Study Skills Profiles of Normal-Achieving and Academically-Struggling College

Students

Briley E. Proctor, Frances F. Prevatt, Katharine S. Adams, Abigail Reaser, Yaacov

Petscher

Journal of College Student Development, Volume 47, Number 1, January/February

2006, pp. 37-51 (Article)

Published by Johns Hopkins University Press

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1353/csd.2006.0011

For additional information about this article

https://muse.jhu.edu/article/192411

Access provided by The University of British Columbia Library (22 Mar 2017 06:31 GMT)
Study Skills Profiles of Normal-Achieving and
Academically-Struggling College Students
Briley E. Proctor Frances Prevatt Katharine Adams
Abigail Hurst Yaacov Petscher

Profile analysis was used to compare the study
skills of academically struggling college students
to their normal-achieving counterparts using the
Learning and Study Strategies Inventory (LASSI;
Weinstein & Palmer, 2002). Comparisons were
made between: (a) students with high versus low
GPAs; (b) students with a documented learning
disability (LD) versus a non-LD control group;
(c) students referred for a psycho-educational
evaluation due to academic difficulties versus a
control group; and (d) clinic-referred students
with LDs versus clinic-referred students without
LDs. Overall, the academically struggling groups
displayed weaknesses in study skills relative to
their comparison groups in five areas. When
compared to the normative population of the
LASSI, the groups also displayed weaknesses in
seven of ten areas assessed.
The ability of students to successfully complete
a college degree program is of concern to
numerous stakeholders, including students
themselves, their families, college admissions
offices, college retention personnel, financers
(e.g., student loan and grant offices, taxpayers),
and society at large. College admissions officers
have been primarily concerned with the
predictors of academic success, whereas others
in the postsecondary setting are more inter-
ested in factors influencing rates of college
retention and dropout. Predictive studies have
traditionally identified high school GPA and
scores on standardized tests as two of the
stronger predictors of college performance,
although it is also widely recognized that these
two variables are far from being perfect
predictors (Lawlor, Richman, & Richman,
1997; Mouw & Khanna, 1993; Powell &
Steelman, 1996).
Many researchers are interested in identi-
fying variables in addition to high school GPA
and test scores that contribute to the predic-
tion of college academic success. For college
personnel working directly in the area of
student retention, it is particularly important
to identify those predictors that, unlike GPA
and test scores, are under the college students
control. Examples of these variables include
student motivation, self-concept, beliefs
regarding success, and study skills. These are
examples of traits or behaviors that may be
enhanced via external instruction and support.
Study skills are defined as competence in
acquiring, recording, organizing, synthesizing,
remembering, and using information and
ideas, and are among the skills that can be
modified for learners of all ages (Harvey,
1995). Study skills encompass a variety of
activities, including time management, setting
appropriate goals, selecting an appropriate
study environment, employing appropriate
note-taking strategies, concentrating, selecting
main ideas, self-testing, organization, and
managing anxiety. Numerous studies have

Briley E. Proctor is Associate Professor of Educational Psychology & Learning Systems; Frances Prevatt is Associate
Professor of Educational Psychology & Learning Systems; Katharine Adams is a graduate student in Educational
Psychology and Learning Systems; Abigail Hurst is a graduate student in Educational Psychology and Learning
Systems; Yaacov Petscher is a graduate student of Psychology; each at Florida State University.

JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2006 VOL 47 NO 1 37


demonstrated the link between study skills and
academic success (e.g., GPA) in college
students (Al-Hilawani & Sartawi, 1997;
Blustein et al., 1986; Jones & Slate, 1992;
Jones, Slate, Perez, & Marini, 1993; Kern,
Fagley, & Miller, 1998; Larose & Roy, 1991;
Lazarus, 1991; Miller, 1991).
In terms of the relationship between
specific study skills and college achievement,
time management has emerged as a predictor
of college GPA and quality of academic
performance (Britton & Tesser, 1991; Macan,
Shahani, Dipboye, & Phillips, 1990). Addi-
tionally, there is a significant relationship
between college GPA and students infor-
mation processing skills, ability to select main
ideas, self-testing, motivation, time manage-
ment, and concentration (Kern et al., 1998).
Note taking has also been found to be related
to academic achievement; more specifically,
one study indicated that the amount of note
taking is positively correlated with per-
formance on tests of lecture material (Kiewra,
Benton, & Lewis 1985; Baker & Lombardi,
1985). Lazarus (1991) added that the quality
of a students notes is also related to achieve-
ment. Overall, it has been suggested that these
and other types of study skills account for
approximately 15% of the variance in the
academic achievement of undergraduates
(Jones & Slate, 1992; Jones et al., 1993).
Research has demonstrated that many
undergraduates possess inadequate study skills.
Jones and colleagues (1995) surveyed 266
undergraduate students using the Study Habits
Inventory, a 63-item questionnaire designed
to assess the typical study behaviors of college
students (Jones & Slate, 1992). They found
that overall, students exhibited poor study
habits; for example, only 51% of the study
habits assessed by the inventory were regularly
utilized by the participating students. In a
related study, the Study Habits Inventory was
38
Proctor, Prevatt, Adams, Hurst, & Petscher
administered to 74 undergraduates enrolled in
basic science courses and found that students
exhibited difficulties with time management,
note-taking, test-wiseness (i.e., understanding
how to prepare for different types of tests),
and managing anxiety (Kuhn, 1988).
Probably because they are identified as at-
risk upon admission, the study habits of
college students with learning disabilities
(LDs) have received considerably more
attention in the research than have the study
skills of non-LD students. However, like the
research findings on non-LD students, the
data suggest that college students with LDs
also exhibit a paucity of study skills. For
example, using the Learning and Study
Strategies Inventory (LASSI; Weinstein, 1987;
Weinstein & Palmer, 2002), a self-report
instrument designed to assess 10 areas of study
skills and strategies, Kovach and Wilgosh
(1999) found that undergraduate and graduate
students with LDs displayed scores below the
50th percentile in the areas of motivation,
selecting main ideas, using appropriate test
strategies, and management of anxiety,
indicating notable difficulties in these parti-
cular areas. In earlier studies, college students
with LDs self-reported problems with aca-
demic motivation, selecting main ideas, use
of support materials and techniques, test-
taking strategies, attention, organization,
planning, and maintaining an appropriate
work pace (Kovach, 1992; Kovach, Whyte, &
Vosahlo, 1990; Mitchell & Sedlacek, 1995;
Wren, Williams, & Kovitz, 1987). Note-taking
has also been identified as an area of difficulty
for college students, including problems with
handwriting, keeping up with the lecture while
note-taking, writing fast enough, knowing
what information is important to record, and
making sense of notes after class (Bireley,
Landers, Vernooy, & Schlaerth, 1986; Cowen,
1988; Hughes, 1991; Hughes & Smith, 1990;
Journal of College Student Development
Study Skill Profiles
Moran, 1981; Suritsky, 1992). Although the
comparative research is sparse, students with
LDs have been found in some studies to have
more difficulty with note-taking (Hughes &
Suritsky, 1994) and managing anxiety (Bryan,
Sonnefeld, & Grabowski, 1983; Kovach,
Wilgosh, & Stewin, 1998) than their non-LD
counterparts.
Investigations of the study skills of college
student have employed a variety of measure-
ment instruments and methodologies, making
comparisons across studies somewhat prob-
lematic. Furthermore, very few have compared
the study skills possessed by different groups
of college students, such as LD versus non-
LD or those with high GPAs versus low GPAs.
This line of research is important for several
reasons. One, it would assist in identifying
characteristics that differentiate among groups
of students. If differences are found, it would
be helpful to know in which areas certain
groups of students are likely to require
remediation. This would be of interest to
secondary personnel preparing students for
transition to college as well as college personnel
who have a stake in ensuring that students are
retained.
Second, acknowledging all of the variables
that differentiate between high- and low-
performing students furthers our theoretical
understanding of why some students succeed
in college while others fail, in spite of GPA
and standardized test scores that would predict
a different outcome. This expanded under-
standing of all the factors that contribute to
college success (and failure) is important for
the purposes of prediction (e.g., prediction of
who is likely to succeed in college), identi-
fication (e.g., of students in need of inter-
vention), and remediation (e.g., of skills that
can be improved and have been linked to
academic success).
The present study used a single, validated
JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2006 VOL 47 NO 1 39
instrument to compare the study skills and
learning strategies of different subpopulations
of college students. The LASSI (Weinstein &
Palmer, 2002) was selected because it evaluates
ten areas of functioning consistent with
theories of successful academic performance.
Comparisons in study skills and strategies are
made between: (a) students with high versus
low GPAs; (b) students with a documented
LD versus a non-LD control group; (c) stu-
dents referred for a psycho-educational
evaluation due to academic difficulties versus
a control group; and (d) clinic-referred
students with LDs versus clinic-referred
students without LDs. The results provide data
on the study skills of the identified sub-
populations, which may be useful for identi-
fying students in need of study skills training.
For example, if an admissions committee
admits a student with a documented learning
disability, it may helpful to know, in general,
whether that student is likely to have deficits
compared to a non-disabled student, as well
as specific types of deficits likely associated
with subtypes of students.
METHOD
Participants
Participants were 263 undergraduate students
enrolled in a large university in the south-
eastern United States. Approximately 53% of
the sample was drawn from general under-
graduate classes (n = 139); 98 of those were
enrolled in courses in the College of Education
and 41 were enrolled in general psychology
courses taken in the College of Arts and
Sciences. To illustrate the representativeness
of this sample, 21% of the universitys 30,015
undergraduates are majors in the College of
Arts and Sciences, and 6% are majors in the
College of Education. Only 10 students
declined participation. The remaining partici-

pants (n = 124) were students who had either
self-referred or been referred by an academic
advisor to a university-affiliated evaluation
clinic for a psycho-educational evaluation to
determine if a specific learning disability was
contributing to their academic struggles (the
diagnostic criteria used by the clinic are
described below).
Out of 263 participants, 22 (8%) were
freshmen; 64 (24%) were sophomores; 88
(34%) were juniors, and 74 (28%) were
seniors. The class standing of 15 (6%)
participants was unknown. The mean GPA
was 3.06 (SD = .61) on a 4-point scale. This
is comparable to the national average for GPAs
across undergraduate institutions (M = 2.97;
Rojstaczer, 2003). The LASSI Users Manual
(Weinstein & Palmer, 2002) does not report
a mean GPA for the normative sample;
however, 66% of their sample had a GPA of
2.5-3.5. Data on gender were not collected for
this sample.
The criteria used to diagnose LD at the
clinic were those set forth by the Association
on Higher Education and Disability (2000).
The clinic conducts a pre-screening of all
applicants to determine the presence of
academic difficulty in specific content areas,
accompanied by an overall ability to success-
fully complete college-level coursework. A
general measure of intelligence, the Wechsler
Adult Intelligence Scale, Third Edition
(WAIS-III; Wechsler, 1997), is administered
to determine the students overall level of
intellectual ability. The Woodcock-Johnson III,
Tests of Achievement and Tests of Cognitive
Abilities (WJ III ACH and WJ III COG;
Woodcock, McGrew, & Mather, 2001a,
2001b) are also administered to evaluate
academic achievement and cognitive process-
ing abilities, respectively.
In accordance with the diagnostic model
prescribed for K-12 students in the universitys
40
Proctor, Prevatt, Adams, Hurst, & Petscher
state, the clinic uses a simple discrepancy
model to diagnose LD; the student must
demonstrate an intellectual ability/achieve-
ment discrepancy of at least 15 points (1 SD)
co-occurring with an intellectual ability/
cognitive processing deficit of at least 15
points. Additionally, the student must have an
overall IQ of at least 80 (9th percentile). Of
the 145 participants who completed the
psycho-educational evaluation, 100 (69%)
subsequently received an LD diagnosis. Fre-
quencies of diagnoses were as follows: Reading
LD (n = 21), 27%; Math LD (n = 56), 71%;
Written Language LD (n = 17), 22%; and LD
Not Otherwise Specified, which is a diagnosis
frequently reserved for those who are only
experiencing difficulty with foreign language
course (NOS; n = 5), 6%. The sum of the
percentages exceeds 100% as some partici-
pants were diagnosed with multiple learning
disabilities.
Procedure
Participants from general undergraduate
classes were administered the LASSI in a group
format during their regular class time. Referred
participants completed the LASSI as part of
the standardized test battery. Complete data
from a total of 263 participants were collected.
Data were then grouped for the purpose of
analysis. For the first analysis, the entire sample
was divided into two groups: those with a
cumulative GPA below 2.5 (on a 4-point scale;
n = 43), and those with a GPA of 2.5 or above
(n = 220). For the second analysis, data from
the 139 participants recruited from the
undergraduate classes were used as controls.
These data were compared to the clinic-
referred students who were subsequently
diagnosed with an LD (clinic-referred LD
group; n = 79). None of the controls had been
referred to the clinic, and none of the controls
self-reported a previous diagnosis of LD; thus
Journal of College Student Development
Study Skill Profiles

the categories were mutually exclusive. For the
third analysis, the control group (n = 139) was
compared to all participants who were referred
to the university-based clinic for a psycho-
educational evaluation, regardless of whether
they subsequently received a diagnosis (clinic-
referred group; n = 124). Finally, in the fourth
analysis, the clinic-referred students who
received the LD diagnosis (clinic-referred LD
group; n = 79) were compared to the clinic-
referred students who did not receive the
diagnosis (clinic-referred non-LD group;
n = 45).
Measures
The LASSI (Weinstein & Palmer, 2002) is a
widely used instrument designed to help screen
and identify students at risk for poor per-
formance. It can also be used diagnostically
to evaluate areas of difficulty that can lead to
prescriptive or remedial plans, can serve as pre-
and post-outcome measures in evaluating
academic treatment programs, and can be
useful in advising college students seeking a
better awareness of their academic strengths
and weaknesses. It is estimated to be in use
by over 1,300 universities and colleges in the
United States (Olaussen & Braten, 1998). The
LASSI has been shown to positively correlate
with grade point average and is said to be an
effective tool for predicting academic per-
formance (Hulick & Higgenson, 1989;
McKeachie, Pintrich, & Lin, 1985; Yip &
Chung, 2002).
The 2002 version of the LASSI comprises
10 subscales and 80 items that allow a student
to self-report on his or her thoughts, behaviors,
and attitudes related to strategic learning
(Weinstein & Palmer, 2002). These scales are
designed to measure both cognitive and
affective aspects of learning. The 10 LASSI
subscales are: Attitude, Motivation, Time
Management, Anxiety, Concentration, Infor-
mation Processing, Selecting Main Ideas,
Study Aides, Self-Testing, and Test Strategies.
A description of each can be found in Table 1.
Scores on the LASSI are translated into
percentiles that allow the individual to be
compared to performance in the norm group.
The norm group was comprised of 1,092

TABLE 1.
Description of LASSI Subscales

Subscale Description

Anxiety Anxiety and worry about school performance

Attitude Attitudes and motivation for succeeding in school
Concentration Concentration and attention to academic tasks
Information Processing Information processing, acquiring knowledge, and reasoning
Motivation Motivation, diligence, self-discipline, and willingness to work hard
Self-Testing Self-testing, reviewing, and preparing for classes
Selecting Main Ideas Selecting main ideas and recognizing important information
Study Aides Use of support techniques and materials (e.g., text summaries, study
groups)
Time Management Use of time management principles for academic tasks
Test Strategies Test strategies and preparing for tests

JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2006 VOL 47 NO 1 41

 Proctor, Prevatt, Adams, Hurst, & Petscher

TABLE 2.
LASSI Subscale Means and Standard Deviations for the Entire Sample,
Control Group, Clinic-Referred Participants Diagnosed with an LD,
and all Clinic-Referred Participants
LD Clinic-Referred
Controls Clinic-Referred Clinic-Referred Non-LD
(n = 139) (n = 124) (n = 79) (n = 45)

Subscale M SD M SD M SD M SD

Anxiety 28.19 6.59 19.54 6.85 19.93 6.97 18.84 6.64

Attitude 31.66 4.58 31.56 4.65 31.13 4.48 32.31 4.89
Concentration 27.62 5.97 23.07 7.13 22.80 6.70 23.56 7.89
Information
Processing 28.73 5.11 27.03 5.53 27.02 5.23 27.04 6.08
Motivation 32.18 5.21 29.34 6.39 29.12 6.27 29.73 6.64
Self Testing 24.86 6.01 24.19 6.41 24.04 6.40 24.46 6.50
Select Main Ideas 31.58 5.11 23.78 6.91 24.19 6.93 23.06 6.89
Study Aides 23.38 4.82 26.52 6.29 26.73 5.83 26.16 7.06
Time Management 23.82 5.97 24.52 7.31 23.96 7.21 25.50 7.48
Test Strategies 23.82 4.69 25.32 5.99 25.79 5.51 24.49 6.73

college students from 12 different schools.
In terms of psychometric properties of the
scale, the LASSI has an overall test-retest
correlation of .88 at 3- to 4-week intervals;
however, individual subscales vary in terms of
score reliability from a low of .72 on the
information processing scale to a high of .85
on the time management and concentration
subscales. Coefficient alphas range from .68
(Study Aids) to .86 (Time Management).
Analyses
Profile analyses were used to compare the
LASSI subscale profiles of four sets of groups:
low GPA vs. high GPA, clinic-referred LD vs.
controls, clinic-referred vs. controls, and clinic-
referred LD vs. clinic-referred non-LD. This
type of profile analysis was popularized by
Harris (1975) and is a special application of
multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA;
Tabachnick & Fidell, 2001). This type of
profile analysis answers the question of
whether profiles of groups differ on a set of
measures. A number of statistical tests were
utilized as part of each profile analysis. First,
the parallelism test was used to determine if
the pattern of highs and lows on the LASSI
subscales were similar across groups. Second,
the levels test was used to determine if any
group scored lower than its comparison group
on the LASSI subscales as a set. Third, the
flatness test was used to determine if the
combined groups scores were notably high or
low on any of the LASSI subscales. In
addition, planned comparisons were con-
ducted to examine the degree to which each
groups profile deviated from the normative
group. All analyses were conducted with raw
scores. Furthermore, the profile analysis is
robust to unequal cell sizes (Tabachnick &

42 Journal of College Student Development

Study Skill Profiles

Fidell, 2001). Low-Versus High-GPA groups

RESULTS
Data screening procedures were conducted
before computing each profile analysis, and
assumptions regarding multivariate normality,
outliers, and linearity were met. According to
Tabachnik and Fidell (1996), the Boxs M test
available in SPSS MANOVA is overly sensitive
when evaluating the assumption of homo-
geneity of variance-covariance matrices; thus,
the between-group ratio of variances was
examined instead. Variances are considered
close in value if no between-group ratio
exceeds 10:1. This assumption was met for
each profile analysis.
Table 2 presents the LASSI raw score
subscale means and standard deviations for the
following groups: controls, clinic-referred,
clinic-referred LD, and clinic-referred non-
LD. Table 3 presents the same information for
the low- and high-GPA groups.
The first analysis compared the LASSI profiles
of the low GPA (n = 43) and high GPA
(n = 220) groups. Using Wilkss criterion, the
test for parallelism was significant, indicating
that the two groups exhibited different high
and low points in their profile, F(9, 253)
= 5.40, p < .001, partial 2 = .16. Deviation
from parallelism is illustrated in Figure 1. For
the levels test, reliable differences were found
between the two groups when scores were
averaged across all subscales, F(1, 261)
= 22.81, p < .001, indicating that, overall, the
low GPA group scored lower than the high
GPA group on the LASSI subscale scores when
considered as a set. Finally, when averaged over
the two groups, the LASSI subscale scores were
found by Hotellings criterion to deviate
significantly from flatness, F(9, 253) = 61.84,
p < .001, partial 2 = .69.
To evaluate deviation from parallelism of
the profiles, confidence intervals (CI) were

TABLE 3.
LASSI Subscale Means and Standard Deviations for Participants with High and Low GPAs

GPA < 2.5 GPA > 2.5

(n = 43) (n = 220)

Subscale M SD M SD

Anxiety 17.81 5.98 25.34 7.74

Attitude 30.74 5.08 31.78 4.49
Concentration 21.14 7.12 26.32 6.56
Information Processing 26.61 6.58 28.19 5.08
Motivation 27.07 6.55 31.58 5.55
Self Testing 23.86 6.56 24.68 6.13
Select Main Ideas 23.87 6.80 28.69 6.99
Study Aides 25.54 6.73 24.73 5.57
Time Management 22.49 7.19 24.48 6.49
Test Strategies 24.67 6.07 29.47 5.94

JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2006 VOL 47 NO 1 43

 Proctor, Prevatt, Adams, Hurst, & Petscher

35

30

25

20
GPA < 2.5
GPA > 2.5
15

10

0
y

es
de

s
t
n

as

gm
et

ro

io

ie
tio

in

d
tu
xi

g
at

st
P

Ai
tra

Id

te
tt i
An

Te
iv
fo

tra
A

n
n

e
ot
In

lf-

ud
ai

m
ce

S
M
Se

Ti
St
on

st
C

FIGURE 1. Study skills profiles of low- versus high-GPA groups. Te

calculated around the mean of the profile for
the two groups combined. The alpha error for
each confidence interval was set at .0025 to
achieve an experiment-wise error rate of 5%.
Therefore, 99.75% limits were evaluated for
the pooled profile. For 8 of the 10 LASSI
subscales, the low GPA group had means that
fell outside (i.e., below) these limits. Students
with GPAs below 2.5 had reliably lower means
than that of the pooled group on the following
subscales: Anxiety (M = 17.81, CI 99.75 =
22.6225.60); Attitude (M = 30.74, CI99.75
= 30.7532.47); Concentration (M = 21.14,
CI99.75 = 24.1926.77); Information Process-
ing (M = 26.61, CI 99.75 = 26.9328.93);
Motivation (M = 27.07, CI 99.75 = 29.73
31.95); Selecting Main Ideas (M = 23.87,
CI 99.75 = 26.569.24); Time Management
(M = 22.49, CI99.75 = 22.9125.39); and Test
Strategies (M = 24.67, CI99.75 = 27.5229.84).
Only on the two subscales of Self-Testing and
Use of Study Aides did the low GPA group
have a mean score that fell within the 99.75%
confidence interval.
Deviation from flatness was evaluated by
identifying which LASSI subscale scores
differed from those of the standardization
population of the LASSI. The mean raw scores
for the standardization population were as
follows: Anxiety (26); Attitude (34); Con-
centration (28); Information Processing (27);
Motivation (32); Self-Testing (25); Selecting
Main Ideas (28.5); Study Aides (25.5); Time
Management (26.5); and Test Strategies
(29.5). Experiment-wise = .05 was achieved
by setting for each test at .005. The low GPA
group had significantly lower scores than the
LASSI normative population on Anxiety,
Attitude, Concentration, Motivation, Selec-
ting Main Ideas, Time Management, and Test

44 Journal of College Student Development

Study Skill Profiles

Strategies. The low GPA group displayed no 32.52, p < .001. Overall, the LD group scored
normative strengths. The high GPA group, in lower than the control group on the overall
contrast, displayed significantly lower scores LASSI. Finally, when averaged over the two
than the LASSI normative population on the groups, the LASSI subscale scores were found
three subscales of Attitude, Concentration, and by Hotellings criterion to deviate significantly
Time Management. They displayed a norma- from flatness, F(9, 208) = 76.77, p < .001,
tive strength on Information Processing. partial 2 = .77.
A 99.75% confidence interval around the
LD versus Control Groups pooled mean of each subscale was again used
The second analysis compared the LASSI score to evaluate deviation from parallelism of the
profiles of the clinic-referred participants with profiles. For 6 of the 10 LASSI subscales, the
a diagnosed LD (n = 79) to the controls LD group had means that fell below the limits
(n = 139). Using Wilkss criterion, the test for of the CI. Students with LD had a reliably
parallelism was significant, indicating that the lower mean than that of the pooled group on
two groups exhibited different high and low the following subscales: Anxiety (M = 19.94,
points in their profile, F(9, 208) = 15.11, CI99.75 = 23.6026.80); Concentration (M =
p < .001, partial 2 = .40. Deviation from 20.80, CI99.75 = 24.5027.24); Information
parallelism is illustrated in Figure 2. For the Processing (M = 27.02, CI 99.75 = 27.04
levels test, reliable differences were found 29.18); Motivation (M = 29.12, CI 99.75
between the two groups when scores were = 29.8932.27); Selecting Main Ideas (M =
averaged across all subscales, F(1, 216) = 24.19, CI 99.75 = 27.5030.30); and Test

35

30

25

20
Controls
LD
15

10

0
y

es
e

t
n

gm
et

de
io

ea
ud

tio

tin

gi
Pr
xi

at

Ai
tra

Id
tit

te
An

iv

Te
fo
At

tra
n

e
n

ot
In

ai
lf-

ud

m
ce

S
M
Se

Ti
on

St

st
C

Te

FIGURE 2. Study skills profiles of controls versus LD groups.

JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2006 VOL 47 NO 1 45

 Proctor, Prevatt, Adams, Hurst, & Petscher

35

30

25

20
Controls
Clinic-Referred
15

10

0
ty

oc

es
e

as

t
gm
de
io

t in
ud

tio
ie

gi
Pr

e
at
x

Ai
ra

Id
tit

te
An

iv

Te
o
At

nt

tra
n

e
ot
f
In

lf-

ud
ai
ce

m
M

S
M
Se

Ti
St
on

st
C

Te
FIGURE 3. Study skills profiles of controls versus clinic-referred groups.

Strategies (M = 25.79, CI99.75 = 28.3730.73). population on the following seven subscales:

Participants with an LD had a mean score that Anxiety, Attitude, Concentration, Motivation,
fell above the confidence interval limits on Selecting Main Ideas, Time Management, and
the subscale of Study Aides (4M = 26.73, Test Strategies. The LD group displayed no
CI99.75 = 23.4825.72). The LD group had normative strengths. The control group
means that fell within the 99.75% confidence displayed significantly lower scores than the
interval on the three subscales of Attitude, Self- LASSI normative population on Attitude,
Testing, and Time Management. Study Aides, and Time Management. They
The control group had a reliably higher displayed normative strengths on Anxiety,
mean than that of the pooled group on 4 of Information Processing, Selecting Main Ideas,
10 LASSI subscales: Anxiety (M = 28.19), and Test Strategies.
Concentration (M = 27.62), Selecting Main
Ideas (M = 31.58), and Test Strategies (M = Control versus Clinic-Referred
31.69). Groups
Deviation from flatness was evaluated by The third analysis compared the LASSI profile
identifying which LASSI subscale scores of the control group (n = 139) to that of the
differed from those of the standardization clinic-referred sample (n = 124). The latter
population of the LASSI, again setting consisted of participants who were referred to
experiment-wise for each test at .005. The the clinic and subsequently evaluated with an
LD group had significantly lower scores on LD (n = 79), as well as those who were referred
the LASSI as compared to the normative and evaluated but did not receive the LD

46 Journal of College Student Development

Study Skill Profiles
diagnosis (n = 45). The test for parallelism was
significant, indicating that the two groups
exhibited different high and low points in their
profile, F(9, 253) = 21.80, p < .001, partial
2 = .44. Deviation from parallelism is
illustrated in Figure 3. For the levels test,
reliable differences were found between the
two groups when scores were averaged across
all subscales, F(1, 261) = 36.66, p < .001. The
control group scored higher than the clinic-
referred sample on the LASSI as a whole.
Finally, when averaged over the two groups,
the LASSI subscale scores were found by
Hotellings criterion to deviate significantly
from flatness, F(9, 253) = 107.16, p < .001,
partial 2 = .79.
Confidence intervals were used to evaluate
deviation of the control and clinic-referred
LASSI profiles from parallelism. For 5 of the
10 LASSI subscales, the clinic-referred group
had means that fell below the limits of the
confidence interval. Clinic-referred students
had reliably lower means than that of the
pooled group on the following subscales:
Anxiety (M = 19.54, CI99.75 = 22.6225.60);
Concentration (M = 23.07, CI99.75 = 24.19
26.77); Motivation (M = 29.34, CI 99.75 =
29.7331.95); Selecting Main Ideas (M =
23.78, CI 99.75 = 26.5629.24); and Test
Strategies (M = 25.32, CI99.75 = 27.5229.84).
Clinic-referred participants had a mean score
that fell above the confidence interval limits
on the subscale of Study Aides (M = 26.52,
CI99.75 = 23.7825.94). The clinic-referred
group had a mean that fell within the 99.75%
confidence interval on the four subscales of
Attitude, Information Processing, Self-Testing,
and Time Management.
The control group had a reliably higher
mean than that of the pooled group on 5 of
10 LASSI subscales: Anxiety (M = 28.19),
Concentration (M = 27.62), Motivation
(M = 32.18), Selecting Main Ideas (M =
JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2006 VOL 47 NO 1 47
31.58), and Test Strategies (M = 31.69). The
control group had a lower mean than that of
the pooled group on Study Aides (M = 23.38).
Using = .005 for each test, the clinic-
referred group had significantly lower scores
on the LASSI as compared to the normative
population on the following seven subscales:
Anxiety, Attitude, Concentration, Motivation,
Selecting Main Ideas, Time Management, and
Test Strategies. They displayed no normative
strengths. As previously mentioned, the
control group displayed normative weaknesses
on Attitude, Study Aides, and Time Manage-
ment; they displayed normative strengths on
Anxiety, Information Processing, Selecting
Main Ideas, and Test Strategies.
Clinic Referred LD versus Clinic
Referred Non-LD Groups
The final analysis compared the LASSI profile
of the clinic referred LD group (n = 79) to that
of the clinic-referred non-LD sample (n = 45).
The test for parallelism was not significant,
indicating that the two groups exhibited
similar high and low points in their profile,
F(9, 114) = .91, p .05. Because the groups
demonstrated parallel profiles, no post-hoc
analyses were conducted. For the levels test,
no reliable differences were found between the
two groups when scores were averaged across
all subscales, F(1, 122) = .00, p .05. Thus, the
two groups scored similarly on the LASSI as
a whole. Finally, when averaged over the two
groups, the LASSI subscale scores were found
by Hotellings criterion to deviate significantly
from flatness, F(9, 114) = 50.42, p < .001,
partial 2 = .80.
As found in the second profile analysis,
the LD group had significantly lower scores
on the LASSI as compared to the normative
population on the following seven subscales:
Anxiety, Attitude, Concentration, Motivation,
Selecting Main Ideas, Time Management, and

Test Strategies. They displayed no normative
strengths. The Non-LD group displayed
normative weaknesses on Anxiety, Concen-
tration, Selecting Main Ideas, and Test
Strategies. Neither of the clinic-referred groups
displayed any normative strengths.
DISCUSSION
The purpose of this study was to compare the
LASSI score profiles of four pairs of groups.
In three of the four comparisons, academically
struggling students (as defined by either low
GPA or having been referred to a clinic for a
psychoeducational evaluation due to academic
difficulties) were compared to higher achieving
counterparts (as defined by either high GPA
or having not been referred for an evaluation).
In the fourth comparison, clinic-referred
students with an LD diagnosis were compared
to students who were evaluated for, but not
diagnosed with, an LD. Thus, in this fourth
analysis, two academically struggling groups
were compared. Finally, in all four compari-
sons, the groups subscale scores were com-
pared to those of the normative population,
as defined by the average scores obtained by
the LASSI normative population, to identify
normative strengths and weaknesses.
Overall, the three academically struggling
groups (e.g., low GPA, clinic-referred LD, and
clinic-referred) displayed weaknesses in study
skills relative to their comparison groups. Areas
identified as weaknesses for all three groups
included: anxiety, concentration, motivation,
selecting main ideas, and test strategies. No
areas were identified as group strengths for the
low GPA group, although use of study aides
was a strength for both the clinic-referred LD
and clinic-referred groups. When compared
to a normative group that was not obtained
from the same university, the three aca-
demically struggling groups displayed identical
48
Proctor, Prevatt, Adams, Hurst, & Petscher
normative weaknesses. Each group had a
normative weakness in the following 7 (out
of 10) areas: anxiety, attention, concentration,
motivation, selecting main ideas, time man-
agement, and test strategies. No normative
strengths were noted for any of these groups.
These results support earlier findings that
study skills are linked to academic performance
in college, especially among students who are
struggling.
The fourth analysis contrasted the study
skills profiles of two clinic-referred groups:
those that were identified as having LD and
those that were not. Unlike the previous three
analyses, there were no differences between
these two groups. However, both groups
displayed normative weaknesses in the same
seven areas identified in the previous analyses
(e.g., anxiety, attention, concentration,
motivation, selecting main ideas, time man-
agement, and test strategies). Again, no
normative strengths were noted in either of
these clinic-referred groups.
The present study illustrates that students
who experience academic difficulties exhibit
a paucity of study skills as compared to their
normal-achieving counterparts and that the
profiles of study skills deficits are relatively
consistent across different groups of low-
performing students. There are clear dif-
ferences in study skills among students who
have learning disabilities, low grade point
averages, or who are referred for academic
difficulty, compared to their normal-achieving
peers. This knowledge can help college service
providers to intervene early with students who
are academically at risk, such as those admitted
with a documented LD or with low high
school or college grades. Administration of a
measure such as the LASSI can be used to
verify the presence of study skills deficits.
Students showing similar patterns on this
measure to our low performing groups, at the
Journal of College Student Development
Study Skill Profiles
time of college entry, can be flagged for
remediation and early intervention.
Specifically, low scores on the motivation
subscale suggest the need for career counseling
and a frank evaluation of the students future
goals and relevancy of course selection to career
objectives. Low scores on the anxiety, at-
tention, time management, and concentration
subscales might warrant an evaluation of
possible ADHD or emotional difficulties
underlying academic progress, as well as
psycho-educational intervention. Finally, low
scores on selecting main ideas and test
strategies might signal the need to enroll in a
study skills class. Such classes are frequently
taught on college campuses or through student
support services.
The finding that referred students eventu-
ally diagnosed with a learning disability could
not be differentiated from referred students
without such a diagnosis adds to the current
controversy surrounding identification of
learning disabilities. Many states mandate
special accommodations or course substi-
tutions for students with LD, generally in
response to ADA legislation. However, the
finding of no differences between these two
groups suggests that both may be equally in
need of interventions. It is clear that poor
study skills are highly correlated with low grade
point average. This suggests that remedial
programs should not be limited to those
students with documented disabilities.
Finally, our normal-achieving sample
showed some strengths and deficits compared
to the LASSI normative group. In an attempt
to explain why these differences occurred, we
reviewed the characteristics of our control
group and the LASSI normative sample and
did find two obvious differences. First, we
suspect that our control group was older than
the norming sample. The LASSI manual
described their sample in terms of age and
JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2006 VOL 47 NO 1 49
reported that 58% of the norming sample was
ages 18-19. Although we did not collect age
data, we did collect data on college standing,
and found that 94% of our sample was college
junior and seniors. Thus, we can assume that
we had, on average, an older sample. Our
control group also had higher college GPAs;
whereas 57% of the LASSI norming sample
had a GPA of 3.0 or above, 78% of our
normal-achieving group had GPAs in this
range. The fact that we had a control group
that was both older and higher achieving than
the LASSI norming sample may explain why
our control group displayed normative
strengths in the areas of anxiety, information
processing, selecting main ideas, and test
strategies. However, these demographic
differences do little to explain the normative
weaknesses found in the areas of attitude, use
of study aides, and time management. Perhaps
the explanation for the less frequent use of
study aides is simply that because the students
in the control group are succeeding in college
(as evidenced by their high GPAs), they do
not need to use extra study aides such as
seeking help from instructors and utilizing the
college help centers. This might also explain
why our clinic-referred groups scored higher
than their comparison groups on this subscale:
that is, they use study aides in response to not
performing well in school. In terms of the
poorer attitude toward school and less frequent
use of time management strategies displayed
by our control group (as compared to the
LASSI normative sample), we can only surmise
that that this sample is succeeding in college
in spite of their behaviors. A second, more
general conclusion is that users of the LASSI
need to be aware that the LASSI normative
sample may not be representative of their
college student population.
Limitations of this study include the use
of a sample derived from a single university,

which may limit the generalizability of the
findings. Furthermore, we elected to use a
single, well-validated instrument to create
profiles of study skills for the four groups.
Others interested in replicating this method-
ology may want to select a different measure
of study skills for comparison purposes.
Finally, although some colleges and universities
do provide services designed to improve study
skills, more research is needed that links
REFERENCES
Al-Hilawani, Y. A., & Sartawi, A. A. (1997). Study skills and
habits of female university students. College Student Journal,
31, 537-544.
Association on Higher Education and Disability (2000, March
18). Guidelines for Documentation of a Learning Disability
in Adolescents and Adults. Retrieved August 21, 2000, from
http://www.ahead.org/index.htm
Baker, L., & Lombardi, B. R. (1985). Students lecture notes
and their relation to test performance. Teaching of Psychology,
12(1), 28-32.
Bireley, M. K., Landers, M. G., Vernooy, J. A., & Schlaerth,
P. (1986). The Wright State University Program: Impli-
cations of the first decade. Reading, Writing, and Learning
Disabilities, 2, 349-357.
Blustein, D., Judd, T., Krom, J., Vinair, B., Padilla, E.,
Wedemeyer, R., et al. (1986). Identifying predictors of
academic performance of community college students.
Journal of College Student Personnel, 27, 242-249.
Britton, B. K., & Tesser, A. (1991). Effects of time-
management practices on college grades. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 83(3), 405-410.
Bryan, J., Sonnefeld, L., & Grabowski, B. (1983). The
relationship between fear of failure and learning disabilities.
Learning Disabilities Quarterly, 6, 217-222.
Cowen, S. E. (1988). Coping strategies of university students
with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities,
21, 161-164.
Harris, R. J. (1975). Primer of multivariate statistics. New York:
Academic Press.
50
Proctor, Prevatt, Adams, Hurst, & Petscher
assessment results to specific interventions and
that demonstrates that improvements in study
skills lead to improvements in academic
performance, as measured by valued outcomes,
such as GPA and graduation rates.
Correspondence concerning this article should be
addressed to Briley Proctor, 307 Stone Building, Florida
State University, Tallahassee, FL 32306-4453;
proctor@coe.fsu.edu
Harvey, V. S. (1995). Teaching study skills. In A. Thomas &
J. Grimes (Eds.), Best practices in school psychology (3rd ed.,
pp. 931-942). Washington, DC: National Association of
School Psychologists.
Hughes, C. A. (1991). Studying for and taking tests: Self-
reported difficulties and strategies of university students
with learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities, 2, 65-71.
Hughes, C. A., & Smith, J. O. (1990). Cognitive and academic
performance of college students with learning disabilities:
A synthesis of the literature. Learning Disability Quarterly,
13, 66-79.
Hughes, C. A., & Suritsky, S. K. (1994). Note-taking skills
of university students with and without learning disabilities.
Journal of Learning Disabilities, 27, 20-24.
Hulick, C., & Higginson, B. (1989, November). The use of
learning and study strategies by college freshmen. Paper
presented at the annual meeting of the Mid-South
Educational Research Association, Little Rock, AR.
Jones, C. H., & Slate, J. R. (1992). Technical manual for the
Study Habits Inventory. Unpublished manuscript, Arkansas
State University, Jonesboro.
Jones, C. H., Slate, J. R., & Marini, I. (1995). Locus of control,
social interdependence, academic preparation, age, study
time, and the study skills of college students. Research in
the Schools, 2, 55-62.
Jones, C. H., Slate, J. R., Perez, E., & Marini, I. (1993).
Graduate students study skills as a function of academic
achievement, sex, conceptions of intelligence, and locus of
control. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Mid-
South Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.
Journal of College Student Development
Study Skill Profiles
Kern, C. W., Fagley, N. S., & Miller, P. M. (1998). Correlates
of college retention and GPA: Learning and study strategies,
testwiseness, attitudes, and ACT. Journal of College
Counseling, 1, 26-34.
Kiewra, K. A., Benton, S. L., & Lewis, L. B. (1985).
Qualitative aspects of note taking and their relationship
with information-processing ability and academic achieve-
ment. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 14(3), 110-117.
Kovach (1992). Perceptions of ability: Students with and
without learning disabilities at postsecondary institutions.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Alberta,
Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.
Kovach, K., Whyte, L., & Vosahlo, M. (1990). A brief
description of a sample of 42 university students with
learning disabilities assisted from 1986 to 1989. Unpub-
lished manuscript, Office of Services for Students with
Disabilities, University of Alberta, Canada.
Kovach, K., & Wilgosh, L. R. (1999). Learning and study
strategies, and performance anxiety in postsecondary
students with learning disabilities: A preliminary study.
Developmental Disabilities Bulletin, 27, 47-57.
Kovach, K., Wilgosh, L., & Stewin, L. (1998). Dealing with
test anxiety and underachievement in postsecondary
students with learning disabilities. Developmental Disabilities
Bulletin, 26, 63-76.
Kuhn, D. J. (1988). An assessment of the study habits and
skills of students in postsecondary science courses.
Community/Junior College Quarterly of Research and Practice,
12, 197-204.
Larose, S., & Roy, R. (1991). The role of prior academic
performance and nonacademic attributes in the prediction
of the success of high-risk college students. Journal of College
Student Development, 32, 171-177.
Lawlor, S., Richman, S., & Richman, C. L. (1997). The
validity of using the SAT as a criterion for Black and White
students admission to college. College Student Journal,
31(4), 507-515.
Lazarus, B. D. (1991). Guided notes, review, and achievement
of secondary students with learning disabilities in
mainstream content courses. Education and Treatment of
Children, 14, 112-127.
Macan, T. H., Shahani, C., Dipboye, R. L., & Phillips, A. P.
(1990). College students time management: Correlations
with academic performance and stress. Journal of Educa-
tional Psychology, 82, 760-768.
McKeachie, W. J., Pintrich, P. R., & Lin, Yi-G. (1985).
Teaching learning strategies. Educational Psychologist, 21,
153-160.
JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2006 VOL 47 NO 1 51
Miller, R. J. (1991). Persistence in higher education: A review
of the literature for continuing educators. Journal of
Continuing Higher Education, 38, 19-22.
Mitchell, A. A., & Sedlacek, W. E. (1995). Freshman with
learning disabilities: A profile of needs and concerns. Journal
of the Freshman Year Experience, 7, 27-41.
Moran, M. R. (1981). A comparison of formal features of written
language of learning disabled, low-achieving, and achieving
secondary students (Research Rep. No. 34). Lawrence:
University of Kansas Institute for Research in Learning
Disabilities.
Mouw, J. T., & Khanna, R. K. (1993). Prediction of academic
success: A review of the literature and some recom-
mendations. College Student Journal, 27(3), 328-336.
Olaussen, B. S., & Braten, I. (1998). Identifying latent
variables measured by the Learning and Study Strategies
Inventory (LASSI) in Norwegian college students. Journal
of Experimental Education, 67, 82-96.
Powell, B., & Steelman, L. C. (1996). Bewitched, bothered,
and bewildering: The use and misuse of state SAT and ACT
scores. Harvard Educational Review, 66 (1), 27-59.
Rojstaczar, S. (2003). Grade inflation at American colleges
and universities. Retrieved June 9, 2005, from http://
gradeinflation.com/
Suritsky, S. K. (1992). Notetaking difficulties and approaches
reported by university students with learning disabilities.
Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability, 10, 3-10.
Tabachnik, B.G., & Fidell, L.S. (1996). Using multivariate
statistics, (3rd ed.). New York: HarperCollins.
Wechsler, D. (1997). Wechsler Adult Intelligence ScaleThird
Edition. San Antonio: The Psychological Corporation.
Weinstein, C. E. (1987). LASSI users manual. Clearwater, FL:
H & H.
Weinstein, C. E., & Palmer, D. R. (2002). Learning and Study
Strategies Inventory (LASSI): Users Manual(2nd Ed.). Clear-
water, FL: H & H.
Wren, C., Williams, N., & Kovitz, V. (1987). Organizational
problems at the college level. Academic Therapy, 23,
157-165.
Woodcock, R. W., McGrew, K. S., & Mather, N. (2001a).
Woodcock-Johnson III, Tests of Achievement. Itasca, IL:
Riverside.
Woodcock, R. W., McGrew, K. S., & Mather, N. (2001b).
Woodcock-Johnson III, Tests of Cognitive Abilities. Itasca, IL:
Riverside.
Yip, M. C. W., & Chung, O. L. L. (2002). Relation of study
strategies to the academic performance of Hong Kong
University students. Psychological Reports, 90, 338-340.