Understanding the Relationship Between Educational Leadership Preparation Program Features and Graduates’ Career Intentions

Abstract

Globally, many school systems face leadership shortages and challenges in building strong principal pipelines, making career intentions to pursue school leadership a critical area of study. This study examines how key features of educational leadership preparation programs (ELPPs) influence graduates’ intentions to become school leaders. Guided by Social Cognitive Career Theory (SCCT), we analyzed data from 2994 graduates across 51 U.S.-based ELPPs collected between 2016 and 2020, using structural equation modeling and estimation thinking to assess direct and mediated relationships among program features and career outcomes. Findings reveal that internship quality plays a pivotal role as both a direct predictor of career intentions and a mediator for other program features, including faculty quality, program rigor and relevance, and peer relationships. Faculty quality influences intentions primarily through rigor and relevance, while cohort participation contributes indirectly by fostering peer relationships and internship quality. Graduate attributes, including prior leadership experience, also shape career aspirations. This study extends SCCT by demonstrating how ELPP features shape candidates’ career intentions through interconnected pathways, offering insights that inform policy and program design aimed at strengthening pathways into school leadership.

1. Introduction

School leadership practices significantly shape school quality and student learning, particularly influencing historically marginalized and underserved students (Darling-Hammond et al., 2022; Grissom et al., 2019, 2021; Leithwood et al., 2004, 2020; Hitt & Tucker, 2016). University-based educational leadership preparation programs (ELPPs) are crucial in developing critical skills of future school leaders to positively impact educational outcomes (Ni et al., 2019). As the dominant formal pathway for principal preparation in the U.S., ELPPs are central to current policy, accreditation, and research efforts aimed at strengthening the leadership pipeline (Fuller et al., 2017; Young & Crow, 2017). While many studies have examined ELPPs’ effectiveness in preparing individuals for leadership positions and their influences on practices and student learning (Young & Crow, 2017; Ni et al., 2019), less attention has been given to career advancement outcomes, including whether program graduates aspire to leadership roles, secure those positions, and remain in them (Young & Crow, 2017).

A critical and immediate measure of ELPP success in impacting the field is the pursuit of leadership positions by its graduates, as ELPPs foster leadership aspirations in several key ways. First, many programs intentionally recruit individuals who demonstrate leadership potential, possess relevant leadership experience, and aspire to a career in educational leadership through selective admissions practices (Browne-Ferrigno & Muth, 2009; Fuller et al., 2017; Jacobson et al., 2015). During their studies in ELPPs, candidates acquire essential knowledge, skills, and leadership dispositions through key program features, including rigorous curricula, problem-based learning strategies, high-quality internships, and strong university–district partnerships (Young & Crow, 2017; Carlson, 2012; Crow & Whiteman, 2016; LaFrance & Beck, 2014; Reyes-Guerra & Barnett, 2017; The Wallace Foundation, 2016; Ylimaki & Henderson, 2016). Additionally, in an effort to increase graduates’ likelihood of pursuing and remaining in leadership positions, ELPPs often provide various forms of support and resources to their candidates, such as job interview assistance, networking opportunities, and professional referrals (Winn et al., 2016).

Despite these efforts to support aspiring educational leaders, national reports have noted persistent principal shortages and critics have expressed concerns that ELPPs may be producing graduates who have no intention of pursuing careers as school leaders (Darling-Hammond et al., 2022; Fuller et al., 2017; Grissom et al., 2021). However, there has been limited research on the effects of ELPPs on graduate career outcomes to support or refute these claims, specifically regarding career intention and actual placements. Empirical studies have shown that the quality of ELPPs is associated with candidates’ intention to become a leader (Fuller et al., 2017). While these findings are valuable, fewer studies have explored which specific program features enhance graduates’ intentions to pursue school leadership or the pathways through which these features exert their influences (Ni et al., 2019; Ni et al., 2023).

In addition, overtime the majority of ELPP studies have been qualitative, relying on small-scale interview data, content analysis of documents, and surveys provided by programs (Young & Crow, 2017). The few quantitative outcome studies available are largely descriptive due to small sample sizes. Although some longitudinal studies have explored leadership development and career placements (e.g., Orr & Barber, 2007; E. J. Fuller et al., 2016), these tend to focus on career outcomes post-placement and rarely examine how preparation program features shape career intentions during or immediately after program completion. This study addresses these gaps by offering a large-scale, quantitative, multi-institutional analysis of how specific ELPP features influence graduates’ intentions to pursue leadership roles—an earlier but critical indicator of program impact. To address the research gaps and deepen our understanding of the pivotal role of ELPPs in leadership preparation, this study utilizes multiple years of large-scale nationally representative survey data and employs structural equation modeling (SEM) as the primary analytical tool. It aims to examine the associations between ELPPs features and graduates’ career intentions upon completion, focusing on the direct and indirect effects of specific program features. Specifically, we aim to address two research questions:

• To what extent are key ELPP features directly associated with graduates’ career intentions to become school leaders?
• To what extent do some of the ELPP features indirectly influence graduates’ career intentions through other ELPP features?

To examine these research questions, this study draws on Social Cognitive Career Theory (SCCT) (Lent et al., 1994), which provides a useful framework for understanding how individuals develop and refine career intentions through the interaction of self-efficacy beliefs, outcome expectations, and contextual supports. SCCT is especially relevant for studying ELPPs, as program experiences such as internships, mentorship, and peer support can shape candidates’ confidence and motivation to pursue leadership roles. This study contributes theoretically by extending SCCT into the context of educational leadership preparation and modeling how program features influence career intention through both direct and mediated pathways—an approach not commonly used in this field.

2. Literature Review

2.1. Theoretical Foundation: Social Cognitive Career Theory

Building on the SCCT framework introduced above, we provide a more detailed overview of its relevance to career decision-making and educational leadership preparation. Developed by Lent et al. (1994), SCCT explores the intricately linked aspects of career development and explains how career-related interests are formed and refined, how academic and career choices are made, and how success is achieved in educational and professional pursuits. Since its initiation and development, SCCT has been widely applied to study the early career development of adolescents and college students, exploring how parental support, school experiences, and self-efficacy influence young people’s initial educational and career trajectories (e.g., Yeagley et al., 2010). However, its applicability to adult professional preparation—especially in the context of school leadership—has recently gained attention. For instance, recent studies (e.g., Drake & Bastian, 2024) have begun to explore SCCT in ELPP contexts, highlighting its potential for examining how preparation features shape leadership aspirations.

A key contribution of SCCT is its recognition that career development is not a linear process but an iterative and dynamic one. Career interests (e.g., intentions or plans toward a particular career path), actions taken to implement career choices (e.g., enrollment in training programs), and performance outcomes (e.g., acquisition of relevant skills and self-efficacy) form a feedback loop that continuously redefines and reshapes future goals and behaviors (Lent et al., 1994). The use of SCCT, which has not been applied in this context to date, will support the examination of the relationship between the quality attributes of ELPPs and the career intentions of their graduates. Educators, primarily teachers aspiring to transition into school leadership roles, choose to enroll in university ELPPs. These programs prepare educators for leadership roles through rigorous and coherent curricula, effective instructional strategies, high-quality internships, applied field-based experiences, and cohort-based program structures that support collegial learning (Young & Crow, 2017; Darling-Hammond et al., 2009). Equipped with enhanced self-efficacy, theoretical knowledge, and practical experience, graduates solidify their career goals of becoming school leaders. In addition, these relationships are shaped by person-level inputs such as predispositions, age, gender, and race/ethnicity, as well as contextual and experiential factors, including prior teaching and leadership experiences. Individuals with different characteristics experience differential access to opportunities, support systems, and socialization processes, which in turn influence their career goals (Lent et al., 1994). To date, researchers have applied SCCT in studying ELPP features and their effects. For example, Drake and Bastian (2024) utilized this framework to examine student internship placements in ELPPs, exploring how personal, contextual, and experiential factors influence career-related decision-making, particularly internship placements.

In what follows, we review empirical evidence on the association between ELPP features and graduates’ career intentions and job placements. Given the limited research on career outcomes to date, we draw on studies of other learning outcomes to identify key program features linked to graduate success. This research informs our study on how specific program features influence career intentions, including the mediating and indirect pathways through which these features may ultimately shape graduates’ career goals.

2.2. ELPP Features and Graduate Outcomes

ELPPs aim to prepare educational leaders for the expanding demands of their roles, particularly in guiding schools toward effectiveness, efficiency, and equity goals (e.g., Aldridge & McLure, 2024; Young & Crow, 2017; Karakose et al., 2024). Despite criticism (not empirical evidence) that ELPPs, especially university-based ELPPs, do not adequately equip individuals with the knowledge and skills necessary for successful school leadership (e.g., Levine, 2005), scholars have accumulated empirical evidence over the years demonstrating the effectiveness of ELPPs in improving various measures of candidate and graduate outcomes. For instance, Ni et al. (2017) reviewed studies from 2007 to 2015 and concluded that an increasing number of recent studies aim to link preparation programs to expected outcomes. They found that ELPPs are associated with improved initial learning outcomes among graduates, including high levels of program satisfaction, self-efficacy, and self-reported leadership learning and beliefs about the principalship. Other empirical research and syntheses have also shown that exemplary principal preparation and professional development programs are positively linked to graduates’ assessments of overall program quality, leadership learning, high-quality principal leadership behaviors, improved teacher practices and retention, and better student outcomes (Coelli & Green, 2012; Darling-Hammond et al., 2022; Grissom et al., 2019; Ni et al., 2019; Ni et al., 2023). Additionally, participation in ELPPs has been significantly related to enhanced cultural intelligence, cultural competence, cultural beliefs and motivation, and cultural knowledge among program participants (Barakat et al., 2019; Reyes et al., 2025).

While the value of ELPPs has been affirmed by existing research, it is crucial to continue to identify which specific characteristics of these programs enhance the readiness of aspiring leaders, including their initial leadership learning outcomes, career intentions and outcomes, and success in leadership roles (Young & Crow, 2017; Fuller et al., 2016; Ni et al., 2019; Ni et al., 2023). A growing body of research indicates that certain program features are likely linked to improved outcomes for graduates. These features include rigorous student recruitment and selection, a standards-based and coherent curriculum, problem-based learning strategies, field-based internships, cohort models, and partnerships between universities and school districts (Young & Crow, 2017; Ni et al., 2019). For example, Orr’s (2011) study found that rigorous and relevant program content is positively associated with graduates’ leadership learning. Additionally, cohort models tend to build strong peer relationships and foster higher levels of trust, peer networking, and satisfaction among graduates, even after they had graduated from the ELPPs (Davis & Darling-Hammond, 2012; Donmoyer et al., 2012; Salazar et al., 2013). Furthermore, rich clinical experiences that are well integrated into programs lead to deeper and more complex understanding of effective leadership (Borden et al., 2012; Perez et al., 2011). Tingle et al. (2019) highlighted the impact of a district leadership development program on principals’ effectiveness, emphasizing the importance of specific training components such as human capital, executive leadership, school culture, and strategic operations, alongside the crucial role of supervisor support and peer relationships in sustaining leadership success. Greenlee and Karanxha (2010) examined the perceptions of cohort students and non-cohort students within the same leadership preparation program and reported that cohort students perceived significantly higher levels of trust, cohesiveness, and satisfaction than non-cohort students did. More recently, Ni et al. (2023) found that multiple program features (e.g., cohort model, face-to-face course delivery, field-based assessment, and strong district partnerships) are positively associated with graduates’ perceptions of program quality.

2.3. ELPP Features and Graduate Career Outcomes

A key goal of ELPPs is to influence candidates’ career progression and effectiveness. However, despite widespread recognition of its importance, this area remains significantly under-researched (Perrone et al., 2022). In particular, limited research exists on how specific ELPP characteristics shape graduates’ career outcomes. Orr and Barber (2007) used follow-up surveys with graduates from several leadership preparation programs and found that standards-based curriculum and intensive Internships were significantly related to graduates’ reports of increased leadership career intentions and actual advancement into leadership positions. Orr (2011) compared the survey results of 471 graduates from 13 institutions and 17 programs, investigating the relationship between multiple program features and initial graduate outcomes, including graduates’ career intentions and advancement. The study found that, although most of the program features were positively related to leadership learning outcomes, only one of the program measures, internship quality, was positively associated with graduates’ intentions and actual advancement into leadership positions. Orr (2011) suggested that while the strength and quality of preparation program features influence graduates’ learning, it is through intensive, high-quality internship quality that they can put this learning into practice, ultimately increasing their confidence in becoming educational leaders.

Several other studies examine the relationship between preparation program features and graduates’ actual placements, offering tentative evidence. Davis and Darling-Hammond (2012) reported that graduates from innovative programs, which prioritize hands-on internships, thematically integrated curricula, problem-based learning, and strong partnerships with school districts, were significantly more successful in securing administrative positions compared to those from traditional programs. Using longitudinal data on Texas principals, matched to their employment, Fuller et al. (2016) found that research and doctoral ELPPs exhibited higher placement rates compared to masters universities and colleges. Additionally, aside from personal and program characteristics such as race, gender, program type, and the percentage of female and White graduates, few program characteristics were associated with placement rates. Finally, differences between programs explained very little of the variation in placement rates.

2.4. The Mediating Effects of Specific ELPP Features

Research evidence is particularly scarce on the precise mechanisms and pathways that drive the relationships between specific quality features of ELPPs and graduate outcomes. To date, no research has directly tested the mediating relationships between preparation program features and graduates’ career outcomes, although a few studies have explored the mediating effects of certain features on other outcomes, such as graduate learning outcomes and leadership practices in schools. Orr and Orphanos (2011) explored the impact of leadership preparation programs on school improvement efforts and the learning environment for students. Through structural equation modeling, their study revealed that principals who graduated from exemplary preparation programs were more likely to acquire skills in instructional and organizational leadership and apply these practices in their schools. Notably, the link between leader preparation and leadership practices was mediated by the quality of the internship quality, which provides intensive, developmental opportunities for candidates to exercise effective leadership knowledge and skills. Using data gathered from the Initiative for Systemic Program Improvement through Research in Education (INSPIRE) Leadership Collaborative surveys, Ni et al. (2019) examined which specific quality features of ELPPs directly and indirectly affect graduates’ leadership learning outcomes. The authors found that faculty quality, along with program rigor and relevance, had the strongest associations with leadership learning. Notably, the connection between faculty quality and graduates’ leadership learning was entirely mediated by program rigor. This indicates that faculty play a crucial role in program development and implementation, with their influence on leadership learning occurring through the delivery of the program. Internship quality and peer relationships were also positively related to graduates’ leadership learning. Additionally, although a Cohort did not have a significant direct influence on graduate learning, it had a small indirect effect through PR. This indicates that cohort models foster PR, allowing candidates to develop a sense of community and create networks that enhance their learning experiences. Guided by these studies, the current research aims to investigate whether some of these program features have mediating effects on graduates’ career intentions, as this has not been empirically tested to date.

In summary, existing research on ELPPs has primarily evaluated their effectiveness in preparing individuals for leadership knowledge and skills, as well as their impact on leader practices and student outcomes. However, critical gaps remain in understanding whether ELPP graduates genuinely aspire to, and do, secure leadership positions, which is a key goal for ELPPs. While selective admissions may ensure that students entering ELPPs have leadership aspirations, there is still uncertainty about whether these programs enhance those career intentions, which specific program features reinforce leadership aspirations, and the mechanisms through which they do so. Additionally, existing research on ELPPs primarily relies on individual program studies or small-scale investigations of specific program features and models (Young & Crow, 2017). This study aims to fill that gap by using multiple years of data from a large-scale survey of recent graduates from over 50 ELPPs to investigate the relationship between program features and graduates’ career intentions, with a particular focus on the pathways through which these features exert their influence.

2.5. Conceptual Framework

Based on the literature and data availability, a conceptual framework was developed to guide our study. As shown in Figure 1, five ELPP features and their relationships with graduate career intentions are conceptualized. Specific preparation program quality features include (a) faculty quality, (b) program rigor and relevance, (c) cohort model, (d) peer relationships, and (e) internship quality, as frequently identified across a number of earlier conceptual and/or empirical publications as key elements of high quality or exemplary programs (Cosner et al., 2015; Davis & Darling-Hammond, 2012; McCarthy, 2015; Ni et al., 2019).

Building on existing studies that have demonstrated the positive impact of all five ELPP features on leadership learning outcomes, we hypothesize that these features are also associated with a graduate’s intention to pursue a career as a school leader. In addition to understanding the overall relationships between ELPP quality features and graduates’ career intentions, we also hypothesize the pathways through which these features directly and indirectly influence graduates’ career intentions. As noted earlier, our previous study (Ni et al., 2019) found that faculty quality indirectly influenced graduates’ learning outcomes by enhancing program rigor and relevance, while the cohort indirectly impacted learning outcomes by fostering PR. Therefore, we hypothesize similar indirect effects of these features on graduates’ career intentions. Furthermore, prior research suggests that while preparation program features influence graduates’ learning, it is through intensive, high-quality internship quality that this learning is put into practice, ultimately boosting their confidence in pursuing leadership roles (Orr, 2011). Based on this, we hypothesize that internship quality mediates the relationship between certain ELPP features and graduates’ career intentions. Finally, SCCT suggests that contextual factors such as personal attributes and past leadership experiences and aspirations play important roles throughout one’s career progression. Empirically, research has shown that initial leadership aspirations and past leadership experiences are strong predictors of leadership career aspirations at program completion and actual career advancement (Orr & Barber, 2007). Thus, we hypothesize that individuals’ age, gender, race/ethnicity, along with experiential factors such as prior teaching and leadership experiences, all influence their career intentions.

3. Methods

3.1. Data Source and Sample

The data for this project are from the Initiative for Systemic Program Improvement through Research in Education (INSPIRE) Leadership surveys, which are a set of program evaluation instruments provided by the INSPIRE Leadership Collaborative, which is a partnership between scholars from multiple institutions of higher education. INSPIRE surveys offer a common framework and measurement tools to assess the relationships between preparation program elements and both proximate and distal leadership outcomes. The INSPIRE surveys have been psychometrically tested for reliability and validity, and have been improved through multiple years of field-testing (Ni et al., 2019). The full INSPIRE Leadership Survey Suite includes: (1) a Preparation Program Survey (INSPIRE-PP); (2) a Graduate Survey (INSPIRE-G); (3) a Leaders in Practice Survey (INSPIRE-LP); and (4) a 360 Survey (INSPIRE-360).

This study uses multiple years of data collected from the INSPIRE-G, a survey administered to institutions of higher education who offer educational leadership preparation programs at the individual graduate level. The INSPIRE-G gathers information from recent graduates about their preparation program experiences, including (1) their assessment of program feature elements, (2) their self-assessed learning about leadership, and (3) their career intentions. It also collects demographic information, professional background data, and career-related variables, including current positions and aspirations.

This study used four years of INSPIRE-G data collected between 2016 and 2020, including 1110 graduates in 2016–2017, 834 graduates in 2017–2018, 736 graduates in 2018–2019, and 314 graduates in 2019–2020. Through a data sharing agreement, participating institutions with INSPIRE permit the INSPIRE Collaborative to use data in the aggregate form for research and evaluation purposes, including but not limited to instrument validation, reporting, and publications and presentations. For this study, data from all four years were merged to create a sufficient sample size for analysis, resulting in 2667 graduates from 51 higher education institutions. The 2019–2020 cohort represents the most recent group for which complete and comparable data were available across programs; subsequent years were affected by COVID-19 disruptions in program delivery and data collection. The sample distribution by year and selected demographic categories are presented in

Table 1. Sample size and demographic statistics.

	2015–2016		2016–2017		2017–2018		2018–2019		Total
Total	1110		834		736		314		2667
	N	%	N	%	N	%	N	%	N	%
Gender
Female	606	64.1	531	70.1	470	69.7	187	64.5	1794	67.3
Male	340	35.9	226	29.9	204	30.3	103	35.5	873	32.7
Race
White, non-Hispanic	742	66.8	548	65.7	494	67.1	233	74.2	2022	76.1
Other	201	21.3	204	27.1	174	25.9	57	19.7	636	23.9
Teacher Leader Position
teacher or other	298	30.5	131	17.2	115	16.9	44	21.7	588	21.7
teacher leader	300	30.7	370	48.5	399	58.7	198	46.8	1267	46.8
assistant principal	378	38.7	262	34.3	166	24.4	49	31.5	855	31.5
	M	STD	M	STD	M	STD	M	STD	M	STD
Total professional experience (years)	13.88	6.34	12.45	6.32	12.43	6.68	12.10	6.09	12.90	6.44

. The sample is predominantly female (67.3%) and White, non-Hispanic (76.1%), with the remainder identifying as “Other” (23.9%). Participants are distributed across three professional roles: 46.8% are teacher leaders, 32.1% are assistant principals, and 21.7% are categorized as teachers or others, with the proportion of teacher leaders increasing over time. On average, participants have 12.90 years of professional experience (SD = 6.44), though the average experience shows a slight decline over the years. Overall, the sample reflects a predominantly experienced, female, and White professional cohort, with teacher leaders comprising the largest group.

3.2. Variables and Constructs

Program features. The quality of ELPP features was assessed using four latent constructs—faculty quality, program rigor and relevance, peer relationships, and internship quality—and one binary variable, the cohort model. Cohort model was measured with a single item asking whether graduates participated in the program as part of a cohort. The four latent constructs were measured using 22 items rated on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree). The item stem reads: “To what degree do you agree or disagree with the following statements about your educational leadership preparation program?”

Each latent construct captures a set of theoretically grounded and field-validated dimensions of program quality. Faculty quality includes items related to instructors’ knowledge, competence, responsiveness to students, and respect for diversity. Program rigor and relevance reflects the degree to which coursework was coherent, intellectually stimulating, reflective, and effectively integrated theory with leadership practice while orienting candidates toward a leadership career. Internship quality evaluates the quality of field-based experiences, including opportunities for authentic leadership responsibilities, collaboration with peers, supervision by experienced school leaders, structured evaluation by program faculty, and work in socioeconomically diverse school settings. Peer relationships assess the extent to which candidates developed close, supportive relationships with fellow students that contributed to their personal and professional growth.

Representative items for each latent construct include the following:

• Faculty quality: “The faculty/instructors were knowledgeable”.
• Program rigor and relevance: “The program integrated theory and practice”.
• Internship quality: “My Internship enabled me to develop the practice of engaging peers and colleagues in shared problem solving and collaboration”.
• Peer relationships: “My interactions with fellow students have had a positive influence on my professional growth”.

Career Intentions. The graduate’s career intentions to become a school leader was measured with the question: “What are your current plans for becoming a school leader?” Responses ranged from 1 (I do not plan to go into school leadership) to 5 (I have become a school leader since enrolling in the program). The variable was coded as higher scores indicating a stronger intention to pursue school leadership.

Descriptive statistics for the five program features and career intentions are presented in

Table 2. Descriptive statistics and standardized factor loadings of program features and career intention.

Program Feature	Indicator	N	Mean	ST.D.	Factor Loading
					Estimate	95% CI
Faculty Quality (FQ)	FQ1	2624	4.59	0.621	0.86	[0.84, 0.88]
	FQ2	2622	4.53	0.665	0.88	[0.86, 0.89]
	FQ3	2623	4.49	0.723	0.81	[0.79, 0.83]
	FQ4	2623	4.58	0.689	0.74	[0.72, 0.76]
Rigor and Relevance (RR)	RR1	2626	4.39	0.805	0.85	[0.83, 0.86]
	RR2	2626	4.45	0.796	0.86	[0.85, 0.88]
	RR3	2624	4.56	0.709	0.78	[0.76, 0.79]
	RR4	2621	4.47	0.739	0.81	[0.79, 0.83]
	RR5	2623	4.43	0.823	0.85	[0.83, 0.86]
Internship Quality (Intern)	Intern1	2273	4.22	0.902	0.88	[0.87, 0.89]
	Intern2	2270	4.31	0.796	0.85	[0.84, 0.86]
	Intern3	2270	4.21	0.885	0.86	[0.85, 0.87]
	Intern4	2270	4.13	0.973	0.8	[0.78, 0.82]
	Intern5	2268	4.38	0.84	0.71	[0.69, 0.74]
	Intern6	2266	4.12	0.959	0.66	[0.63, 0.68]
Peer Relationships (PR)	PR1	2615	4.39	0.829	0.91	[0.9, 0.92]
	PR2	2617	4.4	0.821	0.91	[0.9, 0.92]
	PR3	2617	4.1	1.094	0.78	[0.76, 0.8]
Cohort Model		2564	0.73	0.443
Career Intention		2642	4.18	0.925

. The descriptive statistics showed that on average, graduates perceived high ELPP features—all indicators we used to measure ELPP features presented higher than 4.0 values (4 = agree and 5 = strongly agree). These results indicated graduates’ positive learning experiences in their leadership programs. The descriptive statistics also showed that on average, graduates reported having a career intention of becoming a school principal (mean = 4.18). This also indicated that graduates held great confidence in themselves to become future school leaders.

Control Variables. In this study, several demographic and professional background variables serve as control variables to account for individual differences in the analysis. These include the following: gender (coded as 1 = female and 0 = male), race/ethnicity (coded as 1 = White, non-Hispanic, and 0 = Other), current position (categorized into 0 = teacher or other, 1 = teacher leader, and 2 = assistant principal or principal), and professional experience, which is measured as the graduate’s total years of professional experience. These variables provide important contextual information and ensure that the observed effects of program features on career intention are not confounded by individual demographic or professional background characteristics. Descriptive statistics for the control variables are presented in Table 1.

3.3. Analysis Procedure

The analysis proceeded in two stages. First, we validated the latent constructs of program features (faculty quality, program rigor and relevance, peer relationships, and internship quality) using Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA). The CFA was conducted to ensure the measurement quality of each construct, with 22 items rated on a 5-point Likert scale. In this study, factor loadings of 0.70 or higher were considered acceptable, following guidelines from Hair et al. (2018), as they indicate that at least 50% of the variance in each item is explained by the corresponding latent factor. This threshold was chosen to ensure the measurement model demonstrated strong relationships between items and their respective latent constructs. The model fit indices included comparative fit index (CFI), Tucker–Lewis index (TLI), root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA), and standardized root mean residual (SRMR). Acceptable thresholds were CFI and TLI values above 0.90 and RMSEA and SRMR values below 0.08.

After validating the latent scales of program features, we took two steps to examine the possible relationships between program features and graduates’ intention to become a school leader. We first examined the correlations between graduates’ intention to become a school leader, program features, demographic variables, and the interrelationships among program features. Next, we applied structural equation modeling (SEM) to examine the effects of program features on a graduate’s career intention (Kline, 2005). SEM accounts for measurement error and allows for the analysis of both direct and indirect effects (Kline, 2005). We adopted a step-by-step model-building strategy:

Model 1: This initial model included all five program features as predictors of career intention, testing their direct and indirect relationships without incorporating control variables.

Model 2: Graduate attributes (gender, race, professional experience, and current position) were added to account for individual differences.

Model 3: Based on theoretical considerations and modification indices, we removed two direct paths (cohort model to internship quality and peer relationships to career intention) and added two correlations (between faculty quality and peer relationships and between rigor and relevance and peer relationships) to improve model fit.

4. Results

4.1. Results of Measurement Models

The factor loadings of all CFA models were presented in Table 2. All factor loadings were above 0.70, indicating strong relationships between indicators and latent constructs. Model fit indices were not presented for the CFA model of peer relationships because it is a saturated model with three indicators, meaning it has zero degrees of freedom and guarantees a perfect fit, making fit indices uninformative in this context. The model fit indices for the other three constructs, faculty quality, RR, and intern, were presented in

Table 3. Measurement Model Fit Indices.

	Chi-Square	df	RMSEA 90% CI	SRMR	TLI	CFI
Faculty Quality	15.240	1	0.073 [0.044, 0.108]	0.007	0.973	0.995
Rigor and Relevance	53.349	5	0.061 [0.046, 0.076]	0.016	0.988	0.976
Internship Quality	96.620	9	0.064 [0.052, 0.076]	0.020	0.962	0.977

. The fit indices indicate an acceptable fit for the three measurement models. The RMSEA values for faculty quality (0.073), rigor and relevance (0.061), and intern (0.064) fall within acceptable ranges, with narrow confidence intervals indicating stability. Additionally, the SRMR values (0.007, 0.016, and 0.020) are below the commonly recommended threshold of 0.08, suggesting good fit. The comparative fit indices, TLI and CFI, are all above 0.95, further supporting strong model fit. Collectively, these indices indicate that the measurement models adequately represent the data, supporting their validity for further analysis.

4.2. Results of Correlation Analysis

The results of correlation analysis are presented in

Table 4. Correlations between career intention, program features, and control variables.

	FQ	RR	COH	PR	Intern	White	Female	ProExp	Leader
RR	0.75
	[0.71, 0.80]
COH	0.01	0.09
	[−0.03, 0.06]	[0.05, 0.13]
PR	0.42	0.49	0.26
	[0.37, 0.47]	[0.44, 0.54]	[0.21, 0.30]
Intern	0.4	0.48	0.05	0.37
	[0.34, 0.45]	[0.42, 0.53]	[0.00, 0.09]	[0.32, 0.42]
Intention	0.08	0.11	0.07	0.09	0.13	0.04	−0.03	0.10	0.38
	[0.04, 0.12]	[0.07, 0.15]	[0.03, 0.10]	[0.05, 0.13]	[0.09, 0.18]	[0.00, 0.07]	[−0.07, 0.00]	[0.06, 0.14]	[0.35, 0.42]

in the appendix. The correlation matrix reveals several noteworthy relationships among the constructs. For instance, the correlation between faculty quality and rigor and relevance is strong (0.75, 95% CI [0.71, 0.80]), indicating a close association between these constructs, with a narrow confidence interval reflecting high precision. Conversely, faculty quality and cohort model show a negligible correlation (0.01, 95% CI [–0.03, 0.06]), suggesting little to no direct relationship—potentially indicating that any association may be indirect or mediated through other variables. Moderate correlations, such as between peer relationships and internship quality (0.37, 95% CI [0.32, 0.42]), highlight meaningful but less robust associations. The correlation between career intention and leader is also moderate (0.38, 95% CI [0.35, 0.42]), signaling a potential relationship to explore further. This matrix provides a robust foundation for exploring structural relationships in subsequent analyses.

4.3. Evaluation of SEM Models

The fit indices for the three SEM models were presented in

Table 5. Model fit indices of the three SEM models.

Model	Chi-Square (χ2)	df	p	AIC	BIC	RMSEA	CFI	TLI	SRMR
1	1553.030	160	0.000	81,015.181	81,413.253	0.058 [0.056, 0.061]	0.958	0.950	0.127
2	1719.250	232	0.000	79,539.006	79,959.706	0.050 [0.048, 0.052]	0.955	0.949	0.107
3	1147.928	232	0.000	78,967.683	79,388.384	0.039 [0.037, 0.042]	0.973	0.969	0.033

, indicating varying levels of alignment with the observed data. Model 1 demonstrates an acceptable fit, with an RMSEA of 0.062 and an SRMR of 0.024, both within recommended thresholds. The CFI and TLI values (0.981 and 0.974, respectively) suggest a strong overall model fit. Model 2 shows similar strength, with an RMSEA of 0.058 and SRMR of 0.023, alongside CFI and TLI values of 0.983 and 0.977, reflecting a slight improvement in fit compared to Model 1. Finally, Model 3 achieves the best fit among the three, with an RMSEA of 0.053 and SRMR of 0.021, as well as high CFI and TLI values of 0.986 and 0.980. The consistently narrow confidence intervals for RMSEA across the models reflect stable and precise estimates of model fit. These results suggest that all three models provide reasonable representations of the data, with Model 3 offering the most optimal fit.

4.4. Results of SEM Analysis

The standardized results of the three SEM models are presented in

Table 6. Results for the three SEM models.

Predictor	Model 1		Model 2		Model 3
	β	95% CI	β	95% CI	β	95% CI	p
Direct Effects on Rigor & Relevance
Faculty Quality	0.78	[0.76, 0.80]	0.78	[0.76, 0.80]	0.78	[0.76, 0.8]	0.00
Direct Effects on Peer Relationship
Cohort Model	0.26	[0.22, 0.30]	0.26	[0.22, 0.30]	0.23	[0.19, 0.26]	0.00
Direct Effects on Internship Quality
Faculty Quality	0.06	[−0.02, 0.14]	0.06	[−0.02, 0.14]	0.06	[−0.02, 0.13]	0.14
Rigor and Relevance	0.36	[0.28, 0.44]	0.36	[0.28, 0.44]	0.35	[0.27, 0.42]	0.00
Peer Relationships	0.20	[0.15, 0.25]	0.20	[0.15, 0.25]	0.17	[0.13, 0.22]	0.00
Cohort Model	−0.03	[−0.07, 0.01]	−0.02	[−0.07, 0.02]	path removed
Direct Effects on Career Intention
Rigor and Relevance	0.05	[0.00, 0.10]	0.05	[0.01, 0.10]	0.06	[0.02, 0.11]	0.01
Peer Relationships	0.02	[−0.03, 0.07]	0.03	[−0.02, 0.07]	Path removed
Internship Quality	0.13	[0.08, 0.19]	0.10	[0.05, 0.14]	0.11	[0.06, 0.15]	0.00
Race (White vs. Other)			0.03	[0.00, 0.07]	0.03	[0.00, 0.07]	0.07
Gender (Female vs. Male)			−0.04	[−0.07, 0.00]	−0.03	[−0.07, 0.00]	0.06
Experience			0.10	[0.07, 0.14]	0.10	[0.06, 0.14]	0.00
Leader position			0.38	[0.34, 0.41]	0.38	[0.34, 0.41]	0.00
R-Square
Dependent variable	R2	95% CI	R2	95% CI	R2	95% CI	p
Career Intention	0.03	[0.01, 0.04]	0.17	[0.14, 0.19]	0.17	[0.14, 0.20]	0.00
Rigor and Relevance	0.61	[0.58, 0.64]	0.61	[0.58, 0.64]	0.61	[0.58, 0.64]	0.00
Internship Quality	0.20	[0.17, 0.23]	0.20	[0.17, 0.23]	0.25	[0.21, 0.28]	0.00
Peer Relationships	0.07	[0.05, 0.09]	0.07	[0.05, 0.09]	0.05	[0.04, 0.07]	0.00

Note: p-values are reported only for Model 3, for the estimated regression coefficients and R-squared values. However, interpretations are based on the standardized regression coefficients (effect sizes) and their 95% confidence intervals, rather than statistical significance.

. In Table 6 we also presented the direct effects, indirect effects, and the total effect. The standardized direct effects from the final model were also visualized in Figure 2. In this section, we first interpret the results of the final model related to the program features, and then interpret the results of the control variables.

4.4.1. Faculty Quality

Faculty quality influences career intention exclusively through indirect effects. The strongest pathway is mediated through rigor and relevance, which directly shapes career intention (β = 0.05, 95% CI [0.01, 0.08]). This pathway highlights the critical role of rigor and relevance as a mediator, translating faculty quality’s substantial positive impact (β = 0.78, 95% CI [0.76, 0.80]) into career-related outcomes. A secondary pathway involves both rigor and relevance and internship quality, contributing a smaller but still meaningful indirect effect (β = 0.03, 95% CI [0.01, 0.04]). Together, these pathways result in a total indirect effect of faculty quality on career intention of β = 0.08 (95% CI [0.05, 0.11]), emphasizing the importance of both academic rigor and practical learning opportunities in connecting faculty quality to students’ career intention.

4.4.2. Program Rigor and Relevance

Program rigor and relevance exerts both direct and indirect effects on career intention. The direct effect is small but meaningful (β = 0.06, 95% CI [0.02, 0.11]), and the indirect effect mediated through internship quality adds further strength (β = 0.04, 95% CI [0.02, 0.05]). Together, the total effect of rigor and relevance on career intention (β = 0.10, 95% CI [0.06, 0.14]) highlights its pivotal role in fostering career-related intentions. However, it should be noted that rigor and relevance itself is strongly predicted by faculty quality, meaning the effect of rigor and relevance on career intention is not entirely independent. Rather, it partially reflects the influence of faculty quality, mediated through rigor and relevance. Therefore, while rigor and relevance is a key mediator in the framework, its effect is no longer a simple or unique contribution from rigor and relevance alone. This interconnectedness underscores the importance of interpreting the role of rigor and relevance within the broader causal pathways of the model.

4.4.3. Cohort Model

The cohort model contributes minimally to career intention, with its effects fully mediated by peer relationships and internship quality. The indirect effect is very small (β = 0.004, 95% CI [0.002, 0.01]), suggesting that the cohort model primarily impacts career intention through fostering better peer interactions, which then influence practical experiences. Although the contribution is limited, it highlights the interconnected nature of program features in shaping student outcomes.

4.4.4. Peer Relationships

Peer relationships influence career intention indirectly through internship quality, with a small but meaningful effect (β = 0.02, 95% CI [0.01, 0.03]). This pathway highlights the role of supportive peer interactions in facilitating career-related experiential learning. However, it should be noted that peer relationship itself is partially influenced by upstream factors such as cohort model, as indicated by the model. As a result, peer relationships’ effect on career intention is not entirely independent but reflects its position within the larger causal framework. While the total effect is modest, it underscores the interconnected role of fostering positive peer environments as part of a broader system of leadership development that indirectly enhances career outcomes.

4.4.5. Internship Quality

Internship quality has a direct and positive impact on career intention (β = 0.11, 95% CI [0.06, 0.15]) (see

Table 7. Direct, Indirect, and Total Effects on Career Intention.

	β	95% CI *	SE *	p
Effect of Faculty Quality (FQ)
Faculty Quality → Rigor&Relevance → Intention	0.05	[0.01, 0.08]	0.02	0.01
Faculty Quality → Internship → Intention	0.01	[−0.002, 0.01]	0.00	0.16
Faculty Quality → Rigor&Relevance → Internship → Intention	0.03	[0.01, 0.04]	0.01	0.00
Total Indirect Effect of FQ	0.08	[0.05, 0.11]	0.02	0.00
Effect of Cohort
Cohort model → Peer Relationships → Internship → Intention	0.004	[0.002, 0.01]	0.00	0.00
Effect of Rigor & Relevance (RR)
Rigor&Relevance → Internship → Intention	0.04	[0.02, 0.05]	0.01	0.00
Direct Rigor&Relevance → Intention	0.06	[0.02, 0.11]	0.02	0.01
Total Effect of RR	0.10	[0.06, 0.14]	0.02	0.00
Effect of Peer Relationships
Peer Relationships → Internship → Intention	0.02	[0.01, 0.03]	0.01	0.00

Note: * CI = confidence interval, SE = standard error.

). This result underscores the critical role of experiential learning in bridging educational experiences and career aspirations. However, caution should be exercised when interpreting this direct effect, as internship quality is influenced by multiple upstream predictors, including rigor and relevance, peer relationships, faculty quality, and cohort model. These predictors contribute indirectly to career intention through internship quality, meaning internship’s direct effect is not a simple or unique contribution of internship quality alone but rather reflects its role as a mediator for these upstream program features. Among the five program features, internship quality serves as the most influential mediator, translating the cumulative effects of rigor and relevance, peer relationships, and other elements into career-related intentions. This interconnected role highlights internship quality as both a key outcome of program features and a direct contributor to students’ career aspirations.

4.4.6. Control Variables

Leadership position and professional experience have notable effects on career intention, with leadership position showing the strongest association (β = 0.38, 95% CI [0.34, 0.41]) and professional experience contributing a smaller but meaningful effect (β = 0.10, 95% CI [0.06, 0.14]). In contrast, demographic variables like race (β = 0.03, 95% CI [0.00, 0.07]) and gender (β = −0.03, 95% CI [−0.07, 0]) have negligible effects, indicating that career-related outcomes in this model are less influenced by these factors compared to program features and leadership experiences.

4.5. Models’ Explanatory Power–Variance Explained

The variance explained in career intention (R²) increases substantially across the three models, reflecting the progressive improvement in explanatory power. In Model 1 (the conceptual model), only 3% of the variance in career intention is explained (R² = 0.03, 95% CI [0.01, 0.04]), suggesting that the conceptual model alone provides a very limited understanding of factors influencing career-related outcomes. This highlights the need to incorporate additional predictors and mediators to better capture the complexity of these relationships.

With the inclusion of control variables in Model 2, the variance explained in career intention improves substantially to 17% (R² = 0.17, 95% CI [0.14, 0.19]). This increase underscores the importance of individual factors, such as leadership experience and professional background, in contributing to career intention. Model 3, the adjusted final model, maintains the same explanatory power (R² = 0.17, 95% CI [0.14, 0.20]) while refining the relationships among program features and mediators to provide a more nuanced understanding of their roles.

5. Discussions and Conclusions

5.1. Key Findings

The findings revealed distinct pathways through which these features contribute to career intention. Faculty quality influenced career intention solely through indirect pathways—primarily by enhancing program rigor and relevance—underscoring its foundational role in shaping these key program attributes. This finding is consistent with our previous study, where the influence of faculty quality on graduate leadership learning was fully mediated by program rigor and relevance (Ni et al., 2019). Rigor and relevance demonstrated both direct and indirect effects, acting as a key intermediary that connected faculty quality and other program features to career intention. The cohort model exhibited minimal impact, influencing career intention indirectly through peer relationships and internship quality, suggesting that its effects are more peripheral compared to other features. Peer relationships contributed indirectly to career intention via internship quality, emphasizing the role of social support and collaboration in fostering career aspirations. Finally, internship quality emerged as the most critical mediator, serving as both a direct predictor of career intention and a conduit for other program features. Together, these findings highlight the interconnected nature of program features and the importance of experiential learning as a bridge between preparation and career aspirations.

5.2. Connection with Existing Literature and Theory

Our findings align with and extend prior research on ELPP quality and graduate outcomes. Specifically, this study underscores the pivotal role of internship quality in shaping career intention (Ni et al., 2019; Ni et al., 2023; Orr, 2011). Internship serves as the “gateway” through which theoretical learning, in tandem with practical application, enhances graduates’ confidence in pursuing leadership roles. Similarly, the influence of faculty quality and rigor and relevance factors echo earlier findings (e.g., Darling-Hammond et al., 2022; Ni et al., 2019; Ni et al., 2023; Orr, 2011), which highlights the centrality of rigorous curricula and faculty expertise in program effectiveness and graduate career aspirations and outcomes.

This study also contributes new insights. Unlike prior research that found limited direct effects of peer relationships and the cohort model (e.g., Salazar et al., 2013), this study demonstrates how these features indirectly influence career intention through their impact on experiential learning. Furthermore, the minimal direct effect of the cohort model raises questions about its standalone value, suggesting that its primary contribution lies in fostering peer relationships and creating a collaborative learning environment. These nuanced findings enrich the literature by identifying specific pathways and interdependencies among program features, offering a more detailed understanding of how ELPPs influence career aspirations.

Finally, our findings extend the application of SCCT by demonstrating how adult learners in ELPPs refine career intention through a dynamic interplay of personal characteristics, program experiences, and perceived outcomes. While SCCT has primarily been used to examine early career formation among youth and undergraduates, our study demonstrates its relevance for adult learners navigating mid-career leadership preparation experiences. Specifically, our findings on the importance of internships in shaping candidates’ career intention demonstrates that, as a key component of SCCT, internships provide a real-world setting where candidates can build confidence, receive feedback, and envision themselves in leadership roles. Additionally, our results show that different program features influence career aspirations in different ways. For example, faculty quality and peer relationships mainly affected career intention through other factors, such as rigor/relevance and internship quality. This suggests that program elements work together to shape career beliefs and decisions, supporting a systems-based view of SCCT. Finally, prior leadership experience was a significant predictor of career intention, reinforcing the importance of personal and experiential background as emphasized by SCCT. This finding underscores that even within structured preparation programs, individuals arrive with varying degrees of readiness and leadership identity, which, in turn, influence how they engage with program features and refine career intentions. By mapping these direct and indirect pathways, we provide a clearer understanding of how SCCT can be applied and extended within the field of leadership preparation, influencing adult learners’ career intention in educational leadership roles.

5.3. Implications for Practice and Policy

The findings offer actionable insights for the design and implementation of ELPPs. To enhance program effectiveness, institutions and preparation programs should prioritize creating high-quality internship. In this study, internship quality was characterized by key features including: (1) meaningful leadership responsibilities (e.g., leading school-based projects, data teams, or instructional rounds), (2) collaboration with school personnel and peers, (3) structured mentoring from experienced principals, (4) regular formative feedback from university faculty or site mentors, and (5) placements in schools serving diverse populations. These elements not only support leadership skill development but also promote self-efficacy and goal commitment—core mechanisms in SCCT.

From a policy perspective, state agencies and accrediting bodies can support these features by (a) requiring formal mentorship plans between ELPPs and districts; (b) incentivizing placements in under-resourced or high-need schools; and (c) including internship quality indicators—such as mentoring hours, leadership task logs, and feedback protocols—in program evaluation and accreditation standards. These operational supports help ensure that internships function not just as placements but as intentionally designed leadership learning experiences.

Internships not only have the most direct effect on career intention, but also serve as a critical mediator for other program features, such as rigor and relevance and PR. Internship quality is examined in terms of its content, integration of diversity issues, and the role of mentoring and coaching in field-based settings (Orr, 2023; Reyes-Guerra & Barnett, 2017). Collaborating with schools, districts, and experienced school leaders to ensure meaningful leadership opportunities within internships can further enhance their impact on aspiring leaders and their future practice. Faculty development is equally important, as faculty quality indirectly influences career intention through rigor and relevance. Supporting faculty through professional learning and development is essential to deepen their knowledge and understanding of curricula and pedagogy that are rigorous, relevant, and responsive to student needs (Sahlin, 2025). Additionally, programs should strive to integrate learning theories and simulated practices which extend to the internship quality by employing active learning, problem-based learning, and emphasizing reflective practices and engaging practice partners, which strengthen the connection between preparation and real-world practical leadership challenges (Orr, 2023).

Cohort-based models, while showing limited direct effects, can still play an important role in fostering collaborative peer relationships. Institutions can leverage the cohort model by creating opportunities for peer networking and teamwork, which also indirectly contribute to career intention through enhanced peer relationships and internship quality. From a policy perspective, policymakers should focus on strengthening partnerships between ELPPs and school districts to ensure consistent and high-quality internship placements. Recruitment policies should also prioritize candidates with prior leadership experience, as this was shown to be a significant predictor of career intention. Finally, accreditation and evaluation frameworks should emphasize the interconnectedness of program features and their collective impact on graduate outcomes, ensuring a holistic approach to program assessment and improvement.

5.4. Limitations and Future Directions

This study has several limitations that warrant consideration. First, the use of self-reported data introduces potential biases, including overestimation of program quality and career intention. Future research could incorporate objective measures, such as actual leadership placements, to validate findings. Second, the cross-sectional design limits causal inferences. Longitudinal studies tracking graduates from enrollment through leadership placements would provide stronger evidence of causal pathways.

Third, while the study accounted for demographic and professional background variables, additional contextual factors that were not available (e.g., institutional characteristics, local labor market conditions) may further influence career intention. Future research could explore these factors to provide a more comprehensive understanding of ELPP impacts.

Finally, qualitative research could complement these findings by exploring the experiences of graduates, particularly regarding how they perceive the influence of program features on their career aspirations. Such insights could inform program design and enhance the practical relevance of ELPPs. By building on these findings, future research can enhance ELPP evaluation frameworks and contribute to the design of more effective programs. These efforts will ultimately support the capacity of schools and districts to improve instructional quality, organizational effectiveness, and student learning outcomes.

To conclude, our findings contribute to the understanding of how ELPP features shape graduates’ career intentions, emphasizing the pivotal role of internship quality and the interconnected influence of program features. This study also validates the use of research instruments like the INSPIRE Leadership Survey and demonstrates the importance of testing nuanced pathways to advance program evaluation. Looking forward, longitudinal studies and contextual analyses are essential to further refine our understanding of ELPP effectiveness and their impact on graduates’ leadership trajectories.