Academic achievement: Interplay of positive parenting, self‐esteem, and academic procrastination

Figures & data

Table 1. Intercorrelations among study variables (N = 502)

Study variables	1	2	3	4
1.Compassionate and supportive parenting style^1		.49^*	−.31^*	.35^*
2. Self‐esteem^2			−.42^*	.21^*
3. Academic Procrastination^3				−.34^*
4. CGPA^4

Compassionate and supportive parenting style (PDPS; Batool, 2016).

Self‐esteem (Rosenberg, 1965 self‐esteem scale).

Academic Procrastination (PASS; Solomon & Rothblum, 1984).

CGPA (Cumulative Grade Point Average as academic achievement as suggested by O'Donovan et al., 2008).

* p < .001.

Table 2. Linear paths between study variables in the initial model

Paths			Estimate	SE	CR	p
Self‐esteem^8	<‐	Comp‐Supp Par^7	.35	.03	12.48	^*
Procrastination^9	<‐	Comp‐Supp Par^7	−.23	.03	−7.24	^*
CGPA^10	<‐	Self‐ esteem^8	−.05	.05	−1.18	.24
CGPA^10	<‐	Procrastination^9	−.25	.04	−6.37	^*
CGPA^10	<‐	Comp‐Supp Par^7	.20	.03	6.04	^*
CGPA^10	<‐	Gender	−.11	.08	−1.38	.17

Abbreviations. CR, coefficient of regression; SE, standard error.

Comp‐Supp Par = Compassionate and Supportive Parenting Style (PDPS; Batool, 2016).

Self‐esteem (Rosenberg, 1965 Self‐Esteem Scale, 1965).

Academic Procrastination (PASS; Solomon & Rothblum, 1984).

CGPA (Cumulative Grade Point Average as academic achievement as suggested by O'Donovan et al., 2008).

* p < .001.

Table 3. Linear relationships between study variables in Model 2

Paths			Estimate	SE	CR	p
Self‐esteem^14	<	Comp‐Supp Par^13	.35	.03	12.48	*
Procrastination^15	<‐	Comp‐Supp Par^13	−.10	.03	−2.89	.004
CGPA^16	<‐	Self‐esteem^14	−.37	.05	−7.65	^*
CGPA^16	<‐	Procrastination^15	−.24	.04	−5.97	*
CGPA^16	<‐	Comp‐Supp Par^13	.18	.03	6.34	*
CGPA^16	<‐	Gender^17	−.12	.08	−1.14	.16

Abbreviations. CR, coefficient of regression; SE, standard error.

Comp‐Supp Par = Compassionate and Supportive Parenting Style (PDPS; Batool, 2016).

Self‐esteem (Rosenberg, 1965 Self‐Esteem Scale).

Academic Procrastination (PASS; Solomon & Rothblum, 1984).

CGPA (Cumulative Grade Point Average as academic achievement as suggested by O'Donovan et al., 2008).

Gender (male and female students).

* p < .001.

short-legendFigure 1.

short-legendFigure 2.

Table 4. Model fit indices for the models emerged from the data (N = 502)

Models	Chi‐square	df (p)	RMR	CFI	GFI	RMSEA
Model 1	55.74	4(.00)	.08	.84	.96	.16
Model 2	1.63	4(.80)	.01	1.00	.99	.000

Abbreviations. CFI, The comparative fit index Bentler, 1990; df, degree of freedom; GFI, goodness of fit index Jöreskog & Sörbom, 1984; p, significance level; RMR, root mean square residual; RMSEA, root mean square error of approximation Browne & Cudeck, 1993.

Table 5. Decomposition of path analysis (standardised effect)

Predictors	Outcome variables	Direct effect	Indirect effect	Total effect
Comp‐Supp Par^20	Self‐esteem^21	.49	.00	.49
Comp‐Supp Par^20	Procrastination^22	−.14	−.18^*	−.31
Comp‐Supp Par^20	CGPA^23	.27	.08*	.36
Self‐esteem^21	CGPA^23	.00	.09*	.09
Procrastination^22	CGPA^23	−.26	.00	−.26

Comp‐Supp Par = Compassionate and Supportive Parenting Style (PDPS; Batool, 2016).

Self‐esteem (Rosenberg, 1965 Self‐Esteem Scale).

Academic Procrastination (PASS; Solomon & Rothblum, 1984).

CGPA (Cumulative Grade Point Average as academic achievement as suggested by O'Donovan et al., 2008).

* p < .05.

Batool, S. S. (2016). Construction and validation of perceived dimensions of parenting scale (PDPS). Pakistan Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 14(2), 15–25.

 Google Scholar

Rosenberg, M. (1965). Society and the adolescent self‐image. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

 Google Scholar

Solomon, L. J., & Rothblum, E. D. (1984). Procrastination assessment scale for students (PASS). In J. Fischer & K. Corcoran (Eds.), Measures for clinical practice (pp. 446–452). New York: The Free Press.

 Google Scholar

O'donovan, B., Price, M., & Rust, C. (2008). Developing student understanding of assessment standards: A nested hierarchy of approaches. Teaching in Higher Education, 13, 205–217.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Bentler, P. M. (1990). Comparative fit indexes in structural models. Psychological Bulletin, 107, 238–246.

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Jöreskog, K. G., & Sörbom, D. (1984). LISREL‐VI user's guide (3rd ed.). Mooresville, IN: Scientific Software.

 Google Scholar

Browne, M. W., & Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In K. A. Bollen & J. S. Long (Eds.), Testing structural equation models (pp. 136–162). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

 Google Scholar