Review of Educational

Research http://rer.aera.net

Class Attendance in College : A Meta-Analytic Review of the Relationship

of Class Attendance With Grades and Student Characteristics
Marcus Credé, Sylvia G. Roch and Urszula M. Kieszczynka
REVIEW OF EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH 2010 80: 272
DOI: 10.3102/0034654310362998

The online version of this article can be found at:

http://rer.sagepub.com/content/80/2/272

Published on behalf of

American Educational Research Association

and

http://www.sagepublications.com

Additional services and information for Review of Educational Research can be found at:

Email Alerts: http://rer.aera.net/alerts

Subscriptions: http://rer.aera.net/subscriptions

Reprints: http://www.aera.net/reprints

Permissions: http://www.aera.net/permissions

>> Version of Record - Jun 17, 2010

What is This?
Downloaded from http://rer.aera.net at CENTRAL CONN STATE UNIVERSITY on April 20, 2012
 Review of Educational Research
June 2010, Vol. 80, No. 2, pp. 272–295
DOI: 10.3102/0034654310362998
© 2010 AERA. http://rer.aera.net

Class Attendance in College: A Meta-Analytic

Review of the Relationship of Class Attendance
With Grades and Student Characteristics

Marcus Credé, Sylvia G. Roch, and Urszula M. Kieszczynka

State University of New York at Albany

A meta-analysis of the relationship between class attendance in college

and college grades reveals that attendance has strong relationships with
both class grades (k = 69, N = 21,195, r = .44) and GPA (k = 33, N = 9,243,
r = .41). These relationships make class attendance a better predictor of col-
lege grades than any other known predictor of academic performance,
including scores on standardized admissions tests such as the SAT, high
school GPA, study habits, and study skills. Results also show that class atten-
dance explains large amounts of unique variance in college grades because
of its relative independence from SAT scores and high school GPA and weak
relationship with student characteristics such as conscientiousness and moti-
vation. Mandatory attendance policies appear to have a small positive impact
on average grades (k = 3, N = 1,421, d = .21). Implications for theoretical
frameworks of student academic performance and educational policy are
discussed.

Keywords:  student behavior, attitude, colleges, individual differences, meta-

analysis, validity, reliability.
Many college instructors exhort their students to attend class as frequently as
possible, arguing that high levels of class attendance are likely to increase learning
and improve student grades. Such arguments may hold intuitive appeal and are
supported by findings linking class attendance to both learning (e.g., Jenne, 1973)
and better grades (e.g., Moore et al., 2003), but both students and some educational
researchers appear to be somewhat skeptical of the importance of class attendance.
This skepticism is reflected in high class absenteeism rates ranging from 18.5%
(Marburger, 2001) and 25% (Friedman, Rodriguez, & McComb, 2001) to 40%
(Romer, 1993) and even as high as 59% and 70% (in two separate biology classes;
Moore et al., 2003) and in explicit arguments against the importance of attendance
in general and mandatory attendance policies in particular (e.g., Hyde & Flournoy,
1986; St. Clair, 1999). This article aims to help resolve the debate regarding the
importance of class attendance by providing a quantitative review of the literature
investigating the relationship of class attendance with both college grades and
student characteristics that may influence attendance.

272
Downloaded from http://rer.aera.net at CENTRAL CONN STATE UNIVERSITY on April 20, 2012
 Class Attendance in College

At a theoretical level class attendance fits well into frameworks that emphasize
the joint role of cognitive ability and motivation in determining learning and work
performance (e.g., Kanfer & Ackerman, 1989). Specifically, cognitive ability and
motivation influence academic outcomes via two largely distinct mechanisms—
one mechanism related to information processing and the other mechanism being
behavioral in nature. Cognitive ability influences the degree to which students are
able to process, integrate, and remember material presented to them (Humphreys,
1979), a mechanism that explains the substantial predictive validity of SAT scores for
college grades (e.g., Halpin, Halpin, & Schaer, 1981; Bridgeman, McCamley-Jenkins,
& Ervin, 2000). Noncognitive attributes such as conscientiousness and achieve-
ment motivation are thought to influence grades via their influence on behaviors
that facilitate the understanding and retention of academic material (e.g., study-
ing, planning for the on-time completion of assignments). These noncognitive
attributes have exhibited impressive predictive grade-related validities on their
own (e.g., Lievens, Coetsier, De Fruyt, & De Maeseneer, 2002; Robbins et al.,
2004) but are not as good predictors of college grades as the actual academic
behaviors that they are thought to influence. A recent meta-analytic review of the
substantial literature relating to study behaviors (Credé & Kuncel, 2008), for
example, illustrated that study habits and study skills are (a) almost as predictive
of college grades as SAT scores and high school grades (HSGPA), (b) signifi-
cantly related to noncognitive attributes such as achievement motivation and con-
scientiousness, and (c) largely independent of both SAT scores and HSGPA. We
believe that class attendance may represent an in-class behavioral corollary to
academically important extraclass behaviors (e.g., studying) and be as important
for (and predictive of) academic achievement as these extraclass behaviors.
A quantitative review of the attendance literature not only will help to resolve
the ongoing debate regarding the importance of class attendance and thereby assist
in the continuing development of theoretical models of student performance that
acknowledge both student characteristics and student behaviors (e.g., Credé &
Kuncel, 2008) but also is likely to have important practical and policy implica-
tions. Attendance is voluntary in many college classes, primarily because of the
difficulty of taking attendance in large classes on a regular basis but also because
of the view that students should have some autonomy in determining the manner
in which they engage with academic material (Stephenson, 1994). Findings sug-
gesting that class attendance is an important determinant of grades may result in
policy changes in regard to class attendance, particularly given that recent techno-
logical advances such as personal response systems or “clickers” (e.g., Hoekstra,
2008) substantially ease the burden of collecting attendance data. At a minimum,
findings suggesting that class attendance is strongly related to class performance
should provide instructors with evidence that might persuade a larger proportion
of students to attend class voluntarily.
Why Class Attendance Should Influence Grades
Attending class not only allows students to obtain information that is not con-
tained in textbooks or lecture materials presented online but also allows students
varied contact with material (lectures, review of notes, demonstrations, etc.). In
addition, consistent class attendance represents a system of distributed practice
that has been shown to be effective in increasing the retention of information while
273
Downloaded from http://rer.aera.net at CENTRAL CONN STATE UNIVERSITY on April 20, 2012
Credé et al.

also offering the possibility for the overlearning of material—especially when

students are also asked to complete homework assignment and revise material on
their own time. Both distributed practice and overlearning have been linked to
higher exam scores and better long-term retention of material (e.g., Cepeda,
Pashler, Vul, Wixted, & Rohrer, 2006; Cull, 2000; Donovan & Radosevich, 1999;
Peladeau, Forget, & Gagne, 2003). The Donovan and Radosevich (1999) meta-
analysis found that individuals engaging in distributed practice outperform indi-
viduals engaging in massed practice by almost half a standard deviation (d = .46).
This finding is particularly relevant for class attendance when considering that
students with poor class attendance are likely to attempt to compensate for this by
engaging in massed practice (e.g., cramming for exams). Although the debate as
to the relative effectiveness of different modes of instruction (e.g., lectures, small
group discussions, laboratory applications, video-based instruction) continues
(e.g., Brooke, 2006; Mayer et al., 2009; Wynegar & Fenster, 2009), class atten-
dance is likely to be beneficial for learning irrespective of the specific teaching
mode or modes used by the instructor.
Even lecture-based instruction—still the most popular form of instruction in
many college-level classes (e.g., Benzing & Christ, 1997; Markham, Jones,
Hughes, & Sutcliff, 1998)—appears to offer significant benefits for students
despite the relatively passive role played by them in the learning process (Bligh,
1998) and the lack of regular feedback or the ability to engage in practice and
application of material (e.g., Blum & Naylor, 1968; Campbell & Kuncel, 2001).
Indeed, a recent meta-analytic review of the training literature (Arthur, Bennett,
Eden, & Bell, 2003) showed lecture-based instruction to be effective for increasing
cognitive, interpersonal, and even psychomotor skills and behaviors. Students who
deny themselves the benefit of attending lectures (and the full range of activities
involved in lecture attendance) and who rely only on other contact with class mate-
rial are unlikely to retain relevant material as well as those attending class and
subsequently perform less well on class tests and exams.

Hypothesis 1: Attendance in a class will be positively related to academic per-

formance in that class.

If class attendance does exhibit a strong relationship with the grades attained in
the class, it also becomes important to examine three related questions: (a) whether
class attendance is influenced by individual difference variables such as students’
personality, intelligence, or motivation; (b) whether attendance can explain vari-
ance in grades not already accounted for by traditional predictors of grades (par-
ticularly HSPGA and SAT); and (c) whether students in classes with mandated
attendance perform, on average, better than students in classes where attendance
is voluntary.
The Influence of Student Characteristics
In many colleges and universities the act of attending class is a largely voli-
tional behavior with short-term opportunity costs (i.e., not engaging in other activ-
ities) and likely long-term benefits (e.g., better grades, greater likelihood of getting
into graduate school). As such, class attendance should be related to variables that
reflect high levels of personal discipline (e.g., conscientiousness), academic
274
Downloaded from http://rer.aera.net at CENTRAL CONN STATE UNIVERSITY on April 20, 2012
 Class Attendance in College

motivation (e.g., need for achievement), a sense of control over academic achieve-
ment (e.g., core self-evaluations), and variables reflective of the ability to antici-
pate the long-term consequences of poor class attendance (e.g., cognitive ability).
Many of these variables also exhibit meaningful relationship with grades (e.g.,
Hezlett et al., 2001; Lievens et al., 2002; Robbins et al., 2004).

Hypothesis 2: Class attendance will exhibit positive relationships with indi-

vidual difference variables that reflect students’ levels of conscientious-
ness, motivation, core self-evaluations, and cognitive ability.

Any observed relationships of class attendance with both grades and the var-
ious individual difference factors known to exhibit nontrivial relationships with
grades suggest four possibilities for the relationship among grades, class atten-
dance, and these individual difference variables. We summarize these relation-
ships in Figure 1. The first possibility (the mediated effects model) is that class
attendance mediates the relationship between individual difference variables and
grades. That is, individual difference factors such as motivation, conscientious-
ness, and intelligence increase the likelihood of a student attending class, and
class attendance, in turn, increases the likelihood of a student obtaining a good
grade. This model would imply that class attendance is largely a behavioral
manifestation of student motivation, traits, and abilities and would also imply
that class attendance explains little unique variance in grades not already
accounted for by these individual difference predictors. Such a model would find
support in strong relationships between attendance and grades and between stu-
dent characteristics and attendance.

Hypothesis 3 (Alternative 1): Class attendance will mediate the relationship

between student characteristics and grades.

The second possibility (the unique effects model) is that class attendance and
individual differences exert largely unique effects on grades; that is, individual
difference variables not only affect the degree to which students attend classes but
also affect grades in other ways. For example, intelligent students may understand
material more easily whereas conscientious students are more likely to spend suf-
ficient time reviewing class material or meeting with professors outside of class
hours. Thus, the unique effects model implies that class attendance exerts effects
on grades that are distinct from the effects of individual difference outcomes. Such
a model would find support in a strong attendance–grade relationship coupled with
weak relationships between attendance and student characteristics that are known
to be related to grades (e.g., SAT scores).

Hypothesis 3 (Alternative 2): Class attendance will explain unique variance in

grades above and beyond the variance accounted for by individual differ-
ence predictors.

The last two possible relationships are difficult to directly investigate. Thus,
instead of proposing alternative hypotheses for these last two possible relationships,

275
Downloaded from http://rer.aera.net at CENTRAL CONN STATE UNIVERSITY on April 20, 2012
 a) Mediated Effects Individual Difference Class Grade
Model Factors Attendance Outcome

Individual Difference
Factors
b) Unique Effects
Model Grade Outcome

Class Attendance

Grade Outcome

Individual Difference
c) Common Cause
Model
Factors
Class Attendance

c) Bi-Directional Model Grade Outcome

Class Attendance

FIGURE 1.  Summary of possible relationships among class attendance, grades,

and student characteristics.

we instead examine indirect pieces of evidence that may suggest the last two
possible relationships. The third possibility (the common cause model) is that
any relationship between class attendance and grades is a spurious function of
the fact that both attendance and grades are influenced by the same set of causal
variables (e.g., motivation). Such a model is difficult to confirm via a simple
examination of relationships among variables, although the absence of indi-
vidual difference factors related to both attendance and grades would shed some
light on the validity of this model. The common cause model can also be tested
by examining the effect that mandatory class attendance policies have on grades.
Specifically, an increase in average grades resulting from a mandatory atten-
dance policy would suggest that a common cause explanation cannot fully
account for any observed correlation between attendance and grades. Thus, the

276
Downloaded from http://rer.aera.net at CENTRAL CONN STATE UNIVERSITY on April 20, 2012
 Class Attendance in College

influence of mandatory attendance policies on grades is explored, not as a means

of supporting the common cause model but as a means of ruling out this possible
relationship.

Hypothesis 3 (Alternative 3): Students in classes with mandatory attendance

policies will have higher average grades than students in similar classes
without mandatory attendance policies.

The fourth possibility is that the relationship between class attendance and
grade is bidirectional in nature such that poor performance on tests acts as either a
motivator or demotivator, resulting in either increases or decreases in class atten-
dance. Jones (1984) found evidence for such a relationship; students who had poor
attendance prior to a test had lower average grades on the test than students with
good attendance and then lowered their subsequent attendance even further in
comparison to students with good attendance. This model is in line with stress and
appraisal frameworks (e.g., Lazarus & Folkman, 1984) whereby some students
who perform poorly on tests experience stress and then withdraw from the source
of the stress. Unfortunately, such a bidirectional relationship cannot be tested via
a simple examination of correlations.
Method
Identification of Data Sources
Potential sources of data were identified via keyword searches of the PsycINFO,
Dissertation Abstracts, Education Full Text, EBSCO, ScienceDirect, and ERIC
databases, complemented by searches of the Internet. Articles were included only
if they reported correlations between either (a) class attendance and college GPA
or (b) attendance in a particular class and the grade obtained in that class. Articles
that presented data in a manner that allowed computation of either of these rela-
tionships were also included. Articles that report laboratory studies or attendance
in high school or primary school classes were not included (the vast majority of
high schools and primary schools have mandatory attendance policies). Articles
were also not included if only statistically significant findings were reported
because an inclusion of such articles would have resulted in an upwardly biased
estimate of the relationship between attendance and grade outcomes. In other
words, articles were excluded if they reported statistics only regarding the signifi-
cant relationships but failed to report statistics for their nonsignificant relation-
ships, given that often a single article would provide several useful data points.
Finally, articles were also excluded if the grade in a class was based, in part, on
class attendance (e.g., Freeman et al., 2007; Snell & Mekies, 1995). Inclusion of
such articles would also have resulted in an upwardly biased effect size estimate.
In addition to the correlation between attendance and grades or GPA, any
reported correlations between attendance and student characteristics (cognitive
ability, achievement motivation, conscientiousness, age, gender, SAT, HSGPA,
etc.) were also recorded. Data sources were also coded according to relevant
demographic data (i.e., number of participants, type of class). Finally, we carefully
screened all data sources to ensure that data that had been published more than
once (e.g., Farsides & Woodfield, 2003; Woodfield, Jessop, & McMillan, 2006)
were included only once in our analysis.
277
Downloaded from http://rer.aera.net at CENTRAL CONN STATE UNIVERSITY on April 20, 2012
 Coding Procedure
Relevant information from all articles were coded by the first two authors using
standardized coding sheets that increase the accuracy of coding by cuing the coder
to attend to specific study details. The two coding sheets for each study were com-
pared to each other by the third author, who found more than 95% agreement. The
remaining discrepancies in coding typically involved differences in sample sizes
because of inconsistencies in the manner in which data were reported in coded
articles (e.g., text vs. tables) and were resolved via discussion among the authors.
Final Database
The final database for the relationship of class attendance with academic out-
comes consisted of 99 correlations from 90 independent samples representing data
from a total of 28,034 students. In addition, the database also included 83 correla-
tions for the relationship between attendance and other student characteristics,
representing data from 33 independent samples and 11,110 students. The data set
contained articles and dissertations covering 82 years, from 1927 to 2009, and
consisted of 52 published articles and 16 unpublished dissertations or papers.
Criterion and Predictor Categories
We restricted our analyses to two main criterion categories: grades obtained in
an individual class and college GPA. Our examination of possible predictors of
attendance was restricted to a relatively small number of variables because of the
limited number of factors reported in the extant attendance literature. We con-
ducted meta-analyses only for those categories where information from at least
three independent samples was available. We therefore examined only demo-
graphic variables (age and gender), trait variables (e.g., Big Five Traits, core self-
evaluations), prior achievement (SAT scores, and HSGPA), and variables reflecting
interest and motivation (academic motivation, time spent studying).
Examined Moderators
The nature of the published data allowed examination of only two moderators
of the attendance–grade relationship: the type of class (science classes vs. non-
science classes) and time of publication. There are two broad reasons why we
suspect that attendance may be more important in science than nonscience classes.
First, science classes may be more likely to include hands-on demonstrations and
applications of principles that have been covered than nonscience classes. Missing
such activities and illustrations may represent a serious challenge to performing
well. Second, material in science classes may be more cumulative in nature than
material in most nonscience classes. For example, an organic chemistry student
who has missed lectures on stereochemistry is likely to also experience difficulty
understanding material presented later in the same class that assumes knowledge
of stereochemistry. A student taking a class on personality psychology who has
missed lectures on psychodynamic theories of personality may not be similarly
affected when later lectures focus on biopsychological theories of personality.
Our expectation that effect sizes might be negatively correlated with year of pub-
lication is based on the notion that the increasing quality of textbooks and, more
recently, the availability of online class material might reduce the necessity of
class attendance. Thus, we expect larger relationships in older studies.
278
Downloaded from http://rer.aera.net at CENTRAL CONN STATE UNIVERSITY on April 20, 2012
 Analyses
The analysis was completed using the Schmidt and Le (2004) software based
on the Hunter and Schmidt (2004) psychometric meta-analytic method. A random
effects model was used, which not only allows for the estimation of the population
correlation between the predictor and criterion variables but also provides an esti-
mate of the variation in the population parameter across samples after accounting
for variation because of both sampling error and differences in study artifacts (e.g.,
unreliability in the measurement of predictor and/or criterion variables). This esti-
mate of the variation in the population parameter (SDr) provides an indication of
the presence and size of unaccounted for moderators—nonzero SDr values indi-
cate that different studies provide different estimates of the population correlation
even after taking into account sampling error and any examined study artifacts
(e.g., unreliability in measurement). The SDr values were used to establish the
upper and lower bounds of the 90% credibility interval. If the credibility interval
overlaps zero, it is possible the true population correlation (r) is actually zero in
some cases; the credibility interval is used in determining the distribution of
parameter values and is useful in determining the existence of moderators (Hunter
& Schmidt, 2004).
Because not all of the studies included in this meta-analysis reported informa-
tion on the reliability of scores of examined variables, we used the interactive
meta-analytic procedure outlined by Hunter and Schmidt (2004). Available reli-
ability information was used to construct separate reliability distributions for
criterion and predictor variables, and the sample-size-weighted distribution of
observed correlations was then disattenuated using the reliability distributions of
the predictor and criterion variables. In instances in which no reliability informa-
tion was available for a variable, no reliability corrections were performed for that
variable in that meta-analysis, except for GPA (see below). Similarly, we conser-
vatively assumed that class attendance was measured with perfect reliability
because more than 85% of attendance data came from class records rather than
being based on student self-reports.
Given the lack of reliability information for GPA among the examined studies,
we based our artifact distribution for this criterion on four published estimates of
the reliability of GPA (Barritt, 1966; Bendig, 1953; Reilly & Warech, 1993;
Stricker, Rock, Burton, Muraki, & Jirele, 1994). We did not correct for unreliabil-
ity in grades for individual classes because of the lack of available information.
Results
Class Attendance and Outcomes
Meta-analytic results for the relationship between class attendance and academic
performance are shown in Table 1. In support of Hypothesis 1, attendance correlates
strongly with both performance in an individual class (k = 69, N = 21,195, r = .44)
and college GPA (k = 33, N = 9,243, r = .41), although the relatively large credibil-
ity intervals suggest likely moderators of these relationships. According to Cohen
(1988), a correlation of .50 represents a large effect size. Table 1 also provides
results for one of our two examined moderators: science versus nonscience classes.
In line with our expectations, the attendance–grade relationship was slightly stronger
for science classes (k = 12, N = 8,524, r = .49) than for nonscience classes (k = 57,

279
Downloaded from http://rer.aera.net at CENTRAL CONN STATE UNIVERSITY on April 20, 2012
FIGURE 2.  Scatterplot of the relationship between observed attendance–grade
correlations and year of publication.

N = 12,394, r = .41). The correlation between year of publication and the attendance–
performance relationship was negligible for both class grade, r(69) = .09, ns, and
GPA, r(33) = –.16, ns, suggesting that the importance of class attendance has
not significantly changed over time. Thus, it appears that use of online classroom
resources and improved textbooks have not decreased the importance of attending
class. A scatterplot of the observed correlations against year of publication (Figure 2)
also does not suggest a dramatic change in attendance–grade correlations at the
approximate point of the introduction of Web-based technologies.
Correlates and Antecedents
Results for the relationship of class attendance with student characteristics
(Hypothesis 2) are presented in Table 2. The relationships represented effect sizes
in the small to medium range for most variables, including the Big Five personal-
ity traits, SAT scores, and intelligence. According to Cohen (1988), a correlation
of .10 represents a small effect size and a correlation of .30 represents a medium
effect size. The strongest relationships were observed for the number of hours
spent studying (k = 7, N = 1,532, r = .20), high school GPA (k = 5, N = 963, r =
.16), and conscientiousness (k = 6, N = 1,874, r = .24). These effect sizes probably
reflect the influence of an overall conscientiousness factor. Core self-evaluations
exhibited a slight positive relationship with attendance (k = 7, N = 763, r = .18),

280
Downloaded from http://rer.aera.net at CENTRAL CONN STATE UNIVERSITY on April 20, 2012
TABLE 1
Meta-analytic results for relationship of class attendance with class grades and
GPA
File
Criteria N k robs ρ SDρ 10%CV 90%CV Drawer x

All Class 21,164 68 0.44 0.44 0.14 0.26 0.62 530

  Grades
Science   8,524 11 0.49 0.49 0.14 0.32 0.67   97
  Classes
Non-Science 12,640 57 0.41 0.41 0.14 0.24 0.58 410
  Classes
GPA   9,243 33 0.37 0.41 0.13 0.24 0.58 238
N = number of subject, k = number of studies, robs = sample size weighted mean observed correlation,
ρ = true score correlation, SDr = standard deviation of true, score correlation, 10%CV and 90%CV upper and
lower bound of 90% credibility interval, File Drawer x = number of studies with average sample size and zero
correlation necessary to bring overall correlation down to trival size (r = .05)—assumes fixed effects model.

whereas year in college also exhibited a slight negative relationship with atten-
dance (k = 3, N = 4,141, r = –.11), such that students in their junior and senior years
are less likely to attend class. Thus, Hypothesis 2—suggesting that class atten-
dance will exhibit positive relationships with individual difference variables that
reflect students’ levels of conscientiousness, motivation, core self-evaluations, and
cognitive ability—received weak to moderate levels of support.
Table 2 also presents meta-analytic estimates of the attendance–grade relation-
ship derived from just the subsample of studies that were used to calculate the
relationship between attendance and each student characteristic. For example, the
correlation between attendance and SAT scores was estimated to be r = –.01 based
on six studies, whereas the estimate of the attendance–grade relationship from
these same six studies is r = .45. The range of these estimates of the attendance–
grade relationship was from r = .24 to r = .52, with a mean of r = .43 and a median
of r = .46. These results suggest that the findings that (a) attendance–grade rela-
tionships are strong whereas (b) the student characteristic—attendance relation-
ship is weak to moderate is not simply a function of deriving estimates of these
relationships from different samples.
The lack of strong relationships between attendance and student characteristics
coupled with the finding that attendance–grade relationships remain strong even within
the same subset of studies suggests that a mediated effects model (Hypothesis 3,
Alternative 1) is unlikely to be valid for these student characteristics and that a
unique effects model (Alternative 2) may better capture the relationships among
attendance, grades, and student characteristics.
Incremental Validity
As a further test of Hypothesis 3 (Alternative 2), hierarchical regression was
used to assess whether class attendance explains incremental variance in GPA
beyond the variance explained by the two of the most commonly used predictors
of academic performance (SAT scores and high school GPA). These two predictors
281
Downloaded from http://rer.aera.net at CENTRAL CONN STATE UNIVERSITY on April 20, 2012
TABLE 2
Meta-analytic results for relationship of attendance with student characteristics
Student
Characteristics N k robs ρ SDρ 10%CV 90%CV rAttend-Grade

Age* 882 5 0.06 0.06 0.13 -0.11 0.24 0.24

Gender (Male = 1, 1,252 4 -0.12 -0.12 0.02 -0.15 -0.09 0.45
  Female = 0)*
Year in College* 4,141 3 -0.11 -0.11 0.00 -0.11 -0.11 0.53
SAT Scores* 2,154 6 -0.01 -0.01 0.06 -0.09 0.06 0.45
HSGPA* 963 5 0.16 0.16 0.00 0.16 0.16 0.33
IQ* 1,047 4 0.11 0.11 0.08 0.01 0.22 0.46
Hours of 599 3 -0.09 -0.09 0.00 -0.09 -0.09 0.36
  employment*
Hours of study* 1,532 7 0.20 0.20 0.09 0.08 0.31 0.33
Agreeableness 1,874 6 0.02 0.02 0.12 -0.13 0.17 0.49
Conscientiousness 1,874 6 0.22 0.24 0.10 0.12 0.36 0.49
Extraversion 2,144 8 -0.09 -0.10 0.05 -0.16 -0.04 0.53
Neuroticism 1,874 6 0.01 0.01 0.10 -0.12 0.14 0.49
Openness 1,874 6 -0.02 -0.02 0.05 -0.09 0.05 0.49
Core Self- 763 7 0.18 0.18 0.11 0.03 0.32 0.37
  Evaluations*
Academic 1,231 4 0.10 0.11 0.10 -0.02 0.25 0.48
  Motivation
N = number of subject, k = number of studies, robs = sample size weighted mean observed correlation, ρ = true
score correlation, SDr = standard deviation of true score correlation, 10%CV and 90%CV upper and lower
bound of 90% credibility interval. rAttend-Grade represents correlation between attendance and grades for sub-
sample of studies included in this analysis, * signifies relationships not corrected for unreliability due to the
lack of available information.

are chosen not only because they represent important student characteristics (cog-
nitive ability and prior achievement) but also because the relationship of these two
variables with college grades has been so well illustrated. Our regression analysis
was based on the meta-analytic estimates from this study and imported validities
from a large-scale meta-analytic review of the relationship among SAT scores,
HSGPA, and college GPA (Hezlett et al., 2001). Specifically, we used the opera-
tional validity of .35 for SAT scores and .40 for HSGPA. For each of the two
analyses the utilized sample size was the harmonic mean of the sample sizes asso-
ciated with each meta-analytic estimate. Results indicate that attendance explains
a very large amount of incremental validity over SAT scores (adj. DR2 = .19, p < .01)
and over HSGPA (adj. DR2 = .13, p < .01)—not surprising given the relative inde-
pendence of attendance from both SAT scores and HSGPA. These results are in
general support of Hypothesis 3 (Alternative 2).
Effect of Mandatory Attendance Policy
In exploration of Alternative 3 of Hypothesis 3 regarding the effect of mandatory
attendance policies, we were able to identify only three studies (Berenson, Carter,
282
Downloaded from http://rer.aera.net at CENTRAL CONN STATE UNIVERSITY on April 20, 2012
 50
45
40
Percentage of Class

35
30
Attendance Required
25
Attendance Not Required
20
15
10
5
0
A B C D or F
Grade Obtained

FIGURE 3.  Illustration of the effects of a mandatory attendance policy on

grade outcomes. Data from Kooker (1976).

& Norwood, 1992; Chan, Shum, & Wright, 1997; Kooker, 1976) that examined the
effects of a mandatory attendance policy on class grades and that reported data in
a manner that allowed inclusion in a meta-analysis. Meta-analysis of these three
studies revealed a small increase in average grades associated with a mandatory
attendance policy (k = 3, N = 1,421, d = .21), thus providing some tentative support
for Hypothesis 3 (Alternative 3). Other authors (e.g., Hancock, 1994) note dra-
matic differences in test grades between classes with and without an attendance
policy but did not provide data that allowed inclusion. The manner in which data
were presented by Kooker (1976) also allowed a more detailed secondary exami-
nation of the data that showed that an attendance policy may be disproportionately
beneficial for low performing students. Specifically, a reanalysis of Kooker’s data
(N = 835) shows that the proportion of students getting a D or an F in an experi-
mental psychology class was 12.6% when attendance was not mandatory and that
this dropped to 3.9% when class attendance was mandatory (see Figure 3). This
difference is significant (p < .01), whereas the difference in the proportion of A grades
obtained in the two conditions (21.5% vs. 20.6%) was not significant (p > .05).
There was no significant difference (p < .05) in the proportion of students who
withdrew from class under the two conditions (7.4% when attendance was manda-
tory and 9.6% when attendance was not mandatory).
Curvilinear Effects of Attendance on Grades
Given Kooker’s (1976) finding that an attendance policy may be particularly
effective at reducing the number of failures while having weaker effects on the
number of A’s received by students, we also decided (post hoc) to examine whether
the general relationship between class attendance and grades also exhibited similar
relationships. Two authors (Gendron & Pieper, 2005; Hyde & Flournoy, 1986) not
only reported a correlational table but also presented their data in a manner that
allowed us to substantially recreate the original data and test for possible curvilinear
283
Downloaded from http://rer.aera.net at CENTRAL CONN STATE UNIVERSITY on April 20, 2012
 35

30
Percentage of Students

25

20
Highest Quintile of
15 Grades

10 Lowest Quintile of
Grades
5

0
0-19 20-39 40-59 60-79 80-100
Percentage of Classes Attended

FIGURE 4.  Illustration of the curvilinear relationship between attendance and

grade outcomes. Data from Hyde and Flournoy (1986).

90.0
Average Grade Percentage

80.0

70.0

60.0

50.0

40.0

30.0
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Percentile of Class Attendance

FIGURE 5.  Illustration of the curvilinear relationship between attendance and

grade outcomes. Data from Gendron and Pieper (2005).

relationships between attendance and grades. Using hierarchical regression, we

found significant curvilinear effects (DR2 = .046, DF = 8.19, p < .01) for the data
from Hyde and Flournoy (1986), such that the highest performing students had
either very good or very poor class attendance and those students in the lowest
quintile of grades were most likely to have average (rather than poor) attendance
(see Figure 4). Similar data reported by Gendron and Pieper (2005) also revealed
a significant curvilinear effect (DR2 = .029, DF = 21.82, p < .01), although the
nature of the relationship was somewhat different inasmuch as the benefits of atten-
dance for grades appear to decrease once an average level of attendance has been
attained (see Figure 5). That is, the difference in grades between students with poor
284
Downloaded from http://rer.aera.net at CENTRAL CONN STATE UNIVERSITY on April 20, 2012
 Class Attendance in College

attendance and students with average attendance was larger than the difference
between students with average attendance and students with very good attendance.
In aggregate, our findings that suggest that (a) attendance is strongly related to
grades, (b) attendance is only weakly to moderately related to student characteris-
tics, and (c) a mandatory attendance policy has a (small) positive effect on average
grades provide strongest support for the unique effects model (Figure 1). The lack
of evidence for student characteristics that are strongly related to both grades and
attendance suggests that the mediated effects model is unlikely to be valid, whereas
the positive effects of an attendance policy suggest that the attendance–grade rela-
tionship is unlikely to be an artifact of a common causal variable.
Discussion
This article has provided meta-analytic summaries of the relationships of class
attendance with both grades in a class and overall GPA while also providing meta-
analytic estimates of the relationships between class attendance and a variety of
student characteristics. Our results show that class attendance is strongly corre-
lated with class grades and GPA in college—indeed, the observed correlations with
grades are larger even than those observed in meta-analytic reviews of the validi-
ties of both SAT scores and HSGPA (Hezlett et al., 2001) and study habits and
study skills (Credé & Kuncel, 2008). As such, class attendance provides a dramatic
increase in the amount of variance in grades that can be explained from student
characteristics and behaviors. Such a finding is in clear agreement with theories of
learning and training that emphasize the importance of repeated and extensive
contact with information and repeated practice of skills.
Our results, however, do not only show that class attendance is very strongly
related to academic performance and moderately related to specific student char-
acteristics (e.g., conscientiousness). Rather, they can also be used to shed light on
the validity of a number of competing models exploring the nature of the relation-
ship among class attendance, grades, and student characteristics. The relatively
weak relationships between class attendance and student characteristics suggest
that neither a mediated effects model nor a common cause model (see Figure 1) is
likely to be valid—at least for the examined student characteristics. That is, our
results do not suggest that students with high class attendance are simply those with
dramatically higher levels of motivation or conscientiousness—characteristics
that would account for the higher grades observed among students with high levels
of attendance. Rather, the results are most supportive of a unique effects model in
which class attendance and student characteristics make unique contributions
toward academic performance, especially when considering other evidence sug-
gesting that student characteristics such as prior achievement (e.g., Hezlett et al.,
2001) and certain personality traits (Poropat, 2009) are related to grades. That is,
student characteristics and attendance are more strongly related to grades than to
each other.
We are, of course, hesitant to make inferences of causality on the basis of cor-
relational data despite the strong relationship between class attendance and grade
and the lack of examined student characteristics that could act as common causal
variables of both attendance and grades. It may, for instance, be that educational
researchers have simply not examined the full range of such possible common
causal variables (see our discussion of this below). Alternatively, it may be that
285
Downloaded from http://rer.aera.net at CENTRAL CONN STATE UNIVERSITY on April 20, 2012
Credé et al.

class attendance and grades are so strongly related not because attendance fosters
learning but because instructors use class time to communicate information
to students that is not effectively captured in textbooks or notes posted on class
websites. Such unique information may include instructor expertise that extends
beyond textbook material but may also contain explicit or implicit information
about what questions are most likely to be asked on tests and exams or how assign-
ments should best be completed or approached. In this latter case the attendance–
grade relationship would simply be an artifact of students being better able to
anticipate test questions or the criteria used to evaluate other assignments.
At the same time, it is important to note that our findings would have strong
implications for educational practices and policies if even a relatively small pro-
portion of the attendance–grade relationship is causal in nature. The low levels of
support that our results show for a mediated effects model or a common causal
model and the better support that appears evident for a unique effects model sug-
gest that some causal relationship is certainly plausible. Our theoretical under-
standing of the learning process (e.g., the importance of overlearning) is also
broadly supportive of at least some causal relationship. Any such causal relation-
ship would, in turn, be strongly supportive of efforts to boost class attendance
rates—particularly if the goal is to reduce failure rates in classes (Kooker, 1976).
Indeed, our findings that attendance is a better predictor of class grades than any
other known predictor (including HSGPA, SAT scores, and study habits) suggest
that the benefits of better attendance in college classes are likely to be substantial.
Not only are all students likely to learn more from their classes, but also failure
rates are likely to be substantially decreased. Assuming an approximately normal
distribution of grades, even a small benefit that accrues equally to all students will
result in a relatively large reduction in those students falling below the cut line that
distinguishes passing grades from failing grades. If, for example, we assume a
normal distribution of grades in a class and a 10% failure rate, then an even moder-
ate across-the-board increase in grades (d = .5) would reduce the failure rate to less
than 4%—a more than 60% reduction in the failure rate. Evidence from individual
studies (e.g., Kooker, 1976) that attendance disproportionately benefits lower abil-
ity students would suggest that the reduction in failure rates may be even larger.
Of course, the benefits of reducing failure rates accrue not only to the individual
student but also to the college or university and society in general. Failing even one
class can defer students’ graduation by a semester, resulting in additional tuition
fees, deferred entry into the labor market, and subsequent reduced life earnings.
Public universities, whose funding may be linked to graduation rates or time-to-
degree-completion statistics, are also likely to benefit from lower class failure
rates—as will the taxpayers who fund such institutions.
Experimental or quasi-experimental data will ultimately be most useful for
evaluating the causal nature of the attendance–grade relationship, but such data are
sparse in the educational literature. Indeed, our results regarding the effect of man-
datory attendance policy are, unfortunately, based on only three studies and repre-
sent only a small effect size. We present them largely to summarize the existing
evidence and argue for further work on this important issue. The weak positive
effect for attendance policies, based on a small total sample, cannot in itself make
the argument for mandatory attendance policies. However, we do believe that
the results are of interest, especially the effects of a mandatory attendance policy
286
Downloaded from http://rer.aera.net at CENTRAL CONN STATE UNIVERSITY on April 20, 2012
 Class Attendance in College

on weaker students. Even though there is emerging evidence that lectures can be
entirely replaced with an online presentation of material coupled with small group
interactive discussions of material without loss of learning (e.g., Scheines,
Leinhardt, Smith, & Cho, 2005), Figure 2 shows no decrement on attendance–
grade relationships evident since the beginning of the Internet age. Thus, it appears
that even though during the past 10 years or so more instructional material has
been available online, class attendance is still important in the majority of classes.
Indeed, our findings regarding the importance of class attendance for science
classes suggest that attendance will remain important, and perhaps even gain
importance, if the proportion of students taking increasingly complex science
classes were to increase.
It is our position that the question of whether attendance policies are appropri-
ate is ultimately as much a question of educational philosophy as a question of
empirical findings. The argument that adult students should be free to decide on
how to best use their time and whether classes are worth attending is a compelling
one (e.g., Romer, 1993), as is the counterargument that state-funded universities
cannot ethically afford to allow students to cut an unlimited number of classes
(e.g., Street, 1975). Ultimately, instructors and universities should allow their
decision regarding mandatory attendance policies to be guided by a joint consid-
eration of the best available empirical evidence and an evaluation of their educa-
tional philosophy.
Most educators are likely to agree, however, that class attendance is a generally
desirable behavior, and there is encouraging evidence that mandatory policies are
not necessary for dramatically improving class attendance or class performance.
Moore et al. (2003), for example, found that simply stressing the importance of
attendance to students at the beginning of a semester raised average grades by 9%
when compared to a similar class in which attendance was not stressed—and
reduced the failure rate by 70% (from 23% to 7%).
Limitations and Future Research
Any meta-analytic review is restricted to a consideration of the existing litera-
ture in a particular domain. The literature on class attendance provides clear evi-
dence that attendance is strongly associated with grades but provides significantly
less evidence on two related important questions. First, the evidence relating to the
effect of an attendance policy on grades is very limited. This is understandable
given the very real practical difficulties of comparing grades when attendance is
voluntary to grades when attendance is mandatory, but we hope that future research
will examine this important policy issue in more detail. Second, the determinants
of voluntary class attendance also remain poorly understood. We have presented
evidence that some student characteristics are weakly to moderately related to
attendance, but studies examining the role of these characteristics were relatively
few, and the overall sample size for these analyses was moderate, such that the
findings regarding relationships between attendance and student characteristics
need to be interpreted with some caution. Future researchers should not only
attempt to explore the role of the variables that we have discussed in greater detail
but also expand their examination of the influences on voluntary class attendance
to other variables.

287
Downloaded from http://rer.aera.net at CENTRAL CONN STATE UNIVERSITY on April 20, 2012
Credé et al.

Two classes of variables appear particularly promising. First, class attendance

represents a trade-off between short-term gains (e.g., sleeping, spending time with
friends) and long-term gains (e.g., better grades). Individual difference variables
such as self-control, delay gratification, and long-term time orientation may there-
fore exhibit stronger relationships with attendance than those variables summa-
rized in this article. Dispositional factors such as these are particularly likely to
influence class attendance when considering our finding that attendance in a single
class is so strongly related not only to the grade in that class but also to overall GPA
(i.e., performance over all previous classes). This finding suggests that attendance
is likely to be relatively consistent across classes such that students who have poor
attendance in one class are also likely to have poor attendance in other classes.
Such a consistency in attendance would, in turn, suggest the influence of disposi-
tional or attitudinal factors on class attendance. Second, class attendance is likely
to be substantively influenced by contextual factors, such as attendance norms at the
university, perceived difficulty of the class, characteristics of the instructor, and
whether students can obtain lecture material online. An examination of within-
person variability in class attendance may help shed light on the influence of some
of these contextual variables.
An expansion of the student characteristics and contextual characteristics that
are considered as possible influences on attendance would also allow future
researchers to better evaluate the validity of the various models we present in
Figure 1. We believe that the best fitting model of the relationships among student
characteristics, class attendance, and grades is ultimately likely to be composed of
elements of three of the models we present in Figure 1. That is, class attendance is
likely to exert unique effects—separate from student characteristics—on grades
(the unique effects model) while also mediating the relationships between other
student characteristics and grades (the mediated effects model) and exhibiting
bidirectional relationships with grade over time (the bidirectional model). Tests of
such an expanded model require not only an expansion of the student characteris-
tics that are examined as possible influences on attendance but also further exam-
inations of how attendance rates change in response to grades obtained on tests and
assignments (as done by Jones, 1984).
Finally, the construct of class attendance may itself warrant further attention.
As currently measured by most researchers, class attendance simply denotes phys-
ical presence in the classroom. Physical presence in a classroom, however, encap-
sulates a very wide range of possible student behaviors, ranging from students who
listen to the professor, take notes, and attempt to understand the material and inte-
grate it with their existing knowledge structure to students who may be physically
present but engage in few of the behaviors or cognitive processes that are likely to
result in learning. A closer examination of this range of possible classroom behav-
iors is likely to shed additional explanatory light on the observed variance in
grades among students with similar attendance levels.
Conclusion
Class attendance appears to be a better predictor of college grades than any
other known predictor of college grades—including SAT scores, HSGPA, studying
skills, and the amount of time spent studying (Credé & Kuncel, 2008; Hezlett

288
Downloaded from http://rer.aera.net at CENTRAL CONN STATE UNIVERSITY on April 20, 2012
 Class Attendance in College

et al., 2001). Indeed, the relationship is so strong as to suggest that dramatic

improvements in average grades (and failure rates) could be achieved by efforts to
increase class attendance rates among college students.
References
References marked with an asterisk indicate studies included in the meta-analysis.
*Ajiboye, J. O., & Tella, A. (2006). Class attendance and gender effects on under-
graduate students’ achievement in a social studies course in Botswana. Essays in
Education, 18, 1–11.
Arthur, W., Bennett, W., Eden, P. S., & Bell, S. T. (2003). Effectiveness of training in
organizations: A meta-analysis of design and evaluation features. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 88, 234–245.
Barritt, L. S. (1966). Note: The consistency of first-semester college grade point aver-
age. Journal of Educational Measurement, 3, 261–262.
*Baum, J. F., & Youngblood, S. A., (1975). Impact of an organizational control policy
on absenteeism, performance, and satisfaction. Journal of Applied Psychology, 60,
688–694.
*Becker, S. P. (2007). Generalized perceived self-efficacy as a predictor of student
success in a for-profit career college. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Johnson &
Wales University, Providence, RI.
Bendig, A. W. (1953). The reliability of letter grades. Educational and Psychological
Measurement, 13, 311–321.
Benzing, C., & Christ, P. (1997). A survey of teaching methods among economics
faculty. Journal of Economic Education, 28, 182–188.
Berenson, S. B., Carter, G., & Norwood, K. S. (1992). The at-risk student in college
developmental algebra. School Science and Mathematics, 92, 55–58.
Bligh, D. (1998). What’s the use of lectures? (5th ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Blum, M. L., & Naylor, J. C. (1968). Industrial psychology: Its theoretical and social
foundations. New York: Harper & Row.
Bridgeman, B., McCamley-Jenkins, L., & Ervin, N. (2000). Predictions of freshman
grade point average from the revised and recentered SAT I: Reasoning Test
(College Board Rep. No. 2000–1). New York: College Entrance Examination
Board.
*Brocato, J. (1989). How much does coming to class matter? Some evidence of class
attendance and grade performance. Educational Research Quarterly, 13, 2–6.
Brooke, S. L. (2006). Using the case study method to teach online classes: Promoting
Socratic dialogue and critical thinking skills. International Journal of Teaching and
Learning in Higher Education, 18, 142–149.
*Broucek, W. G., & Bass, W. (2008). Attendance feedback in an academic setting:
Preliminary results. College Teaching Methods and Styles Journal, 4, 45–48.
*Brown, B., Graham, C., Money, S., & Raboczy, M. (1999). Absenteeism and grades
in a nursing curriculum. Michigan Community College Journal, 5, 81–84.
*Buckalew, L. W., Daly, J. D., & Coffield, K. E. (1986). Relationship of initial class
attendance and seating location to academic performance in psychology classes.
Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 24, 63–64.
Campbell, J. P., & Kuncel, N. R. (2001). Individual and team training. In N. Anderson,
D. S. Ones, H. K. Sinangil, & C. Viswesvaran (Eds.), Handbook of industrial, work,
and organizational psychology (Vol. 1, pp. 278–312). London: Sage.

289
Downloaded from http://rer.aera.net at CENTRAL CONN STATE UNIVERSITY on April 20, 2012
Credé et al.

Cepeda, N. J., Pashler, H., Vul, E., Wixted, J. T., & Rohrer, D. (2006). Distributed
practice in verbal recall tasks: A review and quantitative synthesis. Psychological
Bulletin, 132, 354–380.
*Chamorro-Premuzic, T., & Furnham, A. (2006). Self-assessed intelligence and aca-
demic performance. Educational Psychology, 26, 769–779.
*Chamorro-Premuzic, T., Furnham, A., & McDougall, F. (2002). Personality, cognitive
ability, and beliefs about intelligence as predictors of academic performance.
Learning and Individual Differences, 14, 47–64.
Chan, K. C., Shum, C., & Wright, D. J. (1997). Class attendance and student perfor-
mance in principles of finance. Financial Practice and Education, 7, 58–65.
*Clifton, J. (2007). Preferential seating for college students with ADHD: Is it an effec-
tive accommodation? Dissertation Abstracts International: Section B: The Sciences
and Engineering, 68(6–B), 4125.
*Clump, M. A., Bauer, H., & Whiteleather, A. (2003). To attend or not to attend: Is that
a good question? Journal of Instructional Psychology, 30, 220–224.
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.).
Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
*Cohn, E., & Johnson, E. (2006). Class attendance and performance in principles of
economics. Educational Economics, 14, 211–233.
*Conard, M.-A. (2006). Aptitude is not enough: How personality and behavior predict
academic performance. Journal of Research in Personality, 40, 339–346.
*Craig, F. M. (1990). A study to determine if there is a relationship between absences
and grades at McCook College. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Nova University,
Davie, FL.
Credé, M., & Kuncel, N. R. (2008). Study habits, skills, and attitudes: The third pillar
supporting collegiate academic performance. Perspectives on Psychological
Science, 3, 425–453.
Cull, W. L. (2000). Untangling the benefits of multiple study opportunities and repeated
testing for cued recall. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 14, 215–235.
*Culler, R. E., & Holahan, C. J. (1980). Test anxiety and academic performance: The
effects of study-related behaviors. Journal of Educational Psychology, 72, 16–20.
*Davenport, W. S. (1990). A study of the relationship between attendance and grades
of three business law classes at Broome Community College. Unpublished doctoral
dissertation, Nova University, Davie, FL.
*Debevec, K., Shih, M., & Kashyap, V. (2006). Learning strategies and performance
in a technology integrated classroom. Journal of Research on Technology in
Education, 38, 293–307.
*Di, X. (1996). Teaching real world students: A study of the relationship between stu-
dents’ academic achievement and daily-life interfering and remedial factors. College
Student Journal, 30, 238–253.
*Dollinger, S. J., Matyja, A. M., & Huber, J. L (2008). Which factors best account for
academic success: Those which college students can control or those they cannot?
Journal of Research in Personality, 42, 872–885.
Donovan, J. J., & Radosevich, D. J. (1999). A meta-analytic review of the distribution
of practice effect. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84, 795–805.
*Dotson, E., & Templer, D. I. (1969). Grades, attendance, and extraversion.
Psychological Reports, 25, 369–370.
*Elsberry, J. B. (1995). A comparison of selected variables of instructional choice and
achievement between group lecture method and facilitated self-paced method in

290
Downloaded from http://rer.aera.net at CENTRAL CONN STATE UNIVERSITY on April 20, 2012
 Class Attendance in College

college health science physics. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of

South Florida, Tampa.
*Farsides, T., & Woodfield, R. (2003). Individual differences and undergraduate aca-
demic success: The role of personality, intelligence, and application. Personality
and Individual Differences, 34, 1225–1243.
*Federici, L., & Schuerger, J. (1976). High school psychology students versus non-
high school psychology students in a college introductory class. Teaching of
Psychology, 3, 172–174.
Freeman, S., O’Connor, E., Parks, J. W., Cunningham, M., Hurley, D., Haak, D., et al.
(2007). Prescribed active learning increases performance in introductory biology.
Life Sciences Education, 6, 132–139.
Friedman, P., Rodriguez, F., & McComb, J. (2001). Why students do and do not attend
class. College Teaching, 49, 124–133.
*Gatherer, D., & Manning, F. C. R. (1998). Correlations of examination performance
with lecture attendance: A comparative study of first-year biology sciences under-
graduates. Biochemical Education, 6, 121–23.
*Gendron, P., & Pieper, P. (2005). Does attendance matter? Evidence from the Ontario
ITAL. Retrieved April 25, 2009, from http://economics.ca/2005/papers/0483.pdf
*Goolkasian, P. L., Van Wallendael, L., & Gaultney, J. F. (2003). Evaluation of a Web
site in cognitive science. Teaching of Psychology, 30, 266–269.
*Gump, S. E. (2006). Guess who’s (not) coming to class: Student attitudes as indicators
of attendance. Educational Studies, 32, 39–46.
*Gunn, K. P. (1993). A correlation between attendance and grades in a first-year
psychology class. Canadian Psychology, 34, 201–202.
Halpin, G., Halpin, G., & Schaer, B. B. (1981). Relative effectiveness of the California
Achievement Tests in comparison with the ACT Assessment, College Board
Scholastic Aptitude Test, and high school grade point average in predicting college
grade point average. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 41, 821–827.
*Hammen, C. S., & Kelland, J. L. (1994). Attendance and grades in a human physiol-
ogy course. Advances in Physiology Education, 12, 105–108.
*Hancock, T. M. (1994). Effects of mandatory attendance on student performance.
College Student Journal, 28, 326–329.
*Henderson, J. (1984). An evaluation of a counseling model for enhancing athletes’
grade point average and class attendance. Dissertation Abstracts International,
45(6–A), 1642.
Hezlett, S. A., Kuncel, N. R., Vey, M. A., Ahart, A., Ones, D. S., Campbell, J. P., et al.
(2001, April). The predictive validity of the SAT: A comprehensive meta-analysis.
In D. S. Ones & S. A. Hezlett (Chairs), Predicting performance: The interface of I/O
psychology and educational research. Symposium conducted at the annual confer-
ence of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, San Diego, CA.
*Hill, L. (1990). Effort and reward in college: A replication of some puzzling findings.
Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 5, 151–161.
Hoekstra, A. (2008). Vibrant student voices: Exploring effects of the use of clickers in
large college classes. Learning, Media, and Technology, 33, 329–341.
*Hogrebe, M. C., Cannon, S. B., et al. (1984). High school measures predicting per-
formance in college developmental studies courses. Educational and Psychological
Research, 4, 97–109.
*Hove, M. C., & Corcoran, K. J. (2008). If you post it, will they come? Lecture avail-
ability in introductory psychology. Teaching of Psychology, 35, 91–95.
Humphreys, L. G. (1979). The construct of general intelligence. Intelligence, 3, 105–120.

291
Downloaded from http://rer.aera.net at CENTRAL CONN STATE UNIVERSITY on April 20, 2012
Credé et al.

Hunter, J. E., & Schmidt, F. L. (2004). Methods of meta-analysis: Correcting error and
bias in research findings (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
*Hyde, R.–M., & Flournoy, D. J. (1986). A case against mandatory lecture attendance.
Journal of Medical Education, 61, 175–176.
*Immerman, A. (1982). The relationship between attendance and performance in a
remedial mathematics program with American Indian adults. (ERIC Document
Reproduction Service No. ED216811)
Jenne, F. H. (1973). Attendance and student proficiency change in a health science
class. Journal of School Health, 43, 135–126.
*Jones, C. H. (1984). Interaction of absences and grades in a college course. Journal
of Psychology: Interdisciplinary and Applied, 116, 133–136.
*Jones, L. (1931). Class attendance and college marks. School and Society, 33,
444–446.
Kanfer, R., & Ackerman, P. L. (1989). Motivation and cognitive abilities: An integra-
tive aptitude-treatment interaction approach to skill acquisition. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 74, 657–690.
*King, A. R., & Bailly, M. D. (2002). MMPI-2 predictors of academic performance.
Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 20, 258–267.
*Kooker, E. W. (1976). Changes in grade distributions associated with changes in class
attendance policies. Psychology: A Journal of Human Behavior, 13, 56–57.
*Kowalewski, D., Holstein, E., & Schneider, V. (1989). The validity of selected cor-
relates of unexcused absences in a four-year private college. Educational and
Psychological Measurement, 49, 985–991.
*Launius, M. H. (1997). College student attendance: Attitudes and academic perfor-
mance. College Student Journal, 31, 86–92.
Lazarus, R. S., & Folkman, S. (1984). Stress, appraisal, and coping. New York:
Springer.
*Li, M. (2009). Unpublished raw data. [Relationship between attendance and grades].

Lievens, F., Coetsier, P., De Fruyt, F., & De Maeseneer, J. (2002). Medical students’
personality characteristics and academic performance: A five-factor model perspec-
tive. Medical Education, 36, 1050–1056.
Marburger, D. R. (2001). Absenteeism and undergraduate exam performance. Journal
of Economic Education, 32, 99–110.
Markham, T., Jones, S. J., Hughes, I., & Sutcliff, M. (1998). Survey of methods of
teaching and learning in undergraduate pharmacology within UK higher education.
Trends in Pharmacological Sciences, 19, 257–262.
*Marks, A., McRae, M. T., & Henry, N. (2001, June). Academic identification: Gender,
ethnicity, and multidimensionality. Poster presented at the American Psychological
Society convention, Toronto.
Mayer, R. E., Stull, A., DeLeeuw, K., Almeroth, K., Bimber, B., Chun, D., et al. (2009).
Clickers in college classrooms: Fostering learning with questioning methods in large
lecture classes. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 34, 51–57.
*Moore, R. (2003). Attendance and performance: How important is it for students to
attend class? Journal of College Science Teaching, 32, 367–371.
*Moore, R. (2006). The importance of admissions scores and attendance to first-year
performance. Journal of the First-Year Experience and Students in Transition, 18,
105–125.
*Moore, R., Jensen, M., Hatch, J., Duranczyk, I., Staats, S., & Koch, L. (2003).
Showing up: The importance of class attendance for academic success in introduc-
tory science courses. American Biology Teacher, 65, 325–329.

292
Downloaded from http://rer.aera.net at CENTRAL CONN STATE UNIVERSITY on April 20, 2012
 Class Attendance in College

*Nelson, M. J. (1937). An experiment with optional attendance. School and Society,

45, 414–416.
*Newman-Ford, L., Fitzgibbon, K., Lloyd, S., & Thomas, S. (1999). A large-scale
investigation into the relationship between attendance and attainment: A study using
an innovative, electronic attendance monitoring system. Studies in Higher Education,
33, 699–717.
*Nist, S. L., Holschuh, J. L., & Sarman, S. J. (1995, April). Making the grade in under-
graduate biology courses: factors that distinguish high and low achievers. Paper
presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association,
San Francisco.
*Oswald, F. L., Schmitt, N., Kim, B. H., Ramsay, L. J., & Gillespie, M. A. (2004).
Developing a biodata measure and situational judgment inventory as predictors of
college student performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 187–207.
Peladeau, N., Forget, J., & Gagne, F. (2003). Effect of paced and unpaced practice on
skill application and retention: How much is enough? American Educational
Research Journal, 40, 769–801.
*Peters, M., Kethley, B., & Bullington, K. (2002). The relationship between homework
and performance in an introductory operations management course. Journal of
Education for Business, 77, 340–344.
Poropat, A. E. (2009). A meta-analysis of the five-factor model of personality and
academic performance. Psychological Bulletin, 135, 322–338.
Reilly, R. R., & Warech, M. A. (1993). The validity and fairness of alternatives to
cognitive tests. In L. C. Wing & B. R. Gifford (Eds.), Policy issues in employment
testing (pp. 131–224). Boston: Kluwer.
Robbins, S. B., Lauver, K., Le, H., Davis, D., Langley, R., & Carlstrom, A. (2004). Do
psychosocial and study skill factors predict college outcomes? A meta-analysis.
Psychological Bulletin, 130, 261–288.
*Roch, S. (2009). Unpublished raw data.
*Rochelle, C. F., & Dotterweich, D. (2007). Student success in business statistics.
Journal of Economics and Finance Education, 6, 19–24.
*Romer, D. (1993). Do students go to class? Should they? Journal of Economic
Perspectives, 7, 167–174.
*Rose, R. J., Hall, C. W., Bolen, L. M., & Webster, R. E. (1996). Locus of control and
college students’ approaches to learning. Psychological Reports, 79, 163–171.
*Sauers, D. A., McVay, G. J., & Deppa, B. D. (2005). Absenteeism and academic per-
formance in an introduction to business course. Academy of Educational Leadership
Journal, 9, 19–28.
Scheines, R., Leinhardt, G., Smith, J., & Cho, K. (2005). Replacing lecture with Web-
based course material. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 32, 1–26.
Schmidt, F. L., & Le, H. (2004). Software for the Hunter-Schmidt meta-analysis
methods. Iowa City: University of Iowa, Department of Management &
Organizations.
*Schuman, H., Walsh, E., Olson, C., & Etheridge, B. (1985). Effort and reward: The
assumption that college grades are affected by quantity of study. Social Forces, 63,
945–966.
*Shimoff, E., & Catania, A. C. (2001). Effects of recording attendance on grades in
introductory psychology. Teaching of Psychology, 28, 192–195.
*Silvestri, L. (2003). The effects of attendance on undergraduate methods course
grades. Education, 123, 483–486.

293
Downloaded from http://rer.aera.net at CENTRAL CONN STATE UNIVERSITY on April 20, 2012
Credé et al.

*Skidmore, G. D. (1979). An examination of the impact of counseling on attendance,

attrition, grade point averages and locus of control scores of students in developmen-
tal studies. Dissertation Abstracts International, 40(3–A), 1230–1231.
*Slem, C. M. (1983, April). Relationship between classroom absenteeism and stress
risk/buffer factors, depressogenic attributional style, depression and classroom
academic performance. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Western
Psychological Association, San Francisco.
Snell, J., & Mekies, S. (1995). Student attendance and academic achievement: A research
note. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 22, 126–130.
St. Clair, K. L. (1999). A case against compulsory class attendance policies in higher
education. Innovative Higher Education, 23, 171–180.
*Stanca, L. (2004). The effects of attendance on academic performance: Panel data evi-
dence for introductory microeconomics. Journal of Economic Education, 37, 251–266.
Stephenson, K. (1994). Correspondence. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 8, 207–208.
*Street, D. R. (1975). Noncompulsory attendance: Can state supported universities
afford this luxury? Journal of College Student Personnel, 16, 124–127.
Stricker, L. J., Rock, D. A., Burton, N. W., Muraki, E., & Jirele, T. J. (1994). Adjusting
college grade point average criteria for variations in grading standards: A compari-
son of methods. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, 178–183.
*Tiruneh, G. (2007). Does attendance enhance political science grades? Journal of
Political Science Education, 3, 265–276.
*Trice, A. D. (1987). Academic locus of control and required and optional class atten-
dance. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 64, 1158.
*Trice, A. D., & Hackburt, L. (1989). Academic locus of control, Type A behavior, and
college absenteeism. Psychological Reports, 65, 337–338.
*Trice, A. D., Holland, S. A., & Gagne, P. E. (2000). Voluntary class absences and other
behaviors in college students: An exploratory analysis. Psychological Reports, 87,
179–182.
*Turner, F. H. (1927). A study in the relation of class attendance to scholastic attain-
ment. School and Society, 26, 22–24.
*Urban-Lurain, M., & Weinshank, D. J. (2000, April). Attendance and outcomes in a
large, collaborative learning, performance assessment course. Paper presented at
the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans,
LA. Retrieved April 25, 2009, from http://www.cse.msu.edu/rgroups/cse101/
AERA2000/attendance.htm
*Van Blerkom, M. L. (1992). Class attendance in undergraduate courses. Journal of
Psychology: Interdisciplinary and Applied, 126, 487–494.
*Van Blerkom, M. L. (1996, August). Academic perseverance, class attendance, and
performance in the college classroom. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the
American Psychological Association, Toronto.
*Vidler, D. C. (1980). Curiosity, academic performance, and class attendance.
Psychological Reports, 47, 589–590.
*Webb, T. L., Christian, J., & Armitage, C. J. (2007). Helping students turn up for class:
Does personality moderate the effectiveness of an implementation intention inter-
vention? Learning and Individual Differences, 17, 316–327.
*Wiley, C. (1992). Predicting business course grades from class attendance and other
objective student characteristics. College Student Journal, 26, 497–501.
Woodfield, R., Jessop, D., & McMillan, L. (2006). Gender differences in undergradu-
ate attendance rates. Studies in Higher Education, 31, 1–22.

294
Downloaded from http://rer.aera.net at CENTRAL CONN STATE UNIVERSITY on April 20, 2012
 Class Attendance in College

*Wyatt, G. (1992). Skipping class: An analysis of absenteeism among first-year college

students. Teaching Sociology, 20, 201–207.
Wynegar, R., & Fenster, M. J. (2009). Evaluation of alternative delivery systems on
academic performance in college algebra. College Student Journal, 43, 170–174.
Authors
MARCUS CREDÉ is an assistant professor of psychology at the State University of
New York at Albany, Department of Psychology, 1400 Washington Avenue, Albany, NY
12222; e-mail: mcrede@albany.edu. His primary research interests include noncognitive
predictors of performance in academic and work settings, the structure of such noncogni-
tive predictors and the nature of performance, and issues relating to the measurement of
noncognitive attributes and performance.
SYLVIA G. ROCH is an associate professor of psychology at the State University of
New York at Albany, Department of Psychology, 1400 Washington Avenue, Albany,
NY 12222; e-mail: roch@albany.edu. Her research interests include issues relating to
performance appraisal, organizational justice, and group decision making.
URSZULA M. KIESZCZYNKA is a graduate student in industrial and organizational
psychology at the State University of New York at Albany, Department of Psychology,
1400 Washington Avenue, Albany, NY 12222; e-mail: uk329525@albany.edu. Her
research interests include teams, performance appraisal, and determinants of both work
and academic performance.

295
Downloaded from http://rer.aera.net at CENTRAL CONN STATE UNIVERSITY on April 20, 2012