In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

• Development and Validation of a Survey to Identify Predictors of Choice and Early Departure Among Tennessee Promise Scholarship Recipients
• J. Patrick Biddix (bio) and Gresham D. Collom (bio)

The decision to attend community or technical college is influenced by a variety of individual and institutional factors, including financial barriers, academic preparation and self-efficacy, and support structures (Perna, 2006). To address the cost of college, the most consistent barrier to enrollment for students (Kelchen et al., 2017; Kinzie et al., 2004), several states and individual institutions introduced “free” college, or “promise” initiatives (Perna et al., 2017). Early research on these programs has shown that although enrollment rates increased (Collom, 2022; Jaggars, 2020), traditionally underserved students, including low-income and marginalized populations, still face significant barriers (Collom et al., 2021; Perna et al., 2021). Many of these factors persist beyond the initial barrier of enrolling in college and influence the decision to drop out. To date, no survey instruments specific to the college choice and early departure process within the context of promise programs have been published.

The purpose of this study was to develop and validate an instrument to reveal factors affecting college choice and early community or technical college departure among promise-eligible students. The instrument was developed using a sequential exploratory mixed-methods design (Creswell & Plano-Clark, 2017), where the results of an initial exploratory qualitative phase were used to develop and validate a survey in a sequential quantitative phase (Biddix, 2018; Greene et al., 1989). The resulting instrument may be used by student and academic affairs professionals, especially in admissions, advising, and retention, to understand factors that specifically affect college choice and departure for this population. In addition, such understanding bears implications for policy, practice, and research on student success.

BACKGROUND

In 2014, the state of Tennessee enacted Tennessee Promise, a state-funded scholarship providing tuition and fees on a last-dollar basis (after all other state and federal aid has been applied) for students who pursue a certificate or associate degree at in-state public colleges. Evaluations of the program showed initial recipients enrolled in postsecondary institutions at higher rates, accumulated more college credits, stayed enrolled longer, and earned more credentials than their peers, especially in state community colleges [End Page 364] (Carruthers et al., 2018; Nguyen, 2020). More recently, Odle et al. (2021) found participation reduced the percentage of students borrowing as well as overall loan amounts. However, the most recent state evaluation showed that 2021 enrollment declined for the first time since the Tennessee Promise program began, and slightly fewer students remained on track to graduate in 2017 than in 2015 (Spires & Mumpower, 2022). Failure to attend mandatory mentor meetings and complete required community service were the two most common reasons why Promise recipients did not maintain their eligibility for the program (Spires & Mumpower, 2022). It is important to identify what factors, beyond financial concerns, influence college choice and departure in this environment.

CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK

The framework for this study was Perna’s (2006) conceptual model for college choice, which proposed that college decisions are shaped by four layers. Layer 1 represents habitus, or the belief in what one can achieve based on socioeconomic and demographic characteristics. Layer 2 is the school and community context. This layer reflects “the ways in which social structures and resources facilitate or impede college choice” (Perna, 2006, p. 177). Layer 3 is the higher education context and reflects the role postsecondary education institutions have in college choice through marketing and admission practices. Last, Layer 4 reflects macro-level effects on college choice due to social forces, economic conditions, and public policies. Perna’s model captures many of the same concepts as persistence and retention theory: academic, financial, and social influences on adjustment and coping (Bean, 1980; Braxton, 2000; Tinto, 1987). However, the model for college choice also incorporates college admissions and marketing practices, as well as self-efficacy positioned within socioeconomic characteristics (Perna, 2006). Perna’s college choice model drew from multiple fields to create a broad model of college choice, making it a better fit to address the nuances affecting college choice and departure.

The four-layer model was used to identify initial concepts to inform the...

中文翻译：

---

一项调查的开发和验证，以确定田纳西州承诺奖学金获得者的选择和提前离开的预测因素

以下是内容的简短摘录，以代替摘要：

• 一项调查的开发和验证，以确定田纳西州承诺奖学金获得者的选择和提前离开的预测因素
• J. Patrick Biddix（简历）和 Gresham D. Collom（简历）

就读社区或技术学院的决定受到各种个人和机构因素的影响，包括经济障碍、学术准备和自我效能以及支持结构（Perna，2006）。为了解决大学费用这一学生入学最常见的障碍（Kelchen 等人，2017 年；Kinzie 等人，2004 年），一些州和个别机构推出了“免费”大学或“承诺”举措（Perna 等人）等，2017）。对这些项目的早期研究表明，尽管入学率有所增加（Collom，2022；Jaggars，2020），但传统上服务不足的学生，包括低收入和边缘化人群，仍然面临重大障碍（Collom 等，2021；Perna 等，2021）。 ，2021）。其中许多因素在进入大学的最初障碍之外仍然存在，并影响退学的决定。迄今为止，尚未发布针对承诺项目背景下的大学选择和提前退学流程的调查工具。

本研究的目的是开发和验证一种工具，以揭示影响有前途的学生选择大学和提前离开社区或技术大学的因素。该仪器是使用序贯探索性混合方法设计开发的（Creswell & Plano-Clark，2017），其中初始探索性​​定性阶段的结果用于开发和验证序贯定量阶段的调查（Biddix，2018；Greene）等人，1989）。由此产生的工具可供学生和学术事务专业人士使用，特别是在招生、建议和保留方面，以了解具体影响该人群的大学选择和离开的因素。此外，这种理解对学生成功的政策、实践和研究也有影响。

背景

2014 年，田纳西州颁布了“田纳西州承诺”，这是一项由州资助的奖学金，为在田纳西州攻读证书或副学士学位的学生提供最后一美元的学杂费（在申请了所有其他州和联邦援助之后）。州立公立学院。对该计划的评估显示，最初的接受者比同龄人以更高的比率进入高等教育机构，积累更多的大学学分，保持注册时间更长，并获得更多的证书，特别是在州立社区学院[第 364 页完]（Carruthers 等人，2018 年；Nguyen，2020 年）。最近，Odle 等人。(2021) 发现参与降低了学生借贷的比例以及总贷款金额。然而，最新的州评估显示，自田纳西州承诺计划启动以来，2021 年的入学人数首次下降，2017 年有望毕业的学生人数略少于 2015 年（Spires & Mumpower，2022）。未能参加强制性导师会议和完成所需的社区服务是承诺接受者未能保持其计划资格的两个最常见原因（Spires & Mumpower，2022）。重要的是要确定除了经济问题之外还有哪些因素影响这种环境下的大学选择和离开。

概念框架

这项研究的框架是 Perna (2006) 的大学选择概念模型，该模型提出大学决策由四个层面决定。第一层代表惯习，或者基于社会经济和人口特征对一个人可以实现的目标的信念。第二层是学校和社区环境。这一层反映了“社会结构和资源促进或阻碍大学选择的方式”（Perna，2006，第 177 页）。第三层是高等教育背景，反映了高等教育机构通过营销和招生实践在大学选择中的作用。最后，第四层反映了社会力量、经济条件和公共政策对大学选择的宏观影响。佩尔纳的模型捕捉了许多与持久性和保留理论相同的概念：学术、财务、以及社会对调整和应对的影响（Bean，1980；Braxton，2000；Tinto，1987）。然而，大学选择模型还结合了大学招生和营销实践，以及社会经济特征中的自我效能感（Perna，2006）。佩尔纳的大学选择模型借鉴了多个领域的经验，创建了一个广泛的大学选择模型，使其更适合解决影响大学选择和离开的细微差别。

四层模型用于识别初始概念以告知......