| Literature DB >> 35582680 |
Abstract
Objective: A considerable amount of research identified socio-economic status and cognitive ability as robust predictors, the influence of student's ability to delay gratification (ADG) on their educational transition choice doesn't received researcher's attention. To address this gap, the present study examined the incremental power of students ADG in predicting the dichotomous choice i.e. the choice of general or vocational education after successful completion of compulsory schooling.Entities:
Keywords: Ability to delay gratification; Cognitive ability & socio-economic status; Educational transition; General education; Tracking choice; Vocational education
Year: 2022 PMID: 35582680 PMCID: PMC9100297 DOI: 10.1186/s40461-022-00134-6
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Empir Res Vocat Educ Train ISSN: 1877-6337
Final sample description
| N | % | Male (%) | Female (%) | Rural (%) | Urban (%) | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| General | 821 | 80.2 | 41.6 | 58.4 | 38.7 | 61.3 | |||
| Vocational | 203 | 19.8 | 61.2 | 38.8 | 63.5 | 36.5 | |||
| Total | 1024 | 100 | 51.9 | 48.1 | 53.6 | 46.4 |
N number of students, M mean, SD standard deviation, ADG ability to delay gratification, SES socio-economic status, CA cognitive ability
Chi-square tests (gender)
| N | Value | df | Crammer’s V | Asymp.Sig (2-tailed) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pearson’s Chi-square | 1024 | 31.816a | 1 | 0.191 | 0.001 |
a0 cells (0.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 39.54
Chi-square tests (locale)
| N | Value | df | Crammer’s V | Asymp.Sig (2-tailed) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pearson’s Chi-square | 1024 | 79.541a | 1 | 0.313 | 0.000 |
a0 cells (0.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 47.11
Independent sample t-test (ADG)
| Levene’s test | t-test for equality of means | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| F | Sig | T | Df | Sig. (2 tailed) | Mean difference | Std. error difference | 95% CI of difference | |
| ADG equal variances assumed | 10.221 | 0.000 | 3.119 | 1022 | 0.002 | 1.038 | 0.019 | [0.271, 2.991] |
| Equal variances not assumed | 5.779 | 991.846 | 0.001 | 1.038 | 0.012 | [0.272, 3.011] | ||
Overall model evaluation and goodness-of-fit statistics
| Test | Categories | p | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Overall model evaluation | Likelihood test | 14.37 | 0.03 |
| Score test | 11.71 | 0.01 | |
| Wald test | 11.01 | 0.02 | |
| Goodness-of-fit-test | Hosmer and Lemeshow test | 8.27 | 0.46 |
Model 1 (predicting intended track choice with a model including student’s ADG only)
| Variable | Model I | Model II | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| OR [95% CI] | AME [95% CI] | OR [95% CI] | AME [95% CI] | |
| ADG | 0.77* [0.59, 1.04] | − 0.09* [− 0.21, 0.00] | 0.54* [0.61, 1.01] | − 0.08* [− 0.20, 0.00] |
| SES | 0.86** [0.76, 0.98] | − 0.13** [− 0.20, − 0.02] | ||
| CA | 0.97** [0.67, 1.44] | − 0.21** [− 0.30, − 0.05] | ||
| Gender | 0.69* [0.51, 0.91] | − 0.05* [− 0.12, 0.00] | ||
| Locale | 0.58* [0.41, 0.76] | − 0.04* [− 0.10, 0.00] | ||
| Pseudo R2 | 0.11*** | 0.51*** | ||
Model 2 (predicting intended track choice with a model including student’s ADG, SES, CA, gender and locale)
[95% CI]: 95% confidence interval; OR: odds ratio; AME: average marginal effect; ADG: ability to delay gratification; SES: socio-economic status; CA: cognitive ability
*p < 0.05, **p < 0.01; ***p < 0.001