Previous Article in Journal
When ChatGPT Writes Your Research Proposal: Scientific Creativity in the Age of Generative AI
Previous Article in Special Issue
Indirect Effects of Executive Planning Functions and Affectivity on the Work Ethic of University Students
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
J. Intell.
Volume 13
Issue 5
10.3390/jintelligence13050056
jintelligence-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Academic Performance and Resilience in Secondary Education Students

by
Ana María Carroza-Pacheco
1,*,
Benito León-del-Barco
2 and
Carolina Bringas Molleda
2
1
Centro Asociado UNED Mérida, National University of Distance Education, 06800 Mérida, Spain
2
Department of Psychology and Anthropology, University of Extremadura, 10003 Cáceres, Spain
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
J. Intell. 2025, 13(5), 56; https://doi.org/10.3390/jintelligence13050056
Submission received: 15 March 2025 / Revised: 6 May 2025 / Accepted: 14 May 2025 / Published: 16 May 2025
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Cognitive, Emotional, and Social Skills in Students)
Browse Figure
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Academic performance is a factor of concern and interest in the educational context for the improvement of the educational and economic system of any country. Determining the factors influencing it has been the subject of multiple investigations. This study focused on analysing which dimensions of school resilience could act as determinants of academic performance in a sample of 609 Spanish secondary education students, aged between 11 and 17 years. The School Resilience Scale (SRS) was used as a data collection instrument. The data were analysed using analysis of variance and discriminant analysis based on a canonical function model, which suggested the existence of a direct and significant relationship between academic performance and all dimensions of resilience, with somewhat larger effect sizes for the Internal Resources and Identity–Self-Esteem dimensions, which allowed us to classify students with particularly high levels of performance. The results also show that the school year was significantly associated with academic performance, with the highest percentages of students at the highest level observed in the 2nd and 3rd years.

1. Introduction

Academic performance is the result of students’ school achievements and is influenced by factors such as family, peer group, economic possibilities, teachers, classmates, motivation, and interest in the subject activities (Cano Celestino and Robles Rivera 2018). Other authors define it as the set of students’ skills and abilities to demonstrate their knowledge in different areas (Bestué-Laguna and Escolano-Pérez 2021), or as a measure of what students have learnt during the educational process, evidenced through planned evaluation procedures (Ariza et al. 2018; Niño-Tezén et al. 2024). Academic performance is thus commonly evaluated through exam scores, as part of a broader definition that includes school grades and demonstrated learning (Menéndez-Aller et al. 2021).
In any case, academic performance is a factor of great concern and interest in the educational context, not only for improving a country’s educational and economic systems (Bestué-Laguna and Escolano-Pérez 2021; Frutos de Miguel 2025), but also because of its individual-level implications. Academic performance is closely linked to the development of students’ self-esteem and sense of self-efficacy, as it often represents the first external benchmark through which they are evaluated outside the family environment. Moreover, it is a complex process involving pedagogical and academic variables, teaching strategies, and intrinsic factors. It has proven to be a significant predictor of achievement not only during the educational stage, but also in later stages of life (Niño-Tezén et al. 2024; Wolff et al. 2018).
On the other hand, academic performance has traditionally been associated with students’ prior intellectual capacity. However, empirical evidence has shown that being cognitively intelligent is not enough to guarantee academic success (Fernández-Berrocal et al. 2017). Consequently, recent investigations have explored a wide range of variables related to the educational context and their potential relationships with academic performance. These variables pertain not only to the teaching staff and the broader educational community, but also to students themselves (for example, emotional competencies, relationship skills, critical thinking, motivation, coping, self-efficacy, and self-concept), and they tend to correlate positively with academic performance, while stress and perceived stress typically show negative correlations (Ahmad et al. 2019; Artunduaga 2024; Atkins et al. 2023; Ayala and Manzano 2018; Espinosa-Castro et al. 2020; Guevara-Dávila et al. 2019; Paechter et al. 2022; Ros-Morente et al. 2017; Tipismana 2019). Other contributing factors include family characteristics, such as high parental education, middle or privileged occupational class, and minimal direct help with homework but high academic expectations, which are also associated with higher performance (Fajardo-Bullón et al. 2017). Interpersonal relationships in the classroom, including approval, instrumental support, and affection from teachers, and satisfaction, acceptance, and companionship with peers, also show positive associations (Cuadros and León-del Barco 2024).
Notwithstanding the above, the variable that has received the most attention recently in terms of its relationship with academic performance has been resilience, not only in university students (Bittmann 2021; Gómez-Esquivel et al. 2021; Morgan-Asch 2021; Zumárraga-Espinosa 2023), but also in preadolescents and adolescents (Frutos de Miguel 2025; García-Crespo et al. 2022; Suárez-Cretton and Castro-Méndez 2022; Supervía et al. 2022), although not all the research has confirmed the relationship between resilience and academic performance (Hernández-Muñoz et al. 2024; Niño-Tezén et al. 2024).
Despite this broad and growing body of literature, relatively few studies have examined how resilience (especially in its multidimensional conceptualizations) contributes to explaining academic performance in school-aged populations (e.g., Morris et al. 2021; Obradović et al. 2010). Most existing works focus either on isolated personal factors (e.g., Burton 2020) or on university-level students (e.g., Martin and Marsh 2008), thus leaving a gap in understanding how resilience interacts with a wider set of educational and psychosocial variables in earlier academic stages. This study addresses this gap by exploring resilience as a core explanatory factor within a complex framework that includes both personal and contextual influences.
As for resilience, it is widely defined as a dynamic process that emerges following exposure to stressful, challenging, or adverse experiences, enabling individuals to adapt positively (Frias et al. 2020; Haktanir et al. 2021; Rosales-Pérez 2023). However, conceptualizations vary: some authors describe it as a human skill that allows individuals to face adversity and live productively (Oducado et al. 2021); others describe it as an emotional-intelligence-related ability that helps preserve well-being in the face of threats (Waugh and Sali 2023). Although it has become a topic of interest across disciplines, there is no single definition; what prevails is the view of resilience as a dynamic, multidimensional process oriented towards resource optimization and positive adaptation despite adversity (Kotliarenco 2021).
Two primary conceptual frameworks dominate the current literature on resilience. The first includes developmental models, which examine how individual and socio-contextual factors contribute to patterns of risk and adaptation across the lifespan (Cicchetti and Toth 2009). These models emphasize the interplay between personal attributes and protective contexts. For instance, resilience is associated with internal traits, such as problem-solving abilities, emotional regulation, and empathy, as well as with external supports, like family and significant others (González-Arratia 2016). In educational settings, it is often defined as students’ ability to resist, recover from, and overcome academic setbacks while developing effective coping strategies (Bittmann 2021; Cassidy 2016). Numerous studies show that higher levels of general resilience correlate positively with academic performance (Ayala and Manzano 2018; Bestué-Laguna and Escolano-Pérez 2021; Bittmann 2021; Erdem and Kaya 2021; Supervía et al. 2022). Similarly, research on academic resilience confirms its direct link to better academic outcomes (Abubakar et al. 2021; Agasisti et al. 2021; Dwiastuti et al. 2022; Ononye et al. 2022). Large-scale assessments, like PISA, further support these findings, showing that resilient students often perform above expectations regardless of their socioeconomic background (Dueñas et al. 2019; MECD 2022).
The second major perspective is constructionist, which conceptualizes resilience as a process of seeking and negotiating access to resources across systems, which are themselves more or less resilient (Ungar 2012). This view emphasizes that resilience is not only about individual capacity, but also about the quality and accessibility of surrounding environments. From this standpoint, academic resilience cannot be attributed solely to personal traits; it also depends on the interaction between individuals and their broader context (Tipismana 2019). Family systems (through their beliefs, organization, and communication) play a key role in shaping resilience (Castro et al. 2019). Likewise, school climate has been identified as a crucial protective factor, associated with reduced bullying, better academic performance, and improved psychological well-being (Daily et al. 2019; Farina 2019; Hong et al. 2018; Newland et al. 2019; Varela et al. 2019). Teacher support also contributes significantly to academic resilience (Fang et al. 2020), and a positive school climate can mitigate the impact of socioeconomic disadvantage on academic achievement (Berkowitz et al. 2017; Daily et al. 2020). Furthermore, resilience can be cultivated through targeted programs that promote coping strategies, socio-emotional skills, and the creation of support networks (Mansfield et al. 2021).
These two frameworks, developmental and constructionist, converge on the idea that resilience is shaped by multisystemic protective factors embedded within a person’s social ecology. This integrative, ecological perspective aligns with the approach adopted in the present study.
Taking into account the aforementioned research and following a socio-educational approach, this study aims to analyse which dimensions of school resilience might act as determining factors in the academic performance of secondary education students. This age range is considered a critical period, with a high incidence of school dropout due to academic failure.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Participants

Participants were selected using a multi-stage cluster sampling procedure. First, a number was assigned to each of the 130 secondary education schools in the Extremadura region. Using a computer-generated random number program, three educational centres were randomly selected. In each of the three centres, there were four classrooms per grade, and two classrooms per grade were randomly selected using the same random number procedure.
The sample, with a 95% confidence interval and ±5 margin of error, included 609 secondary education students: 160 (26.3%) in the first year, 140 (23.0%) in the second, 158 (25.9%) in the third, and 151 (24.8%) in the fourth. Of these, 305 (50.1%) were girls and 304 (49.9%) were boys. The participants’ ages ranged from 11 to 17 years, with a mean of 13.43 years (SD = 1.31).

2.2. Materials

School Resilience Scale (SRS) (Saavedra and Castro 2009), measures resilience in children aged 9 to 14. It consists of 27 self-administered items on a 5-point Likert scale, with responses ranging from 1 (“Strongly disagree”) to 5 (“Strongly agree”). The total score ranges from 27 to 135 points.
This scale consists, in turn, of five areas or dimensions with a variable number of items, operationally defined as follows:
  • The Identity–Self-Esteem Dimension (ISD) refers to internal strengths and more structural aspects of personality (personal identity, self-image, and self-assessment). It is composed of items 1 to 9 (for example, “I am a person who loves myself”).
  • The Networks–Models Dimension (NMD) refers to the perception of support, emotional networks, social networks, orientation, and perception of goals. It is composed of items 10 to 18 (for example, “I have a family that supports me”).
  • The Learning-Generativity Dimension (LGD) refers to the possibilities of expression, seeking help, facing difficulties, and learning capacity, among others. It is composed of items 19 to 27 (for example, “I can talk about my emotions with others”).
  • The Internal Resources Dimension (IRD) refers to the resources and conditions born from the subject in the construction of the response. It is composed of items 1, 2, 3, 5, 7, 8, 9, 16, 17, 18, 20, 26, and 27 (for example, “I am optimistic about the future”).
  • The External Resources Dimension (ERD) refers to interactional aspects with the environment that intervene in the construction of resilient behaviour. It is composed of items 4, 6, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 19, 21, 22, 23, 24, and 25 (for example, “I feel safe in the environment in which I live”).
For our data, the reliability indices were the Identity–Self-Esteem Dimension (ISD), with Cronbach’s alpha (α = 0.78) and McDonald’s omega (Ω = 0.78); the Networks–Models Dimension (NMD), with. Cronbach’s alpha (α = 0.83) and McDonald’s omega (Ω = 0.84); the Learning-Generativity Dimension (LGD), with Cronbach’s alpha (α = 0.81) and McDonald’s omega (Ω = 0.82); the Internal Resources Dimension (IRD), with Cronbach’s alpha (α = 0.84) and McDonald’s omega (Ω = 0.84); the External Resources Dimension (ERD), with Cronbach’s alpha (α = 0.89) and McDonald’s omega (Ω = 0.89); the total SRS score, with Cronbach’s alpha (α = 0.91) and McDonald’s omega (Ω = 0.91). These indices demonstrate very good internal consistency.
To determine whether the structure found by the authors in the original scale was maintained with our data, we performed a confirmatory analysis, using the goodness-of-fit indices described in Table 1. As can be seen, the fit indices are close to the desirable values, showing evidence of validity for the generalisation of our results.
Academic Performance: This was estimated as an observed variable, calculated as the average of the student’s marks and corresponding to the grades obtained in the last quarter in the four subjects common to all courses (Spanish Language and Literature, Mathematics, English Language, and Geography and History). This variable reports numerical information with ranges from 1.0 to 10.0 with one decimal at the maximum.

2.3. Procedure

Data collection was carried out on dates previously agreed upon by the directors and tutors of the centres and in the respective classrooms of each course and group of participants, taking advantage of the tutoring hours that they had marked in their school calendar. The duration of each session was approximately one hour, including the presentation of the test they had to take and the instructions for the proper completion of the booklets, placing special emphasis on the need to answer all the items, and to do so sincerely.
Prior to these interviews, a pilot test was conducted with some secondary education students aged between 11 and 16, in order to estimate the average time required to complete the test properly, as well as to check whether the wording of the items was in accordance with their levels of understanding. The results of this test show that, in all cases, the time required was less than 25 min, and that doubts about the statements were few and easily resolved by the researcher and her team.
Participating students did so voluntarily and without any reward, with the prior informed consent of their parents or legal guardians, as well as the directors of the respective centres.
Despite the explicit instructions given to the participants in each and every session, both at the beginning of the sessions and when they handed in the completed booklets, a certain number of unanswered items were found in some of these. Following the usual standardised procedure, the booklets that had a percentage of unanswered items equal to or greater than 10% were discarded. For participants who had left a smaller number of unanswered items, the mean imputation based on the sample was assigned.

2.4. Data Analysis

Initially, reliability analyses (Cronbach’s Alpha and McDonald’s Omega) and confirmatory analysis of the SRS were performed to determine whether the conceptual structure of the SRS, described in the original studies, adequately fit our data.
Subsequently, three statistical analyses were carried out in this study:
(1) ANOVAs with partial eta squared was used to assess effect size. The data were subjected to the Kolmogorov–Smirnov test to analyse the normal distribution, finding p > .05 and normality for all observed variables. Likewise, the p value > .05 obtained in the Levene test demonstrated the equality of the variances of the groups.
(2) Discriminant analysis was used to analyse which dimensions of the School Resilience Scale discriminated the different levels of academic performance. The assumptions of linearity and normal distribution were taken into account to perform the discriminant analysis. The data were subjected to the Kolmogorov–Smirnov test to analyse the normal distribution, finding p > .05 and normality for all the variables observed. Likewise, the value p > .05 obtained in Box’s M test demonstrated the equality of the covariance matrices of the groups.
In this analysis, academic performance was included as a dependent variable, grouped into three levels: low (>6), medium (≥6 and <8), and high (≥8). The dimensions of the SRS were considered as independent and predictive variables: (1) Identity–Self-Esteem Dimension (ISD); (2) Networks–Models Dimension (NMD); (3) Learning-Generativity Dimension (LGD); (4) Internal Resources Dimension (IRD); and (5) External Resources Dimension (ERD).
(3) To complete the discriminant analysis and to determine the role that the participants’ school year might play, a classification model based on flow diagrams was created using the decision tree statistical technique.
Statistical analyses were performed with SPSS statistical package version 21.0 for PC and Free JASP.

3. Results

Initially, the possible existence of differences among the means of the three levels of academic performance in terms of the scores of the dimensions in the School Resilience Scale was examined. For this purpose, analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed, finding significant differences among the three levels of performance for the following dimensions (Table 2): Identity–Self-Esteem (ISD; F = 23.060, p = .000); Networks–Models, (NMD; F = 12.772, p = .000); Learning-Generativity (LGD) (F = 12.692, p = .000); Internal Resources (IRD; F = 25.578, p = .000); and External Resources (ERD; F = 10.375, p = .000). Values of the effect size, the partial eta squared, indicate a mild–moderate effect.
Once the existence of differences among the means of the three groups of academic performance levels was established, a discriminant analysis was performed to identify which dimensions of the SRS best explain these differences. Table 3 presents the structure matrix resulting from this analysis. Among the three discriminant functions calculated, Function 1 emerged as the most significant in distinguishing between the performance levels.
Function 1 accounted for the highest proportion of variance among the three functions, exhibited the strongest canonical correlation, and yielded the smallest Wilks’ Lambda value, indicating a greater degree of separation among the groups. The chi-squared test for this function also reached the highest level of statistical significance (Function 1: % of variance = 86, canonical correlation = 0.280, Wilks’ λ = 0.909, χ2 = 57.752, df = 8, p < .001).
This means that Function 1 plays a key role in differentiating students based on their academic performance, primarily through two variables: Internal Resources (IRD) and Identity–Self-Esteem (ISD). In practical terms, students with higher academic performance tend to score higher on these two dimensions, which suggests a stronger internal capacity to cope with academic demands and a more consolidated personal identity.
In Table 4, it can be observed that the canonical discriminant function correctly classified 40.2% of students with a low academic performance level, 31.2% with a medium level, and 58.91% with a high level. The average gains in prediction were higher than the 33% accuracy expected at random across the three performance levels. These percentages indicate that these dimensions of the SRS help us, mainly, to discriminate among high-level students.
Finally, with the intention of analysing the role of the school year in the associations found, a classification tree was created, considering as a dependent variable the low and high levels of academic performance. As seen in the classification results of the discriminant analysis, the associations of the dimensions of the SRS used as predictors were useful in the group with a low level of performance and especially in the high level. The following independent variables were introduced: dimensions of the SRS and the school year.
As can be seen in Figure 1, the school year was significantly associated with academic performance. The highest percentage of students in the high level of academic performance (69.5%) was found in students in their 2nd and 3rd years of secondary education and students who obtained higher scores in Identity–Self-Esteem (ISD; Node 5).

4. Discussion

The main objective of the present study was to analyse which dimensions of school resilience could act as determining factors in the academic performance of secondary education students. Based on the results obtained, there was a direct and significant correlation between academic performance and all dimensions of the School Resilience Scale (SRS; (Saavedra and Castro 2009)), with slightly larger effect sizes found for Internal Resources (IRD) and Identity–Self-Esteem (ISD). This pattern is consistent with the findings of Suárez-Cretton and Castro-Méndez (2022), who, using the same instrument (SRS) with Chilean students aged 9–14, also found stronger associations between these particular dimensions and academic achievement. Their methodology involved intentional sampling of entire classroom groups in public schools with high levels of vulnerability, applying the SRS and using first-semester grades in Language and Mathematics as the performance indicators.
Our findings also align with previous research confirming the positive relationship between academic performance and general or academic resilience in adolescents (Frutos de Miguel 2025; García-Crespo et al. 2022; Supervía et al. 2022), and even in university populations (Dwiastuti et al. 2022; Ononye et al. 2022; Zumárraga-Espinosa 2023). For instance, Erdem and Kaya (2021) employed the Academic Resilience Scale and found significant associations between resilience and academic achievement among Turkish high school students, using a sample of 390 students and analysing their average GPA. Similarly, Frutos de Miguel (2025) investigated a Spanish sample of early adolescents and confirmed the predictive role of resilience when measured alongside motivational and self-concept variables. These studies used different methodological approaches but converged in identifying resilience as a relevant factor in educational outcomes.
Moreover, the results of Supervía et al. (2022) highlighted the role of academic self-efficacy as a mediator between resilience and academic performance. Their study, which used a sample of Spanish adolescents and a combination of validated resilience and self-efficacy instruments, found that while the direct relationship between resilience and academic performance was modest, it became significant when mediated by self-efficacy. This supports an ecological interpretation of resilience, whereby internal psychological resources serve as mechanisms linking broader resilient traits with academic outcomes.
The results of the present study further show that resilience explained 58.9% of the variance in high academic performance levels among secondary education students. This supports the notion of resilience as a predictive indicator, as suggested in previous research (Ayala and Manzano 2018; Bestué-Laguna and Escolano-Pérez 2021).
However, these findings are in contrast to other studies that did not find such a correlation. For example, Hernández-Muñoz et al. (2024), working with general basic education students, reported only a slight relationship between general resilience and academic performance. Similarly, Alonso-Aldana et al. (2016) and Niño-Tezén et al. (2024) found no significant relationships in university samples. These discrepancies could stem from uncontrolled mediating or moderating variables, such as academic satisfaction, self-efficacy, self-concept and motivation, peer relationships, or emotional resilience (Dwiastuti et al. 2022; Etherton et al. 2020; Frutos de Miguel 2025; Liew et al. 2018; Ononye et al. 2022).
Supporting this, the review conducted by Redondo-Blasco and Martínez-Abad (2024) synthesised 22 studies published after 2017 on the resilience–academic performance relationship in compulsory education. Their findings confirmed a generally positive, significant, and direct correlation, while also emphasising the influence of various mediating, moderating, and contextual factors.
Our discriminant analysis further identified the most predictive dimensions of resilience in terms of academic performance. Internal resources and self-esteem emerged as critical components. Among these, internal resources, such as self-efficacy, self-concept, and motivation, stand out as key protective factors that help students cope with academic challenges more effectively.
Self-efficacy supports optimistic expectations and goal-setting (Paredes-Valverde et al. 2020; Sadoughi 2018), while a positive self-concept enhances confidence in one’s academic capabilities (Haktanir et al. 2021; Wolff et al. 2018). Motivation plays a central role in student engagement and persistence (Núñez et al. 2024; Paechter et al. 2022). These findings align with prior evidence on the importance of internal strengths for academic success (Borja-Naranjo et al. 2021; Martín-Romero and Sánchez-López 2021; Menéndez-Aller et al. 2021; Nájera et al. 2020; Vega-Díaz 2024).
The predominance of internal dimensions, such as IRD and ISD, in predicting academic performance underlines the pivotal role of personal strengths in overcoming academic demands. These findings suggest that educational interventions aimed at boosting internal psychological resources (such as training in self-efficacy, emotional regulation, and self-awareness) could be particularly impactful. Incorporating these aspects into school curricula may not only foster academic success but also long-term personal development.
In terms of self-esteem, it relates to emotional regulation, which facilitates stress management and academic focus (Ros-Morente et al. 2017). Compared to external resources, such as family dynamics (Fajardo-Bullón et al. 2017) or peer interactions (Cuadros and León-del Barco 2024), internal resources demonstrate greater predictive power because they are inherent to the student and directly influence academic behaviour and autonomy.
Our results also indicate that the academic year is significantly associated with performance, with students in their 2nd and 3rd years of secondary education more likely to exhibit high academic performance and high scores in the Identity–Self-Esteem Dimension of the SRS. The higher repetition rate in the first year (7.3%; MECD 2024) may reflect the challenging transition from primary to secondary education (Ávila et al. 2022). Conversely, the lower performance of 4th-year students may relate to a decline in general self-concept with age (Núñez et al. 2024), a phenomenon also linked to academic success (Pérez-Mármol et al. 2023).

Limitations

As with any study, some limitations of this work must be pointed out. The most important is the use of self-reports as a method of data collection. Self-reporting for the assessment of resilience is a measure subject to the subjective and temporary perception of the students. Other limitations refer to the cross-sectional design, which makes it difficult to establish greater inferences about the relationship between the variables of the study. Finally, it would be optimal to be able to replicate the study by increasing the sample size and including representation at the national and international levels.
Although the students were sampled by clusters (i.e., classrooms), we did not apply multilevel modelling techniques because no classroom-level variables were collected, and all measures were based on student self-reports. A runs test indicated that the assumption of independence was not violated (p = .10). However, we acknowledge the potential for unobserved classroom-level effects and recommend that future research implement multilevel approaches when appropriate to better account for hierarchical structures and avoid potential overestimation of effects.
Additionally, the cultural context in which this study was conducted (Spanish secondary education) should be considered when interpreting the findings. Educational practices, resilience constructs, and academic expectations can vary considerably across countries and school systems. As such, the generalizability of these results to other populations may be limited, and replication in different cultural or educational settings is encouraged to validate the external applicability of the conclusions.

5. Conclusions

This study examined the relationship between academic performance and school resilience in secondary education students. Differences were found among the means of the three performance levels based on scores across the five resilience dimensions. Discriminant analysis revealed a canonical function in which the most predictive dimensions of high performance were Internal Resources and Identity–Self-Esteem. This approach has provided a clear view of the variables that contribute to resilience and may help guide the design of more effective interventions to improve students’ academic performance. Furthermore, analysis of the role of the school year in the identified associations showed that this factor was significantly related to academic performance, with the highest percentages of students at the highest level observed in the 2nd and 3rd years. Taken together, these findings, along with those from the recent research on academic performance cited above, highlight the relative importance of certain personality variables on students’ achievement levels. There is also a growing interest in promoting resilience among young people.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, A.M.C.-P., B.L.-d.-B. and C.B.M.; methodology, B.L.-d.-B.; validation, A.M.C.-P., B.L.-d.-B. and C.B.M.; formal analysis, B.L.-d.-B.; investigation, A.M.C.-P. and B.L.-d.-B.; resources, A.M.C.-P.; writing—original draft preparation, A.M.C.-P.; writing—review and editing, A.M.C.-P., B.L.-d.-B. and C.B.M.; supervision, B.L.-d.-B. and C.B.M. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This work has been funded by the support to Research Groups of the Junta de Extremadura (GR24149-2024/2026) – PSYCOUEX (SEJO61).

Institutional Review Board Statement

Given the characteristics and non-interventional design of the study, the topics investigated (academic performance and resilience), and the provisions of the Regulations of the Bioethics and Biosafety Committee of the University of Extremadura (approved by the Governing Council on 21 March 2023), it was determined that review and approval by said Committee was not necessary, since the research did not involve clinical experimentation methods with humans and was based on anonymous, collective, and non-identifiable data.

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

Data Availability Statement

The datasets generated and/or analysed during the current study are not publicly available due to ethical and legal restrictions related to the confidentiality of participant information. Access to the data is therefore limited in order to protect the privacy of the individuals involved.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Abubakar, Usman, Nur Ain Shafiqah Mohd Azli, Izzatil Aqmar Hashim, Nur Fatin Adlin Kamarudin, Nur Ain Izzati Abdul Latif, Abdul Rahman Mohamad Badaruddin, Muhammad Zulkifli Razak, and Nur Ain Zaidan. 2021. The relationship between academic resilience and academic performance among pharmacy students. Pharmacy Education 21: 705–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Agasisti, Tommaso, Francesco Avvisati, Francesca Borgonovi, and Sergio Longobardi. 2021. What school factors are associated with the success of socio-economically disadvantaged students? An empirical investigation using PISA data. Social Indicators Research 157: 749–81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Ahmad, Dawood, Iftikhar Ahmad Baig, and Namra Munir. 2019. Relación del rendimiento académico con el estrés percibido y el índice de masa corporal. Dilemas Contemporáneos: Educación, Política y Valores 57: 1–17. [Google Scholar]
  4. Alonso-Aldana, Ruth, Yadira Beltrán-Márquez, Rosario Máfara-Duarte, and Zulema Gaytán-Martínez. 2016. Relación entre rendimiento académico y resiliencia en una universidad tecnológica. Revista de Investigaciones Sociales 2: 38–49. [Google Scholar]
  5. Ariza, Carla Patricia, Luis Ángel Rueda Toncel, and Jainer Sardoth Blanchar. 2018. El rendimiento académico: Una problemática compleja. Revista Boletín Redipe 7: 137–41. [Google Scholar]
  6. Artunduaga, Néstor. 2024. Factores asociados al rendimiento académico en educación secundaria: Una revisión sistemática. Revista de Psicología y Educación 19: 73–85. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Atkins, Jessica L., Teresa Vega-Uriostegui, Daniel Norwood, and Maria Adamuti-Trache. 2023. Social and emotional learning and ninth-grade students’ academic achievement. Journal of Intelligence 11: 185. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Ayala, Juan Carlos, and Guadalupe Manzano. 2018. Academic performance of first-year university students: The influence of resilience and engagement. Higher Education Research & Development 37: 1321–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Ávila Francés, Mercedes, María Carmen Sánchez Pérez, and Andrea Bueno Baquero. 2022. Factores que facilitan y dificultan la transición de educación primaria a secundaria. Revista de Investigación Educativa 40: 147–64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Berkowitz, Ruth, Hadass Moore, Ron Avi Astor, and Rami Benbenishty. 2017. A research synthesis of the associations between socioeconomic background, inequality, school climate, and academic achievement. Review of Educational Research 87: 425–69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Bestué-Laguna, Marta, and Elena Escolano-Pérez. 2021. Implicación de la resiliencia y de las funciones ejecutivas en el rendimiento académico de educación obligatoria. International Journal of Developmental and Educational Psychology 2: 309–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Bittmann, Felix. 2021. When problems just bounce back: About the relation between resilience and academic success in German tertiary education. SN Social Sciences 1: 1–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Borja-Naranjo, Germania Maricela, Jenny Esmeralda Martínez-Benítez, Segundo Napoleón Barreno-Freire, and Oswaldo Fabián Haro-Jácome. 2021. Factores asociados al rendimiento académico: Un estudio de caso. Revista Educare 25: 54–77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Burton, Brett A. 2020. Resiliency and academic achievement among urban high school students. Leadership and Research in Education: The Journal of the Ohio Council of Professors of Educational Administration (OCPEA) 5: 106–18. [Google Scholar]
  15. Cano Celestino, María Alicia, and Rosalinda Robles Rivera. 2018. Factores asociados al rendimiento académico en estudiantes universitarios. Revista Mexicana de Orientación Eductativa 15: 1–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Cassidy, Simon. 2016. The Academic Resilience Scale (ARS-30): A new multidimensional construct measure. Frontiers in Psychology 7: 1–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Castro Ríos, Ana, Eugenio Saavedra Guajardo, and Claudio Rojas Jara. 2019. Contextos educativos urbanos y rurales vulnerables: Un estudio de resiliencia. Revista Electrónica de Psicología Iztacala 22: 2084–105. [Google Scholar]
  18. Cicchetti, Dante, and Sheree L. Toth. 2009. The past achievements and future promises of developmental psychopathology: The coming of age of a discipline. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry 50: 16–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Cuadros, Olga, and Benito León-del Barco. 2024. Análisis discriminante de las relaciones interpersonales positivas de aula y rendimiento académico en escolares chilenos. Educación XX1 27: 195–221. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Daily, Shay M., Michael J. Mann, Alfgeir L. Kristjansson, Megan L. Smith, and Keith J. Zullig. 2019. School climate and academic achievement in middle and high school students. Journal of School Health 89: 173–80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Daily, Shay M., Michael J. Mann, Christa L. Lilly, Angela M. Dyer, Megan L. Smith, and Alfgeir L. Kristjansson. 2020. School climate as an intervention to reduce academic failure and educate the whole child: A longitudinal study. Journal of School Health 90: 182–93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  22. Dueñas Herrera, Ximena, Silvana Godoy Mateus, Jorge Leonardo Duarte Rodríguez, and Diana Carolina López Vera. 2019. La resiliencia en el logro educativo de los estudiantes colombianos. Revista Colombiana de Educación 76: 69–90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Dwiastuti, Ike, Wiwin Hendriani, and Fitri Andriani. 2022. The impact of academic resilience on academic performance in college students during the COVID-19 pandemic. KnE Social Sciences 7: 25–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Erdem, Cahit, and Metin Kaya. 2021. Socioeconomic status and wellbeing as predictors of students’ academic achievement: Evidence from a developing country. Journal of Psychologists and Counsellors in Schools 33: 202–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Espinosa-Castro, Jhon Franklin, Juan Hernández-Lalinde, Johel E. Rodríguez, Maricarmen Chacín, and Valmore Bermúdez-Pirela. 2020. Influencia del estrés sobre el rendimiento académico. Archivos Venezolanos de Farmacología y Terapéutica 39: 63–69. [Google Scholar]
  26. Etherton, Kent, Debra Steele-Johnson, Kathleen Salvano, and Nicholas Kovacs. 2020. Resilience effects on student performance and well-being: The role of self-efficacy, self-set goals, and anxiety. The Journal of General Psychology 149: 279–98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Fajardo-Bullón, Fernando, María Maestre Campos, Elena Felipe Castaño, Benito León-del Barco, and María Isabel Polo del Río. 2017. Análisis del rendimiento académico de los alumnos de Educación Secundaria Obligatoria según las variables familiares. Educación XX1 20: 209–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Fang, Guangbao, Philip Wing Keung Chan, and Penelope Kalogeropoulos. 2020. Social support and academic achievement of chinese low-income children: A mediation effect of academic resilience. International Journal of Psychological Research 13: 19–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Farina, Katie A. 2019. Promoting a culture of bullying: Understanding the role of school climate and school sector. Journal of School Choice 13: 94–120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Fernández-Berrocal, Pablo, Rosario Cabello, and María José Gutiérrez-Cobo. 2017. Avances en la investigación sobre competencias emocionales en educación. Revista Interuniversitaria de Formación del Profesorado 88: 15–26. [Google Scholar]
  31. Frias, Cindy E., Cecilia Cuzco, Carmen Frias Martín, Silvia Pérez-Ortega, Joselyn A. Triviño-López, and María Lombraña. 2020. Resilience and emotional support in health care professionals during the COVID-19 pandemic. Journal of Psychosocial Nursing and Mental Health Services 58: 5–6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Frutos de Miguel, Jonatan. 2025. La resiliencia como predictor del rendimiento en adolescentes. Revista de Investigación Educativa 43: 1–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. García-Crespo, Francisco Javier, Javier Suárez-Álvarez, Rubén Fernández-Alonso, and José Muñiz. 2022. Academic resilience in Mathematics and Science: Europe TIMSS-2019 Data. Psicothema 34: 217–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  34. González-Arratia, Norma Ivonne. 2016. Resiliencia y Personalidad en Niños. In Cómo Desarrollarse en Tiempos de Crisis, 2nd ed. Edited by Universidad Autónoma del Estado de México. México: Eón. [Google Scholar]
  35. Gómez-Esquivel, Dulce Areli, Ulises Delgado Sánchez, Fernanda Gabriela Martínez Flores, María Araceli Ortiz-Rodríguez, and Rubén Avilés Reyes. 2021. Resiliencia, género y rendimiento académico en jóvenes universitarios del Estado de Morelos. Revista ConCiencia EPG 6: 36–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Guevara-Dávila, Felicita Dora, Yenifer Milagros Pérez-Moreano, and Dante Manuel Macazana-Fernández. 2019. Pensamiento crítico y su relación con el rendimiento académico en la investigación formativa de los estudiantes universitarios. Dilemas Contemporáneos: Educación, Política y Valores 13: 1–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Haktanir, Abdulkadir, Joshua C. Watson, Hulya Ermis-Demirtas, Mehmet A. Karaman, Paula D. Freeman, Ajitha Kuraman, and Ashley Streeter. 2021. Resilience, academic self-concept, and college adjustment among first-year students. Journal of College Student Retention: Research, Theory y Practice 23: 161–78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Hernández-Muñoz, Melissa, Azael Sanjur, and Noemí Montes. 2024. Resiliencia y rendimiento académico en estudiantes de Educación Básica General. Revista Ecuatoriana de Psicología 7: 114–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Hong, Jun Sung, Dorothy L. Espelage, and Jeoung Min Lee. 2018. School climate and bullying prevention programs. In The Wiley Handbook on Violence in Education. Edited by Harvey Shapiro. Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons, pp. 359–74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Kotliarenco, María Angélica. 2021. Resiliencia y su Importancia en la Educación del Grupo Familiar, fundamentalmente la Madre, y en el Crecimiento y Desarrollo de los Niños y Niñas. Santiago: CEANIM. [Google Scholar]
  41. Liew, Jeffrey, Qian Cao, Jan N. Hughes, and Marike H. F. Deutz. 2018. Academic resilience despite early academic adversity: A three-wave longitudinal study on regulation-related resiliency, interpersonal relationships, and achievement in first to third grade. Early Education and Development 29: 762–79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Mansfield, Caroline, Susan Beltman, Noelene Weatherby-Fell, and Tania Broadley. 2021. Classroom ready? Building resilience and professional experience in teacher education. In Teacher Education: Innovation, Intervention and Impact. Edited by Robyn Brandenburg, Sharon McDonough, Jenene Burke and Simone White. Singapore: Springer, pp. 211–29. [Google Scholar]
  43. Martin, Andrew J., and Herbert W. Marsh. 2008. Academic buoyancy: Towards an understanding of students’ everyday academic resilience. Journal of School Psychology 46: 53–83. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Martín-Romero, Nuria, and Álvaro Sánchez-López. 2021. Factores motivacionales y de autoconcepto implicados en la predicción del rendimiento académico en Educación Secundaria. Apuntes de Psicología 39: 65–74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Menéndez-Aller, Álvaro, Álvaro Postigo, Covadonga González-Nuevo, Marcelino Cuesta, Rubén Fernández-Alonso, Marcos Álvarez-Díaz, Eduardo García-Cueto, and José Muñiz. 2021. Resiliencia académica: La influencia del esfuerzo, las expectativas y el autoconcepto académico. Revista Latinoamericana de Psicología 53: 114–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Ministerio de Educación, Cultura y Deporte. 2022. Programa para la Evaluación Internacional de los Alumnos PISA (OCDE) 2022 (Informe español). Madrid: Secretaría General Técnica del MECD. [Google Scholar]
  47. Ministerio de Educación, Cultura y Deporte. 2024. Informe 2024 sobre el estado del sistema educativo. Curso 2022–2023. Madrid: Secretaría General Técnica del MECD. [Google Scholar]
  48. Morgan-Asch, Jesús. 2021. El análisis de la resiliencia y el rendimiento académico en los estudiantes universitarios. Revista Nacional de Administración 12: 49–60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Morris, Amanda Sheffield, Jennifer Hays-Grudo, Kara L. Kerr, and Lana O. Beasley. 2021. The heart of the matter: Developing the whole child through community resources and caregiver relationships. Development and Psychopathology 33: 1–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Nájera-Saucedo, Jessica, Martha Leticia Salazar Garza, María de los Ángeles Vacio Muro, and Silvia Morales Chainé. 2020. Evaluación de la autoeficacia, expectativas y metas académicas asociadas al rendimiento escolar. Revista de Investigación Educativa 38: 435–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Newland, Lisa A., Daniel A. DeCino, Daniel J. Mourlam, and Gabrielle A. Strouse. 2019. School climate, emotions, and relationships: Children’s experiences of well-being in the Midwestern U.S. International Journal of Emotional Education Special Issue 11: 67–83. [Google Scholar]
  52. Niño-Tezén, Angélica Lourdes, José Melanio Ramírez Alva, July Antonieta Chávez Lozada, and Patricia Yolanda Santos Vera. 2024. Resiliencia y rendimiento académico en estudiantes universitarios de psicología de Perú. Revista Electrónica Interuniversitaria de Formación del Profesorado 27: 173–83. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Núñez, José Carlos, María del Carmen Perálvarez-Estevez, Ellián Tuero, and Natalia Suárez. 2024. Autoconcepto, motivación académica, actitud hacia el aprendizaje y rendimiento académico: Un estudio centrado en la persona. Revista de Psicología y Educación 19: 107–16. [Google Scholar]
  54. Obradović, Jelena, Nicole R. Bush, Juliet Stamperdahl, Nancy E. Adler, and W. Thomas Boyce. 2010. Biological sensitivity to context: The interactive effects of stress reactivity and family adversity on socioemotional behavior and school readiness. Child Development 81: 270–89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Oducado, Ryan Michael, Geneveve Parreño-Lachica, and Judith Rabacal. 2021. Personal resilience and its influence on COVID- 19 stress, anxiety and fear among graduate students in the Philippines. International Journal of Educational Research and Innovation 15: 431–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Ononye, Uzoma, Mercy Ogbeta, Francis Ndudi, Dudutari Bereprebofa, and Ikechuckwu Maduemezia. 2022. Academic resilience, emotional intelligence, and academic performance among undergraduate students. Knowledge and Performance Management 6: 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Paechter, Manuela, Hellen Phan-Lesti, Bernhard Ertl, Daniel Macher, Smirna Malkoc, and Ilona Papousek. 2022. Learning in adverse circumstances: Impaired by learning with anxiety, maladaptive cognitions, and emotions, but supported by self-concept and motivation. Frontiers in Psychology 13: 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  58. Paredes-Valverde, Yolanda, Rosel Quispe-Herrera, and Jorge S. Garate-Quispe. 2020. Relationships among self-efficacy, self-concepts and academic achievement in university students of Peruvian Amazon. Revista Espacios 41: 18–23. [Google Scholar]
  59. Pérez-Mármol, Mariana, Manuel Castro-Sánchez, Ramón Chacón-Cuberos, and María Alejandra Gamarra-Vengoechea. 2023. Relación entre rendimiento académico, factores psicosociales y hábitos saludables en alumnos de Educación Secundaria. Aula Abierta 52: 281–88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Redondo-Blasco, Valentín, and Fernando Martínez-Abad. 2024. Revisión sistemática sobre la relación resiliencia-rendimiento académico del alumnado en educación obligatoria: Análisis de evaluaciones a gran escala. Aula Abierta 53: 37–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Rosales-Pérez, Natalie. 2023. Análisis de la integración del concepto resiliencia en la planeación de la Ciudad de México. Economía, Sociedad y Territorio 23: 131–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Ros-Morente, Agnès, Gemma Filella-Guiu, Ramona Ribes-Castells, and Núria Pérez-Escoda. 2017. Análisis de la relación entre competencias emocionales, autoestima, clima de aula, rendimiento académico y nivel de bienestar en educación primaria. Revista Española de Orientación y Psicopedagogía 28: 8–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Saavedra, Eugenio, and Ana Castro. 2009. Escala de Resiliencia Escolar (E.R.E.) para Niños entre 9 y 14 Años. Santiago: CEANIM. [Google Scholar]
  64. Sadoughi, Majid. 2018. The relationship between academic self-efficacy, academic resilience, academic adjustment, and academic performance among medical students. Education Strategies in Medical Sciences 11: 7–14. [Google Scholar]
  65. Suárez-Cretton, Ximena, and Nelson Castro Méndez. 2022. Competencias socioemocionales y resiliencia de estudiantes de escuelas vulnerables y su relación con el rendimiento académico. Revista de Psicología 40: 879–904. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Supervía, Usán P., Salavera C. Bordás, and Quílez A. Robres. 2022. The mediating role of self-efficacy in the relationship between resilience and academic performance in adolescence. Learning and Motivation 78: 1–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Tipismana, Orlando. 2019. Factores de resiliencia y afrontamiento como predictores del rendimiento académico de los estudiantes en universidades privadas. Revista Iberoamericana sobre Calidad, Eficacia y Cambio en Educación 17: 147–85. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Ungar, Michael, ed. 2012. Social ecologies and their contribution to resilience. In The Social Ecology of Resilience; A Handbook of Theory and Practice. New York: Springer, pp. 13–31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Varela, Jorge J., David Sirlopú, Roberto Melipillán, Dorothy Espelage, Jennifer Green, and Javier Guzmán. 2019. Exploring the influence school climate on the relationship between school violence and adolescent subjective well-being. Child Indicators Research 12: 2095–110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Vega-Díaz, Marta. 2024. Motivación y rendimiento académico en las distintas asignaturas de secundaria: Factores influyentes. Cuestiones Pedagógicas 1: 263–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Waugh, Christian E., and Anthony W. Sali. 2023. Resilience as the ability to maintain well-being: An allostatic active inference model. Journal of Intelligence 11: 158. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  72. Wolff, Fabian, Nicole Nagy, Friederike Helm, and Jens Möller. 2018. Testing the internal/external frame of reference model of academic achievement and academic self-concept with open self-concept reports. Learning and Instruction 55: 58–66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Zumárraga-Espinosa, Marcos. 2023. Resiliencia académica, rendimiento e intención de abandono en estudiantes universitarios de Quito. Revista Latinoamericana de Ciencias Sociales, Niñez y Juventud 21: 1–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Jintelligence 13 00056 g001
Figure 1. Decision tree for the dependent variables: low level and high level of academic performance.
Figure 1. Decision tree for the dependent variables: low level and high level of academic performance.
Jintelligence 13 00056 g001
Table 1. Goodness-of-fit indices of the proposed model, School Resilience Scale (SRS).
Table 1. Goodness-of-fit indices of the proposed model, School Resilience Scale (SRS).
Modelχ²χ²/dfGFIIFITLICFIRMSRRMSEA
3 related factors and 2 second-order factors1058.9763.6640.9890.9000.8640.8880.0560.060
Notes: χ² = chi-squared statistic; χ²/df = chi square divided by degrees of freedom; GFI = goodness-of-fit index; IFI = incremental fit index; TLI = Tucker–Lewis index; CFI = comparative goodness-of-fit index; RMSR = root mean square residual; RMSEA = root mean square residual of approximation.
Table 2. ANOVA test results: means and standard deviations of the dimensions of the SRS based on different levels of academic performance.
Table 2. ANOVA test results: means and standard deviations of the dimensions of the SRS based on different levels of academic performance.
Academic Performance Levels ANOVA Test
SRS
Dimensions		Low Level
M (SD)		Medium Level
M (SD)		High Level
M (SD)		Fpη2 *
ISD34.91 (5.91)35.67 (5.52)38.28 (3.94)23.060.0000.07
NMD38.01 (5.71)38.98 (5.85)40.67 (4.11)12.772.0000.04
LGD37.83 (5.59)38.03 (5.41)40.12 (4.01)12.692.0000.04
IRD51.66 (8.22)53.27 (7.33)56.57 (4.97)25.578.0000.08
ERD59.08 (8.98)59.42 (9.06)62.50 (6.55)10.375.0000.03
SRS Dimensions: Identity–Self-Esteem (ISD), Networks–Models (NMD), Learning-Generativity (LGD), Internal Resources (IRD), and External Resources (ERD). * Effect size test, partial eta squared: if 0.06 ≤ η2 < 0.14, the effect is moderate; if η2 ≥ 0.14, the effect is strong.
Table 3. Structure matrix. The variables are ordered by the size of the correlation with the discriminant function.
Table 3. Structure matrix. The variables are ordered by the size of the correlation with the discriminant function.
VariablesFunctions
Function 1Function 2
Internal Resources (IRD)0.997 *−0.079
Identity–Self-esteem (ISD)0.944 *0.184
Networks–Models (NMD)0.703 *−0.134
Learning-Generativity (LGD)0.686 *0.369
External Resources (ERD)0.622 *0.321
* Highest absolute correlation between each variable and the discriminant function.
Table 4. Classification results using the discriminant function.
Table 4. Classification results using the discriminant function.
Predicted Membership Group
Performance LevelsLowMediumHigh
%Low40.221.238.6
Medium29.431.239.4
High20.820.358.9
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Carroza-Pacheco, A.M.; León-del-Barco, B.; Bringas Molleda, C. Academic Performance and Resilience in Secondary Education Students. J. Intell. 2025, 13, 56. https://doi.org/10.3390/jintelligence13050056

AMA Style

Carroza-Pacheco AM, León-del-Barco B, Bringas Molleda C. Academic Performance and Resilience in Secondary Education Students. Journal of Intelligence. 2025; 13(5):56. https://doi.org/10.3390/jintelligence13050056

Chicago/Turabian Style

Carroza-Pacheco, Ana María, Benito León-del-Barco, and Carolina Bringas Molleda. 2025. "Academic Performance and Resilience in Secondary Education Students" Journal of Intelligence 13, no. 5: 56. https://doi.org/10.3390/jintelligence13050056

APA Style

Carroza-Pacheco, A. M., León-del-Barco, B., & Bringas Molleda, C. (2025). Academic Performance and Resilience in Secondary Education Students. Journal of Intelligence, 13(5), 56. https://doi.org/10.3390/jintelligence13050056

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop