Research in Higher Education (2019) 60:803–822

https://doi.org/10.1007/s11162-018-9524-0

How Valid is Grit in the Postsecondary Context? A Construct

and Concurrent Validity Analysis

Kevin Fosnacht1   · Keeley Copridge1 · Shimon A. Sarraf1

Received: 5 December 2017 / Published online: 27 July 2018

© Springer Nature B.V. 2018

Abstract
College admissions leaders increasingly desire to incorporate non-cognitive factors like
grit into admissions decisions. Consequently, we examined the validity of the short grit
scale (Grit-S) using data collected on undergraduates attending 38 colleges. Using con-
firmatory factor analysis (CFA), we found that Grit-S does not possess adequate model
fit; however, a modified version of the scale does possess this property. Using multi-group
CFA, we also found that Grit-S is relatively invariant across multiple demographic groups.
Next, we examined the concurrent validity of grit with students’ engagement, perceived
gains, time spent studying, and grades. These results confirmed previous research that most
of the predictive power of grit is contained in its perseverance of effort, not consistency of
interest, dimension.

Keywords  Grit · Non-cognitive traits · Validity · Higher education · Admissions ·

Measurement invariance

Introduction

In the search to build a successful student body, admissions leaders at postsecondary insti-
tutions have focused on identifying skills and traits beyond grades and standardized test
scores to recognize students with the potential to succeed at their institutions. One non-cog-
nitive factor with this potential is grit. The increasing popularity of grit, coined by Angela
Duckworth, has encouraged admissions officers to review non-cognitive factors to build a
diverse class and create an engaging campus community (Akos and Kretchmar 2017; Pow-
ell 2013; Sedlacek 2017; Wick 2015). Grit has the potential to assist colleges in selecting a
better-rounded student body as it may help identify students from historically marginalized
backgrounds with a substantial likelihood of success. Due to grit’s focus on stamina and
commitment to long-term goals, characteristics pertinent to college retention and comple-
tion, grit can theoretically identify students with a high probability of succeeding despite

* Kevin Fosnacht
[email protected]
1
Indiana University Center for Postsecondary Research, 1900 East Tenth Street, Suite 419,
Bloomington, IN 47406‑7512, USA

13
Vol.:(0123456789)
 804 Research in Higher Education (2019) 60:803–822

some deficiency in the criteria traditionally used in admissions decisions and help diversify
the student body.
The focus on grit has expanded beyond the admissions and research communities. The
United States Department of Education promoted using grit as a tool to prepare future gen-
erations for college and beyond (US Department of Education 2013). Furthermore, grit has
been the focus of a TED talk with over 12 million views (Duckworth 2013), numerous arti-
cles in the popular press (e.g., Del Giudice 2014; Engber 2016), and earned Duckworth the
MacArthur “Genius” grant (MacArthur Foundation 2017). Despite the growth in the popu-
larization of grit, the concept has not been exposed to the empirical scrutiny it deserves if it
is going to be a factor in high stakes decisions within the educational research community.
Duckworth, Peterson, Matthews, and Kelly’s (2007) initial research on grit has examined
this concept with high-achieving populations such as West Point cadets and Scripps Spell-
ing Bee finalists, populations that are not representative of the typical student. Further-
more, much of the current research examines smaller populations ranging in the hundreds.
Consequently, in this study, we utilized the National Survey of Student Engagement’s abil-
ity to collect data on over 11,000 undergraduates to test the construct validity of grit and its
concurrent validity for measures of engagement, self-perceived gains, time use, and GPA
using a sample that represents a more typical college student population.

Literature Review

Grit is the “perseverance and passion for long-term goals” (Duckworth et al. 2007, p. 1087).
Grit is a non-cognitive personality trait that is operationalized as a high-order construct with
two lower order features, perseverance of effort and consistency of interest (Duckworth et al.
2007; Duckworth and Quinn 2009). Perseverance of effort refers to an individual’s tendency
to work hard in the face of setbacks or obstacles while the latter, consistency of interest, is
the tendency not to change goals and interest frequently (Duckworth et al. 2007; Duckworth
and Quinn 2009). These facets theoretically work together to influence an individual’s atti-
tude and behavior towards long-term goals. One of the attractive features of grit is the lack
of correlation with other measures of intelligence and that it is a trait that can be potentially
changed (Duckworth 2016; Duckworth et al. 2007). Consequently, grit can theoretically help
all students succeed. Previous research has correlated grit with outcomes like persistence in
higher education and success in long-term, difficult tasks (Duckworth et al. 2007, Duckworth
and Quinn 2009). However, the grit concept has been criticized from a variety of perspectives
(Credé et al. 2016; Ris 2015). Below, we summarize grit and its two sub-constructs, persever-
ance of effort and consistency of interest, review previous research of how grit influences out-
comes, and discuss multiple criticisms of grit.

Grit and Academics

Studies focusing on grit among college students show that grittier students more frequently
persist and succeed academically (Bowman et al. 2015; Cross 2014; Duckworth et al. 2007;
Strayhorn 2014). Duckworth et al. (2007) study on grit and various high-achieving popu-
lations such as the West Point cadets in training and Scripps Spelling Bee finalist found
that grit predicted completion of their training program for the cadets and the number of

13
Research in Higher Education (2019) 60:803–822 805

hours the spelling bee students practiced after holding constant other factors. Bowman
et al. (2015) found that grit was positively correlated with academic adjustment, GPA, sat-
isfaction, sense of belonging, and more frequent faculty-student interaction and co-curric-
ular engagement. However, they found that these effects were attributable to the persever-
ance of effort dimension, not consistency of interest. Strayhorn’s (2014) study examined
grit using a sample of Black males and found that grittier black males had higher college
grade point average than their counterparts. Cross’ (2014) study examined the relation-
ship between grit scores, GPA, and gender. The results showed that there was a significant
and positive relationship between grit and GPA for females but not for males. He also dis-
covered a positive relationship between grit and doctoral degree attainment (Cross 2014).
More recently, Akos and Kretchmar (2017) found that grit was correlated with first-year
GPA, but also that the relationship was primarily attributable to the perseverance of effort
dimension. Also, they found a negative relationship with changing majors, no relationship
to credit accumulation and, using a family and peer assessment of student grit, a positive
relationship to first-year GPA and credit accumulation.
Wolters and Hussain (2015) investigated grit and its relations to college students’ self-
regulated learning and academic achievement. They defined self-regulated learning as the
process in which “students take an active, purposeful role in managing motivational, cog-
nitive, and behavioral aspects of their learning” (Wolters and Hussain 2015, p. 295). This
management consisted of students engaging in different sub-processes such as goal set-
ting, the activation of prior knowledge, progress monitoring, engagement and regulation of
learning strategies, and reflection to learn. Their results showed that grittier students were
less likely to procrastinate and had reduced levels of delay in the beginning and completing
academic tasks. They concluded self-regulated learning appears to mediate the relationship
between grit and academic performance.
In contrast, other studies have not demonstrated a correlation between grit and academic
outcomes (Bazelais et  al. 2016; Cross 2013; Stewart 2015). Stewart (2015) found that
high school GPA and test scores were predictors of college academic performance but not
grit. This finding was replicated by Bazelais et al. (2016) who examined the relationship
between grit and GPA and final exam scores for students taking a gateway physics course.
Among graduate students, Cross (2013) found no relationship between grit and doctoral
students’ dissertation completion.
Recent studies on grit have examined its cross-cultural applicability, an essential facet
if admissions staff seek to use grit as a way to boost enrollment of students from histori-
cally marginalized communities. Datu ,Valdez, and King  (2015) examined grit’s validity
for a sample of Filipino undergraduate and high school students from a collectivist culture.
Their results showed that grittier students were more likely to achieve higher satisfaction in
life and emotional well-being. Additionally, these effects comport with Bowman and col-
leagues’ (2015) results in that the effects of grit appear to be isolated to the perseverance
of effort dimension. O’Neal et al. (2016) examined the relationships between grit, stress,
depression, and GPA using a sample of documented and undocumented Latinx first-gener-
ation students. They found high levels of grit among both documented and undocumented
Latinx students. Additionally, the relationship between grit and depression was negative as
undocumented Latinx students with lower levels of grit were more likely to report higher
levels of depression than documented Latinx students.

13
 806 Research in Higher Education (2019) 60:803–822

Grit and Engagement

To date, limited research has focused on grit’s influence on engagement in educationally

purposeful activities (Hodge et al. 2018; Robinson 2015). As mentioned above, Bowman
et  al. (2015) found that grit’s perseverance of effort dimension was positively correlated
with both faculty-student interaction and co-curricular engagement. Holbein et al. (2016)
studied the relationship between grit and middle and high school students’ school and
civic engagement. Their findings show that grittier students performed noticeably better
on a standardized test, had higher levels of school attendance, and a stronger belief in their
future engagement in the political process. Hodge and colleagues (2018) study about the
engagement of Australian university students found a positive relationship between grit
and engagement, which positively correlated with better academic productivity. Moreover,
Robinson (2015) found a strong association between grit and engagement in coursework
for nursing students.

Critiques of Grit

Both the research literature and popular press has hailed grit as the solution to numerous
problems in education (e.g., Duckworth et al. 2007; Duckworth and Quinn 2009; Del Giu-
dice 2014; Engber 2016; Powell 2013; Sedlacek 2017; Wick 2015). However, these claims
about grit have not always stood up to scrutiny. Credé et al. (2016) conducted a meta-anal-
ysis of 88 studies focusing on grit and critiqued grit’s validity. They claim that the relation-
ship between grit and success has been overstated by Duckworth, as the correlation of grit
with academic success is less than .20 in their meta-analysis.
Credé et al. (2016) also contest the uniqueness of grit due to its correlation (.84) with
the conscientiousness dimension of the Big Five personality traits and suggest that grit
is an old, but repackaged concept. Individuals that are conscientious are “thorough, care-
ful, reliable, organized, industrious and self-controlled” (Duckworth et al. 2007, p. 1089).
Individuals that are conscientiousness are highly achievement-oriented, a hallmark of grit
(Cross 2014). However, grit’s proponents argue that grit includes self-control traits that
makeup conscientiousness and also focuses on long-term stamina rather than short-term
intensity (Cross 2014; Duckworth et al. 2007).
Others have contested the construct validity of grit. Credé et  al. (2016) point out that
Duckworth et al.’s confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) of the Short Grit Scale was invalid.
Their CFA model used a higher-order factor structure with two first-order factors which
produce an unidentified model without the imposition of unusual constraints.1 Muenks
et al. (2017) further examined the factor structure of grit, its relation to other constructs,
and the best factor structure model of grit. In their study, high school and college students’
grit, conscientiousness, self-control, cognitive regulations, effort regulation, and behavioral

1
  Higher-order factors require three subscales for a CFA model to be identified, without the imposition of
unusual constraints. When Duckworth and Quinn’s (2009) model is replicated in AMOS 24 (Duckwork and
Quinn used version 6.0), the following error message is produced along with the results: “Minimization was
unsuccessful. The results that follow are therefore incorrect. The model is probably unidentified. In order to
achieve identifiability, it will probably be necessary to impose 2 additional constraints.” Consequently, the
results associated with the published higher-order factor grit solution are highly suspect, especially given
that a standardized loading is greater than 1.

13
Research in Higher Education (2019) 60:803–822 807

engagement and disaffection were measured via a survey. Results showed that for high
school students the two correlated-factor model was the best fit for measuring grit while
the bi-factor model was the best fit for college students. Consequently, their findings indi-
cate that the grit scale is configurally variant between different populations condition, sug-
gesting that Duckworth’s grit scales lack construct validity. Moreover, Muenks et al. (2017)
found that grit and its subscales significantly overlapped with personality, self-regulation
and engagement literature.
Grit has alternately been critiqued from a class-reproduction standpoint as it could help
legitimatize existing inequalities throughout society (Gonzalez-Stokas 2015; Ris 2015;
Socal 2014). This legitimization of existing inequalities can be reproduced through the fun-
damental attribution error or the tendency to overvalue personality-based explanations for
behaviors and situations while ignoring the institutional and systemic constructs that act as
barriers to an individual’s aspirations (Gonzalez-Stokas 2015). An example of fundamental
attribution error in the education system is the unethical action of telling “children who
face a society of entrenched economic inequality, that achievement is the result of indi-
vidual effort and is disconnected from systemic privilege” (Gonzalez-Stokas 2015, p. 516).
Despite these critiques, grit has captured the imagination of college administrators, poli-
cymakers, and the popular press. Consequently, it is essential to investigate the efficacy of
grit’s relationship with college outcomes. The study of grit has examined various types of
populations and circumstances, yet these analyses have primarily focused on a narrow pop-
ulation of interest (i.e., high achieving students at a military academy or Black male under-
graduates) or students attending a single institution. Additionally, there is limited research
about grit’s influence on undergraduate student engagement (Wang and Degol 2016).
This lack of research is concerning, as it limits the potential to understand how grit influ-
ences student outcomes. As grit is not correlated with intelligence, grit must be related to
behavioral outcomes if it ultimately influences academic success. Consequently, we chose
to fill in these research gaps by investigating the construct validity of the most popular
grit scale version and its concurrent validity by investigating its association with students’
engagement in effective educational practices, perceived gains, time usage, and GPA for a
diverse, multi-institutional sample of undergraduates attending bachelor’s degree-granting
institutions.

Conceptual Framework

At its core, this study is an investigation into the validity of grit. Our validity inquiries
were guided by Messick’s (1989) unified validity framework. In the framework, Messick
moved beyond Cureton (1951) and Cronbach’s (1971) notions of validity which focus on
the characteristics of a measure. While traditional criterion validity is an essential aspect
of Messick’s framework, he also emphasized the need to focus on how a measure is inter-
preted and used in practice. Messick (1995) offers a progressive matrix of validity that
ranges from (1) construct validity, (2) construct validity and relevance/utility, (3) construct
validity and value implications, (4) construct validity, relevance/utility, value implications,
and social consequences. Messick’s notion of validity has gone on to inform the current
Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing (American Educational Research
Association et al. 2014).
From this unified view of validity, it is vital to assess multiple facets of validity in rela-
tionship to grit. The questions to inquire about include:

13
 808 Research in Higher Education (2019) 60:803–822

• Whether the Short Grit Scale measures grit (the latent construct)?
• Is the theoretical basis of grit sound?
• Does grit have concurrent, discriminant, and predictive validity?
• Is grit generalizable across groups? Does grit discriminate against certain populations?
• What are the risks associated with using grit in a practical setting?

Until these questions are fully answered, using grit in high stakes decisions may lead to
unintended consequences.

Purpose

In this study, we sought to examine the construct and concurrent validity of the Short
Grit Scale for a large, diverse, multi-institutional sample of college students. To analyze
the construct validity of grit, we utilized confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) to test if the
scale meets generally accepted thresholds for construct validity using the largest and most
diverse data set on grit collected (Credé et  al. 2016). Additionally, we conducted multi-
group CFAs to test if the relationships differ between subpopulations of students to investi-
gate the measurement invariance of the Short Grit Scale. Next, we examine the concurrent
validity of the grit scale by examining its relationship with process indicators of student
engagement, self-perceived gains, time spent studying, and GPA. As the hallmarks of grit
are perseverance of effort and consistency of interest, we hypothesize that grit is a factor
leading to student effort and time dedicated to studying, which ultimately leads to learning
and development (McCormick et al. 2013). However, to date, this relationship has not been
extensively tested. Consequently, we examined the association between the psychological
concept of grit and the behavioral dimensions of student engagement in effective educa-
tional practices. Establishing this link between the psychological realm and actual behav-
iors is important to understanding how students learn. Additionally, if this association does
not exist, it calls into question the validity of grit as a standalone concept.

Methods

Data

We utilized data from the National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE) administered
in the winter and spring of 2016. NSSE is a multi-institutional study of first-year and sen-
ior students attending bachelor’s-granting institutions that examines how often students
engage in educationally beneficial activities, students’ time-use, and their perceptions of
the campus environment. Due to our focus on grit, we focused our analyses on students
who attended one of 38 institutions that received a supplemental set of items that included
the Short Grit Scale (Duckworth and Quinn 2009). These institutions were randomly
selected from a pool of institutions that did not elect to append two additional item sets
(topical modules and consortium items) to the core NSSE instrument. A total of 4668 first-
year and 7082 senior students responded to the item set. The response rate for first-year
and senior students was 21 and 24%, respectively. Previous research has demonstrated that
NSSE data is reliable at these response rates (Fosnacht et al. 2017).

13
Research in Higher Education (2019) 60:803–822 809

The students in our sample attended a diverse set of institutions. Roughly a quarter
attended institutions that awarded doctoral degrees, over half attended master’s colleges
and universities, 15% were enrolled at baccalaureate colleges, and 5% attended special
focus institutions. Just over 40% of the sample was enrolled at a public college. A plurality
of students attended institutions with undergraduate enrollments between 5000 and 9999
students. Half of the students attended institutions with a Barron’s rating of competitive. A
third of the sample attended a minority-serving institution.
Slightly less than two-thirds of the sample were female. White students comprised 57%
of the respondents. Asian, Black, Latinx, and multi-racial students represented 6, 11, 12,
and 7% of the sample respectively. Five percent of the sample was international. Slightly
over a quarter of the sample did not have a parent who enrolled in college. Twelve percent
of the students had parents with some college education. One in ten students had a parent
who received an associate’s degree. Over a quarter of the sample had a parent who earned
a bachelor’s degree. Slightly less than one in four students had a parent with a master’s
degree or higher.
We utilized two sets of key variables in our analyses. First, grit was represented by the
eight items in Duckworth and Quinn’s (2009) Short Grit Scale. These items were lightly
edited from the original scale to conform to NSSE’s style and appended to the end of
NSSE (see Appendix 1 for the items wording). The changes were primarily in the response
options from very much, mostly, somewhat, not much, and not “like me at all” to NSSE’s
standard options of not at all, not much, somewhat, mostly, and very much. This change
ensured that the options comported with the options on the core NSSE instrument and
reduced the cognitive burden on the respondent. We created subscale scores by taking the
means of the component items for the items included in the consistency of interest and per-
severance of effort subscales. Additionally, we reverse coded the items in the consistency
of interest subscale, so that they indicate higher levels of this trait.
Our second set of key variables were process indicators of student learning and devel-
opment en route to students’ ultimate goal of completing college. These variables were
represented by 9 of the 10 NSSE Engagement Indicators (we excluded Effective Teaching
Practices, as this scale focuses on instructors’ efforts), a perceived gains scale, time spent
preparing for class, and self-reported grades. We chose to focus on measures of engage-
ment as they have been found to predict students’ learning and development and retention
(Kuh et  al. 2006; National Survey of Student Engagement, n.d.; Pascarella et  al. 2010).
Additionally, students’ grades have long been a proxy for student learning and develop-
ment. Information on reliability and validity of the Engagement Indicators is available in
NSSE’s (2017) Psychometric Portfolio. The items in the perceived gains scale asked about
how much their college experience contributed to students’ knowledge, skills, and personal
development in 10 areas. The Cronbach’s α for the perceived gains scale was .91 for first-
year students and .90 for seniors. Students’ time spent preparing for class was captured in
ranges (0, 1–5, 6–10, 11–15, 16–20, 21–25, 26–30, more than 30 h per week) and recoded
to the midpoint (the top category was set to 33 h per week). Students were asked to report
their typical grades in the following categories: A, A−, B+, B, B−, C+, C, C− or lower.
We recoded these values to reflect the typical 4.0 GPA scale. To aid in the interpretation
of the results, we standardized both grit subscales, the Engagement Indicators, perceived
gains scale, time spent preparing for class, and grades to have a mean of 0 and standard
deviation of 1.
In addition to these key variables, we also used data on a variety of control variables:
race/ethnicity, sex, standardized test score (SAT/ACT), parental education, academic

13
 810 Research in Higher Education (2019) 60:803–822

major, greek-life participation, age, athletics participation, transfer status, part-time status,
educational aspirations, and on-campus residency.

Analyses

Construct Validity

We began our analyses by assessing the construct validity of the Short Grit Scale using
confirmatory factor analysis. Duckworth and Quinn (2009) propose the Short Grit Scale as
a higher order factor with two subscales: consistency of interest and perseverance of effort.
However, this model is unidentified without the imposition of multiple unusual constraints
(see the critiques of grit section for more detail). Therefore, we conducted a CFA using
MPLUS where the subscales were correlated and not subsumed under a higher-order fac-
tor. The model was estimated using full information maximum likelihood. We assessed
model fit using the following standards (Hu and Bentler 1999). The model was judged to
have good fit if the comparative fit index (CFI) and Tucker-Lewis index (TLI) were greater
than or equal to .95 and the root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) was less
than or equal to .05. The thresholds for adequate fit used were CFI and TLI were greater
than or equal to .90, and the RMSEA was less than or equal to .06. Also, we report the χ2
results for the models; however, due to our large sample size and the sensitivity of the χ2
statistic to sample sizes, we focused our interpretation on the CFI, TLI, and RMSEA.
Next, we examined the measurement invariance of the Short Grit Scale by replicating
the confirmatory factor analysis by subgroup. Confirmation of measurement invariance
helps ensure valid inferences from between-group comparisons (Horn and McArdle 1992).
If grit has applicability for high-stakes decisions, like admissions, it is critical to assess
whether the scale’s measurement properties vary by subgroups, as the use of grit in such
decisions could unfairly advantage or disadvantage particular groups of students. Meas-
urement invariance was assessed for students by class level (first-year vs. senior), parental
education (first-generation vs. non-first-generation), sex (male vs. female), and race/ethnic-
ity (White vs. non-White). We selected these groups to examine if the scale adequately
performs longitudinally and does not discriminate against historically marginalized pop-
ulations. To assess measurement invariance, we performed the following steps for each
group. First, we tested the fit of the model for each group separately. Next, using generally
accepted practices, we tested for configural, metric, and scalar invariance by estimating
a series of models and comparing their fit indices incrementally (Putnick and Bornstein
2016; Rutkowski and Svetina 2017). After freely estimating parameters for each group, the
model for configural invariance confirms an equal number of factors with the same pat-
tern of factor loadings, intercepts, and measurement errors underlie the set of items used
for measuring grit in each group. To test metric invariance, we then constrained the factor
loadings to be equal across groups and assessed the magnitude of change in model fit indi-
ces to the configural model; very small differences in model fit after constraining param-
eters provided evidence of metric measurement invariance (see criteria described below).
If a model is metric invariant, the construct has the same meaning across the groups exam-
ined, allowing for the scales to be used in multivariate statistical analyses. The model for
scalar invariance constrained factor loadings to be equal as well as constrained item inter-
cepts across groups. Using model fit change statistics comparing metric to scalar models,
we tested whether the groups have equivalent item intercepts. Achieving scalar measure-
ment invariance is necessary for valid group mean comparisons based on latent variables.

13
Research in Higher Education (2019) 60:803–822 811

We used the following thresholds for assessing measurement invariance as suggested

by Chen (2007). For metric (loading) invariance, we used the criteria of a change greater
than or equal to − .010 in CFI and less than or equal to .015 in RMSEA compared to the
configural model. The criteria for scalar (loading and intercept) invariance was a change of
greater than or equal to − .010 in CFI and less than or equal to .015 in RMSEA compared
to the metric model. We also report the Δχ2; however, due to the large sample size, we
relied on the other fit indices to assess measurement invariance.

Concurrent Validity

To assess the concurrent validity of grit, we estimated a series of OLS regression mod-
els that predicted NSSE’s Engagement Indicators, a perceived gains scale, GPA, and time
spent preparing for class using the grit subscales and the control variables described in the
data section. Additionally, due to the multi-level structure of our data, we included institu-
tion-specific fixed effects in the models. The fixed effects are essentially dummy variables
that control for differences in institution attended and encompass both structural differ-
ences in institution type like enrollment size and control and unobserved qualitative factors
like a culture of supporting students among faculty or peer support for academics. Addi-
tionally, we adjusted the standard errors to account for the clustering of students within
institutions. All of the concurrent validity analyses were performed separately for first-year
and senior students, following NSSE’s standard practices. To aid in the interpretation of
the results, we reverse coded the consistency of interest items for the concurrent validity
analyses, as the wording of the items in this subscale all indicate lower levels of grit. As we
standardized both the outcome variables and grit subscales, the results reported represent
the expected standard deviation change in the outcome for a standard deviation change in
one of the grit subscales.

Limitations

This study has some limitations that should be taken into consideration when interpreting
its results. First, our outcome measures are self-reported by students and may be subject
to measurement or social desirability bias (West et al. 2016). However, self-reported data
has generally found to be valid for measures of student behavior and grades, provided that
the items on a survey can be comprehended by the respondent, known to the respondent,
produces a meaningful response, and the response options are complete and clear (Gon-
yea 2005). As the Short Grit Scale was administered to students at the same time as the
core NSSE instrument, the relationships between grit and our dependent variables should
be viewed as correlational, not causal. However, if grit is a personality trait, then we can
assume that an individual’s level of grit will be relatively constant as the stability of per-
sonality traits is one of the most robust findings in psychology, leading towards a greater
ability to infer causation (McCrae and Costa Jr. 1994). Additionally, our sample did not
have an adequate size to investigate measurement invariance for smaller groups. Therefore,
we decided to classify students by race and parental education into two groups (White/
non-White and first-generation/non-first-generation). By aggregating students into larger
groups, we may be masking some important variation in our analyses.

13
 812 Research in Higher Education (2019) 60:803–822

Results

We present the results of the validity tests in two sections: construct validity and concur-
rent validity.

Construct Validity

We began by assessing the model fit of the Short Grit Scale by performing a confirm-
atory factor analysis. The analysis revealed that the model fit our data marginally,
χ2(19) = 971.839 p < .001, CFI = .954, TLI = .932, RMSEA = .065 (90% CI .062–.069).
The CFI and TLI values were above our threshold for adequate fit (.90), but the confi-
dence interval for the RMSEA did not include ≤ .06. Additionally, the standardized factor
loading for one item (“Setbacks don’t discourage me”) was extremely low at .10. All other
standardized loadings were .59 or greater. The correlation between the two grit subscales
was −0.51. The results of the model are visually displayed in Fig. 1.
As the fit indices indicated that the fit could be improved and the low loading of the “set-
backs don’t discourage me” item (part of the perseverance of effort subscale), we estimated
a second CFA without this item. The fit statistics for this analysis were χ2(13) = 630.690
p < .001, CFI = .969, TLI = .951, RMSEA = .064 (90% CI .059–.068). Removing the low
loading item improved the overall model fit, and all of the indices met our thresholds for
adequate fit. The standardized loadings for this model were all .59 or greater. The cor-
relation between the subscales was − .52. The standardized item loadings for the revised
model are displayed in Fig. 2.
Next, we assessed the measurement invariance of the short grit scale using the pro-
cedures previously described to examine scale properties across subgroups. Due to the
improved fit of the scale without the “setbacks don’t discourage me” item, our analyses
were based on the modified model. Table 1 displays the results for baseline models for each
group and the combined models testing configural, metric, and scalar invariance.
The baseline model for first-year students indicated adequate fit, while the senior model
indicated marginal fit (RMSEA >.06). The configural model for class level just met our
threshold for adequate fit (RMSEA lower 90% CI = .06), indicating the same factor struc-
ture form between first-year and senior students (i.e., equivalent number of latent variables,
factor loadings, intercepts, and residuals). The change in CFI and RMSEA between the
configural and metric models and between the metric and scalar models met Chen’s (2007)
suggested thresholds indicating that the modified, two-factor grit model has equivalent
loadings and intercepts for both the first-year and senior undergraduate population.
Next, we examined the models by parental education status. The baseline model for
first-generation students indicated marginal fit (RMSEA > .06) for first-generation students
and adequate fit for non-first-generation students. The configural model for parental educa-
tion met our threshold for adequate fit (RMSEA lower 90% CI .059), indicating that the
factor structure form is equivalent between first-generation and non-first-generation stu-
dents. The change in CFI and RMSEA between the configural and metric models as well as
the metric and scalar models indicated relatively little difference in model fit, thus provid-
ing evidence for measurement invariance at all levels.
The baseline models for males and females indicated adequate or marginal fit for
both groups as both RMSEAs were > .06, but the outer edge of the confidence intervals
included .06. The configural model also had adequate to marginal fit due to a RMSEA of

13
Research in Higher Education (2019) 60:803–822 813

Fig. 1  Confirmatory Factor Anal-

ysis of Duckworth and Quinn’s
(2009) Short Grit Scale. CI
consistency of interest, PE Perse-
verance of effort; See Appendix
1 for item wordings

13
 814 Research in Higher Education (2019) 60:803–822

Fig. 2  Confirmatory factor analy-

sis of the modified short grit
scale. CI Consistency of interest,
PE perseverance of effort; See
Appendix 1 for item wordings

.064, with a confidence interval of .060 to .068, indicating that the factor structure form is
equivalent between male and female students. The change in fit indices between the models
also provided evidence for metric and scalar measurement invariance.

13
 Table 1  Fit indices for class level, parental education, sex, and race invariance analyses
Model Overall fit indices Model comparison Comparative fit indices
2
χ Df RMSEA (90% CI) CFI TLI Δχ2 Δdf ΔCFI ΔRMSEA

Class level
 First-year 237.734*** 13 .061 (.054 .068) 0.970 0.951
 Senior 414.245*** 13 .066 (.061 .072) 0.967 0.946
  1. Configural 651.979*** 26 .064 (.060 .068) 0.968 0.948
  2. Metric 664.530*** 31 .059 (.055 .063) 0.967 0.956 1 versus 2 12.552* 5 0.001 0.005
  3. Scalar 753.147*** 36 .058 (.055 .062) 0.963 0.957 2 versus 3 88.617*** 5 0.004 0.001
Parental education
 First-generation 352.859*** 13 .067 (.061 .073) 0.966 0.946
 Non-first-generation 279.646*** 13 .059 (.054 .066) 0.973 0.956
Research in Higher Education (2019) 60:803–822

  1. Configural 632.505*** 26 .063 (.059 .067) 0.970 0.951

  2. Metric 646.436*** 31 .058 (.054 .062) 0.969 0.958 1 versus 2 13.931* 5 0.001 0.005
  3. Scalar 749.836*** 36 .058 (.055 .062) 0.964 0.958 2 versus 3 103.400*** 5 0.005 0.000
Sex
 Female 408.30*** 13 .064 (.058 .069) 0.969 0.950
 Male 246.177*** 13 .065 (.058 .072) 0.969 0.949
  1. Configural 654.479*** 26 .064 (.060 .068) 0.969 0.950
  2. Metric 671.091*** 31 .059 (.055 .063) 0.968 0.957 1 versus 2 16.612** 5 0.001 0.005
  3. Scalar 829.624*** 36 .061 (.058 .065) 0.961 0.954 2 versus 3 158.533*** 5 0.007 -0.002
Race/ethnicity
 Non-white 231.419*** 13 .058 (.051 .065) 0.975 0.959
 White 428.660*** 13 .069 (.064 .075) 0.964 0.941
  1. Configural 660.079*** 26 .065 (.061 .069) 0.968 0.949
  2. Metric 685.467*** 31 .060 (.056 .064) 0.967 0.956 1 versus 2 25.388*** 5 0.001 0.005
  3. Scalar 793.149*** 36 .060 (.057 .064) 0.962 0.956 2 versus 3 107.682*** 5 0.005 0.000
2 2
χ Chi square, df degrees of freedom, RMSEA root mean square error of approximation, CFI comparative fit index, TLI Tucker-Lewis index, Δχ and Δdf change in χ2 and
degrees of freedom between models, ΔCFI change in CFI score between models, ΔRMSEA change in RMSEA score between models
815

13
*p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001
 816 Research in Higher Education (2019) 60:803–822

Finally, we assessed invariance by race/ethnicity. The baseline model for non-White

students had adequate fit. However, the model for White students had marginal fit,
RMSEA = .069 (90% CI .064–.075). The configural model also had a marginal fit due to
the RMSEA of .065 (90% CI .061–.069), indicating equivalent factor structure form. The
change indices for the metric and scalar models did not substantially vary. Thus we found
measurement invariance at all levels for race/ethnicity.

Concurrent Validity

Due to the findings from the construct validity analyses, we utilized a modified version
of the perseverance of effort subscale in our concurrent validity analyses, as the modified
subscale was a better fit to the data. Table 2 contains the results of our multivariate analy-
ses. The coefficients represent the expected standard deviation change in the Engagement
Indicators, the perceived gains scale, time spent preparing for class, and students grades for
a standard deviation change in the two grit subscales consistency of interest and persever-
ance of effort, holding constant other factors.
Our results indicate that consistency of interest has a negligible or relatively weak asso-
ciation with engagement, perceived gains, time spent preparing for class, and grades after
we controlled for other variables. The absolute values of the relationships ranged from .01
for Supportive Environment to .11 for Reflective and Integrative Learning for first-year
students. Furthermore, consistency of interest was consistently negatively related to the
Engagement Indicators. However, the relationship was positive for time spent preparing for
class and grades. The results were relatively similar for seniors as the absolute value of the
coefficients ranged from .02 to .10. However, we did not observe any significant and posi-
tive relationships between consistency of interest and our dependent variables for seniors.
In contrast to the consistency of interest results, we found a pattern of positive relation-
ships of a larger magnitude for the perseverance of effort subscale. For first-year students,
the perseverance of effort estimates ranged from .15 for Quality of Interactions to .32 for
Learning Strategies after holding constant other characteristics. For seniors, the estimates
ranged from .11 for Quality of Interactions to .24 for Learning Strategies and grades. All of
the relationships were statistically significant at p < .001 for both the first-year and senior
subsamples.

Discussion

Admissions leaders are increasingly focusing on using non-cognitive traits, like grit,
as a factor in the admissions process (Powell 2013; Sedlacek 2017; Wick 2015). Grit
has the theoretical potential to help admissions professionals identify talented students
who would thrive in college, yet may lack the traditional academic criteria needed for
admission to a highly selective college. Despite the push for using grit as a factor in
holistic admissions review, the concept has not been fully empirically validated and
is the subject of debate within research circles (Credé et  al. 2016; Gonzalez-Stokas
2015; Muenks et  al. 2017; Ris 2015; Socal 2014). Furthermore, Duckworth’s initial
validation studies of grit focused on narrow samples atypical of common educational
settings (e.g., West Point cadets, Scripps Spelling Bee finalists), indicating the need to
reassess the validity of the scale in more representative populations (Duckworth et al.

13
Research in Higher Education (2019) 60:803–822 817

Table 2  Fixed effect estimates of the relationship between grit and student engagement and perceived gains
for first-year and senior students
Consistency of ­interest1 Perseverance of effort ΔR2 Final ­R2
Est. Sig. SE Est. Sig. SE

First-year students
 Higher-order learning − 0.06 ** 0.02 0.26 *** 0.02 0.06 0.09
 Reflective and integrative learning − 0.11 *** 0.02 0.25 *** 0.02 0.05 0.12
 Quantitative reasoning − 0.10 *** 0.02 0.22 *** 0.02 0.04 0.09
 Learning strategies − 0.02 0.02 0.32 *** 0.02 0.10 0.13
 Collaborative learning − 0.09 *** 0.02 0.19 *** 0.02 0.04 0.09
 Discussions w/diverse others − 0.07 *** 0.02 0.16 *** 0.02 0.02 0.07
 Student-faculty interaction − 0.05 ** 0.02 0.20 *** 0.02 0.03 0.07
 Quality of interactions − 0.07 *** 0.02 0.15 *** 0.02 0.03 0.08
 Supportive environment 0.01 0.02 0.21 *** 0.02 0.04 0.06
 Perceived gains − 0.06 *** 0.02 0.30 *** 0.02 0.08 0.11
 Time spent: preparing for class 0.08 *** 0.02 0.16 *** 0.02 0.05 0.09
 GPA 0.09 *** 0.02 0.26 *** 0.02 0.07 0.19
Seniors
 Higher-order learning − 0.05 * 0.02 0.17 *** 0.02 0.02 0.08
 Reflective and integrative learning − 0.06 ** 0.02 0.17 *** 0.02 0.02 0.16
 Quantitative reasoning − 0.07 *** 0.02 0.17 *** 0.02 0.02 0.13
 Learning strategies − 0.02 0.02 0.24 *** 0.02 0.05 0.13
 Collaborative learning − 0.10 *** 0.02 0.17 *** 0.02 0.03 0.15
 Discussions w/diverse others − 0.02 0.02 0.14 *** 0.02 0.02 0.07
 Student-faculty interaction − 0.08 *** 0.02 0.19 *** 0.02 0.04 0.13
 Quality of interactions 0.00 0.02 0.11 *** 0.02 0.02 0.05
 Supportive environment − 0.05 * 0.02 0.16 *** 0.02 0.03 0.06
 Perceived gains − 0.08 *** 0.02 0.20 *** 0.02 0.05 0.11
 Time spent: preparing for class 0.03 0.02 0.18 *** 0.02 0.03 0.10
 GPA 0.03 0.02 0.24 *** 0.02 0.07 0.23

All dependent variables, consistency of interest, and perseverance of effort were standardized with a mean
of 0 and standard deviation of 1. ΔR2 = change in explained variance after the grit subscales were added
to the model. Control variables included race/ethnicity, sex, standardized test score (SAT/ACT), parental
education, major, greek-life participation, age, athletics participation, transfer status, part-time status, edu-
cational aspirations, and on-campus residency. Models included fixed institutional effects
*p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001
1
 Modified from Duckworth’s proposed subscale. Excludes “setbacks don’t discourage me” due to improved
model fit without the item (see construct validity section for more details)

2007; Duckworth and Quinn 2009). Therefore, we sought to investigate the validity of
grit and, in particular, the Short Grit Scale, using Messick’s (1989) unified framework
of validity.
Based on data from nearly 12,000 undergraduates attending a diverse group of U.S.
colleges and universities, our study investigated both the construct and concurrent valid-
ity of the Short Grit Scale. Though the factor structure of grit has been investigated by
others before, we are the first to apply these techniques to a large data set comprised of

13
 818 Research in Higher Education (2019) 60:803–822

students attending numerous postsecondary institutions to confirm its factor structure and
stability across different student groups. Additionally, grit’s relationship to student engage-
ment in educationally beneficial practices has not been extensively studied. Overall, our
results demonstrated that (1) a modified, two correlated factor model for grit’s consistency
of interest and perseverance of effort subscales adequately fits the underlying data; (2) the
sub-scale scores generally have the same meaning across different student groups (class
level, first-generation status, sex, and racial/ethnic minority status); and (3) the persever-
ance of effort scale is a more powerful predictor of NSSE measures than consistency of
interest, although perseverance of effort’s effects are for the most part small in size and
vary between class level and across outcomes.
These findings when integrated with prior research allow us to come to some conclusions
about grit. First, the Short Grit Scale does not meet generally accepted criteria for use in
high-stakes situations. As previously noted by Credé et al. (2016), the proposed factor struc-
ture for the Short Grit Scale by Duckworth and Quinn (2009) is invalid (see the Critiques of
Grit section for more details). Our confirmatory factor analysis found a poor fit to the data,
mainly because one item was relatively unrelated to the perseverance of effort subscale. After
removing the item, we achieved adequate fit. However, the scale still did not display good fit,
which would be needed to utilize the scale in high stakes decisions like admission to highly
selective institutions. However, it is appropriate for use in research applications, according
to this standard. Although, we must also caution that even if the scale had properties suited
to high-stakes situations, we are concerned that students may not honestly answer the items.
Consequently, a preferable approach might be to have counselors rate students on their grit
levels like Akos and Kretchmar’s (2017) use of the grit scale with family and peers.
Second, we found that one of the grit subscales, perseverance of effort, was significantly
and positively related to engagement in educationally purposeful activities, perceived
gains, and GPA when we held constant a basket of student characteristics and fixed institu-
tional effects. However, the second subscale was weakly and sometimes negatively related
to our dependent variables. Across all outcomes, the average standardized coefficient for
perseverance of effort was about .22 and .18 for first-year and senior students, respectively;
for consistency of interest, the mean coefficients were .07 and .05, respectively. The grit
subscales accounted for a significant proportion of the total explained variance for many
of the dependent variables. For instance, for first-year students, the subscales accounted for
over 10, 8, and 7% of the total variation in learning strategies, perceived gains scales, and
GPA, respectively.
Our finding that perseverance of effort, but not consistency of interest, is positively
related to a host of outcomes comports with numerous prior studies (e.g., Bowman et al.
2015; Credé et  al. 2016; Datu et  al. 2015; Muenks et  al. 2017). Their relationship to
engagement is important due to engagement’s association with persistence and student
learning (Kuh et al. 2006; National Survey of Student Engagement, n.d.; Pascarella et al.
2010). Furthermore, our measures of engagement were process indicators of student learn-
ing, which we would expect students to participate in if grit has positive impacts on col-
lege student outcomes. Our concurrent validity results indicate that admissions leaders may
want to include students’ perseverance of effort when making admissions decisions in a
holistic framework. However, our results do not suggest that perseverance of effort should
be a dominant factor in admissions decisions as the partial correlation with our outcomes
was not overwhelmingly strong.
Third, our results mainly suggest that grit, when measured by the Short Grit Scale, is
invariant across populations. This feature is critical as it suggests that grit is not biased

13
Research in Higher Education (2019) 60:803–822 819

against important subgroups like historically underrepresented racial and ethnic groups,
first-generation college students, and women. As grit has been previously critiqued as a
vehicle to legitimize class reproduction (Gonzalez-Stokas 2015; Ris 2015; Socal 2014), the
invariance of grit across these subscales indicates that the critique is not substantiated by
the quantitative evidence. Furthermore, it suggests that the use of grit in high stakes deci-
sions, like college admission, should not have a deleterious societal impact, an important
consideration in Messick’s (1989) validity framework. However, we must be cognizant that
grit, as operationalized by the Short Grit Scale, does not meet the standards for use in high
stakes decisions; therefore, an invariance analysis should be repeated if an improved scale
becomes available.
Given the limited existing research exploring grit’s relationship to college student
engagement processes, two potential avenues to explore in the future should be considered.
First, we should better understand the potential moderating or mediating effects that per-
severance of effort has on various student background/demographic characteristics when
explaining student engagement behavior and other student outcomes (i.e., academic major,
sex, first-generation status, first-generation status). An enticing aspect of grit is its pos-
sibility for compensatory effects, where high levels of grit could result in outsized gains
for those with lower academic credentials. Second, while Duckworth (2016) has indi-
cated that grit may be malleable, there is limited information about efforts by colleges to
increase student grit. Systematic research exploring who is attempting to change students’
levels of grit and how they are going about it can be beneficial for understanding the grit
landscape among colleges. Once relevant institutions are identified large-scale data collec-
tion efforts can be implemented to track students to see if they are positively impacted by
school efforts. Other types of academic success programs can be tracked as well to see how
grit-related programs compare to them. Credé et  al. (2016) suggest that other programs
that focus on study skills might be a wiser investment regarding time and funding. Third,
our findings in combination with others indicate that the operationalization of grit could
be improved (Credé et al. 2016; Muenks et al. 2017). Consequently, future efforts should
be made to create an improved grit scale that can conform to strict psychometric scrutiny,
given the interest of using non-cognitive factors like grit in high-stakes decisions. Further-
more, much research has demonstrated that the predictive power in grit mainly resides in
the perseverance of effort component (Bowman et  al. 2015; Credé et  al. 2016; Muenks
et al. 2017); therefore, such future efforts may want to focus on this component of grit.

Conclusion

Despite the desire of admissions professionals to use grit in their decision-making pro-
cesses, the current operationalized version of grit does not appear to be a valid measure
for high-stakes decisions. However, one dimension of grit, perseverance of effort, shows
some promise in its ability to predict important postsecondary outcomes. Additionally, grit
appears to be relatively invariant, suggesting that that grit may be a pathway to identify
historically underrepresented students that show great promise for postsecondary success.
Consequently, more future research should be devoted to creating an empirically valid grit
scale.

13
 820 Research in Higher Education (2019) 60:803–822

Appendix 1: Items in the Short Grit Scale

Variable Variable label Values and labels

a
GRM1601a New ideas and projects distract me from previous ­ones 1 = Not at all
GRM1601b Setbacks don’t discourage me 2 = Not much
3 = Somewhat
GRM1601c I have been obsessed with a certain idea or project for a short 4 = Mostly
time but later lost ­interesta 5 = Very much
GRM1601d I am a hard worker
GRM1601e I set goals but later choose to pursue different ­onesa
GRM1601f I have difficulty maintaining my focus on projects that take more
than a few months to ­completea
GRM1601g I finish whatever I begin
GRM1601h I am diligent

a
 Reverse coded in the concurrent validity analyses

References
Akos, P., & Kretchmar, J. (2017). Investigating grit at a non-cognitive predictor of college success. The
Review of Higher Education, 40(2), 163–186. https​://doi.org/10.1353/rhe.2017.0000.
American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association & National Council on
Measurement in Education. (2014). Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing. Washing-
ton, DC: American Educational Research Association.
Bazelais, P., David, J. L., & Tenzin, D. (2016). How does grit impact college students’ academic achieve-
ment in science? European Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 4(1), 33–43.
Bowman, N. A., Hill, P. L., Denison, N., & Bronkema, R. (2015). Keep on truckin’ or stay the course?
Exploring grit dimensions as differential predictors of educational achievement, satisfaction, and inten-
tions. Social Psychology and Personality Science, 6, 639–645. https​://doi.org/10.1177/19485​50615​
57430​0.
Chen, F. F. (2007). Sensitivity of goodness of fit indexes to lack of measurement invariance. Structural
Equation Modeling, 14(3), 464–504.
Credé, M., Tynan, M. C., & Harms, P. D. (2016). Much ado about grit: A meta-analytic synthesis of the grit
literature. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 111, 492–511. https​://doi.org/10.1037/pspp0​
00010​2.
Cronbach, L. J. (1971). Test validation. In R. L. Thorndike (Ed.), Educational measurement (2nd ed., pp.
443–507). Washington, DC: American Council on Education.
Cross, T. (2014). The gritty: Grit and non-traditional doctoral student success. Journal of Educators Online,
11(3), 1–30.
Cross, T. M. (2013).  Staying the course: Grit, academic success, and non-traditional doctoral stu-
dents (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (UMI No.
3587687).
Cureton, E. E. (1951). Validity. In E. F. Lindquist (Ed.), Educational measurement (pp. 621–694). Washing-
ton, DC: American Council on Education.
Datu, J. F., Valdez, J. P., & King, R. B. (2015). Perseverance counts but consistency does not! Validating the
short grit scale in a collectivist setting. Current Psychology, 35, 121–130.
Del Giudice, M. (2014). Grit trumps talent and IQ: A story every parent (and educator) should read.
Retrieved from http://news.natio​nalge​ograp​hic.com/news/2014/10/14101​5-angel​a-duckw​orth-succe​ss-
grit-psych​ology​-self-contr​ol-scien​ce-nginn​ovato​rs/.
Duckworth, A. L. (2013). Angela Lee Duckworth: Grit: The power of passion and perseverance [Video
file]. Retrieved from https​://www.ted.com/talks​/angel​a_lee_duckw​orth_grit_the_power​_of_passi​on_
and_perse​veran​ce/up-next.
Duckworth, A. L. (2016). Grit: The power of passion and perseverance. New York: Simon and Schuster.

13
Research in Higher Education (2019) 60:803–822 821

Duckworth, A. L., Peterson, C., Matthews, M. D., & Kelly, D. R. (2007). Grit: Perseverance and passion
for long-term goals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92(6), 1087–1101. https​://doi.
org/10.1037/0022-3514.92.6.1087.
Duckworth, A. L., & Quinn, P. D. (2009). Development and validation of the short grit scale (Grit-S).
Journal of Personality Assessment, 9, 166–174. https​://doi.org/10.1080/00223​89080​26342​90.
Engber, D. (2016). Is “Grit” really the key to success? Retrieved from http://www.slate​.com/artic​les/
healt​h_and_scien​ce/cover​_story​/2016/05/angel​a_duckw​orth_says_grit_is_the_key_to_succe​ss_in_
work_and_life_is_this.html.
Fosnacht, K., Sarraf, S., Howe, E., & Peck, L. K. (2017). How important are high response rates for college
surveys? The Review of Higher Education, 40(2), 245–265. https​://doi.org/10.1353/rhe.2017.0003.
Gonyea, R. M. (2005). Self-reported data in institutional research: Review and recommendations. New
Directions for Institutional Research, 127, 73–89.
Gonzalez-Stokas, A. (2015). A genealogy of grit: Education in the new gilded age. Educational Theory,
65(5), 513–528. https​://doi.org/10.1111/edth.12130​.
Hodge, B., Wright, B., & Bennett, W. (2018). The role of grit in determining engagement and aca-
demic outcomes for university students. Research in Higher Education, 59, 448–460.  https​://doi.
org/10.1007/s1116​2-017-9474-y.
Holbein, J. B., Hillygus, D. S., Gibson-Davis, C. M., Hill, D., & Lendard, M. A. (2016). The develop-
ment of students’ engagement in school, community, and democracy. Retrieved from https​://paper​
s.ssrn.com/sol3/paper​s.cfm?abstr​act_id=27932​74.
Horn, J. L., & McArdle, J. J. (1992). A practical and theoretical guide to measurement invariance in
aging research. Experimental Aging Research, 18, 117–144. https​://doi.org/10.1080/03610​73920​
82539​16.
Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Con-
ventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Jour-
nal, 6(1), 1–55. https​://doi.org/10.1080/10705​51990​95401​18.
Kuh, G. D., Kinzie, J., Cruce, T., Shoup, R., & Gonyea, R. M. (2006). Connecting the dots: Multi-faceted
analyses of the relationships between student engagement results from the NSSE, and the institu-
tional practices and conditions that foster student success: Final report prepared for Lumina Foun-
dation for Education. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University, Center for Postsecondary Research.
MacArthur Foundation. (2017). Angela Duckworth. Retrieved from https​://www.macfo​und.org/fello​ws/889/.
McCormick, A. C., Kinzie, J., & Gonyea, R. M. (2013). Student engagement: Bridging research and
practice to improve the quality of undergraduate education. In M. B. Paulsen (Ed.), Higher educa-
tion: Handbook of theory and research (Vol. 28, pp. 47–92). Dordrecht: Springer.
McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T., Jr. (1994). The stability of personality: Observations and evaluations.
Current Directions in Psychological Science, 3, 173–175.
Messick, S. (1989). Validity. In R. L. Linn (Ed.), Educational measurement (3rd ed., pp. 13–103). New
York: American Council on Education and Macmillan.
Messick, S. (1995). Validity of psychological assessment: Validation of inferences from persons’
responses and performances as scientific inquiry into score meaning. American Psychologist, 50(9),
741–749. https​://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.50.9.741.
Muenks, K., Wigfield, A., Yang, J. S., & O’Neal, C. R. (2017). How true is grit? Assessing its relations to
high school and college students’ personality charcteristics, self-regulations, engagement, and achieve-
ment. Journal of Educational Psychology, 109(5), 599–620. https​://doi.org/10.1037/edu00​00153​.
National Survey of Student Engagement. (2017). NSSE’s Commitment to Data Quality. Retrieved from
http://nsse.india​na.edu/html/psych​ometr​ic_portf​olio.cfm.
National Survey of Student Engagement. (n.d.). Validity: Predicting retention and degree progress.
Retrieved from http://nsse.india​na.edu/pdf/psych​ometr​ic_portf​olio/Predi​ctive​Valid​ity_reten​tion_
degre​eprog​ress.pdf.
O’Neal, C. R., Espino, M. M., Goldthrite, A., Morin, M. F., Weston, L., Hernandez, P., et  al. (2016).
Grit under duress: Stress, strengths, and academic success among non-citizen and citizen Latina/o
first-generation college students. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 38, 446–466. https​://
doi.org/10.1177/07399​86316​66077​5.
Pascarella, E. T., Seifert, T. A., & Blaich, C. (2010). How effective are the NSSE benchmarks in predict-
ing important educational outcomes? Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 42(1), 16–22.
Powell, K. (2013). Higher education: On the lookout for true grit. Nature, 504, 471–473. https​://doi.
org/10.1038/nj748​0-471a.
Putnick, D. L., & Bornstein, M. H. (2016). Measurement invariance conventions and reporting: The state
of the art and future directions for psychological research. Developmental Review, 41, 71–90. https​
://doi.org/10.1016/j.dr.2016.06.004.

13
 822 Research in Higher Education (2019) 60:803–822

Ris, E. W. (2015). Grit: A short history of a useful concept. Journal of Educational Controversy, 10(1),
Article 3. Retrieved from http://cedar​.wwu.edu/cgi/viewc​onten​t.cgi?artic​le=1246&conte​xt=jec.
Robinson, W. L. (2015). Grit and demographic characteristics associated with nursing student course
engagement (Doctoral dissertation, Indiana University Purdue University Indianapolis). Retrieved
from https​://schol​arwor​ks.iupui​.edu/bitst​ream/handl​e/1805/8008/Robin​son_iupui​_0104D​_10014​
.pdf?seque​nce=1.
Rutkowski, L., & Svetina, D. (2017). Measurement invariance in international surveys: Categorical indi-
cators and fit measure performance. Applied Measurement in Education, 30(1), 39–51. https​://doi.
org/10.1080/08957​347.2016.12435​40.
Sedlacek, W. (2017). Measuring noncognitive variables: improving admissions, success and retention for
underrepresented students. Sterling, VA: Stylus.
Socal, I. (2014). Taking a closer look at the “grit” narratives. Knowledge Quest, 43(1), 8–12.
Stewart, S. B. (2015). Grit and self-control as predictors of first-year student success. (Doctoral disserta-
tion). Retrieved from http://digit​alcom​mons.usm.maine​.edu/cgi/viewc​onten​t.cgi?artic​le=1172&conte​
xt=etd.
Strayhorn, T. L. (2014). What role does grit play in the academic success of black male collegians at pre-
dominately-white institutions? Journal of African American Studies, 18, 1–10. https​://doi.org/10.1007/
s1211​1-012-9243-0.
United States Department of Education (2013). Promoting grit, tenacity, and persistence: Critical Factors
for success in the 21st century. Retrieved from http://pgbov​ine.net/OET-Draft​-Grit-Repor​t-2-17-13.
pdf.
Wang, M., & Degol, J. (2016). Staying engaged: Knowledge and research needs in student engagement.
Child Development Perspectives, 8, 137–143. https​://doi.org/10.1111/cdep.12073​.
West, M. R., Kraft, M. A., Finn, A. S., Martin, R., Duckworth, A. L., Gabrieli, C. F., et al. (2016). Promise
and paradox: Measuring students’ non-cognitive skills and the impact of schooling. Education Evalua-
tion and Policy Analysis, 38, 148–170. https​://doi.org/10.3102/01623​73715​59729​8.
Wick, J. (2015). Putting more “grit” in college admissions: Going beyond test optional. Retrieved from
http://bloge​m.ruffa​lonl.com/2015/08/11/putti​ng-grit-colle​ge-admis​sions​-test-optio​nal/.
Wolters, C. A., & Hussain, M. (2015). Investigating grit and its relations with college students’ self-regu-
lated learning and academic achievement. Metacognition and Learning, 10(3), 293–311. https​://doi.
org/10.1007/s1140​9-014-9128-9.

13
Research in Higher Education is a copyright of Springer, 2019. All Rights Reserved.