Factor Focus: Quality Focus

The "Factor Focus" series is designed to review various noncognitive factors and their relevance to student success.

Quality Focus is one of the more nuanced factors in the ISSAQ model. At first glance, it feels intuitive - of course we want students to produce high-quality work. Faculty regularly emphasize careful writing, complete solutions, well-supported arguments, and attention to detail. Yet, when we look more closely, Quality Focus, while behavioral in nature, can represent some of the most important aspects of motivation.

Quality Focus is actually the newest factor in the ISSAQ model. When starting DIA, my very first client was actually in the healthcare industry. Instead of counseling students, this group of hospitals was coaching incoming, entry-level employees. (The concept of their grant was that, by improving job retention among low-income individuals - particularly single mothers - they could provide more meaningful employment pathways and better support low-income families and communities. It was pretty cool work!)

While there was no extant research on noncognitive factors critical to the success of nurse assistants and similar entry-level positions, there was a great deal of research into the factors that predict retention among nurses. Indeed, one of the key indicators was the importance of quality. It turns out that people who pay attention to details and want to do good work tend to be more successful in healthcare jobs (phew!).

I began to think about the ties to education and my work in student success. I recalled achievement goal orientation (AGO; Ames, 1984; Elliott, 1999), which had been a major area of focus for Sara Finney, Kenn Barron, and other influential colleagues during my time at James Madison. AGO basically puts our attitudes toward work on two axes: performance, whereby we define success relative to other people, and mastery, whereby we define success by learning, development, or improvement.

Not surprisingly, individuals with a mastery orientation tend to do better in academic settings than people with a performance orientation. (It should be noted that these orientations are not mutually exclusive - one can be focused on both learning and relative performance simultaneously.)

I began to think about my own experience. Certainly, I always wanted to get an A (performance orientation), but there were also times - particularly in my graduate work - where I also cared more about actually learning what I was doing, not just getting a good grade. In those cases, I was more likely to read the instructions, check my work, and polish fine details... not because I wanted the A but because I wanted to do good work.

I hypothesized that Quality Focus was an important indicator of not just how likely a student was to do in the classroom, but their overall commitment to their education. Turns out I was not the first, as I'll discuss below, but it was helpful for my own connection of the dots in this sometimes nebulous noncognitive space.

As it turns out, much like Organization, Quality Focus sits at the intersection of long-standing academic expectations and holistic student success. Institutions have historically assumed that students either “care” about quality or they do not. As a result, differences in students’ approaches to quality work are often interpreted as differences in motivation, ability, or effort.

While acknowledging both the theoretical and practical connections of Quality Focus, within ISSAQ, we emphasize the behavioral aspects of the factor, identifying those actions that can be shaped, supported, and developed through intentional educational practice.

What is Quality Focus?

Within the ISSAQ framework, Quality Focus refers to the extent to which students emphasize producing high-quality work and minimizing errors. It reflects how carefully students approach academic tasks, including their attention to detail, willingness to revise, persistence in refining their work, and commitment to meeting or exceeding expectations.

Quality Focus is closely related to the broader personality domain of conscientiousness, which encompasses behaviors such as diligence, organization, dependability, and achievement striving (Goldberg, 1990; Poropat, 2009). Meta-analytic research has consistently shown conscientiousness to be one of the strongest noncognitive predictors of academic performance, rivaling cognitive ability in its relationship to GPA and persistence (Poropat, 2009; Richardson et al., 2012).

At the same time, ISSAQ’s conceptualization of Quality Focus is intentionally more behaviorally specific than trait-based models. Rather than describing students as inherently conscientious or unconscientious, Quality Focus captures how students approach their academic work in practice. Two students with similar ability and motivation may differ substantially in Quality Focus - one may carefully plan, revise, and check their work, while another may complete tasks quickly with less attention to accuracy or refinement.

Quality Focus is also conceptually distinct from popular constructs such as grit. While grit emphasizes perseverance toward long-term goals (Duckworth et al., 2007), subsequent research has shown substantial overlap between grit and conscientiousness, along with relatively modest incremental predictive validity (Credé et al., 2017). Quality Focus offers a more actionable lens by centering on observable academic behaviors - such as revising assignments, following criteria, and sustaining effort until standards are met - rather than on broad dispositional perseverance.

Importantly, Quality Focus should not be conflated with perfectionism. Whereas maladaptive perfectionism is associated with anxiety and fear of failure, Quality Focus emphasizes care and improvement rather than flawless performance. When supported appropriately, a strong Quality Focus can promote deeper learning, better self-regulation, and greater academic confidence over time (Hattie, 2009; Zimmerman, 2002).

Within ISSAQ, Quality Focus is therefore understood as a malleable, skill-linked factor - one that can be strengthened through clear expectations, formative feedback, opportunities for revision, and instructional practices that make standards and processes of quality explicit.

How does quality focus impact success?

Quality Focus and Academic Performance. Research has consistently shown that behaviors associated with conscientiousness - including carefulness, persistence, and attention to detail - are among the strongest noncognitive predictors of academic success in higher education (Poropat, 2009; Richardson et al., 2012). Students who emphasize quality are more likely to engage deeply with course material, persist through challenging tasks, and avoid preventable errors.

Although fewer studies isolate Quality Focus as a standalone construct, related research suggests that students who invest time and care into their work demonstrate stronger comprehension and longer-term retention of material (Hattie, 2009; Kuh et al., 2007). High-quality work often reflects deeper cognitive engagement rather than surface-level completion.

Beyond “Grit”: A More Actionable Lens

Quality Focus also helps clarify ongoing debates around popular constructs such as grit. While grit - defined as perseverance and passion for long-term goals - initially gained significant attention (Duckworth et al., 2007), subsequent research has raised concerns about its conceptual overlap with conscientiousness and its relatively modest predictive power (Credé et al., 2017; Muenks et al., 2017).

A more granular factor like Quality Focus offers clearer pathways for intervention. Rather than asking whether a student is “gritty,” educators can examine whether students:

• Check and revise their work.

• Attend to assignment criteria.

• Maintain effort until standards are met.

These behaviors are observable, discussable, and teachable.

Connections to Growth Mindset and Confidence

Quality Focus also intersects with theories of growth mindset. Dweck (2008) emphasized that when students believe improvement is possible, they are more likely to invest time, attention, and effort into their work. In practice, this often manifests as greater Quality Focus - students revise, reflect, and persist because they see those behaviors as meaningful.

Over time, producing high-quality work can reinforce students’ academic confidence. Successfully meeting high standards builds self-efficacy, which in turn supports persistence and engagement (Bandura, 1997).

How Can we foster Quality Focus?

By framing Quality Focus as a behavioral tendency rather than a disposition, ISSAQ positions it as a malleable factor. Students can learn to prioritize quality when expectations are clear, feedback is actionable, and the process of improvement is made visible.

Clear Expectations and Rubrics. Transparent expectations are foundational to developing Quality Focus. Detailed rubrics help students understand what “quality” means in a given context and reduce ambiguity about standards (Brookhart, 2013). Beyond grading, rubrics can be used as planning tools - students can review criteria before beginning an assignment to guide their approach, allocate effort strategically, and self-check their work prior to submission.

Formative Feedback and Iteration. Timely, specific feedback allows students to refine their work before final submission. Research shows that formative feedback has one of the strongest effects on learning outcomes (Hattie & Timperley, 2007). When feedback is framed around improvement rather than evaluation alone - such as identifying patterns of errors or suggesting concrete next steps - students are more likely to revise thoughtfully and invest additional effort into quality.

Skill-Building and Academic Support. Workshops and other supports focused on writing, research, critical thinking, and revision practices can reinforce Quality Focus across disciplines (Kuh et al., 2007). These supports are particularly effective when they explicitly model quality-oriented behaviors, such as outlining before writing, checking alignment with prompts, or reviewing work against exemplars, rather than simply correcting surface-level issues.

A Culture of Improvement, Not Perfection. Institutions that emphasize learning and improvement - rather than flawless performance - create conditions in which students are more willing to invest sustained effort into producing high-quality work. Normalizing revision, allowing opportunities to resubmit assignments, or discussing the iterative nature of professional work can help students see quality as a process rather than a one-time judgment. Moreover, when students view strenuous effort through a lens of improvement, rather than relative performance, the mental health stress of long effort can be attenuated.

At the institutional level, Quality Focus can be supported most effectively when expectations for high-quality work are reinforced consistently across students’ academic experiences rather than confined to individual courses or programs. This includes embedding shared language about quality and improvement into first-year seminars, general education courses, tutoring and learning center practices, and advising conversations.

Institutions can also promote common rubrics, writing or problem-solving frameworks, and aligned feedback practices to reduce mixed signals about standards while helping students internalize what quality looks like in different contexts. When Quality Focus data from tools such as ISSAQ are incorporated into early alert systems, advising, and academic support referrals, institutions can move from reactive remediation toward proactive skill development - connecting students not just to content support, but to opportunities to learn how to plan, revise, and refine their work over time.

What Faculty Can Do to Support Quality Focus? Faculty play a central role in shaping how students approach quality by making standards explicit. When expectations are implicit or inconsistent, students may interpret quality as subjective or unattainable. Setting clear expectations about quality helps students allocate effort more effectively and develop habits associated with high-quality work.

A personal aside... I can remember, in one of my first teaching experiences, being frustrated with a graduate student. In writing a literature review, they had cited popular websites such as "leadership.com" and often neglected citations as well. When they expressed frustration because "I hadn't stated that they needed to cite references or use peer-reviewed sources. I replied, "I also didn't say that you needed to spell things correctly, either."

While I'm sure many can relate to frustrations about students' standards of quality, I realize now that, no matter what, I wasn't helping the student learn what quality was. I should have viewed that moment as an opportunity for learning and development. I could have used some effective practices, such as:

• Using detailed rubrics that articulate criteria for high-quality work.

• Scaffolding major assignments into smaller components with feedback opportunities (Vygotsky, 1978).

• Providing exemplars that illustrate varying levels of quality.

• Encouraging revision and reflection, rather than one-and-done submissions.

• Incorporating active learning, peer review, and discussion to deepen engagement (Prince, 2004).

Conclusion

Quality Focus is not about perfectionism or innate diligence - it is about how students approach their work when care, precision, and sustained effort are required. By measuring and supporting Quality Focus as a core noncognitive factor, institutions can move beyond assumptions about motivation and instead provide actionable pathways for student growth.

When students learn how to produce high-quality work - and why it matters - they are better prepared not only for academic success, but for the professional and civic demands that follow.

References

• Ames, C. (1984). Achievement attributions and self-instructions under competitive and individualistic goal structures. Journal of Educational Psychology, 76(3), 478–487. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.76.3.478

• Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. W. H. Freeman.

• Brookhart, S. M. (2013). How to create and use rubrics for formative assessment and grading. ASCD.

• Credé, M., Tynan, M. C., & Harms, P. D. (2017). Much ado about grit: A meta-analytic synthesis of the grit literature. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 113(3), 492–511. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000102

• Duckworth, A. L., Peterson, C., Matthews, M. D., & Kelly, D. R. (2007). Grit: Perseverance and passion for long-term goals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92(6), 1087–1101. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.92.6.1087

• Dweck, C. S. (2008). Mindset: The new psychology of success. Random House.

• Elliott, A. J. (1999). Approach and avoidance motivation and achievement goals. Educational Psychologist, 34(3), 169–189. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep3403_3

• Goldberg, L. R. (1990). An alternative “description of personality”: The Big Five factor structure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59(6), 1216–1229. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.59.6.1216

• Hattie, J. (2009). Visible learning: A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to achievement. Routledge.

• Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77(1), 81–112. https://doi.org/10.3102/003465430298487

• Kuh, G. D., Kinzie, J., Buckley, J. A., Bridges, B. K., & Hayek, J. C. (2007). Piecing together the student success puzzle. ASHE Higher Education Report.

• Muenks, K., Wigfield, A., Yang, J. S., & O’Neal, C. R. (2017). How true is grit? Assessing its relations to students’ self-regulation, engagement, and achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 109(5), 599–620. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000153

• Poropat, A. E. (2009). A meta-analysis of the five-factor model of personality and academic performance. Psychological Bulletin, 135(2), 322–338. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0014996

• Prince, M. (2004). Does active learning work? A review of the research. Journal of Engineering Education, 93(3), 223–231. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2168-9830.2004.tb00809.x

• Richardson, M., Abraham, C., & Bond, R. (2012). Psychological correlates of university students’ academic performance: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 138(2), 353–387. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0026838

• Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Harvard University Press.

• Zimmerman, B. J. (2002). Becoming a self-regulated learner: An overview. Theory Into Practice, 41(2), 64–70. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15430421tip4102_2