Swanson and Cole 2022 Validation

Research in Higher Education
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11162-022-09686-8
The Role of Academic Validation in Developing Mattering

and Academic Success
Elise Swanson1 · Darnell Cole2
Received: 3 March 2021 / Accepted: 8 March 2022

© The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature B.V. 2022
Abstract
We use survey data from three four-year campuses to explore the relationship between aca-
demic validation and student outcomes during students’ first 3 years in college using struc-
tural equation modeling. We examine both a psychosocial outcome (mattering to campus)
and an academic outcome (cumulative GPA). We find that both frequency of interactions
with faculty and feelings of academic validation from faculty are positively related to stu-
dents’ feelings of mattering to campus and cumulative GPA in their third year. Our results
suggest that academic validation, beyond the frequency of faculty–student interactions, is
an important predictor of students’ psychosocial and academic success.
Keywords Validation · Mattering · Academic achievement · Longitudinal analysis ·

Structural equation modeling
Introduction
As first-generation students, students from low-income backgrounds, and students

who are racially minoritized continue to grow as a share of universities’ student bod-
ies (Aud et al., 2010), institutions are being exhorted to become “student-ready” to
facilitate student success (Brown McNair et al., 2016). Traditional models of college
We would like to thank Adrianna Kezar, Tatiana Melguizo, Ronald Hallett, Gwendelyn Rivera, KC
Culver, Joseph Kitchen, Rosemary Perez, Robert Reason, Matt Soldner, Mark Masterton, Evan Nielsen,
Cameron McPhee, Samantha Nieman, and all the other members of the broader mixed-methods
evaluation team for designing and implementing the Longitudinal Survey of Thompson Scholars, for
helping us get a better understanding of the program and providing feedback on previous versions of
this manuscript. We would also like to thank Gregory Hancock for his assistance with the structural
equation modeling. Finally, we would also like to thank the staff at the Thompson Scholars Learning
Communities for their reflections and continued work to support at-promise students. This study
received financial support from the Susan Thompson Buffett Foundation. Opinions are those of the
authors alone and do not necessarily reflect those of the granting agency or of the authors’ home
institutions.
* Elise Swanson
[email protected]
1
Harvard University, 50 Church St, Fourth Floor, Cambridge, MA 02138, USA
2
University of Southern California, Los Angeles, USA
13
Vol.:(0123456789)
persistence and success often fail to acknowledge the unique challenges and strengths
brought by students from traditionally underrepresented and underserved groups. Fur-
ther, a large and increasing share of college students face mental health challenges
(Auerbach et al., 2016; Hunt & Eisenberg, 2010), with many students, particularly
those who are racially minoritized, unable to access mental health services (Eisenberg
et al., 2011; Ketchen Lipson et al., 2018). These troubling trends point to a need for
increased support of students’ psychosocial outcomes that may act as a protective fac-
tor against mental health issues.
Institutions and programs are increasingly working to develop multifaceted inter-
ventions to support students in all aspects of their lives, whether academic, financial,
personal, or social. One such program is the Thompson Scholars Learning Commu-
nity (TSLC), a comprehensive college transition program (Hallett, Kezar, et al., 2019)
implemented at three campuses in the University of Nebraska system. Privately funded
by the Susan Thompson Buffett Foundation (STBF), TSLC provides students with
a generous scholarship (up to $60,000 over 5 years) as well as shared living spaces,
small classes with dedicated faculty, a first year seminar, peer mentoring, a summer
orientation, advising, and one-on-one staff support.
Prior qualitative work by Hallett, Reason, et al. (2019) used Laura Rendòn’s (1994)
validation theory to explore the mechanisms by which TSLC served to improve stu-
dents’ psychosocial outcomes. Ultimately, Hallett, Reason, et al. (2019) argued that
the extent to which students had validating experiences within the program compo-
nents was more important than what specific program components were included as
part of the program. We complement Hallett, Reason, et al. (2019)’s work by using
structural equation modeling to establish the relationship between academic validation
and students’ academic achievement, as measured by their cumulative GPA, as well
as with feelings of mattering to campus during students’ first 3 years on campus. We
extend this prior work by examining the relationship between validation and student
outcomes among a larger sample of students enrolled in the University of Nebraska
system, including students who do and do not experience TSLC.
Specifically, we ask the following research questions:
1. Does academic validation predict student feelings of mattering to campus, after account-
ing for student background characteristics and frequency of student-initiated interactions
with instructors?
2. Does academic validation predict student achievement, above and beyond student back-
ground characteristics and frequency of student-initiated interactions with instructors?
3. Are feelings of mattering to campus an intermediate outcome between student percep-
tions of academic validation and academic achievement?
Our results shed light on the role validation plays in predicting students’ academic
success and psychosocial wellbeing. Further, our work offers insight into the expec-
tations institutions should have for faculty–student interactions. We make a substan-
tial contribution to the literature by showing how academic validation relates to stu-
dents’ psychosocial and academic outcomes during their first 3 years on campus using
descriptive quantitative analyses. Our results suggest that when faculty proactively
reach out to students rather than waiting for students to come to them, students experi-
ence higher psychosocial and academic outcomes.
13
Prior Literature
Researchers define validation as a proactive process whereby students’ worth and value is
affirmed; this is particularly powerful for nontraditional students who typically only receive
messages that alienate them from the institution and discourage their persistence (Rendόn,
1994, 2002; Rendόn & Munoz, 2011). Validation theory emerged from two bodies litera-
ture, one recognizing the positive relationship between student involvement on campus and
student outcomes (e.g., Astin, 1985; Pascarella & Terenzini, 1991), and one document-
ing the barriers and trauma experienced by nontraditional students trying to integrate into
these academic spaces (e.g., Belenky et al., 1986; Rodriquez, 1975). These dynamics have
persisted into the twenty-first century (e.g., Lozano, 2010; Mayhew et al., 2016; Quaye &
Chang, 2012), motivating a continued focus on validation for nontraditional students. In
recent qualitative work, international students reported better relationships with commu-
nity college advisors who use validating practices (Zhang, 2016). American Indian/Alaska
Native students who experienced validation were more likely to complete their first year of
college (Saggio & Rendόn, 2004) and validating messages from female family members
were critical for Latino male students’ persistence (Vasquez et al., 2021).
This study examines academic validation, or the validation of students by instructors
(Rendόn, 1994; Rendόn & Munoz, 2011). Regardless of full- or part-time status, living
arrangements, or other circumstances, students have regular interactions with instructors,
and empowering classroom experiences positively affect student outcomes (e.g., Astin,
1993; Tinto, 1993). Academic validation is one way of measuring the quality of student
interactions with instructors, and it is a lens through which the field can understand how
faculty members may improve their practice to support student success. In this section, we
discuss the theory behind academic validation, how previous scholars have measured it,
faculty members’ role in validating students and promoting student outcomes, and the sig-
nificance of the two outcomes examined in this work: mattering to campus and cumulative
GPA. We also describe the context of data collection for the present study.
Academic Validation
When conceptualizing the validating experiences students may have on campus, theo-
rists have typically centered the importance of an institutional agent (Stanton-Salazar,
2011), such as a faculty or staff member, who reached out to the student and affirmed
something meaningful, whether their contributions in class, individual experiences, or a
shared identity such as race (i.e., homophily; Cole & Griffin, 2013; Nora et al., 2011). Aca-
demic validation has been defined as faculty-initiated interactions within and outside of the
classroom that aim to develop, facilitate, and “help students trust their innate capacity to
learn and to acquire confidence in being a college student” (Rendόn, 1994, p. 40).
Rendόn’s (1994) research offered examples of validating practices demonstrated by fac-
ulty, including: (1) demonstrating genuine and authentic concern when teaching students;
(2) conveying approachability through classroom-related interactions and activities; (3)
treating students equally and equitably; (4) creating learning experiences wherein students
develop competencies and self-efficacy; and (5) offering meaningful and constructive feed-
back. Faculty interactions outside of the classroom involve meeting with students, as well
as valuing students’ non-classroom learning experiences.
13
Following Rendόn’s initial conceptualization of academic validation, researchers have

developed survey instruments to measure and examine validation quantitatively. Hurtado
et al. (2011) developed items for a two-factor construct of validation that measured both
academic and interpersonal validation. With a multi-institutional sample of 2574 students,
Hurtado et al. (2011) found that racially minoritized students reported lower levels of both
academic and interpersonal validation relative to their white peers. Using the same instru-
ment with a sample of over 20,000 students at 34 two- and four-year campus, Hurtado et al.
(2015) found that both academic and interpersonal validation substantially mediated “the
negative effects of a hostile climate on students’ psychological sense of integration in col-
lege” (p. 70).
Validation is a key indicator of the environment students experience on a college cam-
pus, which may shape their outcomes in important ways. We complement existing research
by documenting a quantitative relationship between students’ reported feelings of valida-
tion and measures of success over time.
Importance of Faculty
Interactions with faculty have profoundly affected students’ collegiate experiences and aca-
demic success, whether positively or negatively (Cole & Griffin, 2013). Prior work has
documented how faculty shape student outcomes, including major choice, course perfor-
mance, and transfer from two- to four-year institutions (Bettinger & Long, 2005; Brown-
back & Sadoff, 2019; Eagen & Jaeger, 2009). However, relatively few quantitative studies
have examined the extent to which validation may have been a key mechanism by which
faculty members influenced student outcomes. A notable exception is Hurtado et al. (2015),
who found that students often interpreted faculty feedback negatively, decreasing students’
perceived validation. Thus, prior work established instructors’ importance for shaping stu-
dent outcomes and highlighted the limits of faculty members’ influence if instructors were
not responsive to students’ identities and needs.
While researchers have long acknowledged that faculty play a critical role in students’
experiences and outcomes (Bean & Kuh, 1984; Kuh & Hu, 2001; Kuh et al., 1991), recent
work has examined the specific relationships among faculty actions, perceived validation,
and student outcomes. For instance, Barnett (2006, 2011) developed a survey instrument to
measure faculty validation and identified four sub-constructs: (1) students feeling known
and valued; (2) caring instruction; (3) appreciation for diversity; and (4) mentoring. Bar-
nett (2011) found modest, positive, and significant associations between faculty validation
and student persistence among community college students at a single institution in the
Midwest. Barnett (2011) also reported statistically significant relationships between fac-
ulty validation and a composite measure of students’ sense of belonging and academic
self-efficacy, which she termed academic integration. Academic integration was a media-
tor between faculty validation and intentions to persist (Barnett, 2011). Validation may be
particularly important for racially minoritized students: the relationships between faculty
validation, academic integration, and intentions to persist were stronger for Black, Latinx,
and Asian/Pacific Islander students than for white students (Barnett, 2011).
We complement prior literature by documenting longitudinal associations among aca-
demic validation, frequency of interactions between students and instructors, students’ feel-
ings of mattering to campus, and students’ cumulative GPA. By including the extent to
which students find interactions with their instructors to be validating as well as the fre-
quency with which students interact with their instructors, we disentangle the relationship
13
between the quality of student-faculty interactions and student success from the relation-
ship between the quantity of student-faculty interactions and student outcomes.
Mattering to Campus and Academic Achievement
The first outcome we examined was students’ reported sense of mattering to campus. This
construct captured the extent to which students felt that they were cared for and valued by
others at their institution (Rosenberg & McCullough, 1981; Schlossberg, 1989) and meas-
ured the richness of the connections that students had on campus. Feelings of mattering to
campus were related to lower levels of academic stress among first year students (Dixon
Rayle & Chung, 2007), higher levels of service use among online students (Hart, 2017),
and persistence among community college students who have transferred to a four-year
university (Dykes, 2011). We extend the literature by estimating the relationship between
the extent to which faculty create validating experiences for students and students’ feelings
of mattering to campus during their first 3 years enrolled at a four-year institution.
The second outcome examined was cumulative GPA. Whether after the first semester
or first year, early measures of GPA were significant predictors of whether or not students
graduated within 6 years (Gershenfeld et al., 2015). Despite some concern about grade
inflation (e.g., Jaschik, 2016), students’ college GPAs have remained important predictors
of degree attainment and labor market success (Pattison et al., 2013). Further, students have
continued to consider grades as one dimension of success (O’Shea & Delahunty, 2018),
underscoring cumulative GPA’s relevance as an important outcome to study.
Study Context
Beginning in 2015, a team of researchers began the Promoting At-promise Student Suc-
cess (PASS) project to assess whether, how, and why TSLC shaped participants’ psychoso-
cial outcomes. TSLC is a comprehensive college transition program that provides students
with financial, academic, social, and emotional support. TSLC is implemented at three
University of Nebraska campuses and is supported by the STBF. The STBF also provides
scholarships to students without the comprehensive support of TSLC. In order to evaluate
the effect of the scholarship and of participating in TSLC, between 2012 and 2016 stu-
dents whose scholarship applications were scored highly enough to be eligible for support
were randomized to either participate in TSLC, receive a scholarship without comprehen-
sive support, or to not receive support (see Melguizo et al., 2021 and Angrist et al., 2016
for more information on the randomization procedures). Students from all three groups
(TSLC, scholarship-only, and control) who enrolled at one of the three four-year campuses
in the University of Nebraska system were surveyed as part of the PASS project; the data in
this study are drawn from these longitudinal surveys.
An experimental evaluation of TSLC found that the program increased students’ sense
of belonging to campus and feelings of mattering to campus relative to students only
receiving financial support from STBF (Melguizo et al., 2021). Qualitative work found that
the program developed a model of ecological validation to support students (Hallett et al.,
2021; Kitchen et al., 2020). Examples of validating practices utilized by faculty members
are described by Perez et al. (2021) in their qualitative examination of an autobiographical
composition course taken by all TSLC students at one of the three participating campuses.
13
While this prior work documents the positive impact TSLC has on certain psychoso-
cial outcomes, it also points to a potential mechanism for supporting student success that
extends beyond students in TSLC. This study complements the evaluative work on TSLC
by exploring the extent to which validation is connected to measures of student success,
including academic achievement and feelings of mattering to campus, among high-achiev-
ing, low-income college students. In contrast to prior work, we are not examining the extent
to which validation is a lever by which participation in TSLC improves student outcomes.
Instead, we ask whether, across TSLC, scholarship-only, and control students, validation
predicts postsecondary outcomes.
Theorized Model
We used Rendόn’s (1994) theory of validation as our conceptual framework for this paper.
Validation was not included in the initial design of the project evaluating the Thompson
Scholars Learning Community, but emerged as a key concept in early qualitative analy-
ses. Validation was then incorporated into the student survey and used to guide additional
qualitative and quantitative inquiries.
Rendòn defined validation as a proactive process by which institutional agents support,
affirm, and empower students in their abilities as scholars and their development as indi-
viduals. Rendòn stressed the classroom and instructors’ importance in this process, arguing
that instructors could enable students to get involved on campus. Importantly, involvement
was conceptualized to include the extent to which students are engaged with and woven
into the fabric of institutional life (Rendòn, 1994; Astin, 1984). Further, Rendòn argued
that academic validation can transform “students into powerful learners” (p. 7). This theory
produced clear and testable hypotheses; namely:
1. Academic validation is positively associated with students’ feelings of mattering to

campus.
2. Academic validation is positively associated with students’ academic achievement.
To better isolate the relationship between students’ feelings of mattering to campus and
academic achievement, we account for students’ demographic characteristics, prior educa-
tional experiences, and frequency of student-initiated interactions with instructors in our
models. We also explore whether increased feelings of mattering to campus is an interme-
diate outcome between academic validation and cumulative GPA. Here, we discuss each of
our hypothesized structural models, each aligned with a separate research question.
Research Question 1: Does Academic Validation Predict Student Feelings

of Mattering to Campus, After Accounting for Student Background Characteristics
and Frequency of Student‑Initiated Interactions with Instructors?
Figure 1 illustrates our theorized structural model connecting students’ personal charac-
teristics, interactions with high school teachers, interactions with college faculty, and vali-
dation with students’ reported mattering to campus. We included students’ demographic
characteristics, including race/ethnicity and sex, as predictors of their interactions with
their high school teachers because of a large and growing body of research indicating that
teachers’ expectations of students, reactions to student behavior, and evaluation of student
13
High school GPA

ACT score
Fig. 1 Theorized structural model relating faculty–student interactions, academic validation, and mattering
to campus. Validation a latent construct with 4 items at each time point (items covary with themselves over
time). High school faculty interactions is a latent construct with three items; T1 and T2 faculty interactions
are latent constructs with three items, two of which were included in the HS faculty interaction construct
(items covary with themselves over time). Mattering is a latent construct with six items at T1 and eight
items at T2 and T3; all six items included at T1 are included at T2 and T3 (items covary with themselves
over time). ACT scores and high school GPA covary
work vary systematically based on the interaction of student and teacher demographics
(Dee, 2005; Egalite et al., 2015; Gershenson et al., 2016; Lindsay & Hart, 2017; Robinson-
Cimpian et al., 2014). We included students’ prior achievement in the model because, intu-
itively, students with different levels of academic achievement may feel differing amounts
of pressure to interact with their teachers about coursework and feel more or less positively
about those interactions. For similar reasons, we estimated relationships between all of
these background characteristics and students’ feelings of validation, mattering, and fre-
quency of interactions with faculty while in college.
We modeled changes in the frequency of student interactions with their instructors over
time, drawing direct paths between students’ interactions with teachers in high school, with
faculty in their first year in college, and with faculty in their second year in college. Simi-
larly, we estimate associations between students’ perceptions of academic validation over
time, drawing paths from academic validation in their first year to academic validation in
their second year. Based on the assessment of model fit and convergence, we allowed vali-
dation and interactions with faculty to covary at the end of years one and two. We also
allowed validation and mattering to covary at the end of years one and two, and interac-
tions with faculty and mattering to covary in year one. The model would not converge if
we estimated the covariance between interactions with faculty and mattering in year two,
leading to a slight asymmetry in the model.
The primary outcome of interest in Fig. 1 was students’ self-reported mattering to cam-
pus at the end of their third year. We included prior measures of mattering to capture how
the development of psychosocial outcomes early on may have led to sustained or improving
13
Fig. 2 Structural model relating faculty–student interactions, validation, and cumulative GPA. Validation a
latent construct with 4 items at each time point (items covary with themselves over time). High school fac-
ulty interactions is a latent construct with three items; T1 and T2 faculty interactions are latent constructs
with three items, two of which were included in the HS faculty interaction construct (items covary with
themselves over time)
psychosocial outcomes over time. Based on an assessment of model fit, we allowed mat-
tering and validation to covary at the end of years one and two; we also included a lagged
direct path between mattering as reported at the end of year one with mattering as reported
at the end of year three. We estimated direct paths from validation and faculty interactions
at the end of year one to mattering at the end of year two, and from validation and faculty
interactions at the end of year two to mattering at the end of year three.
Research Question 2: Does Academic Validation Predict Student Academic

Achievement, Above and Beyond Student Background Characteristics
and Frequency of Student‑Initiated Interactions with Instructors?
Figure 2 illustrates our hypothesized model of the relationships among students’ back-
ground characteristics, academic validation, student-initiated interactions with instructors,
and cumulative GPA over time. Our outcome of interest was students’ cumulative GPA at
the end of their third year. We included students’ high school GPA and first year cumu-
lative GPA in the model. Because students’ cumulative GPA was so highly related over
time (r roughly 0.9 year to year), including students’ cumulative GPA at the end of each
year mechanically restricted the extent to which we could estimate the covariance between
students’ GPA and other constructs, including faculty–student interactions, validation, and
mattering. Thus, we included students’ first but not second year cumulative GPA in the
model.1
1
A concern with this modeling decision is that our estimates of the relationships between validation and
faculty interactions, respectively, and third-year GPA may include the indirect relationship between prior
(e.g., T1) validation and faculty as well as the direct relationship between the T2 measurements and third-
year GPA. When we include students’ high school, first semester, first year, second year, and third year
GPA, we find no significant relationship between students’ first-year faculty interactions and second-year
GPA and a small, marginally significant relationship between first-year validation and second-year GPA,
13
Fig. 3 Structural model relating academic validation, mattering to campus, and third year cumulative GPA.
Validation a latent construct with 4 items at each time point (items covary with themselves over time).
Items constrained to the same loading onto the construct at each time point. Mattering is a latent construct
with six items; all items are included at each time point. Items covary with themselves over time. Items con-
strained to the same loading onto the construct at each time point.
Figure 2 also included direct paths from students’ faculty–student interactions and feel-
ings of validation in their first year to first year GPA. Students completed the survey before
the end of the semester, before their cumulative GPA was determined. Further, the survey
questions referred to students’ experiences during the semester, while GPA was measured
at a single point in time at the end of the semester. Thus, we argue that our measures of
both first year validation and faculty–student interactions are temporally prior to students’
first year GPA.
Research Question 3: Are Feelings of Mattering to Campus an Intermediate

Outcome Between Student Perceptions of Academic Validation and Academic
Achievement?
Our last model is presented in Fig. 3 and explores whether feelings of mattering to campus
are an intermediate step between feelings of academic validation and cumulative GPA.
Footnote 1 (continued)
mitigating this concern. We also estimate the model including lagged direct paths between first-year valida-
tion and faculty interactions and third-year GPA; we find similar results to those presented below affirming
the importance of second-year validation for predicting third-year GPA, again mitigating concerns of bias
in our main estimates. However, a conservative interpretation of our results is as the cumulative relationship
between second-year student-initiated interactions with faculty and feelings of academic validation with
GPA. Goodness-of-fit measures are similar across specifications.
13
Again, we included students’ background characteristics and repeated measures of latent

constructs (validation and mattering) as well as the observed variable of cumulative GPA
at the end of high school and first year in college. We also included direct paths from first
year academic validation and first year mattering to campus to students’ first year cumula-
tive GPA.
Data
The data used for this study were drawn from a large, mixed methods evaluation of a com-
prehensive college transition program (TSLC, described previously) implemented at three
University of Nebraska colleges (Cole et al., 2018). Students who attend a Nebraskan high
school, are first-time college students, earn a high school GPA of at least 2.0, and have an
expected family contribution of less than $10,000 are eligible to apply for a scholarship
from the STBF. Some students who receive a scholarship also participate in TSLC; some
students who have competitive scholarship applications do not receive any support from
the STBF (see Melguizo et al., 2021 and Angrist et al., 2016 for additional information).
Students who entered the University of Nebraska system in the 2015–2016 or 2016–2017
academic year, who applied for a scholarship, and whose applications were rated highly by
the Foundation, regardless of whether they participated in TSLC, received a scholarship,
or did not receive support, were included in our sample frame. As the STBF determines
scholarship eligibility based on both need and merit, our sample is comprised exclusively
of low-income students who were generally successful in high school, potentially limiting
the generalizability of our findings.
Sample
We restricted this analysis to students who completed four surveys: the initial survey and
the end-of-year survey for their first, second, and third years on campus. We limited our
sample in this way to compare the magnitude of the relationship between constructs over
time. Were we to include all students who responded to the survey at each individual wave,
differences in associations over time could reflect either the changing composition of the
sample or the evolving relationship between the constructs in the model. Across the two
cohorts, 2778 students were included in the sample frame. Two thousand two hundred
twenty-five students completed the initial survey, 1745 of whom also completed the first
year survey. Of those who completed the first year survey, 1315 completed the second
year survey. Of those, 1020 also completed the third year survey. Of those, 1003 had com-
plete demographic information (e.g., race/ethnicity, sex, high school GPA, ACT score, and
expected family contribution). Of those, 793 had complete responses for the items in our
key constructs (mattering to campus, academic validation, and interactions with faculty),
and 789 also had complete cumulative GPA data (provided by University of Nebraska
administrative records) across all 3 years. Table 1 summarizes the demographic character-
istics of each analytic sample, with columns indicating the sample used to estimate each of
the theorized models described above.
As shown in Table 1, over one-third of students in our sample were racially minor-
itized, while about two-thirds of students were female. The average high school GPA
among students in our sample was 3.6, and students earned an average of 23.5 on the
ACT. Average expected family contribution was under $3000. Table 2 disaggregates
13
Table 1 Characteristics of Figure 1 Figures 2, 3

students in analytic samples
Mean or % Mean or %
Students of color 0.397 0.395

Female students 0.682 0.683
High school GPA 3.628 3.627
ACT score 23.540 23.540
Expected family contribution 2940.068 2947.207
N 793 789
Table 2 Disaggregation of characteristics of students of color in analytic sample

N Avg. HS GPA Avg. ACT Avg. EFC
Asian 59 3.60 (0.31) 21.27 (5.51) 2247.88 (2660.80)

Black 42 3.32 (0.37) 20.19 (4.12) 1664.41 (2551.31)
Latina/o/x 184 3.47 (0.41) 20.53 (3.61) 1475.67 (2337.13)
Multiracial/other 30 3.70 (0.30) 23.70 (3.63) 3026.83 (2734.33)
Total 315 3.50 (0.39) 20.92 (4.19) 1793.20 (2505.41)
HS GPA high school GPA. ACTcomposite ACT score, EFC expected family contribution
students by race/ethnicity, demonstrating that most of the racially minoritized students

in our sample are Latina/o/x.
Measurement of Key Constructs
This analysis focused on four main constructs: student-initiated course-related inter-

actions with high school instructors; student-initiated course-related interactions with
college instructors; academic validation, mattering to campus, and cumulative GPA.
Table 3 provides a brief overview of the items included in each of these constructs.
Students responded to each item on a Likert-type scale. As discussed in greater detail
below, we treated each of the psychosocial outcomes as a latent construct and con-
ducted confirmatory factor analyses as part of our structural equation models to esti-
mate each.
Our analysis also included several observed variables. Cumulative GPA and ACT score
were observed variables we received from the University of Nebraska system. Student
demographic characteristics were reported on their initial scholarship application. The
measure of race/ethnicity included options for Latina/o/x, Black, Asian, multiracial, and
White; students could also indicate they did not wish to respond. Latina/o/x students rep-
resent the largest share of students of color in our sample. We disaggregate race/ethnic-
ity into three categories: Latina/o/x students, Black, Asian, and multiracial students, and
White students. Gender was reported as a male/female binary.
With this understanding of our theoretical model, data sources, and measurement of
key constructs, we turn now to a detailed description of our methods.
13
13
Table 3 Summary of focal constructs
Construct Items Responses Sample item
Interactions with high school instructors 3 1 (Very rarely) Visited informally before or
5 (Very often) after class about course content
Interactions with college faculty 3 1 (Very rarely) Met in his or her office about a course
5 (Very often)
Academic validation 4 1 (Strongly disagree) Faculty believe in my potential to succeed academically
7 (Strongly agree)
Mattering to campus 8 1 (Strongly disagree) There are people at {INSTITUTION} who are gener-
7 (Strongly agree) ally supportive of my individual needs
Cumulative GPA N/A 1.0–4.0 scale N/A; received from University of Nebraska system
Methods
Analytic Strategy
We used structural equation modeling (Kline, 2015) for our analyses. Structural equation
modeling leverages the covariances among variables to estimate not just the relationships
between observed variables, but also to estimate underlying latent constructs. Models can
therefore be considered to have two parts: the measurement model, which estimates the
relationship between observed items and the theoretical latent constructs, and the structural
model, which estimates the relationships among the latent constructs and any included
exogenous variables. In the present study, the measurement model captured the relation-
ships between individual survey items and our four psychosocial constructs of interest,
as summarized in Table 3. Figures 1 through 3, described above, illustrated the structural
part of our structural equation model. We estimated the measurement and structural mod-
els simultaneously using maximum likelihood. Estimating all coefficients simultaneously
allowed for more accurate estimation of error terms, facilitating statistical inference. Our
model drew on longitudinal data; as such, we allowed students’ responses to the same item
asked at different points in time to covary.
We leveraged between-student variation in reported feelings of mattering, validation,
and interactions with faculty, as well as variation in cumulative GPA over time. In this
approach, we estimated whether higher or lower levels of validation and interactions with
faculty relative to reported levels across the sample predicts higher or lower cumulative
GPA or mattering. A different conceptualization would have been to leverage within-stu-
dent variation in reported feelings of mattering, validation, and interactions with faculty to
estimate the relationship between validation and interactions with faculty, respectively, and
mattering or cumulative GPA. In this approach, we would have estimated whether higher
or lower levels of validation and interactions with faculty relative to one’s own average
feelings are predictive of higher or lower feelings of mattering or cumulative GPA rela-
tive to one’s average outcomes. However, between-student variation is useful from a policy
perspective because it allows institutions to identify students who are not having validat-
ing experiences as early as their first semester and intervene to ensure all students have a
validating agent on campus. By waiting to collect enough data to accurately gauge whether
students’ feelings of academic validation in a given semester are above or below average
relative to their experience, institutions may miss a key opportunity to provide students
with appropriate support.
Inferences Supported
We estimated the extent to which interactions with faculty, academic validation, mattering
to campus, and cumulative GPA related to each other over time; we did not identify the
causal impact of feelings of validation on feelings of mattering or cumulative GPA. There
were two sources of selection that limited our ability to draw causal inference. First, all the
students in our sample are enrolled in college, the result of a complex chain of decisions
and contextual factors (e.g., Klasik, 2012). Second, we relied on survey data to measure
our key constructs, and students chose whether or not to complete the survey at each wave.
While our data were drawn from a larger evaluation of TSLC that allowed researchers to
make causal inferences about the impact of the program (e.g., Melguizo et al., 2021), here
13
we pooled survey responses across the treatment and control groups. All results presented
below should be interpreted as descriptive associations amongst our key constructs of aca-
demic validation, interactions with faculty, mattering to campus, and cumulative GPA for
relatively high-achieving, low-income students, most of whom are also first-generation col-
lege students and many of whom are racially minoritized.
Results
Table 4 summarizes the direct, indirect, and total effects estimated in each of the structural
equation models presented above. Latent constructs are indicated with an L. The leftmost
panel shows results from the model presented above in Fig. 1, wherein validation and inter-
actions with faculty lead to students’ self-reported feelings of mattering to campus in their
third year. The middle panel shows results from the model illustrated in Fig. 2, wherein
validation and interactions with faculty lead to students’ cumulative GPA at the end of
their third year. Finally, the rightmost panel shows how validation and mattering relate to
students’ third year cumulative GPA, as theorized in Fig. 3. All three models demonstrate
good fit, with root mean squared errors of approximation (RMSEAs) less than 0.06, stand-
ardized root mean squared residuals less than 0.08, and comparative fit indices (CFIs) and
Tucker–Lewis indices (TLIs) around 0.95 (Hu & Bentler, 1999). Standardized coefficients
are shown. Measurement models are shown in the Appendix.
Mattering to Campus
Results in the leftmost panel of Table 4 show a direct, positive, and significant relationship
between the extent to which students feel validated by instructors in their first and second
years and their feelings of mattering to campus in their third year (standardized total effects
of 0.049 and 0.105, respectively; p < 0.05). Similarly, the frequency with which students
interact with their instructors in high school, their first year in college, and their second
year of college are significantly and positively associated with their feelings of mattering
to campus at the end of their third year on campus (standardized total coefficients of 0.089
(p < 0.01), 0.053 (p < 0.05), and 0.064 (p < 0.1), respectively). These results suggest that
it is not just whether students interact with their instructors, but how much validation stu-
dents perceive through those interactions that predicts enhanced psychosocial outcomes for
students.
Moving down the leftmost panel of Table 4, we see that initial levels of mattering to
campus have strong, positive relationships with future reported levels of mattering to cam-
pus. Students’ reported feelings of mattering to campus at the end of years one and two
have strong, significant total effects on their feelings of mattering in their third year (stand-
ardized coefficients 0.208 and 0.306, respectively, p < 0.01). This suggests that efforts to
increase students’ psychosocial outcomes might benefit from focusing on students’ early
experiences on campus to form a sustaining, positive cycle over time.
Female students tend to report higher feelings of mattering to campus at the end of their
third year than do male students (standardized total coefficient is 0.108; p < 0.01). Latina/
o/x students tend to report lower feelings of mattering to campus at the end of 3 years
(standardized total coefficient of − 0.083; p < 0.1). We find no statistically significant dif-
ference between Black, Asian, and multiracial students and White students in their reported
feelings of mattering to campus in their third year; although the total standardized effect is
13
Table 4 Direct, indirect, and total effects on year 3 outcomes (standardized coefficients)
Validation and faculty interactions to year 3 mattering Validation and to year 3 GPA Validation and mattering to third year GPA
Direct Indirect Total Direct Indirect Total Direct Indirect Total
Year 1 validation 0.049** 0.049** Year 1 validation 0.056** 0.056** Year 1 validation 0.049* 0.049*
(L) (0.01) (0.01) (L) (0.011)
(0.011) (L) (0.012) (0.012)
Year 2 validation 0.105** 0.105** Year 2 validation
0.044* 0.044* Year 2 validation 0.06* 0.06*
(L) (0.029) (0.029) (L) (0.013) (0.013) (L) (0.017) (0.017)

HS faculty interac- 0.089*** 0.089*** HS faculty interac- 0.044* 0.044* Year 1 mattering 0.056** 0.056**
tions (L) (0.012) (0.012) tions (L) (0.014) (0.014) (L) (0.024) (0.024)
Year 1 faculty 0.053** 0.053** Year 1 faculty 0.071** 0.071** Year 2 mattering − 0.036 − 0.036
interactions (L) (0.014) (0.014) interactions (L) (0.018) (0.018) (L) (0.027) (0.027)
Year 2 faculty 0.064* 0.064* Year 2 faculty − 0.016 − 0.016 HS GPA 0.224*** 0.224***
interactions (L) (0.025) (0.025) interactions (L) (0.015) (0.015) (0.034) (0.034)
Year 1 mattering 0.208*** 0.179*** 0.387*** HS GPA 0.223*** 0.223*** Year 1 GPA 0.72*** 0.005 0.725***
(L) (0.039) (0.023) (0.036) (0.034) (0.034) (0.026) (0.004) (0.026)
Year 2 mattering 0.306*** 0.306*** Year 1 GPA 0.719*** 0.005 0.725*** Latina/o/x − 0.049** − 0.057** − 0.105***
(L) (0.048) (0.048) (0.026) (0.004) (0.026) (0.028) (0.03) (0.041)
Latina/o/x − 0.074** − 0.008 − 0.083* Latina/o/x − 0.049** − 0.057** − 0.106*** Black, Asian, − 0.06** − 0.019 − 0.08**
(0.046) (0.028) (0.053) (0.028) (0.03) (0.041) multiracial (0.03) (0.032) (0.044)
Black, Asian, − 0.044 − 0.008 − 0.051 Black, Asian, − 0.06** − 0.021 − 0.08** Female 0.092*** 0.105*** 0.197***
multiracial (0.05) (0.031) (0.057) multiracial (0.03) (0.032) (0.044) (0.023) (0.024) (0.032)
Female 0.062* 0.046** 0.108*** Female 0.091*** 0.105*** 0.197*** ACT score 0.088*** 0.309*** 0.396***
(0.037) (0.023) (0.043) (0.023) (0.024) (0.032) (0.003) (0.003) (0.004)
HS GPA 0.028 0.004 0.031 ACT score 0.086*** 0.309*** 0.395***
(0.054) (0.033) (0.062) (0.003) (0.003) (0.004)
ACT score − 0.027 0.018 − 0.009
(0.005) (0.003) (0.006)
N 793 N 789 N 789
13
Table 4 (continued)
Validation and faculty interactions to year 3 mattering Validation and to year 3 GPA Validation and mattering to third year GPA
Direct Indirect Total Direct Indirect Total Direct Indirect Total
13
RMSEA 0.036 SRMR 0.043 RMSEA 0.046 SRMR 0.042 RMSEA 0.043 SRMR 0.036
CFI 0.948 TLI 0.941 CFI 0.949 TLI 0.934 CFI 0.957 TLI 0.949
Validation, faculty interactions, and mattering are latent constructs. Items covary over time. HS: High school. Validation consists of four items, all of which are included at
both time 1 and time 2. Faculty interaction is measured with three items; two items were included for both the high school and college measures, while the same three items
were used throughout college and one item was only asked with respect to high school. Mattering included the same six items for times 1, 2, and 3, with an additional two
items included at time 3. Relationships between the listed constructs/variables and main outcome are shown (e.g., the right end of Figs. 1, 2, and 3). Full results available upon
request. *p < .1, **p < .05, ***p < .01
negative (− 0.051) it is imprecise. Future work should examine differences in psychosocial

outcomes across students with different racial and ethnic identities to understand whether
this finding is due to a lack of statistical power or reflective of varied lived experiences and
supports on campus.
There is no statistically significant relationship between students’ high school achieve-
ment and feelings of mattering to campus at the end of 3 years on campus. These results
suggest that while students’ experiences on campus are important for predicting psycho-
social outcomes, faculty, staff, and other institutional agents should also be responsive to
students’ social identities to promote psychosocial outcomes such as feelings of mattering
to campus.
Third Year GPA
The middle panel of Table 4 shows how validation and interactions with faculty relate to
students’ cumulative GPA over their first 3 years. It is clear from this analysis that past
achievement predicts later achievement. Both high school and first year GPA are signif-
icantly predictive of third year cumulative GPA (total standardized coefficients of 0.223
and 0.725, respectively; p < 0.01). Similarly, there is a positive and significant relationship
between students’ ACT score and third year cumulative GPA (standardized total effect is
0.395; p < 0.01).
Students’ interactions with faculty in both high school and the first year of college are
indirectly and significantly related to their third year cumulative GPA (total standardized
effects are 0.044 and 0.071, respectively; p < 0.1 and p < 0.05, respectively). However, the
frequency of students’ interactions with faculty in their second year is not significantly
related to third year cumulative GPA. This suggests that students’ early experiences, both
in high school and during their initial transition into college, continue to significantly pre-
dict their longer-term academic outcomes.
Consistent with prior literature and theory, academic validation is significantly and
positively related to students’ academic achievement. Students’ self-reported feelings of
validation in both their first and second years significantly predict their third year cumula-
tive GPA (total standardized effects of 0.056 and 0.044, respectively; p < 0.05 and p < 0.1,
respectively). In short, students’ early and ongoing perceptions of the extent to which fac-
ulty validate their capabilities as scholars are important predictors of longer-term academic
success.
Female students tend to have higher cumulative third year GPAs than do male students
(standardized coefficient is 0.197; p < 0.01), Latina/o/x and Black, Asian, and multiracial
students tend to have lower third year GPAs than their White peers (standardized total coef-
ficients are − 0.106 (p < 0.01) and − 0.080 (p < 0.05), respectively). This suggests the need
for continued evaluation of course structures and pedagogical practices to ensure there are
equitable opportunities for success across groups.
Mattering and Third Year GPA
The rightmost panel of Table 4 shows the relationships between students’ reported feelings
of validation and mattering in their first 2 years and their cumulative GPA over their first
3 years. As with the results shown in the middle panel, past academic achievement is the
strongest predictor of future grades. The total standardized effects of high school and first
13
year GPA are 0.224 and 0.725, respectively; both relationships are significant at the 1%
level.
After accounting for the association between prior and third year GPA, both first year
academic validation and first year feelings of mattering to campus have significant indi-
rect relationships with third year GPA. The standardized total coefficient for first year vali-
dation is 0.049 (p < 0.1), and the standardized total coefficient for first year mattering is
0.056 (p < 0.05). Additionally, second year validation has a significant direct relationship
with third year GPA (total standardized coefficient of 0.060; p < 0.1), although second year
mattering is not significantly associated with third year GPA. This again emphasizes the
importance of validation for predicting students’ longer-term academic outcomes. Valida-
tion and mattering are strongly related constructs, with an estimated covariance of 0.422
(p < 0.01) in year one and 0.513 (p < 0.01) in year two, suggesting that these two constructs
may work synergistically to promote students’ academic success.
We again find that female students tend to have higher third year cumulative GPAs than
do male students (standardized total coefficient is 0.197; p < 0.01), that racially minoritized
students tend to have lower third year cumulative GPAs than do White students (standard-
ized total coefficient is − 0.105 (p < 0.01) for Latina/o/x students and − 0.080 for Black,
Asian, and multiracial students (p < 0.044)), and ACT score is positively associated with
third year cumulative GPA (standardized total coefficient is 0.396; p < 0.01).
Limitations
While this study makes several contributions to the literature by offering a nuanced and
empirical exploration of the relationships between academic validation, mattering, faculty
interactions, and cumulative GPA over time, there are several limitations of the current
study that should be addressed in future research. First, while we contribute to the literature
by looking at academic validation longitudinally, this study is descriptive in nature and
does not establish the extent to which early levels of academic validation cause students to
earn higher GPAs or experience stronger feelings of mattering to campus. Future research
could evaluate interventions explicitly designed to alter students’ feelings of academic vali-
dation and use causal mediation techniques to estimate the impact of these interventions on
students’ longer-run outcomes like cumulative GPA.
Second, our findings may be limited in terms of generalizability, as our sample consists
of low-income students enrolled in four-year public institutions, over two thirds of whom
are first-generation college students, roughly 40% of whom are racially minoritized, and
whose average high school GPA was 3.6. Among racially minoritized students, about two-
thirds of students in our sample were Latina/o/x, and about one-third identified as Black,
Asian, or multiracial. Future work should broaden this sample to more meaningfully dis-
aggregate students’ race and ethnicity and test the different relationships between these
psychosocial constructs and student outcomes. Understanding the relationships between
academic validation, faculty interactions, mattering to campus, and GPA in the broad pop-
ulation of undergraduate students with various demographic backgrounds enrolled across
institutional settings will require replication of our work as well as future efforts with a
more expansive survey sample.
Third, our sample size is limited (less than 800 students), making it difficult to estimate
certain paths. Future survey work should account for the levels of attrition we observe from
13
our original survey sample and adjust a priori power calculations accordingly to ensure
adequate sample sizes to estimate longitudinal models.
Finally, our work focuses specifically on academic validation, one component of the
broader concept of validation put forth by Laura Rendόn. Future work should further
develop and validate scales designed to measure academic and interpersonal validation,
focusing on who provides validating messages to students and the contexts in which those
validating messages are conveyed. In particular, the scale used in our study emphasizes
the role of faculty in and outside of the classroom. This centering of faculty as validating
agents is not without critique. For example, Gildersleeve (2011) argued that a more explicit
deconstruction of institutional power and promotion of individual agency would create the
circumstances in which students could validate each other, foster their self-efficacy, and
engage in critical reflection. It is not that faculty-initiated engagement is unimportant.
Instead, faculty can communicate that students matter by co-constructing students’ his-
tories and futures, engaging in public pedagogies, fostering dialogic community building
(e.g., grassroots organizing), and serving as facilitators of neo-critical validation. Future
work should build on these critiques by developing survey measures that account for tra-
ditional conceptualizations of academic validation and student-to-student validation, and
faculty members’ epistemological approach to validation. A fuller validation measure may
better explain how psychosocial and academic outcomes are produced in the postsecondary
space.
Discussion and Conclusion
This study’s research findings offer several contributions to our understanding of the rela-
tionship between academic validation and students’ cumulative GPA and feelings of mat-
tering to campus. First, our work highlights the predictive power of students’ interactions
with high school teachers for their postsecondary achievement. Much of the research schol-
arship on validation, with some noteworthy exceptions (Linares & Muñoz, 2011), include
high school achievement as an explanatory variable without examining students’ interac-
tions with high school teachers as a predictor. Future work, however, should more closely
examine the practices, supports, and mindsets that enable high school teachers to best posi-
tion students for postsecondary success.
Second, our results suggest that proactive faculty outreach and affirmations of students’
abilities are more strongly related to students’ psychosocial outcomes than are student-ini-
tiated interactions with faculty. In other words, our work reinforces previous findings that
proactive faculty outreach matters (Cole & Griffin, 2013). Our work suggests that seem-
ingly small changes to instructors’ pedagogy, such as intentionally encouraging students
to participate in class discussions and providing constructive feedback, may be effective
strategies for improving student outcomes. Perez et al. (2021) describe additional validat-
ing practices, including providing structured opportunities for reflection and using cultur-
ally relevant texts in instruction. Universities or departments interested in improving stu-
dents’ psychosocial outcomes and achievement may consider providing faculty training on
incorporating validating practices into their course-related interactions with students. Such
training should then be studied to determine their relationship with faculty practices and
student outcomes.
Third, our results affirm the importance of academic validation and feelings of mat-
tering to campus to predict students’ academic achievement in college. The longitudinal
13
model reveals interesting nuances in these relationships’ timing. Results suggest that stu-
dents’ early feelings of validation and mattering in their first year may be more strongly
tied to students’ third year outcomes than are students’ second year experiences and per-
ceptions. These findings suggest that there should be a particular emphasis on students’
early postsecondary experience to affirm their importance and value to the institution and
faculty members.
Fourth, our results suggest that institutions need to continue and strengthen efforts to
ensure all students have equitable opportunities to succeed in the classroom and build con-
nections on campus. At the end of students’ third year, cumulative GPAs were, on average,
higher among female students than among male students, and lower among racially minor-
itized students than among their peers. Similarly, feelings of mattering to campus were
significantly lower for Latina/o/x students than White students at the end of 3 years on
campus. Future work should explore how validation may be tailored across student popula-
tions to facilitate equitable achievement and experiences.
Finally, our work highlights the importance of longitudinal data collection and analy-
sis. The concepts that we study, academic validation, faculty interactions, mattering, and
achievement, are not novel. Still, there is relatively little empirical quantitative work exam-
ining how they relate to each other over time. To fully support students’ success, research-
ers and policymakers need to understand how the dynamic college environment students
experience shapes their outcomes and how they support students need may change over
time.
Appendix
See Tables 5, 6, and 7.
13
Table 5 Factor loadings of faculty–student interactions, academic validation, and mattering to campus
(measurement model, structural paths between validation, faculty interactions, and mattering to campus)
Standardized OIM standard error P value
coefficient
HS faculty–student interactions (L)

Discuss course content before/after class 0.808 (Constrained)
Talk about ideas from class outside class 0.728 0.063 0.000
Email for info about class 0.531 0.057 0.000
Year 1 faculty–student interactions (L)
Attend office hours 0.743 0.062 0.000
Year 1 validation (L)
Receive helpful feedback 0.771 (Constrained)
Encouraged to participate 0.819 0.033 0.000
Faculty believe in potential 0.890 0.035 0.000
Faculty cares about development 0.772 0.041 0.000
Year 1 mattering to campus (L)
People on campus are sad when I fail 0.701 (Constrained)
People on campus are generally supportive of needs 0.809 0.028 0.000
People on campus are happy for accomplishments 0.840 0.028 0.000
People on campus concerned for my future 0.706 0.032 0.000
People on campus interested in me as a person 0.805 0.030 0.000
Other students are happy for me when I do well in class 0.757 0.029 0.000
People are disappointed when I don’t meet expectations 0.663 0.035 0.000
I feel pressure to succeed to make those I value proud 0.537 0.038 0.000
13
Table 5 (continued)
coefficient

Not exact wording of items. See https://pullias.usc.edu/tslc/pass-project-methods/ for full psychometric

report. L denotes each latent construct
Table 6 Factor loadings of faculty–student interactions and academic validation (measurement model,
structural paths between validation, faculty interactions, and cumulative GPA)
Standardized coef- OIM standard error P value
ficient
HS faculty–student interactions (L)

Talk about ideas from class outside class 0.734 0.058 0.000
Not exact wording of items. See https://pullias.usc.edu/tslc/pass-project-methods/ for full psychometric

13
Table 7 Measurement model: academic validation, mattering to campus (factor loadings)

coefficient

Year 1 mattering (L)
Year 2 mattering (L)
Not exact wording of items. See https://pullias.usc.edu/tslc/pass-project-methods/for full psychometric

Funding This project received support from the Susan Thompson Buffett Foundation.
Data Availability The data used for this analysis are restricted-used and under the purview of the Promoting
At-promise Student Success project. Interested researchers may apply to access the data. The survey used
was for this research was compiled by researchers at the Pullias Center for Higher Education. Certain scales
on the survey were used with permission from other research organizations; the survey instrument used for
this study may not be used without appropriate permissions for all scales on the survey.
Code Availability All analyses were conducted in Stata; code is available from the authors upon request.
Declarations
Conflict of interest The authors have no conflicts of interest.
13
References
Angrist, J., Autor, D., Hudson, S., & Pallais, A. (2016). Evaluating post-secondary aid: Enrollment, persis-
tence, and projected completion effects. NBER Working Paper 23015. National Bureau of Economic
Research. https://www.nber.org/papers/w23015
Astin, A. W. (1984). Student involvement: A developmental theory for higher education. Journal of College
Student Personnel, 25(4), 297–308.
Astin, A. (1985). Achieving educational excellence: a critical assessment of priorities and practices in
higher education. Jossey-Bass.
Astin, A. W. (1993). What matters in college: Four critical years revisited. Jossey-Bass.
Aud, S., Fox, M., & KewalRamani, A. (2010). Status and trends in the education of racial and ethnic groups
(NCES 2010-015). U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. U.S. Gov-
ernment Printing Office.
Auerbach, R., Alonso, J., Axinn, W., Cuijpers, P., Ebert, D., Green, J., Hwang, I., Kessler, R., Liu, H.,
Mortier, P., Nock, M., Pinder-Amaker, S., Sampson, N., Aguilar-Gaxiola, S., Al-Hamzawi, A.,
Andrade, L., Benjet, C., Caldas-de-Almeida, J., Demyttenaere, K., Florescu, S., … Buffaerts, R.
(2016). Mental disorders among college students in the World Health Organization World Men-
tal Health Surveys. Psychological Medicine, 46(2016), 2955–2970. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0033
291716001665
Barnett, E. (2006). Validation experiences and persistence among urban community college students. Dis-
sertation Abstracts International, 68(02) A. (UMI No. 3250210).
Barnett, E. (2011). Validation experiences and persistence among community college students. The Review
of Higher Education, 34(2), 193–230. https://doi.org/10.1353/rhe.2010.0019
Bean, J. P., & Kuh, G. D. (1984). The relationship between student–faculty interaction and undergraduate
grade point average. Research in Higher Education, 21, 461–477.
Belenky, M. F., Clinchy, B. M., Goldberger, N. R., & Tarule, J. M. (1986). Women’s ways of knowing: The
development of self, voice, and mind. Basic Books.
Bettinger, T., & Long, B. (2005). Do faculty serve as role models? The impact of instructor gender on
female students. American Economic Association, 95(2), 152–157.
Brown McNair, T., Albertine, S., Cooper, M. A., McDonald, N., & Major, T. (2016). Becoming a student-
ready college: A new culture of leadership for student success. Jossey-Bass.
Brownback, A., & Sadoff, S. (2019). Improving college instruction through incentives. UC San Diego
Working Paper. Retrieved from https://rady.ucsd.edu/docs/Brownback_Sadoff_College_Instructor_
Incentives_20190501.pdf
Cole, D., & Griffin, K. A. (2013). Advancing the study of student-faculty interaction: A focus on diverse
students and faculty. In Higher education: Handbook of theory and research (pp. 561–611).
Springer.
Cole, D., Kitchen, J., & Kezar, A. (2018). Examining a comprehensive college transition program: An
account of an iterative mixed methods longitudinal design. Research in Higher Education, 60, 392–
413. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11162-018-9515-1
Dee, T. (2005). A teacher like me: Does race, ethnicity, or gender matter? American Economic Review,
95(2), 158–165.
Dixon Rayle, A., & Chung, K. (2007). Revisiting first year college students’ mattering: Social support,
academic stress, and the mattering experience. Journal of College Student Retention, 9(1), 21–37.
Dykes, M. (2011). Appalachian bridges to the baccalaureate: Mattering perceptions and transfer persis-
tence of low-income, first-generation community college students (Doctoral Dissertation). Retrieved
from University of Kentucky Doctoral Dissertations (844). https://uknowledge.uky.edu/gradschool_
diss/844
Eagen, K., & Jaeger, A. (2009). Effects of exposure to part-time faculty on community college transfer.
Research in Higher Education, 50(2), 168–188.
Egalite, A., Kisida, B., & Winters, M. (2015). Representation in the classroom: The effect of own-race
teachers on student achievement. Economics of Education Review, 45(2015), 44–52.
Eisenberg, D., Hunt, J., Speer, N., & Zivin, K. (2011). Mental health service utilization among col-
lege students in the United States. The Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 199(5), 301–308.
https://doi.org/10.1097/NMD.0b013e3182175123
Gershenfeld, S., Hood, D., & Zhan, M. (2015). The role of first-semester GPA in predicting gradua-
tion rates of underrepresented students. Journal of College Student Retention: Research, Theory &
Practice, 17(4), 469–488.
Gershenson, S., Holt, S., & Papageorge, N. (2016). Who believes in me? The effect of student-teacher
demographic match on teacher expectations. Economics of Education Review, 52(2016), 209–224.
13
Gildersleeve, R. (2011). Toward a neo-critical validation theory: participatory action research and Mexi-
can migrant student success. Enrollment Management Journal, 5(2), 72–96.
Hallett, R., Bettencourt, G. M., Kezar, A., Kitchen, J. A., Perez, R., & Reason, R. (2021). Re-envisioning
campuses to holistically support students: The ecological validation model of student success [Brief].
USC Pullias Center for Higher Education.
Hallett, R. E., Kezar, A., Perez, R. J., & Kitchen, J. A. (2019). A typology of college transition and sup-
port programs: Situating a 2-year comprehensive college transition program within college access.
American Behavioral Scientist, 64(3), 230–252.
Hallett, R. E., Reason, R. D., Toccoli, J., Kitchen, J. A., & Perez, R. J. (2019). The process of academic
validation within a comprehensive college transition program. American Behavioral Scientist,
64(3), 253–275.
Hart, T. (2017). The relationship between online students’ use of services and their feelings of mattering
(Doctoral Dissertation). Retrieved from The University of New Mexico Digital Repository. https://
digitalrepositor y.unm.edu/oils_etds/43
Hu, L., & Bentler, P. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional
criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1),
1–55.
Hunt, J., & Eisenberg, D. (2010). Mental health problems and help-seeking behavior among college stu-
dents. Journal of Adolescent Health, 46(1), 3–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jadohealth.2009.08.008
Hurtado, S., Alvarado, A. R., & Guillermo-Wann, C. (2015). Creating inclusive environments: The
mediating effect of faculty and staff validation on the relationship of discrimination/bias to stu-
dents’ sense of belonging. JCSCORE, 1(1), 59–81.
Hurtado, S., Cuellar, M., & Guillermo-Wann, C. (2011). Quantitative measures of students’ sense of
validation: Advancing the study of diverse learning environments. Enrollment Management Jour-
nal, 5(2), 53–71.
Jaschik, S. (March 2016). Grade inflation, higher and higher. Inside Higher Ed. https://www.insidehigh
ered.c om/n ews/2 016/0 3/2 9/s urvey-f inds-g rade-i nflat ionco ntinu es-r ise-four-year-c olleges-n ot-
communitycollege#:~:text=Grade%20point%20averages%20at%20four,than%2042%20per cent%
20of%20grades
Ketchen Lipson, S., Kern, A., Eisenberg, D., & Breland-Noble, A. (2018). Mental health disparities
among students of color. Journal of Adolescent Health, 63(2018), 348–356. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.jadohealth.2018.04.014
Kitchen, J. A., Perez, R., Hallett, R., Kezar, A., & Reason, R. (2020, November 21). Ecology of vali-
dation: A new student support model for promoting college success among lowincome, first-gen-
eration, and racially minoritized students [Conference presentation]. Association for the Study of
Higher Education. https://www.ashe.ws//Files/Past%20Conferences/ASHE%202020%20Program%
20Book.pdf
Klasik, D. (2012). The college application gauntlet: A systematic analysis of the steps to four-year col-
lege enrollment. Research in Higher Education, 53(5), 506–549.
Kline, R. (2015). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (4th ed.). Guilford Press.
Kuh, G. D., Schuh, J. H., Whitt, E. J., & Associates (1991). Involving colleges: Successful approaches to
fostering student learning and development outside the classroom. Jossey-Bass.
Kuh, G. D., & Hu, S. (2001). The effects of student-faculty interaction in the 1990s. The Review of
Higher Education, 24(3), 309–332.
Linares, L. I. R., & Muñoz, S. M. (2011). Revisiting validation theory: Theoretical foundations, applica-
tions, and extensions. Enrollment Management Journal, 2(1), 12–33.
Lindsay, C., & Hart, C. (2017). Teacher race and school discipline: Are students suspended less often
when they have a teacher of the same race? Education next, 17(1), 72–78.
Lozano, A. (2010). Culture centers: Providing a sense of belonging and promoting student success. In L.
D. Patton (Ed.), Culture centers in higher education: Perspectives on identity, theory, and practice.
Stylus.
Mayhew, M., Rockenbach, A., Bowman, N., Seifert, T., Wolniak, G., Pascarella, E., & Terenzini, P.
(2016). How college affects students Volume 3: 21st century evidence that higher education works.
Jossey-Bass.
Melguizo, T., Martorell, P., Swanson, E., Chi, E., Park, E., & Kezar, A. (2021). Expanding student suc-
cess: The impact of a comprehensive college transition program on psychosocial outcomes. Journal
of Research on Educational Effectiveness, 14(4), 835–860.
Nora, A., Urick, A., & Cerecer, P. D. Q. (2011). Validating students: A conceptualization and overview
of its impact on student experiences and outcomes. Enrollment Management Journal, 5(2), 34–52.
13
O’Shea, S., & Delahunty, J. (2018). Getting through the day and still having a smile on my face! How
do students define success in the university learning environment? Higher Education Research &
Development, 37(5), 1062–1075.
Pascarella, E., & Terenzini, P. (1991). How college affects students: Findings and insights from twenty years
of research. Jossey-Bass.
Pattison, E., Grodsky, E., & Muller, C. (2013). Is the sky falling? Grade inflation and the signaling
power of grades. Educational Researcher, 42(5), 259–265. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X13
481382
Perez, R. J., Acuña, A., & Reason, R. D. (2021). Pedagogy of validation: Autobiographical reading and
writing courses for first year, low-income students. Innovative Higher Education. https://doi.org/10.
1007/s10755-021-09555-9
Quaye, S. J., & Chang, S. H. (2012). Fostering cultures of inclusion in the classroom: From marginality
to mattering. In S. D. Museus & U. M. Jayakumar (Eds.), Creating campus cultures: Fostering suc-
cess among racially diverse student populations. Routledge.
Rendon, L. (1994). Validating culturally diverse students: Toward a new model of learning and student
development. Innovative Higher Education, 19(1), 33–51.
Rendon, L. (2002). Community College Puente: A validating model of education. Educational Policy,
16(4), 642–667.
Rendon, L., & Munoz, S. M. (2011). Revisiting validation theory: Theoretical foundations, applications,
and extensions. Enrollment Management Journal, 5(2), 12–33.
Robinson-Cimpian, J. P., Lubienski, S. T., Ganley, C. M., & Copur-Gencturk, Y. (2014). Teachers’ per-
ceptions of students’ mathematics proficiency may exacerbate early gender gaps in achievement.
Developmental Psychology, 50(4), 1262–1281.
Rodriquez, R. (1975). Coming home again: The new American scholarship boy. American Scholar,
44(1), 15–28.
Rosenberg, M., & McCullough, B. C. (1981). Mattering: Inferred significance and mental health among
adolescents. Research in Community and Mental Health, 2, 163–182.
Saggio, J., & Rendòn, L. (2004). Persistence among American Indians and Alaska Natives at a bible
college: The importance of family, spirituality, and validation. Christian Higher Education, 3(3),
223–240.
Schlossberg, N. K. (1989). Marginality and mattering: Key issues in building community. New Direc-
tions for Student Services, 1989(48), 5–15. https://doi.org/10.1002/ss.37119894803
Stanton-Salazar, R. D. (2011). A social capital framework for the study of institutional agents and their
role in the empowerment of low-status students and youth. Youth & Society, 43(3), 1066–1109.
Tinto, V. (1993). Leaving college: Rethinking the causes and cures of student attrition (2nd ed.). Univer-
sity of Chicago Press.
Vasquez, M., Gonzalez, A., Cataño, Y., & Garcia, F. (2021). Exploring the role of women as validating
agents for Latino men in their transfer success. Community College Journal of Research and Prac-
tice. https://doi.org/10.1080/10668926.2021.1873874
Zhang, Y. (2016). An overlooked population in community college: International students’ (in)validation
experiences with academic advising. Community College Review, 44(2), 153–170.
Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and
institutional affiliations.
13

Swanson and Cole 2022 Validation

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Swanson and Cole 2022 Validation

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Swanson and Cole 2022 Validation

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Research in Higher Education

The Role of Academic Validation in Developing Mattering

Elise Swanson1 · Darnell Cole2

Received: 3 March 2021 / Accepted: 8 March 2022

Keywords Validation · Mattering · Academic achievement · Longitudinal analysis ·

As first-generation students, students from low-income backgrounds, and students

Following Rendόn’s initial conceptualization of academic validation, researchers have

Mattering to Campus and Academic Achievement

1. Academic validation is positively associated with students’ feelings of mattering to

Research Question 1: Does Academic Validation Predict Student Feelings

High school GPA

Research Question 2: Does Academic Validation Predict Student Academic

Research Question 3: Are Feelings of Mattering to Campus an Intermediate

Again, we included students’ background characteristics and repeated measures of latent

Table 1 Characteristics of Figure 1 Figures 2, 3

Students of color 0.397 0.395

Table 2 Disaggregation of characteristics of students of color in analytic sample

Asian 59 3.60 (0.31) 21.27 (5.51) 2247.88 (2660.80)

students by race/ethnicity, demonstrating that most of the racially minoritized students

Measurement of Key Constructs

This analysis focused on four main constructs: student-initiated course-related inter-

(L) (0.029) (0.029) (L) (0.013) (0.013) (L) (0.017) (0.017)

negative (− 0.051) it is imprecise. Future work should examine differences in psychosocial

Third Year GPA

Mattering and Third Year GPA

Discussion and Conclusion

See Tables 5, 6, and 7.

HS faculty–student interactions (L)

People on campus interested in me as a person 0.819 0.030 0.000

Not exact wording of items. See https://​pulli​as.​usc.​edu/​tslc/​pass-​proje​ct-​metho​ds/ for full psychometric

HS faculty–student interactions (L)

Not exact wording of items. See https://​pulli​as.​usc.​edu/​tslc/​pass-​proje​ct-​metho​ds/ for full psychometric

Table 7 Measurement model: academic validation, mattering to campus (factor loadings)

Year 1 validation (L)

Not exact wording of items. See https://​pulli​as.​usc.​edu/​tslc/​pass-​proje​ct-​metho​ds/​for full psychometric

You might also like

Not exact wording of items. See https://pullias.usc.edu/tslc/pass-project-methods/ for full psychometric

Not exact wording of items. See https://pullias.usc.edu/tslc/pass-project-methods/ for full psychometric

Not exact wording of items. See https://pullias.usc.edu/tslc/pass-project-methods/for full psychometric