performance than a threat state. Despite its potential, threat appraisal, particularly using self-report measures, has been the subject of limited investigation in applied higher educational contexts. Aims: The study explored the potential of self-report academic threat appraisal to explain academic progression and drop out in first-year students and investigated associations between self-report academic threat appraisal and relevant non-cognitive factors. Sample: The sample comprised 186 first-year undergraduate university students. Method: Students completed a newly adapted self-report threat appraisal measure, the Academic Threat Appraisal Ratio Scale (ATARS), at the beginning of their degree course. End-of-year grade point average and academic progression were also measured along with self-report measures of academic self-efficacy, academic resilience, grit, and mindset. Results: Findings revealed that a significantly greater proportion of students eliciting a challenge state progressed at first attempt, and of those students failing to progress at first attempt, a significantly greater proportion had elicited a threat state (X[superscript 2] (1) = 4.445, p = 0.035). Furthermore, academic threat appraisal was identified as a significant predictor of academic progression, while academic self-efficacy was identified as a significant predictor of academic threat appraisal. Conclusions: Evidence supports self-report academic threat appraisal as a significant factor in student attainment and academic progression in higher education, suggesting that the ATARS offers a relatively simple, valid, and scalable tool for early screening of students, enabling targeted student support.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2026
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1496079
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1496079
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1111/bjep.12780
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 18
        StartPage: 90
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Measures (Individuals)
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Risk Assessment
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Stress Variables
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Performance
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Higher Education
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: At Risk Students
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Potential Dropouts
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Dropout Characteristics
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: College Freshmen
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Academic Failure
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Self Efficacy
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Predictor Variables
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: The Academic Threat Appraisal Ratio Scale (ATARS): Insights into Attainment, Academic Progression, and Retention in Higher Education
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Simon Cassidy
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 03
              Type: published
              Y: 2026
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 0007-0998
            – Type: issn-electronic
              Value: 2044-8279
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 96
            – Type: issue
              Value: 1
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: British Journal of Educational Psychology
              Type: main
ResultId 1