Exploring the Interplay of Motivation, Self-Efficacy, Critical Thinking, and Self-Regulation in Predicting Academic Achievement Among University Students

Exploring the Interplay of Motivation,... | F1000Research "use strict";function _typeof(t){return(_typeof="function"==typeof Symbol&&"symbol"==typeof Symbol.iterator?function(t){return typeof t}:function(t){return t&&"function"==typeof Symbol&&t.constructor===Symbol&&t!==Symbol.prototype?"symbol":typeof t})(t)}!function(){var t=function(){var t,e,o=[],n=window,r=n;for(;r;){try{if(r.frames.__tcfapiLocator){t=r;break}}catch(t){}if(r===n.top)break;r=r.parent}t||(!function t(){var e=n.document,o=!!n.frames.__tcfapiLocator;if(!o)if(e.body){var r=e.createElement("iframe");r.style.cssText="display:none",r.name="__tcfapiLocator",e.body.appendChild(r)}else setTimeout(t,5);return!o}(),n.__tcfapi=function(){for(var t=arguments.length,n=new Array(t),r=0;r 3&&2===parseInt(n[1],10)&&"boolean"==typeof n[3]&&(e=n[3],"function"==typeof n[2]&&n[2]("set",!0)):"ping"===n[0]?"function"==typeof n[2]&&n[2]({gdprApplies:e,cmpLoaded:!1,cmpStatus:"stub"}):o.push(n)},n.addEventListener("message",(function(t){var e="string"==typeof t.data,o={};if(e)try{o=JSON.parse(t.data)}catch(t){}else o=t.data;var n="object"===_typeof(o)&&null!==o?o.__tcfapiCall:null;n&&window.__tcfapi(n.command,n.version,(function(o,r){var a={__tcfapiReturn:{returnValue:o,success:r,callId:n.callId}};t&&t.source&&t.source.postMessage&&t.source.postMessage(e?JSON.stringify(a):a,"*")}),n.parameter)}),!1))};"undefined"!=typeof module?module.exports=t:t()}(); dataLayer = dataLayer || []; // Standard GTM initialization - Google Consent Mode handles consent automatically (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start': new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0], j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src= 'https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl+ '>m_auth=hzk0Vc3qFsQYhCrIoHz68A>m_preview=env-1>m_cookies_win=x';f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f); })(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-MWFK8L5J'); ;window.NREUM||(NREUM={});NREUM.init={distributed_tracing:{enabled:true},privacy:{cookies_enabled:true},ajax:{deny_list:["bam.nr-data.net"]}}; ;NREUM.loader_config={accountID:"438030",trustKey:"438030",agentID:"772317073",licenseKey:"97f8f67f26",applicationID:"772317073"} ;NREUM.info={beacon:"bam.nr-data.net",errorBeacon:"bam.nr-data.net",licenseKey:"97f8f67f26",applicationID:"772317073",sa:1} ;/*! For license information please see nr-loader-spa-1.236.0.min.js.LICENSE.txt */ (()=>{"use strict";var e,t,r={5763:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{P_:()=>l,Mt:()=>g,C5:()=>s,DL:()=>v,OP:()=>T,lF:()=>D,Yu:()=>y,Dg:()=>h,CX:()=>c,GE:()=>b,sU:()=>_});var n=r(8632),i=r(9567);const o={beacon:n.ce.beacon,errorBeacon:n.ce.errorBeacon,licenseKey:void 0,applicationID:void 0,sa:void 0,queueTime:void 0,applicationTime:void 0,ttGuid:void 0,user:void 0,account:void 0,product:void 0,extra:void 0,jsAttributes:{},userAttributes:void 0,atts:void 0,transactionName:void 0,tNamePlain:void 0},a={};function s(e){if(!e)throw new Error("All info objects require an agent identifier!");if(!a[e])throw new Error("Info for ".concat(e," was never set"));return a[e]}function c(e,t){if(!e)throw new Error("All info objects require an agent identifier!");a[e]=(0,i.D)(t,o),(0,n.Qy)(e,a[e],"info")}var u=r(7056);const d=()=>{const e={blockSelector:"[data-nr-block]",maskInputOptions:{password:!0}};return{allow_bfcache:!0,privacy:{cookies_enabled:!0},ajax:{deny_list:void 0,enabled:!0,harvestTimeSeconds:10},distributed_tracing:{enabled:void 0,exclude_newrelic_header:void 0,cors_use_newrelic_header:void 0,cors_use_tracecontext_headers:void 0,allowed_origins:void 0},session:{domain:void 0,expiresMs:u.oD,inactiveMs:u.Hb},ssl:void 0,obfuscate:void 0,jserrors:{enabled:!0,harvestTimeSeconds:10},metrics:{enabled:!0},page_action:{enabled:!0,harvestTimeSeconds:30},page_view_event:{enabled:!0},page_view_timing:{enabled:!0,harvestTimeSeconds:30,long_task:!1},session_trace:{enabled:!0,harvestTimeSeconds:10},harvest:{tooManyRequestsDelay:60},session_replay:{enabled:!1,harvestTimeSeconds:60,sampleRate:.1,errorSampleRate:.1,maskTextSelector:"*",maskAllInputs:!0,get blockClass(){return"nr-block"},get ignoreClass(){return"nr-ignore"},get maskTextClass(){return"nr-mask"},get blockSelector(){return e.blockSelector},set blockSelector(t){e.blockSelector+=",".concat(t)},get maskInputOptions(){return e.maskInputOptions},set maskInputOptions(t){e.maskInputOptions={...t,password:!0}}},spa:{enabled:!0,harvestTimeSeconds:10}}},f={};function l(e){if(!e)throw new Error("All configuration objects require an agent identifier!");if(!f[e])throw new Error("Configuration for ".concat(e," was never set"));return f[e]}function h(e,t){if(!e)throw new Error("All configuration objects require an agent identifier!");f[e]=(0,i.D)(t,d()),(0,n.Qy)(e,f[e],"config")}function g(e,t){if(!e)throw new Error("All configuration objects require an agent identifier!");var r=l(e);if(r){for(var n=t.split("."),i=0;i {r.d(t,{D:()=>i});var n=r(50);function i(e,t){try{if(!e||"object"!=typeof e)return(0,n.Z)("Setting a Configurable requires an object as input");if(!t||"object"!=typeof t)return(0,n.Z)("Setting a Configurable requires a model to set its initial properties");const r=Object.create(Object.getPrototypeOf(t),Object.getOwnPropertyDescriptors(t)),o=0===Object.keys(r).length?e:r;for(let a in o)if(void 0!==e[a])try{"object"==typeof e[a]&&"object"==typeof t[a]?r[a]=i(e[a],t[a]):r[a]=e[a]}catch(e){(0,n.Z)("An error occurred while setting a property of a Configurable",e)}return r}catch(e){(0,n.Z)("An error occured while setting a Configurable",e)}}},6818:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{Re:()=>i,gF:()=>o,q4:()=>n});const n="1.236.0",i="PROD",o="CDN"},385:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{FN:()=>a,IF:()=>u,Nk:()=>f,Tt:()=>s,_A:()=>o,il:()=>n,pL:()=>c,v6:()=>i,w1:()=>d});const n="undefined"!=typeof window&&!!window.document,i="undefined"!=typeof WorkerGlobalScope&&("undefined"!=typeof self&&self instanceof WorkerGlobalScope&&self.navigator instanceof WorkerNavigator||"undefined"!=typeof globalThis&&globalThis instanceof WorkerGlobalScope&&globalThis.navigator instanceof WorkerNavigator),o=n?window:"undefined"!=typeof WorkerGlobalScope&&("undefined"!=typeof self&&self instanceof WorkerGlobalScope&&self||"undefined"!=typeof globalThis&&globalThis instanceof WorkerGlobalScope&&globalThis),a=""+o?.location,s=/iPad|iPhone|iPod/.test(navigator.userAgent),c=s&&"undefined"==typeof SharedWorker,u=(()=>{const e=navigator.userAgent.match(/Firefox[/\s](\d+\.\d+)/);return Array.isArray(e)&&e.length>=2?+e[1]:0})(),d=Boolean(n&&window.document.documentMode),f=!!navigator.sendBeacon},1117:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{w:()=>o});var n=r(50);const i={agentIdentifier:"",ee:void 0};class o{constructor(e){try{if("object"!=typeof e)return(0,n.Z)("shared context requires an object as input");this.sharedContext={},Object.assign(this.sharedContext,i),Object.entries(e).forEach((e=>{let[t,r]=e;Object.keys(i).includes(t)&&(this.sharedContext[t]=r)}))}catch(e){(0,n.Z)("An error occured while setting SharedContext",e)}}}},8e3:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{L:()=>d,R:()=>c});var n=r(2177),i=r(1284),o=r(4322),a=r(3325);const s={};function c(e,t){const r={staged:!1,priority:a.p[t]||0};u(e),s[e].get(t)||s[e].set(t,r)}function u(e){e&&(s[e]||(s[e]=new Map))}function d(){let e=arguments.length>0&&void 0!==arguments[0]?arguments[0]:"",t=arguments.length>1&&void 0!==arguments[1]?arguments[1]:"feature";if(u(e),!e||!s[e].get(t))return a(t);s[e].get(t).staged=!0;const r=[...s[e]];function a(t){const r=e?n.ee.get(e):n.ee,a=o.X.handlers;if(r.backlog&&a){var s=r.backlog[t],c=a[t];if(c){for(var u=0;s&&u {let[t,r]=e;return r.staged}))&&(r.sort(((e,t)=>e[1].priority-t[1].priority)),r.forEach((e=>{let[t]=e;a(t)})))}function f(e,t){var r=e[1];(0,i.D)(t[r],(function(t,r){var n=e[0];if(r[0]===n){var i=r[1],o=e[3],a=e[2];i.apply(o,a)}}))}},2177:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{c:()=>f,ee:()=>u});var n=r(8632),i=r(2210),o=r(1284),a=r(5763),s="nr@context";let c=(0,n.fP)();var u;function d(){}function f(e){return(0,i.X)(e,s,l)}function l(){return new d}function h(){u.aborted=!0,u.backlog={}}c.ee?u=c.ee:(u=function e(t,r){var n={},c={},f={},g=!1;try{g=16===r.length&&(0,a.OP)(r).isolatedBacklog}catch(e){}var p={on:b,addEventListener:b,removeEventListener:y,emit:v,get:x,listeners:w,context:m,buffer:A,abort:h,aborted:!1,isBuffering:E,debugId:r,backlog:g?{}:t&&"object"==typeof t.backlog?t.backlog:{}};return p;function m(e){return e&&e instanceof d?e:e?(0,i.X)(e,s,l):l()}function v(e,r,n,i,o){if(!1!==o&&(o=!0),!u.aborted||i){t&&o&&t.emit(e,r,n);for(var a=m(n),s=w(e),d=s.length,f=0;fn,p:()=>i});var n=r(2177).ee.get("handle");function i(e,t,r,i,o){o?(o.buffer([e],i),o.emit(e,t,r)):(n.buffer([e],i),n.emit(e,t,r))}},4322:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{X:()=>o});var n=r(5546);o.on=a;var i=o.handlers={};function o(e,t,r,o){a(o||n.E,i,e,t,r)}function a(e,t,r,i,o){o||(o="feature"),e||(e=n.E);var a=t[o]=t[o]||{};(a[r]=a[r]||[]).push([e,i])}},3239:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{bP:()=>s,iz:()=>c,m$:()=>a});var n=r(385);let i=!1,o=!1;try{const e={get passive(){return i=!0,!1},get signal(){return o=!0,!1}};n._A.addEventListener("test",null,e),n._A.removeEventListener("test",null,e)}catch(e){}function a(e,t){return i||o?{capture:!!e,passive:i,signal:t}:!!e}function s(e,t){let r=arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2]&&arguments[2],n=arguments.length>3?arguments[3]:void 0;window.addEventListener(e,t,a(r,n))}function c(e,t){let r=arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2]&&arguments[2],n=arguments.length>3?arguments[3]:void 0;document.addEventListener(e,t,a(r,n))}},4402:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{Ht:()=>u,M:()=>c,Rl:()=>a,ky:()=>s});var n=r(385);const i="xxxxxxxx-xxxx-4xxx-yxxx-xxxxxxxxxxxx";function o(e,t){return e?15&e[t]:16*Math.random()|0}function a(){const e=n._A?.crypto||n._A?.msCrypto;let t,r=0;return e&&e.getRandomValues&&(t=e.getRandomValues(new Uint8Array(31))),i.split("").map((e=>"x"===e?o(t,++r).toString(16):"y"===e?(3&o()|8).toString(16):e)).join("")}function s(e){const t=n._A?.crypto||n._A?.msCrypto;let r,i=0;t&&t.getRandomValues&&(r=t.getRandomValues(new Uint8Array(31)));const a=[];for(var s=0;s {r.d(t,{Bq:()=>n,Hb:()=>o,oD:()=>i});const n="NRBA",i=144e5,o=18e5},7894:(e,t,r)=>{function n(){return Math.round(performance.now())}r.d(t,{z:()=>n})},7243:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{e:()=>o});var n=r(385),i={};function o(e){if(e in i)return i[e];if(0===(e||"").indexOf("data:"))return{protocol:"data"};let t;var r=n._A?.location,o={};if(n.il)t=document.createElement("a"),t.href=e;else try{t=new URL(e,r.href)}catch(e){return o}o.port=t.port;var a=t.href.split("://");!o.port&&a[1]&&(o.port=a[1].split("/")[0].split("@").pop().split(":")[1]),o.port&&"0"!==o.port||(o.port="https"===a[0]?"443":"80"),o.hostname=t.hostname||r.hostname,o.pathname=t.pathname,o.protocol=a[0],"/"!==o.pathname.charAt(0)&&(o.pathname="/"+o.pathname);var s=!t.protocol||":"===t.protocol||t.protocol===r.protocol,c=t.hostname===r.hostname&&t.port===r.port;return o.sameOrigin=s&&(!t.hostname||c),"/"===o.pathname&&(i[e]=o),o}},50:(e,t,r)=>{function n(e,t){"function"==typeof console.warn&&(console.warn("New Relic: ".concat(e)),t&&console.warn(t))}r.d(t,{Z:()=>n})},2587:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{N:()=>c,T:()=>u});var n=r(2177),i=r(5546),o=r(8e3),a=r(3325);const s={stn:[a.D.sessionTrace],err:[a.D.jserrors,a.D.metrics],ins:[a.D.pageAction],spa:[a.D.spa],sr:[a.D.sessionReplay,a.D.sessionTrace]};function c(e,t){const r=n.ee.get(t);e&&"object"==typeof e&&(Object.entries(e).forEach((e=>{let[t,n]=e;void 0===u[t]&&(s[t]?s[t].forEach((e=>{n?(0,i.p)("feat-"+t,[],void 0,e,r):(0,i.p)("block-"+t,[],void 0,e,r),(0,i.p)("rumresp-"+t,[Boolean(n)],void 0,e,r)})):n&&(0,i.p)("feat-"+t,[],void 0,void 0,r),u[t]=Boolean(n))})),Object.keys(s).forEach((e=>{void 0===u[e]&&(s[e]?.forEach((t=>(0,i.p)("rumresp-"+e,[!1],void 0,t,r))),u[e]=!1)})),(0,o.L)(t,a.D.pageViewEvent))}const u={}},2210:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{X:()=>i});var n=Object.prototype.hasOwnProperty;function i(e,t,r){if(n.call(e,t))return e[t];var i=r();if(Object.defineProperty&&Object.keys)try{return Object.defineProperty(e,t,{value:i,writable:!0,enumerable:!1}),i}catch(e){}return e[t]=i,i}},1284:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{D:()=>n});const n=(e,t)=>Object.entries(e||{}).map((e=>{let[r,n]=e;return t(r,n)}))},4351:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{P:()=>o});var n=r(2177);const i=()=>{const e=new WeakSet;return(t,r)=>{if("object"==typeof r&&null!==r){if(e.has(r))return;e.add(r)}return r}};function o(e){try{return JSON.stringify(e,i())}catch(e){try{n.ee.emit("internal-error",[e])}catch(e){}}}},3960:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{K:()=>a,b:()=>o});var n=r(3239);function i(){return"undefined"==typeof document||"complete"===document.readyState}function o(e,t){if(i())return e();(0,n.bP)("load",e,t)}function a(e){if(i())return e();(0,n.iz)("DOMContentLoaded",e)}},8632:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{EZ:()=>u,Qy:()=>c,ce:()=>o,fP:()=>a,gG:()=>d,mF:()=>s});var n=r(7894),i=r(385);const o={beacon:"bam.nr-data.net",errorBeacon:"bam.nr-data.net"};function a(){return i._A.NREUM||(i._A.NREUM={}),void 0===i._A.newrelic&&(i._A.newrelic=i._A.NREUM),i._A.NREUM}function s(){let e=a();return e.o||(e.o={ST:i._A.setTimeout,SI:i._A.setImmediate,CT:i._A.clearTimeout,XHR:i._A.XMLHttpRequest,REQ:i._A.Request,EV:i._A.Event,PR:i._A.Promise,MO:i._A.MutationObserver,FETCH:i._A.fetch}),e}function c(e,t,r){let i=a();const o=i.initializedAgents||{},s=o[e]||{};return Object.keys(s).length||(s.initializedAt={ms:(0,n.z)(),date:new Date}),i.initializedAgents={...o,[e]:{...s,[r]:t}},i}function u(e,t){a()[e]=t}function d(){return function(){let e=a();const t=e.info||{};e.info={beacon:o.beacon,errorBeacon:o.errorBeacon,...t}}(),function(){let e=a();const t=e.init||{};e.init={...t}}(),s(),function(){let e=a();const t=e.loader_config||{};e.loader_config={...t}}(),a()}},7956:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{N:()=>i});var n=r(3239);function i(e){let t=arguments.length>1&&void 0!==arguments[1]&&arguments[1],r=arguments.length>2?arguments[2]:void 0,i=arguments.length>3?arguments[3]:void 0;return void(0,n.iz)("visibilitychange",(function(){if(t)return void("hidden"==document.visibilityState&&e());e(document.visibilityState)}),r,i)}},1214:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{em:()=>v,u5:()=>N,QU:()=>S,_L:()=>I,Gm:()=>L,Lg:()=>M,gy:()=>U,BV:()=>Q,Kf:()=>ee});var n=r(2177);const i="nr@original";var o=Object.prototype.hasOwnProperty,a=!1;function s(e,t){return e||(e=n.ee),r.inPlace=function(e,t,n,i,o){n||(n="");var a,s,c,u="-"===n.charAt(0);for(c=0;c 2?n-2:0),o=2;o {r(A[T],e,w),r(E[T],e,w)})),r(l._A,"fetch",y),t.on(y+"end",(function(e,r){var n=this;if(r){var i=r.headers.get("content-length");null!==i&&(n.rxSize=i),t.emit(y+"done",[null,r],n)}else t.emit(y+"done",[e],n)})),t}const O={},j=["pushState","replaceState"];function S(e){const t=function(e){return(e||n.ee).get("history")}(e);return!l.il||O[t.debugId]++||(O[t.debugId]=1,s(t).inPlace(window.history,j,"-")),t}var P=r(3239);const C={},R=["appendChild","insertBefore","replaceChild"];function I(e){const t=function(e){return(e||n.ee).get("jsonp")}(e);if(!l.il||C[t.debugId])return t;C[t.debugId]=!0;var r=s(t),i=/[?&](?:callback|cb)=([^&#]+)/,o=/(.*)\.([^.]+)/,a=/^(\w+)(\.|$)(.*)$/;function c(e,t){var r=e.match(a),n=r[1],i=r[3];return i?c(i,t[n]):t[n]}return r.inPlace(Node.prototype,R,"dom-"),t.on("dom-start",(function(e){!function(e){if(!e||"string"!=typeof e.nodeName||"script"!==e.nodeName.toLowerCase())return;if("function"!=typeof e.addEventListener)return;var n=(a=e.src,s=a.match(i),s?s[1]:null);var a,s;if(!n)return;var u=function(e){var t=e.match(o);if(t&&t.length>=3)return{key:t[2],parent:c(t[1],window)};return{key:e,parent:window}}(n);if("function"!=typeof u.parent[u.key])return;var d={};function f(){t.emit("jsonp-end",[],d),e.removeEventListener("load",f,(0,P.m$)(!1)),e.removeEventListener("error",l,(0,P.m$)(!1))}function l(){t.emit("jsonp-error",[],d),t.emit("jsonp-end",[],d),e.removeEventListener("load",f,(0,P.m$)(!1)),e.removeEventListener("error",l,(0,P.m$)(!1))}r.inPlace(u.parent,[u.key],"cb-",d),e.addEventListener("load",f,(0,P.m$)(!1)),e.addEventListener("error",l,(0,P.m$)(!1)),t.emit("new-jsonp",[e.src],d)}(e[0])})),t}var k=r(5763);const H={};function L(e){const t=function(e){return(e||n.ee).get("mutation")}(e);if(!l.il||H[t.debugId])return t;H[t.debugId]=!0;var r=s(t),i=k.Yu.MO;return i&&(window.MutationObserver=function(e){return this instanceof i?new i(r(e,"fn-")):i.apply(this,arguments)},MutationObserver.prototype=i.prototype),t}const z={};function M(e){const t=function(e){return(e||n.ee).get("promise")}(e);if(z[t.debugId])return t;z[t.debugId]=!0;var r=n.c,o=s(t),a=k.Yu.PR;return a&&function(){function e(r){var n=t.context(),i=o(r,"executor-",n,null,!1);const s=Reflect.construct(a,[i],e);return t.context(s).getCtx=function(){return n},s}l._A.Promise=e,Object.defineProperty(e,"name",{value:"Promise"}),e.toString=function(){return a.toString()},Object.setPrototypeOf(e,a),["all","race"].forEach((function(r){const n=a[r];e[r]=function(e){let i=!1;[...e||[]].forEach((e=>{this.resolve(e).then(a("all"===r),a(!1))}));const o=n.apply(this,arguments);return o;function a(e){return function(){t.emit("propagate",[null,!i],o,!1,!1),i=i||!e}}}})),["resolve","reject"].forEach((function(r){const n=a[r];e[r]=function(e){const r=n.apply(this,arguments);return e!==r&&t.emit("propagate",[e,!0],r,!1,!1),r}})),e.prototype=a.prototype;const n=a.prototype.then;a.prototype.then=function(){var e=this,i=r(e);i.promise=e;for(var a=arguments.length,s=new Array(a),c=0;c e())),t};function m(e,t){i.inPlace(t,["onreadystatechange"],"fn-",E)}function b(){var e=this,t=r.context(e);e.readyState>3&&!t.resolved&&(t.resolved=!0,r.emit("xhr-resolved",[],e)),i.inPlace(e,f,"fn-",E)}if(function(e,t){for(var r in e)t[r]=e[r]}(o,p),p.prototype=o.prototype,i.inPlace(p.prototype,J,"-xhr-",E),r.on("send-xhr-start",(function(e,t){m(e,t),function(e){h.push(e),a&&(y?y.then(A):u?u(A):(w=-w,x.data=w))}(t)})),r.on("open-xhr-start",m),a){var y=c&&c.resolve();if(!u&&!c){var w=1,x=document.createTextNode(w);new a(A).observe(x,{characterData:!0})}}else t.on("fn-end",(function(e){e[0]&&e[0].type===d||A()}));function A(){for(var e=0;e {r.d(t,{t:()=>n});const n=r(3325).D.ajax},6660:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{A:()=>i,t:()=>n});const n=r(3325).D.jserrors,i="nr@seenError"},3081:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{gF:()=>o,mY:()=>i,t9:()=>n,vz:()=>s,xS:()=>a});const n=r(3325).D.metrics,i="sm",o="cm",a="storeSupportabilityMetrics",s="storeEventMetrics"},4649:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{t:()=>n});const n=r(3325).D.pageAction},7633:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{Dz:()=>i,OJ:()=>a,qw:()=>o,t9:()=>n});const n=r(3325).D.pageViewEvent,i="firstbyte",o="domcontent",a="windowload"},9251:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{t:()=>n});const n=r(3325).D.pageViewTiming},3614:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{BST_RESOURCE:()=>i,END:()=>s,FEATURE_NAME:()=>n,FN_END:()=>u,FN_START:()=>c,PUSH_STATE:()=>d,RESOURCE:()=>o,START:()=>a});const n=r(3325).D.sessionTrace,i="bstResource",o="resource",a="-start",s="-end",c="fn"+a,u="fn"+s,d="pushState"},7836:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{BODY:()=>A,CB_END:()=>E,CB_START:()=>u,END:()=>x,FEATURE_NAME:()=>i,FETCH:()=>_,FETCH_BODY:()=>v,FETCH_DONE:()=>m,FETCH_START:()=>p,FN_END:()=>c,FN_START:()=>s,INTERACTION:()=>l,INTERACTION_API:()=>d,INTERACTION_EVENTS:()=>o,JSONP_END:()=>b,JSONP_NODE:()=>g,JS_TIME:()=>T,MAX_TIMER_BUDGET:()=>a,REMAINING:()=>f,SPA_NODE:()=>h,START:()=>w,originalSetTimeout:()=>y});var n=r(5763);const i=r(3325).D.spa,o=["click","submit","keypress","keydown","keyup","change"],a=999,s="fn-start",c="fn-end",u="cb-start",d="api-ixn-",f="remaining",l="interaction",h="spaNode",g="jsonpNode",p="fetch-start",m="fetch-done",v="fetch-body-",b="jsonp-end",y=n.Yu.ST,w="-start",x="-end",A="-body",E="cb"+x,T="jsTime",_="fetch"},5938:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{W:()=>o});var n=r(5763),i=r(2177);class o{constructor(e,t,r){this.agentIdentifier=e,this.aggregator=t,this.ee=i.ee.get(e,(0,n.OP)(this.agentIdentifier).isolatedBacklog),this.featureName=r,this.blocked=!1}}},9144:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{j:()=>m});var n=r(3325),i=r(5763),o=r(5546),a=r(2177),s=r(7894),c=r(8e3),u=r(3960),d=r(385),f=r(50),l=r(3081),h=r(8632);function g(){const e=(0,h.gG)();["setErrorHandler","finished","addToTrace","inlineHit","addRelease","addPageAction","setCurrentRouteName","setPageViewName","setCustomAttribute","interaction","noticeError","setUserId"].forEach((t=>{e[t]=function(){for(var r=arguments.length,n=new Array(r),i=0;i 1?r-1:0),i=1;i {e.exposed&&e.api[t]&&o.push(e.api[t](...n))})),o.length>1?o:o[0]}(t,...n)}}))}var p=r(2587);function m(e){let t=arguments.length>1&&void 0!==arguments[1]?arguments[1]:{},m=arguments.length>2?arguments[2]:void 0,v=arguments.length>3?arguments[3]:void 0,{init:b,info:y,loader_config:w,runtime:x={loaderType:m},exposed:A=!0}=t;const E=(0,h.gG)();y||(b=E.init,y=E.info,w=E.loader_config),(0,i.Dg)(e,b||{}),(0,i.GE)(e,w||{}),(0,i.sU)(e,x),y.jsAttributes??={},d.v6&&(y.jsAttributes.isWorker=!0),(0,i.CX)(e,y),g();const T=function(e,t){t||(0,c.R)(e,"api");const h={};var g=a.ee.get(e),p=g.get("tracer"),m="api-",v=m+"ixn-";function b(t,r,n,o){const a=(0,i.C5)(e);return null===r?delete a.jsAttributes[t]:(0,i.CX)(e,{...a,jsAttributes:{...a.jsAttributes,[t]:r}}),x(m,n,!0,o||null===r?"session":void 0)(t,r)}function y(){}["setErrorHandler","finished","addToTrace","inlineHit","addRelease"].forEach((e=>h[e]=x(m,e,!0,"api"))),h.addPageAction=x(m,"addPageAction",!0,n.D.pageAction),h.setCurrentRouteName=x(m,"routeName",!0,n.D.spa),h.setPageViewName=function(t,r){if("string"==typeof t)return"/"!==t.charAt(0)&&(t="/"+t),(0,i.OP)(e).customTransaction=(r||"http://custom.transaction")+t,x(m,"setPageViewName",!0)()},h.setCustomAttribute=function(e,t){let r=arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2]&&arguments[2];if("string"==typeof e){if(["string","number"].includes(typeof t)||null===t)return b(e,t,"setCustomAttribute",r);(0,f.Z)("Failed to execute setCustomAttribute.\nNon-null value must be a string or number type, but a type of was provided."))}else(0,f.Z)("Failed to execute setCustomAttribute.\nName must be a string type, but a type of was provided."))},h.setUserId=function(e){if("string"==typeof e||null===e)return b("enduser.id",e,"setUserId",!0);(0,f.Z)("Failed to execute setUserId.\nNon-null value must be a string type, but a type of was provided."))},h.interaction=function(){return(new y).get()};var w=y.prototype={createTracer:function(e,t){var r={},i=this,a="function"==typeof t;return(0,o.p)(v+"tracer",[(0,s.z)(),e,r],i,n.D.spa,g),function(){if(p.emit((a?"":"no-")+"fn-start",[(0,s.z)(),i,a],r),a)try{return t.apply(this,arguments)}catch(e){throw p.emit("fn-err",[arguments,this,"string"==typeof e?new Error(e):e],r),e}finally{p.emit("fn-end",[(0,s.z)()],r)}}}};function x(e,t,r,i){return function(){return(0,o.p)(l.xS,["API/"+t+"/called"],void 0,n.D.metrics,g),i&&(0,o.p)(e+t,[(0,s.z)(),...arguments],r?null:this,i,g),r?void 0:this}}function A(){r.e(439).then(r.bind(r,7438)).then((t=>{let{setAPI:r}=t;r(e),(0,c.L)(e,"api")})).catch((()=>(0,f.Z)("Downloading runtime APIs failed...")))}return["actionText","setName","setAttribute","save","ignore","onEnd","getContext","end","get"].forEach((e=>{w[e]=x(v,e,void 0,n.D.spa)})),h.noticeError=function(e,t){"string"==typeof e&&(e=new Error(e)),(0,o.p)(l.xS,["API/noticeError/called"],void 0,n.D.metrics,g),(0,o.p)("err",[e,(0,s.z)(),!1,t],void 0,n.D.jserrors,g)},d.il?(0,u.b)((()=>A()),!0):A(),h}(e,v);return(0,h.Qy)(e,T,"api"),(0,h.Qy)(e,A,"exposed"),(0,h.EZ)("activatedFeatures",p.T),T}},3325:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{D:()=>n,p:()=>i});const n={ajax:"ajax",jserrors:"jserrors",metrics:"metrics",pageAction:"page_action",pageViewEvent:"page_view_event",pageViewTiming:"page_view_timing",sessionReplay:"session_replay",sessionTrace:"session_trace",spa:"spa"},i={[n.pageViewEvent]:1,[n.pageViewTiming]:2,[n.metrics]:3,[n.jserrors]:4,[n.ajax]:5,[n.sessionTrace]:6,[n.pageAction]:7,[n.spa]:8,[n.sessionReplay]:9}}},n={};function i(e){var t=n[e];if(void 0!==t)return t.exports;var o=n[e]={exports:{}};return r[e](o,o.exports,i),o.exports}i.m=r,i.d=(e,t)=>{for(var r in t)i.o(t,r)&&!i.o(e,r)&&Object.defineProperty(e,r,{enumerable:!0,get:t[r]})},i.f={},i.e=e=>Promise.all(Object.keys(i.f).reduce(((t,r)=>(i.f[r](e,t),t)),[])),i.u=e=>(({78:"page_action-aggregate",147:"metrics-aggregate",242:"session-manager",317:"jserrors-aggregate",348:"page_view_timing-aggregate",412:"lazy-feature-loader",439:"async-api",538:"recorder",590:"session_replay-aggregate",675:"compressor",733:"session_trace-aggregate",786:"page_view_event-aggregate",873:"spa-aggregate",898:"ajax-aggregate"}[e]||e)+"."+{78:"ac76d497",147:"3dc53903",148:"1a20d5fe",242:"2a64278a",317:"49e41428",348:"bd6de33a",412:"2f55ce66",439:"30bd804e",538:"1b18459f",590:"cf0efb30",675:"ae9f91a8",733:"83105561",786:"06482edd",860:"03a8b7a5",873:"e6b09d52",898:"998ef92b"}[e]+"-1.236.0.min.js"),i.o=(e,t)=>Object.prototype.hasOwnProperty.call(e,t),e={},t="NRBA:",i.l=(r,n,o,a)=>{if(e[r])e[r].push(n);else{var s,c;if(void 0!==o)for(var u=document.getElementsByTagName("script"),d=0;d {s.onerror=s.onload=null,clearTimeout(h);var i=e[r];if(delete e[r],s.parentNode&&s.parentNode.removeChild(s),i&&i.forEach((e=>e(n))),t)return t(n)},h=setTimeout(l.bind(null,void 0,{type:"timeout",target:s}),12e4);s.onerror=l.bind(null,s.onerror),s.onload=l.bind(null,s.onload),c&&document.head.appendChild(s)}},i.r=e=>{"undefined"!=typeof Symbol&&Symbol.toStringTag&&Object.defineProperty(e,Symbol.toStringTag,{value:"Module"}),Object.defineProperty(e,"__esModule",{value:!0})},i.j=364,i.p="https://js-agent.newrelic.com/",(()=>{var e={364:0,953:0};i.f.j=(t,r)=>{var n=i.o(e,t)?e[t]:void 0;if(0!==n)if(n)r.push(n[2]);else{var o=new Promise(((r,i)=>n=e[t]=[r,i]));r.push(n[2]=o);var a=i.p+i.u(t),s=new Error;i.l(a,(r=>{if(i.o(e,t)&&(0!==(n=e[t])&&(e[t]=void 0),n)){var o=r&&("load"===r.type?"missing":r.type),a=r&&r.target&&r.target.src;s.message="Loading chunk "+t+" failed.\n("+o+": "+a+")",s.name="ChunkLoadError",s.type=o,s.request=a,n[1](s)}}),"chunk-"+t,t)}};var t=(t,r)=>{var n,o,[a,s,c]=r,u=0;if(a.some((t=>0!==e[t]))){for(n in s)i.o(s,n)&&(i.m[n]=s[n]);if(c)c(i)}for(t&&t(r);u {i.r(o);var e=i(3325),t=i(5763);const r=Object.values(e.D);function n(e){const n={};return r.forEach((r=>{n[r]=function(e,r){return!1!==(0,t.Mt)(r,"".concat(e,".enabled"))}(r,e)})),n}var a=i(9144);var s=i(5546),c=i(385),u=i(8e3),d=i(5938),f=i(3960),l=i(50);class h extends d.W{constructor(e,t,r){let n=!(arguments.length>3&&void 0!==arguments[3])||arguments[3];super(e,t,r),this.auto=n,this.abortHandler,this.featAggregate,this.onAggregateImported,n&&(0,u.R)(e,r)}importAggregator(){let e=arguments.length>0&&void 0!==arguments[0]?arguments[0]:{};if(this.featAggregate||!this.auto)return;const r=c.il&&!0===(0,t.Mt)(this.agentIdentifier,"privacy.cookies_enabled");let n;this.onAggregateImported=new Promise((e=>{n=e}));const o=async()=>{let t;try{if(r){const{setupAgentSession:e}=await Promise.all([i.e(860),i.e(242)]).then(i.bind(i,3228));t=e(this.agentIdentifier)}}catch(e){(0,l.Z)("A problem occurred when starting up session manager. This page will not start or extend any session.",e)}try{if(!this.shouldImportAgg(this.featureName,t))return void(0,u.L)(this.agentIdentifier,this.featureName);const{lazyFeatureLoader:r}=await i.e(412).then(i.bind(i,8582)),{Aggregate:o}=await r(this.featureName,"aggregate");this.featAggregate=new o(this.agentIdentifier,this.aggregator,e),n(!0)}catch(e){(0,l.Z)("Downloading and initializing ".concat(this.featureName," failed..."),e),this.abortHandler?.(),n(!1)}};c.il?(0,f.b)((()=>o()),!0):o()}shouldImportAgg(r,n){return r!==e.D.sessionReplay||!1!==(0,t.Mt)(this.agentIdentifier,"session_trace.enabled")&&(!!n?.isNew||!!n?.state.sessionReplay)}}var g=i(7633),p=i(7894);class m extends h{static featureName=g.t9;constructor(r,n){let i=!(arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2];if(super(r,n,g.t9,i),("undefined"==typeof PerformanceNavigationTiming||c.Tt)&&"undefined"!=typeof PerformanceTiming){const n=(0,t.OP)(r);n[g.Dz]=Math.max(Date.now()-n.offset,0),(0,f.K)((()=>n[g.qw]=Math.max((0,p.z)()-n[g.Dz],0))),(0,f.b)((()=>{const t=(0,p.z)();n[g.OJ]=Math.max(t-n[g.Dz],0),(0,s.p)("timing",["load",t],void 0,e.D.pageViewTiming,this.ee)}))}this.importAggregator()}}var v=i(1117),b=i(1284);class y extends v.w{constructor(e){super(e),this.aggregatedData={}}store(e,t,r,n,i){var o=this.getBucket(e,t,r,i);return o.metrics=function(e,t){t||(t={count:0});return t.count+=1,(0,b.D)(e,(function(e,r){t[e]=w(r,t[e])})),t}(n,o.metrics),o}merge(e,t,r,n,i){var o=this.getBucket(e,t,n,i);if(o.metrics){var a=o.metrics;a.count+=r.count,(0,b.D)(r,(function(e,t){if("count"!==e){var n=a[e],i=r[e];i&&!i.c?a[e]=w(i.t,n):a[e]=function(e,t){if(!t)return e;t.c||(t=x(t.t));return t.min=Math.min(e.min,t.min),t.max=Math.max(e.max,t.max),t.t+=e.t,t.sos+=e.sos,t.c+=e.c,t}(i,a[e])}}))}else o.metrics=r}storeMetric(e,t,r,n){var i=this.getBucket(e,t,r);return i.stats=w(n,i.stats),i}getBucket(e,t,r,n){this.aggregatedData[e]||(this.aggregatedData[e]={});var i=this.aggregatedData[e][t];return i||(i=this.aggregatedData[e][t]={params:r||{}},n&&(i.custom=n)),i}get(e,t){return t?this.aggregatedData[e]&&this.aggregatedData[e][t]:this.aggregatedData[e]}take(e){for(var t={},r="",n=!1,i=0;i t.max&&(t.max=e),e 2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2];super(e,r,j.t,n),c.il&&((0,t.OP)(e).initHidden=Boolean("hidden"===document.visibilityState),(0,N.N)((()=>(0,s.p)("docHidden",[(0,p.z)()],void 0,j.t,this.ee)),!0),(0,O.bP)("pagehide",(()=>(0,s.p)("winPagehide",[(0,p.z)()],void 0,j.t,this.ee))),this.importAggregator())}}var P=i(3081);class C extends h{static featureName=P.t9;constructor(e,t){let r=!(arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2];super(e,t,P.t9,r),this.importAggregator()}}var R,I=i(2210),k=i(1214),H=i(2177),L={};try{R=localStorage.getItem("__nr_flags").split(","),console&&"function"==typeof console.log&&(L.console=!0,-1!==R.indexOf("dev")&&(L.dev=!0),-1!==R.indexOf("nr_dev")&&(L.nrDev=!0))}catch(e){}function z(e){try{L.console&&z(e)}catch(e){}}L.nrDev&&H.ee.on("internal-error",(function(e){z(e.stack)})),L.dev&&H.ee.on("fn-err",(function(e,t,r){z(r.stack)})),L.dev&&(z("NR AGENT IN DEVELOPMENT MODE"),z("flags: "+(0,b.D)(L,(function(e,t){return e})).join(", ")));var M=i(6660);class B extends h{static featureName=M.t;constructor(r,n){let i=!(arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2];super(r,n,M.t,i),this.skipNext=0;try{this.removeOnAbort=new AbortController}catch(e){}const o=this;o.ee.on("fn-start",(function(e,t,r){o.abortHandler&&(o.skipNext+=1)})),o.ee.on("fn-err",(function(t,r,n){o.abortHandler&&!n[M.A]&&((0,I.X)(n,M.A,(function(){return!0})),this.thrown=!0,(0,s.p)("err",[n,(0,p.z)()],void 0,e.D.jserrors,o.ee))})),o.ee.on("fn-end",(function(){o.abortHandler&&!this.thrown&&o.skipNext>0&&(o.skipNext-=1)})),o.ee.on("internal-error",(function(t){(0,s.p)("ierr",[t,(0,p.z)(),!0],void 0,e.D.jserrors,o.ee)})),this.origOnerror=c._A.onerror,c._A.onerror=this.onerrorHandler.bind(this),c._A.addEventListener("unhandledrejection",(t=>{const r=function(e){let t="Unhandled Promise Rejection: ";if(e instanceof Error)try{return e.message=t+e.message,e}catch(t){return e}if(void 0===e)return new Error(t);try{return new Error(t+(0,D.P)(e))}catch(e){return new Error(t)}}(t.reason);(0,s.p)("err",[r,(0,p.z)(),!1,{unhandledPromiseRejection:1}],void 0,e.D.jserrors,this.ee)}),(0,O.m$)(!1,this.removeOnAbort?.signal)),(0,k.gy)(this.ee),(0,k.BV)(this.ee),(0,k.em)(this.ee),(0,t.OP)(r).xhrWrappable&&(0,k.Kf)(this.ee),this.abortHandler=this.#e,this.importAggregator()}#e(){this.removeOnAbort?.abort(),this.abortHandler=void 0}onerrorHandler(t,r,n,i,o){"function"==typeof this.origOnerror&&this.origOnerror(...arguments);try{this.skipNext?this.skipNext-=1:(0,s.p)("err",[o||new F(t,r,n),(0,p.z)()],void 0,e.D.jserrors,this.ee)}catch(t){try{(0,s.p)("ierr",[t,(0,p.z)(),!0],void 0,e.D.jserrors,this.ee)}catch(e){}}return!1}}function F(e,t,r){this.message=e||"Uncaught error with no additional information",this.sourceURL=t,this.line=r}let U=1;const q="nr@id";function G(e){const t=typeof e;return!e||"object"!==t&&"function"!==t?-1:e===c._A?0:(0,I.X)(e,q,(function(){return U++}))}function V(e){if("string"==typeof e&&e.length)return e.length;if("object"==typeof e){if("undefined"!=typeof ArrayBuffer&&e instanceof ArrayBuffer&&e.byteLength)return e.byteLength;if("undefined"!=typeof Blob&&e instanceof Blob&&e.size)return e.size;if(!("undefined"!=typeof FormData&&e instanceof FormData))try{return(0,D.P)(e).length}catch(e){return}}}var X=i(7243);class W{constructor(e){this.agentIdentifier=e,this.generateTracePayload=this.generateTracePayload.bind(this),this.shouldGenerateTrace=this.shouldGenerateTrace.bind(this)}generateTracePayload(e){if(!this.shouldGenerateTrace(e))return null;var r=(0,t.DL)(this.agentIdentifier);if(!r)return null;var n=(r.accountID||"").toString()||null,i=(r.agentID||"").toString()||null,o=(r.trustKey||"").toString()||null;if(!n||!i)return null;var a=(0,_.M)(),s=(0,_.Ht)(),c=Date.now(),u={spanId:a,traceId:s,timestamp:c};return(e.sameOrigin||this.isAllowedOrigin(e)&&this.useTraceContextHeadersForCors())&&(u.traceContextParentHeader=this.generateTraceContextParentHeader(a,s),u.traceContextStateHeader=this.generateTraceContextStateHeader(a,c,n,i,o)),(e.sameOrigin&&!this.excludeNewrelicHeader()||!e.sameOrigin&&this.isAllowedOrigin(e)&&this.useNewrelicHeaderForCors())&&(u.newrelicHeader=this.generateTraceHeader(a,s,c,n,i,o)),u}generateTraceContextParentHeader(e,t){return"00-"+t+"-"+e+"-01"}generateTraceContextStateHeader(e,t,r,n,i){return i+"@nr=0-1-"+r+"-"+n+"-"+e+"----"+t}generateTraceHeader(e,t,r,n,i,o){if(!("function"==typeof c._A?.btoa))return null;var a={v:[0,1],d:{ty:"Browser",ac:n,ap:i,id:e,tr:t,ti:r}};return o&&n!==o&&(a.d.tk=o),btoa((0,D.P)(a))}shouldGenerateTrace(e){return this.isDtEnabled()&&this.isAllowedOrigin(e)}isAllowedOrigin(e){var r=!1,n={};if((0,t.Mt)(this.agentIdentifier,"distributed_tracing")&&(n=(0,t.P_)(this.agentIdentifier).distributed_tracing),e.sameOrigin)r=!0;else if(n.allowed_origins instanceof Array)for(var i=0;i 2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2];super(r,n,Z.t,i),(0,t.OP)(r).xhrWrappable&&(this.dt=new W(r),this.handler=(e,t,r,n)=>(0,s.p)(e,t,r,n,this.ee),(0,k.u5)(this.ee),(0,k.Kf)(this.ee),function(r,n,i,o){function a(e){var t=this;t.totalCbs=0,t.called=0,t.cbTime=0,t.end=E,t.ended=!1,t.xhrGuids={},t.lastSize=null,t.loadCaptureCalled=!1,t.params=this.params||{},t.metrics=this.metrics||{},e.addEventListener("load",(function(r){_(t,e)}),(0,O.m$)(!1)),c.IF||e.addEventListener("progress",(function(e){t.lastSize=e.loaded}),(0,O.m$)(!1))}function s(e){this.params={method:e[0]},T(this,e[1]),this.metrics={}}function u(e,n){var i=(0,t.DL)(r);i.xpid&&this.sameOrigin&&n.setRequestHeader("X-NewRelic-ID",i.xpid);var a=o.generateTracePayload(this.parsedOrigin);if(a){var s=!1;a.newrelicHeader&&(n.setRequestHeader("newrelic",a.newrelicHeader),s=!0),a.traceContextParentHeader&&(n.setRequestHeader("traceparent",a.traceContextParentHeader),a.traceContextStateHeader&&n.setRequestHeader("tracestate",a.traceContextStateHeader),s=!0),s&&(this.dt=a)}}function d(e,t){var r=this.metrics,i=e[0],o=this;if(r&&i){var a=V(i);a&&(r.txSize=a)}this.startTime=(0,p.z)(),this.listener=function(e){try{"abort"!==e.type||o.loadCaptureCalled||(o.params.aborted=!0),("load"!==e.type||o.called===o.totalCbs&&(o.onloadCalled||"function"!=typeof t.onload)&&"function"==typeof o.end)&&o.end(t)}catch(e){try{n.emit("internal-error",[e])}catch(e){}}};for(var s=0;s 1?e[1]=i:e.push(i)}else e[0]&&e[0].headers&&s(e[0].headers,n)&&(this.dt=n);function s(e,t){var r=!1;return t.newrelicHeader&&(e.set("newrelic",t.newrelicHeader),r=!0),t.traceContextParentHeader&&(e.set("traceparent",t.traceContextParentHeader),t.traceContextStateHeader&&e.set("tracestate",t.traceContextStateHeader),r=!0),r}}function x(e,t){this.params={},this.metrics={},this.startTime=(0,p.z)(),this.dt=t,e.length>=1&&(this.target=e[0]),e.length>=2&&(this.opts=e[1]);var r,n=this.opts||{},i=this.target;"string"==typeof i?r=i:"object"==typeof i&&i instanceof Y?r=i.url:c._A?.URL&&"object"==typeof i&&i instanceof URL&&(r=i.href),T(this,r);var o=(""+(i&&i instanceof Y&&i.method||n.method||"GET")).toUpperCase();this.params.method=o,this.txSize=V(n.body)||0}function A(t,r){var n;this.endTime=(0,p.z)(),this.params||(this.params={}),this.params.status=r?r.status:0,"string"==typeof this.rxSize&&this.rxSize.length>0&&(n=+this.rxSize);var o={txSize:this.txSize,rxSize:n,duration:(0,p.z)()-this.startTime};i("xhr",[this.params,o,this.startTime,this.endTime,"fetch"],this,e.D.ajax)}function E(t){var r=this.params,n=this.metrics;if(!this.ended){this.ended=!0;for(var o=0;o 2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2];super(e,t,we.t,r),this.importAggregator()}}new class{constructor(e){let t=arguments.length>1&&void 0!==arguments[1]?arguments[1]:(0,_.ky)(16);c._A?(this.agentIdentifier=t,this.sharedAggregator=new y({agentIdentifier:this.agentIdentifier}),this.features={},this.desiredFeatures=new Set(e.features||[]),this.desiredFeatures.add(m),Object.assign(this,(0,a.j)(this.agentIdentifier,e,e.loaderType||"agent")),this.start()):(0,l.Z)("Failed to initial the agent. Could not determine the runtime environment.")}get config(){return{info:(0,t.C5)(this.agentIdentifier),init:(0,t.P_)(this.agentIdentifier),loader_config:(0,t.DL)(this.agentIdentifier),runtime:(0,t.OP)(this.agentIdentifier)}}start(){const t="features";try{const r=n(this.agentIdentifier),i=[...this.desiredFeatures];i.sort(((t,r)=>e.p[t.featureName]-e.p[r.featureName])),i.forEach((t=>{if(r[t.featureName]||t.featureName===e.D.pageViewEvent){const n=function(t){switch(t){case e.D.ajax:return[e.D.jserrors];case e.D.sessionTrace:return[e.D.ajax,e.D.pageViewEvent];case e.D.sessionReplay:return[e.D.sessionTrace];case e.D.pageViewTiming:return[e.D.pageViewEvent];default:return[]}}(t.featureName);n.every((e=>r[e]))||(0,l.Z)("".concat(t.featureName," is enabled but one or more dependent features has been disabled (").concat((0,D.P)(n),"). This may cause unintended consequences or missing data...")),this.features[t.featureName]=new t(this.agentIdentifier,this.sharedAggregator)}})),(0,T.Qy)(this.agentIdentifier,this.features,t)}catch(e){(0,l.Z)("Failed to initialize all enabled instrument classes (agent aborted) -",e);for(const e in this.features)this.features[e].abortHandler?.();const r=(0,T.fP)();return delete r.initializedAgents[this.agentIdentifier]?.api,delete r.initializedAgents[this.agentIdentifier]?.[t],delete this.sharedAggregator,r.ee?.abort(),delete r.ee?.get(this.agentIdentifier),!1}}}({features:[J,m,S,class extends h{static featureName=oe;constructor(t,r){if(super(t,r,oe,!(arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2]),!c.il)return;const n=this.ee;let i;(0,k.QU)(n),this.eventsEE=(0,k.em)(n),this.eventsEE.on(se,(function(e,t){this.bstStart=(0,p.z)()})),this.eventsEE.on(ae,(function(t,r){(0,s.p)("bst",[t[0],r,this.bstStart,(0,p.z)()],void 0,e.D.sessionTrace,n)})),n.on(ce+ne,(function(e){this.time=(0,p.z)(),this.startPath=location.pathname+location.hash})),n.on(ce+ie,(function(t){(0,s.p)("bstHist",[location.pathname+location.hash,this.startPath,this.time],void 0,e.D.sessionTrace,n)}));try{i=new PerformanceObserver((t=>{const r=t.getEntries();(0,s.p)(te,[r],void 0,e.D.sessionTrace,n)})),i.observe({type:re,buffered:!0})}catch(e){}this.importAggregator({resourceObserver:i})}},C,xe,B,class extends h{static featureName=de;constructor(e,r){if(super(e,r,de,!(arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2]),!c.il)return;if(!(0,t.OP)(e).xhrWrappable)return;try{this.removeOnAbort=new AbortController}catch(e){}let n,i=0;const o=this.ee.get("tracer"),a=(0,k._L)(this.ee),s=(0,k.Lg)(this.ee),u=(0,k.BV)(this.ee),d=(0,k.Kf)(this.ee),f=this.ee.get("events"),l=(0,k.u5)(this.ee),h=(0,k.QU)(this.ee),g=(0,k.Gm)(this.ee);function m(e,t){h.emit("newURL",[""+window.location,t])}function v(){i++,n=window.location.hash,this[ve]=(0,p.z)()}function b(){i--,window.location.hash!==n&&m(0,!0);var e=(0,p.z)();this[pe]=~~this[pe]+e-this[ve],this[ye]=e}function y(e,t){e.on(t,(function(){this[t]=(0,p.z)()}))}this.ee.on(ve,v),s.on(be,v),a.on(be,v),this.ee.on(ye,b),s.on(ge,b),a.on(ge,b),this.ee.buffer([ve,ye,"xhr-resolved"],this.featureName),f.buffer([ve],this.featureName),u.buffer(["setTimeout"+le,"clearTimeout"+fe,ve],this.featureName),d.buffer([ve,"new-xhr","send-xhr"+fe],this.featureName),l.buffer([me+fe,me+"-done",me+he+fe,me+he+le],this.featureName),h.buffer(["newURL"],this.featureName),g.buffer([ve],this.featureName),s.buffer(["propagate",be,ge,"executor-err","resolve"+fe],this.featureName),o.buffer([ve,"no-"+ve],this.featureName),a.buffer(["new-jsonp","cb-start","jsonp-error","jsonp-end"],this.featureName),y(l,me+fe),y(l,me+"-done"),y(a,"new-jsonp"),y(a,"jsonp-end"),y(a,"cb-start"),h.on("pushState-end",m),h.on("replaceState-end",m),window.addEventListener("hashchange",m,(0,O.m$)(!0,this.removeOnAbort?.signal)),window.addEventListener("load",m,(0,O.m$)(!0,this.removeOnAbort?.signal)),window.addEventListener("popstate",(function(){m(0,i>1)}),(0,O.m$)(!0,this.removeOnAbort?.signal)),this.abortHandler=this.#e,this.importAggregator()}#e(){this.removeOnAbort?.abort(),this.abortHandler=void 0}}],loaderType:"spa"})})(),window.NRBA=o})(); window.jQuery || document.write(' ') CKEDITOR_BASEPATH='https://f1000research.com/js/vendor/ckeditor/' window.reactTheme = 'research'; window.MathJax = { CommonHTML: { linebreaks: { automatic: true } }, 'HTML-CSS': { linebreaks: { automatic: true } }, SVG: { linebreaks: { automatic: true } }, AuthorInit: function() { MathJax.Hub.Register.MessageHook('End Process', function () { let timeout = false; // holder for timeout id const delay = 250; // delay after event is "complete" to run callback const reflowMath = function() { const dispFormulas = document.querySelectorAll('.disp-formula.panel'); if (!dispFormulas) { return; } for (const dispFormula of dispFormulas) { const child = dispFormula.querySelector('.MathJax_Preview').nextSibling.firstChild; const isMultiline = MathJax.Hub.getAllJax(dispFormula)[0].root.isMultiline; if (dispFormula.offsetWidth < child.offsetWidth || isMultiline) { MathJax.Hub.Queue(['Rerender', MathJax.Hub, dispFormula]); } } }; window.addEventListener('resize', function() { clearTimeout(timeout); // clear the timeout timeout = setTimeout(reflowMath, delay); // start timing for event "completion" }); }); }, }; if (window.location.hash == '#_=_'){ window.location = window.location.href.split('#')[0] } !function(f,b,e,v,n,t,s){if(f.fbq)return;n=f.fbq=function() {n.callMethod? n.callMethod.apply(n,arguments):n.queue.push(arguments)} ;if(!f._fbq)f._fbq=n; n.push=n;n.loaded=!0;n.version='2.0';n.queue=[];t=b.createElement(e);t.async=!0; t.src=v;s=b.getElementsByTagName(e)[0];s.parentNode.insertBefore(t,s)}(window, document,'script','https://connect.facebook.net/en_US/fbevents.js'); fbq('init', '1641728616063202'); fbq('track', "PixelInitialized", {}); (function(h,o,t,j,a,r){ h.hj=h.hj||function(){(h.hj.q=h.hj.q||[]).push(arguments)}; h._hjSettings={hjid:2318163,hjsv:6}; a=o.getElementsByTagName('head')[0]; r=o.createElement('script');r.async=1; r.src=t+h._hjSettings.hjid+j+h._hjSettings.hjsv; a.appendChild(r); })(window,document,'https://static.hotjar.com/c/hotjar-','.js?sv='); search file_upload Submit your research search menu close search Browse Gateways & Collections How to Publish Submit your Research My Submissions Article Guidelines Article Guidelines (New Versions) Open Data, Software and Code Guidelines Open Data and Accessible Source Materials Guidelines (HSS) Open Data, Software and Code Guidelines (PSE) Prepublication Checks Production Process Posters and Slides Guidelines Document Guidelines Article Processing Charges Peer Review Finding Article Reviewers About How it Works For Reviewers Our Advisors Policies Glossary FAQs For Developers Newsroom Contact My Research Submissions Content and Tracking Alerts My Details Sign In file_upload Submit your research { "@context": "https://schema.org", "@type": "ScholarlyArticle", "mainEntityOfPage": { "@type": "WebPage", "@id": "https://f1000research.com/articles/14-344" }, "headline": "Exploring the Interplay of Motivation, Self-Efficacy, Critical Thinking, and Self-Regulation in Predicting...", "datePublished": "2025-03-28T15:15:38", "dateModified": "2025-07-07T17:25:02", "author": [ { "@type": "Person", "name": "Georgia Stavropoulou" }, { "@type": "Person", "name": "Athena Daniilidou" }, { "@type": "Person", "name": "Katerina Nerantzaki" } ], "publisher": { "@type": "Organization", "name": "F1000Research", "logo": { "@type": "ImageObject", "url": "https://f1000research.com/img/AMP/F1000Research_image.png", "height": 480, "width": 60 } }, "image": { "@type": "ImageObject", "url": "https://f1000research.com/img/AMP/F1000Research_image.png", "height": 1200, "width": 150 }, "description": " Background Motivational variables are of critical importance concerning students’ performance. The objective of the present study was to investigate the interrelationships between extrinsic and intrinsic motivation, self-efficacy, self-regulation, critical thinking, and academic performance among university students. Methods The participants were 250 students enrolled in university programs in education and psychology. The research instrument was a self-report questionnaire designed to assess intrinsic and extrinsic motivation, critical thinking, self-regulation, and academic achievement among university students. A path model analysis was employed to identify the relationships among the investigated variables. Results The results demonstrated that self-efficacy was predicted by intrinsic and extrinsic motivation, critical thinking was predicted by self-efficacy, and self-regulation was predicted by self-efficacy and critical thinking, thereby underscoring the pivotal role of self-efficacy. The findings indicate that academic achievement is predicted by critical thinking, and self-regulation, thereby underscoring the pivotal role of these variables in academic contexts. Conclusions The contributions of the present research are twofold, both theoretical and practical. On the one hand, the findings offer a more nuanced understanding of the interconnections between motivation, self-efficacy, critical thinking, and self-regulation. On the other hand, they provide valuable insights for developing educational strategies that enhance academic achievement by fostering these key factors. " } { "@context": "http://schema.org", "@type": "BreadcrumbList", "itemListElement": [ { "@type": "ListItem", "position": "1", "item": { "@id": "https://f1000research.com/", "name": "Home" } }, { "@type": "ListItem", "position": "2", "item": { "@id": "https://f1000research.com/browse/articles", "name": "Browse" } }, { "@type": "ListItem", "position": "3", "item": { "@id": "https://f1000research.com/articles/14-344", "name": "Exploring the Interplay of Motivation, Self-Efficacy, Critical Thinking,..." } } ] } Home Browse Exploring the Interplay of Motivation, Self-Efficacy, Critical Thinking,... ALL Metrics - Views Downloads Get PDF Get XML Cite How to cite this article Stavropoulou G, Daniilidou A and Nerantzaki K. Exploring the Interplay of Motivation, Self-Efficacy, Critical Thinking, and Self-Regulation in Predicting Academic Achievement Among University Students [version 2; peer review: 2 approved, 1 approved with reservations] . F1000Research 2025, 14 :344 ( https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.161821.2 ) NOTE: If applicable, it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article. Close Copy Citation Details Export Export Citation Sciwheel EndNote Ref. Manager Bibtex ProCite Sente EXPORT Select a format first Track Share ▬ ✚ Research Article Revised Exploring the Interplay of Motivation, Self-Efficacy, Critical Thinking, and Self-Regulation in Predicting Academic Achievement Among University Students [version 2; peer review: 2 approved, 1 approved with reservations] Georgia Stavropoulou https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8338-1878 1 , Athena Daniilidou 2 , Katerina Nerantzaki 1 Georgia Stavropoulou https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8338-1878 1 , Athena Daniilidou 2 , Katerina Nerantzaki 1 PUBLISHED 07 Jul 2025 Author details Author details 1 Aristoteleio Panepistemio Thessalonikes Philosophike Schole, Thessaloniki, Makedonia Thraki, Greece 2 Panepistemio Makedonias, Thessaloniki, Makedonia Thraki, Greece Georgia Stavropoulou Roles: Conceptualization, Data Curation, Formal Analysis, Methodology, Supervision, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing Athena Daniilidou Roles: Data Curation, Formal Analysis, Methodology, Writing – Original Draft Preparation Katerina Nerantzaki Roles: Data Curation, Formal Analysis, Methodology, Writing – Original Draft Preparation OPEN PEER REVIEW DETAILS REVIEWER STATUS This article is included in the HEAL1000 gateway. Abstract Background Motivational variables are of critical importance concerning students’ performance. The objective of the present study was to investigate the interrelationships between extrinsic and intrinsic motivation, self-efficacy, self-regulation, critical thinking, and academic performance among university students. Methods The participants were 250 students enrolled in university programs in education and psychology. The research instrument was a self-report questionnaire designed to assess intrinsic and extrinsic motivation, critical thinking, self-regulation, and academic achievement among university students. A path model analysis was employed to identify the relationships among the investigated variables. Results The results demonstrated that self-efficacy was predicted by intrinsic and extrinsic motivation, critical thinking was predicted by self-efficacy, and self-regulation was predicted by self-efficacy and critical thinking, thereby underscoring the pivotal role of self-efficacy. The findings indicate that academic achievement is predicted by critical thinking, and self-regulation, thereby underscoring the pivotal role of these variables in academic contexts. Conclusions The contributions of the present research are twofold, both theoretical and practical. On the one hand, the findings offer a more nuanced understanding of the interconnections between motivation, self-efficacy, critical thinking, and self-regulation. On the other hand, they provide valuable insights for developing educational strategies that enhance academic achievement by fostering these key factors. READ ALL READ LESS Keywords critical thinking, motivation, self-efficacy, self-regulation Corresponding Author(s) Georgia Stavropoulou ( [email protected] ) Close Corresponding author: Georgia Stavropoulou Competing interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Grant information: The author(s) declared that no grants were involved in supporting this work. Copyright: © 2025 Stavropoulou G et al . This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. How to cite: Stavropoulou G, Daniilidou A and Nerantzaki K. Exploring the Interplay of Motivation, Self-Efficacy, Critical Thinking, and Self-Regulation in Predicting Academic Achievement Among University Students [version 2; peer review: 2 approved, 1 approved with reservations] . F1000Research 2025, 14 :344 ( https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.161821.2 ) First published: 28 Mar 2025, 14 :344 ( https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.161821.1 ) Latest published: 07 Jul 2025, 14 :344 ( https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.161821.2 ) Revised Amendments from Version 1 It is evident that both versions of the manuscript present a valuable exploration of factors influencing students' motivation and learning outcomes. However, a closer analysis reveals differences in terms of clarity, depth, and organisation. The initial version established a robust foundation by identifying pertinent variables and proposing meaningful relationships among them. The authors demonstrated clear effort in conceptualizing the topic, and their intent to contribute to the field was evident. However, there were areas that required refinement, such as the need for more updated literature, clearer articulation of the research gap, and improved explanation of key constructs and methodology. The revised version built upon the strengths of the original by addressing the aforementioned concerns. It offered more precise definitions, better-structured arguments and a stronger theoretical framework. Furthermore, the methodology was refined, thereby enhancing the paper's overall coherence and flow. It is evident that both versions of the manuscript present a valuable exploration of factors influencing students' motivation and learning outcomes. However, a closer analysis reveals differences in terms of clarity, depth, and organisation. The initial version established a robust foundation by identifying pertinent variables and proposing meaningful relationships among them. The authors demonstrated clear effort in conceptualizing the topic, and their intent to contribute to the field was evident. However, there were areas that required refinement, such as the need for more updated literature, clearer articulation of the research gap, and improved explanation of key constructs and methodology. The revised version built upon the strengths of the original by addressing the aforementioned concerns. It offered more precise definitions, better-structured arguments and a stronger theoretical framework. Furthermore, the methodology was refined, thereby enhancing the paper's overall coherence and flow. See the authors' detailed response to the review by GU Mingyue Michelle and Lian Zhu See the authors' detailed response to the review by Tania Vieites READ REVIEWER RESPONSES Introduction A substantial body of education research has consistently demonstrated that prior academic performance is the most reliable predictor of future success ( Alyahyan & Düştegör, 2020 ; Zeegers, 2004 ). However, achieving academic success in higher education is a complex outcome influenced by a constellation of motivational and cognitive factors. While numerous studies have explored individual predictors such as prior academic performance, personality traits, or emotional engagement (e.g., Collie et al., 2017 ; Greene & Yu, 2016 ; Komarraju et al., 2011 ), less attention has been given to the integrated interplay among key constructs like motivation, self-efficacy, critical thinking, and self-regulation. These factors are especially critical in university settings, where students are expected to manage autonomy, engage in abstract reasoning, and adapt to increasingly self-directed learning environments ( Girelli et al., 2018 ). In this context the difficulties encountered by university students in attaining academic performance have long been a matter of grave concern for institutions of higher learning. In the context of higher education, academic success can be defined as the ability of students to successfully complete a given semester, which is a prerequisite for promotion to the subsequent academic year and the completion of the university program. A substantial body of education research has consistently demonstrated that prior academic performance is the most reliable predictor of future success (e.g., Alyahyan & Düştegör, 2020 ; McKenzie & Schweitzer, 2001 ; Zeegers, 2004 ). Moreover, studies in educational psychology have examined the relationship between various factors and academic achievement. These factors including adaptability, behavioral engagement (e.g., Collie et al., 2017 ), personality traits ( Komarraju et al., 2011 ; Laidra et al., 2007 ), self-efficacy ( Hwang et al., 2016 ; Liem et al., 2008 ), emotional engagement ( Gonida et al., 2009 ), self-regulation (e.g., Meece & Painter, 2012 ) and critical thinking ( Greene & Yu, 2016 ; Halpern, 2013 ). Motivation for academic success is inextricably linked to behaviors that facilitate effective learning and achievement (e.g., Hulleman et al., 2017 ). It comprises a robust motivation to complete tasks efficiently within a given context and to evaluate performance promptly. While extensive research has been conducted in elementary and secondary education regarding motivational variables and their impact on student performance (e.g., Stavropoulou et al., 2023 , 2025 ; Stavropoulou & Stamovlasis, 2024 , 2025 ; Friedel et al., 2007 ; Stamovlasis & Gonida, 2018 ; Wormington & Linnenbrink-Garcia, 2017 ), a notable gap exists in exploring these factors within the context of higher education. Specifically, research focusing on the interconnectedness of motivation, self-efficacy, self-regulation, and critical thinking in university students remains limited. This is a significant oversight, as these cognitive and motivational constructs are likely to play an equally, if not more, critical role in higher education, where it is anticipated that students will engage in complex learning tasks, develop autonomy, and apply critical thinking skills in more advanced and diverse academic settings (e.g., Washer, 2007 ). Despite the recognized importance of motivation, self-efficacy, and self-regulation in learning, the absence of comprehensive studies examining their specific impact on other thinking skills such as critical thinking in a university environment represents a clear research gap that needs to be addressed. Understanding how these factors interact in a university context could provide valuable insights into improving student engagement, performance, and academic success at the postsecondary level, and help educators design interventions that foster these key skills. In light of these considerations, the current study aimed to address this gap by examining the interrelationships between various motivational variables and their influence on academic achievement within a university setting. The study aims to provide a better understanding of how motivation interacts with important cognitive factors that contribute to student success. Literature review Defining motivation, self-efficacy, critical thinking, and self-regulation Motivation Motivation is a complex aspect of human psychology and behavior that influences several factors, including the allocation of time, the selection of learning tasks, the level of effort invested in a task, the thoughts and feelings associated with the task, the duration of persistence in completing the task, and the ability to overcome challenges encountered during the learning process ( Ryan & Deci, 2000b ). Moreover, motivation can be defined as a process that originates from either a psychological or physiological need. This need then initiates a behavior or drive directed toward a specific goal or incentive ( Ryan & Deci, 2017 , 2020 ). It is evident that learners ascribe divergent meanings and attitudes to the academic environment, which in turn inform their actions and channel their energy in a variety of directions. These invigorating and instructive influences are designated as motivation or the motivation to learn. Motivation has been identified as a crucial factor in the success of the teaching-learning process. As the term suggests, motivation is defined as the driving force behind all human action and behavior ( Ryan & Deci, 2017 , 2020 ). The Self-Determination Theory (SDT) framework proposes that learners are motivated by both intrinsic and extrinsic factors. Intrinsic motivation arises from within the individual and can be influenced by emotional, spiritual, biological, or social factors. In this form of motivation, no external rewards are sought; instead, activities are pursued for their inherent value and personal satisfaction ( Gagné & Deci, 2005 ; Ryan & Deci, 2000a , 2017 , 2020 ). It is often characterized by curiosity, interest, and a desire to overcome challenges, which can be influenced by both intrinsic and extrinsic factors ( Niemiec & Ryan, 2009 ). Intrinsic motivation refers to engaging in activities for their own sake, independent of external rewards, with the reward residing in the activity itself. This type of motivation represents a fundamental psychological drive for exploration, engagement, and mastery, key components of human development and lifelong learning ( Ryan & Deci, 2017 , 2020 ). Moreover, intrinsic motivators, apart from a profound interest in the subject matter, are characterized by a perception of its relevance to life and a sense of accomplishment in mastering it ( Cavallo et al., 2003 ; Matt & Dale, 2002 ). Such individuals engage deeply in mental and physical activities, maintaining a high level of focus and a clear understanding of their objectives. Such individuals are self-critical, capable of reflecting on their actions realistically, and typically approach learning with a relaxed attitude, not fearing failure. Those intrinsically motivated to learn seek to expand their knowledge base, deriving positive emotions from the process and often demonstrating a superior grasp of the subject matter. Intrinsic motivation is fundamental to most human learning processes and has a notably positive impact within formal education. The findings showed that intrinsic motivation to know and to accomplish were moderately strong predictors of positive student outcomes. Intrinsic motivation to experience stimulation was also positively linked to beneficial outcomes ( Howard et al., 2020 ). For example, Taylor et al. (2014) conducted a meta-analysis demonstrating the important role intrinsic motivation plays in enhancing academic performance. Likewise, Froiland and Worrell (2016) showed that intrinsic motivation increases student engagement, which subsequently contributes to improved GPA scores, while it has been also proved that it is associated with engagement ( Kotera et al., 2023 ). Conversely, extrinsic motivation has also been demonstrated to influence the learning process. Extrinsic motivation is defined as any stimulus that originates from external sources, potentially involving social cognition or operant conditioning, which prompts the student to engage in the learning process (see Chow & Yong, 2013 ; Hewett & Conway, 2016 ). In contrast to intrinsic motivation, which is autonomous and internalized, extrinsic motivation is dependent on external incentives, pressures, or consequences ( Ryan & Deci, 2020 ). For instance, a student driven by the aspiration to attain a commendable grade or to circumvent failure is regarded as being extrinsically motivated. In competitive settings, students frequently participate in activities with the objective of outperforming others rather than for the sake of pure enjoyment, which also reflects extrinsic motivation ( Featherstone & Habgood, 2019 ). Consequently, the promotion of competition or collaboration among students is frequently regarded as a strategy to enhance extrinsic motivation in learning environments. Intrinsic motivation is often more influential than extrinsic motivation because it originates from within the learner and is unaffected by external factors. Intrinsic motivation can also be more enduring and self-perpetuating than extrinsic motivation, which lasts less because removing rewards or punishments results in a loss of motivation among students ( Matt & Dale, 2002 ). Extrinsic rewards may negatively influence intrinsic motivation. Individuals motivated extrinsically depend entirely on rewards and desirable outcomes for their drive ( Lei, 2010 ). Consequently, students with external motivation are likelier to perform at a lower academic level than intrinsically motivated students ( Lei, 2010 ). Previous research has demonstrated that learners with stronger motivations for learning tend to achieve better learning outcomes ( Giesbers et al., 2013 ; Sansone et al., 2012 ). Motivation has been widely acknowledged as a pivotal factor influencing academic behavior, with many theories striving to elucidate and explain the motivational processes that culminate in academic outcomes, particularly achievement. It is of paramount importance to motivate learners in order to ensure effective curriculum implementation, as motivation has a significant impact on the dynamics of teaching and learning ( Harackiewicz et al., 2002 ; Pintrich, 2004 ; Urdan & Kaplan, 2020 ). The extent to which the learning process is effective is contingent upon the level of motivation exhibited by the learners, which propels them toward attaining their educational goals. It is imperative to recognize that fostering motivation is fundamental to effective teaching ( Hulleman et al., 2017 ; Senko & Dawson, 2017 ; Stavropoulou et al., 2023 ; Urdan & Kaplan, 2020 ). A crucial aspect of understanding motivation is also the concept of self-efficacy. Self-efficacy The significance of self-efficacy beliefs in shaping human behavior is well-recognized within the framework of social cognitive theory ( Bandura, 1997 , 2006 ). The motivational influence of perceived self-efficacy and its ability to predict performance or interest in different areas, including academics, has been well established from a substantial body of empirical evidence, along with numerous meta-analytic studies ( Bandura & Locke, 2003 ; García-Martín & García-Sánchez 2018 ; Panadero et al., 2017 ). Bandura (1997) , Schunk and Pajares (2005) defined perceived self-efficacy as an individual’s belief in their ability to learn or perform tasks at specific levels. Self-efficacy beliefs influence people’s decisions and actions, determining the amount of effort they invest in an activity and their persistence when facing challenges and it has been proved to be one of the most influential factors that predict academic achievement ( Alhadabi & Karpinski, 2020 ; Celik, 2022 ; Sheu et al., 2018 ). Additionally, they influence how individuals perceive themselves, pivotal in forming the self-concept ( Bong & Skaalvik, 2003 ) and assuming individuals possess sufficient skills and other motivational factors are favorable, self-efficacy plays a crucial role in driving strong motivational outcomes ( Schunk & DiBenedetto, 2020 ). Various sources can influence individuals’ beliefs regarding their efficacy. Mastery experiences are the most efficacious methods for developing a robust sense of efficacy, as successes bolster confidence in one’s abilities. Conversely, failures can erode this belief, mainly if they occur before a robust sense of efficacy has been firmly established ( Bandura & Wessels, 1997 ; Schunk & DiBenedetto, 2020 ). Nevertheless, self-efficacy beliefs may be accurate or inaccurate reflections of an individual’s competence. Individuals may engage in self-enhancing or self-limiting cognitive processes when these beliefs are demonstrably inaccurate (e.g., Bouffard et al., 2003 ; Schunk & DiBenedetto, 2020 ). In an educational context, students may either overestimate or underestimate their self-efficacy relative to their actual academic abilities. In other words, their self-evaluation of their academic skills can be affected by either a positive or negative bias, leading to an inflated sense of their abilities or a lack of confidence in their competencies ( Bouffard et al., 2003 ; Schunk & DiBenedetto, 2020 ). Motivation and self-efficacy have been demonstrated to relate to other abilities that engage in the learning process, including critical thinking. Critical thinking The capacity for critical thinking is also a crucial component of the academic process. Critical thinking involves applying previous knowledge to unfamiliar situations, challenges, decisions, or criteria for excellence. Critical thinking is elucidated as the application of cognitive skills or strategies with the objective of achieving long-term desired outcomes through goal-directed, “high-level” cognitive processes such as judgment, analysis, and synthesis of information ( Halpern, 2013 ). In order to assess the quality of an argument effectively, it is necessary to evaluate a number of factors, including the logic employed, the strength of the evidence presented, the credibility of the sources used, the identity of the person making the argument, and the potential for counterarguments to be made ( Greene & Yu, 2016 ). Specifically, it involves analyzing, assessing, and solving problems ( Rodzalan & Saat, 2015 ; Jatmiko et al., 2018 ). A critical thinking process is systematic and structured, whereby conclusions are formulated and assessed based on evidence, assumptions, and justifiable logic ( Sari et al., 2019 ). Critical thinking is an essential intellectual process, without which the understanding of scientific concepts would be severely impeded. It enables students to analyze their thoughts effectively, make informed choices, and conclude intelligently. Developing critical thinking skills allows students to navigate natural and social environments with practical and effective expertise. The advancement of critical thinking skills necessitates a rational and systematic approach. The process entails continuously observing and analyzing similarities, differences, and causal relationships ( Florea & Hurjui, 2015 ). It is paramount for students to develop critical thinking skills, as this enables them to swiftly discern reliable information, focus on practical learning and become attuned to real-world situations. Consequently, critical thinking is paramount in addressing traditional learning challenges, such as knowledge transfer and applying problem-solving skills in unfamiliar contexts. In many countries, educational systems have increasingly emphasized creativity, critical thinking, problem-solving, and decision-making as essential in advancing 21st-century education ( Wechsler et al., 2018 ). Therefore, this shift, which facilitates the growth of critical thinking skills, has transformed the concept of traditional education and advanced it towards a more modern approach. The development of critical thinking is contingent upon interaction with other individuals engaged in the same process of critical thinking. In order to make logical decisions and select the optimal course of action, it is essential to analyze data and apply critical thinking skills ( Greene & Yu, 2016 ). It is of interest to examine the association between critical thinking and self-regulation. Similarly, the capacity for self-regulation is similarly of great consequence in academic contexts. Self-regulation Specifically, self-regulation is the process by which students generate their thoughts and behaviors in a structured way in order to achieve their learning goals. This type of learning involves goal-directed actions that students initiate, adapt, and maintain. Examples include paying attention in class, processing information and relating new knowledge to what they already know, and creating compelling social interactions and productive work environments ( Pintrich & De Groot, 1990 ). Self-regulated learning aligns with the view that students are not passive receivers of information but rather active participants in setting and pursuing their learning goals, taking responsibility for their own achievement ( Meece & Painter, 2012 ; Pintrich & De Groot, 1990 ). Self-regulated behavior involves making choices between different courses of action, often by delaying immediate gratification in favor of a greater reward in the future. Self-regulated learning requires that students understand the task’s requirements, recognize their abilities, and use effective strategies to complete the task. Notably, as students enter adolescence, they must develop self-regulated academic competence that enables them to systematically adjust their strategies in response to changes in various conditions ( Bandura, 1997 ). The ability to self-regulate one’s thoughts and actions is essential for effective learning and academic achievement (e.g., Corno & Mandinach, 1983 ). Self-regulation includes multiple components. To begin with, self-regulated learning involves students applying metacognitive strategies to plan, observe, and adapt their thought processes (e.g., Zimmerman & Pons, 1988 ). A key aspect of self-regulated learning is students’ ability to manage and regulate their effort when working on academic tasks in the classroom. For example, skilled students who persevere through challenging tasks or block out distractions can maintain cognitive focus, improving performance. Moreover, a third important element of self-regulated learning, highlighted by some researchers, is the cognitive strategies students employ to understand, retain, and process information ( Corno & Mandinach, 1983 ; Zimmerman & Pons, 1988 ). Self-regulated learning involves self-directed processes and beliefs that allow learners to convert their cognitive abilities into academic skills. It is understood as a proactive strategy that students employ to develop academic skills, including setting goals, choosing and applying strategies, and monitoring their effectiveness, rather than being a passive response to external forces. Although self-regulated learning is especially important in self-directed activities like discovery learning, self-selected reading, or online research, it is also crucial in social learning environments, such as seeking assistance from peers, parents, or teachers. The key factor is whether a learner shows personal initiative, perseverance, and adaptability. These proactive qualities emerge from positive motivational beliefs, emotions, and metacognitive strategies. Relationship among motivation, self-efficacy, critical thinking, and self-regulation Self-efficacy with motivation, critical thinking, and self-regulation All of the above variables play an essential role in the academic environment. Self-efficacy is related to motivation ( Pintrich & De Groot, 1990 ) and especially to intrinsic motivation ( Bandura, 1997 ; Greene et al., 2004 ; Walker et al., 2006 ). Moreover, when someone has high self-efficacy and high motivation, there is better performance ( McGeown et al., 2012 ). Conversely, there is poorer performance when there is low self-efficacy ( Wolters et al., 2014 ). Self-efficacy is arguably one of the most significant predictors of performance. It not only influences the level of effort and persistence an individual invests in challenges but also significantly affects their motivation and approach to overcoming obstacles and attaining success (e.g., Liem et al., 2008 ; Pajares, 2003 ). Research on the relationship between self-efficacy and critical thinking is still in infancy. Recent efforts have been made to explore and facilitate the establishment between these two concepts. Critical thinking is also related to self-efficacy. Specifically, self-efficacy may influence critical thinking because people with high levels of self-efficacy tend to be more diligent in their learning and less inferior in any situation ( Ng et al., 2016 ). Phan (2007) found that academic self-efficacy positively influenced comprehension and reflection but not critical thinking ( Leung & Kember, 2003 ). Students with high self-efficacy are more likely to engage in learning that challenges their assumptions, beliefs, and perceptions. In studies related to self-regulation, only Panadero and colleagues ( Panadero et al., 2012 , 2013 ) appear to have examined the effects of rubric, script, and exemplar feedback on performance, self-efficacy, and self-regulation. Their findings indicated that feedback did not significantly affect self-regulation, and only process-oriented feedback led to increased self-efficacy. Some research has examined the relationship between students’ views of assessment and self-regulation. Students who view assessment as a tool for improvement tend to exhibit adaptive self-regulatory behaviors, such as higher achievement, more effort on tests, and better attendance on voluntary test days. In contrast, those who view assessment as something to be ignored often display maladaptive behaviors. Feedback related to assess performance enhances academic self-efficacy and self-regulatory processes, which in turn affect future learning and achievement ( Brown, 2011 ). In addition, higher academic self-efficacy is positively associated with effective self-regulated learning ( Richardson et al., 2012 ). Academic self-efficacy and self-regulated learning are related to beliefs about competence and control ( Schunk & Zimmerman, 2006 ), contributing to higher achievement. Furthermore, students with high self-efficacy in reading and writing are more likely to use deep or strategic study approaches. In contrast, those with low self-efficacy tend to use surface approaches. Notably, changes in student study methods are related to their self-efficacy beliefs. Students with lower self-efficacy show a decrease in deep study approaches and an increase in surface approaches over time. Critical thinking and motivation Engaging in a task for intrinsic motivations such as interest, mastery, or challenge is associated with “deeper” information processing ( Cavallo et al., 2003 ; Matt & Dale, 2002 ). In contrast, engagement for extrinsic reasons, such as demonstrating one’s ability, earning good grades, or outperforming others, is associated with more superficial processing (e.g., Chow & Yong, 2013 ; Niemiec & Ryan, 2009 ; Ryan & Deci, 2000a ). Research has highlighted the vital role of motivation in students’ cognitive engagement. Critical thinking represents higher-order cognitive engagement. It can be reasonably deduced that students who utilize deep learning strategies will exhibit a higher degree of critical thinking than those who rely on surface-level strategies. Critical thinking is shaped by student motivation, learning strategies, and classroom dynamics ( Ames & Archer, 1988 ; Nolen, 1988 ). Students who work together in small peer groups tend to show greater cognitive engagement. In addition, motivation and the authenticity of the problems posed are critical to fostering critical thinking. Motivated students are more diligent in their search for the correct solution, which increases their focus and enables them to filter out irrelevant information and focus only on what is necessary. When faced with authentic problems requiring innovative solutions, students are motivated to work beyond the classroom. They engage in hypothesis generation, analysis, synthesis, evaluation and the real-time presentation of their findings. However, critical thinking skills are usually low in learning environments ( Din, 2020 ). Self-regulation with motivation and critical thinking The implementation of self-regulation strategies has been demonstrated to be a significant predictor of academic performance, as well as a contributing factor in the evaluation of proactive learning efforts by educators ( Zimmerman & Martinez-Pons, 1988 ). The variables that comprise academic performance include internal locus of control, intrinsic motivation, and perceived self-efficacy. The self-regulation variable demonstrates a robust correlation with motivation, indicating that elevated levels of self-regulation are associated with heightened motivation ( Zimmerman, 2008 ). This also supports the idea that self-regulation moderates the relationship between achievement and motivation ( Zimmerman, 2008 ). The scores related to learning outcomes and performance strongly correlate with all aspects of self-regulation and motivation except for external regulation. This suggests that students are not driven to learn by external pressures or to satisfy essential adults, such as parents or teachers ( Daniela, 2015 ). Daniela (2015) also highlighted students’ recognition of their responsibility for personal development. Greater self-confidence fosters internal motivation, enabling students to regulate their internal processes, validate their results against appropriate standards, and exceed their academic performance. Thus, academic performance improves when individuals know their goals, regulate and control their impulses, follow the rules, prefer careful planning, and demonstrate perseverance to succeed. Consequently, when students align with internal values, follow their satisfaction standards, and view learning as necessary, they achieve higher academic success. Positive beliefs about the academic institution, the performance of activities, and the pursuit of goals are associated with high academic achievement. Furthermore, confidence in their ability to mobilize cognitive resources and motivation necessary for task completion is strongly correlated with high academic achievement ( Daniela, 2015 ). Self-regulated learning competence significantly impacts students’ academic performance, making it one of the most important transferable skills that schools should prioritize in their curriculum. Firstly, it enhances motivation and facilitates student autonomy in the learning process. Secondly, it indirectly encourages positive behavioral changes and improves overall academic performance ( Daniela, 2015 ). Additionally, there is a dynamic interaction between self-regulatory skills and the capacity for critical thinking ( Phan, 2010 ). Phan (2010) posited that critical thinking, as a cognitive practice, serves to bolster self-regulation in the context of learning and teaching. Moreover, he posited that the complex interplay between these elements facilitates individual growth and development. Zimmerman (1990) argued that skills related to evaluation and reflective thinking are vital components of self-regulation. According to Zimmerman (1990) , self-regulated students actively engage in their learning process through motivational, behavioral, and metacognitive efforts. These students demonstrate persistence, dedication in their studies, and high self-efficacy and intrinsic interest levels. In their metacognitive processes, self-regulated learners engage in goal setting, progress monitoring, and learning evaluation. Such an approach enables learners to develop self-awareness and to make informed decisions regarding their learning methodology ( Zimmerman, 1990 ). The capacity for self-awareness and self-evaluation are inextricably linked to individuals’ abilities to reason and reflect, which in turn constitute aspects of their critical thinking abilities. Critical thinking represents an advanced form of reflective thinking, entailing a more profound understanding of the underlying factors that shape our perceptions and influence our emotions and actions ( Phan, 2008 ). Self-efficacy is a critical determinant of the utilization of deep processing strategies ( Fenollar et al., 2007 ), and is associated with achievement goals, deep processing strategies, critical thinking ( Phan, 2007 ), and academic performance. Furthermore, evidence indicates that self-efficacy plays a significant role in influencing academic performance. Self-regulation plays a crucial role in enhancing critical thinking because it involves deliberate reflection, evaluation, and adjustment of one’s thinking strategies during problem-solving and decision-making. Research shows that students with strong self-regulatory skills tend to engage more deeply with learning materials, exhibit greater persistence, and apply higher-order thinking skills, all of which are essential components of critical thinking ( Ayhan & Payan, 2023 ; Tunçeli et al., 2022 ). Thus, self-regulation acts as a foundational process that supports the development and application of critical thinking in academic contexts. The motivation exhibited by students is generally correlated with their utilization of specific self-regulatory processes ( Schunk & Zimmerman, 2007 ). For instance, Schmitz and Wiese (2006) reported significant gains from self-regulated across various motivational measures, including intrinsic motivation for studying, self-efficacy, effort, attention, self-motivation, managing distractions, and reducing procrastination. Motivational orientation and self-efficacy beliefs ( Bandura, 1997 ) have been recognized as individual difference factors linked to students’ study approaches ( Entwistle et al., 2000 ), academic performance ( Bong, 2001 ; Lane et al., 2004 ; Richardson et al., 2012 ), and self-regulated learning ( Daniela, 2015 ; Meece & Painter, 2012 ; Pintrich & De Groot, 1990 ; Schunk & Zimmerman, 1997 ). Recent research in the field of education has focused on four vital theoretical factors: (1) achievement goals, (2) self-efficacy, (3) critical thinking, and (4) study processing strategies. These motivational factors have been identified as a significant predictor and mediator of academic achievement outcomes ( Bandura, 1997 ; Elliot et al., 1999 ). Aim and research hypotheses A growing body of research has highlighted the complex relationship between motivational factors and academic performance. Self-efficacy, in particular, has emerged as a key predictor of various educational behaviors and cognitive processes ( Bandura, 1997 ; Greene et al., 2004 ; Walker et al., 2006 ). Specifically, a strong correlation has been observed between self-efficacy and motivation, particularly intrinsic motivation. This suggests that students who believe in their academic abilities are more likely to be self-motivated and committed to learning. Consequently, both extrinsic and intrinsic motivation are expected to predict students’ self-efficacy. Furthermore, a substantial body of research has investigated the relationship between motivational factors and academic performance in higher education (see Agustina et al., 2021 ; Stavropoulou et al., 2024 ; Pestana et al., 2023 ), indicating the association between motivation and academic performance. Although extensive research has examined the individual roles of motivation, self-efficacy and critical thinking in academic contexts, fewer studies have investigated their interdependent effects using an integrative model, especially in diverse cultural and educational settings. Although motivation is widely recognized as a key factor in student performance, the interaction between different types of motivation and cognitive and self-regulatory mechanisms in influencing academic achievement remains unclear. Moreover, much of the existing literature tends to consider motivation, self-efficacy, critical thinking and self-regulation separately, overlooking the dynamic relationships between them. Another key gap lies in the limited empirical attention given to how self-efficacy functions as a mediating construct linking motivational factors to higher-order thinking and self-regulated learning strategies. High self-efficacy has been associated with deeper engagement, lower academic anxiety, and more frequent use of deep processing strategies ( Fenollar et al., 2007 ; Phan, 2007 ), which are essential for critical thinking and academic performance. Yet, the mechanisms by which motivation translates into academic success through self-efficacy and critical thinking remain insufficiently theorized and tested. Moreover, although motivation is often emphasized as the most crucial factor influencing student learning outcomes, the justification for prioritizing motivation over other variables in academic research is often underdeveloped. In the current study, motivation is foregrounded not only because of its predictive power but also due to its foundational role in activating and sustaining the cognitive and metacognitive strategies that underpin learning success. Motivation is the catalyst that initiates and directs effort, making it the logical starting point for exploring the psychological pathways that lead to academic achievement. In response to these gaps, the present study aims to contribute to the literature by proposing and empirically testing a path model that integrates intrinsic and extrinsic motivation, self-efficacy, critical thinking, self-regulation, and academic achievement. This approach enables a more holistic understanding of the psychological mechanisms underpinning student performance in higher education. Importantly, the study is situated within a specific cultural and institutional context where such integrative models have not been extensively tested, thereby adding contextual depth to the existing body of knowledge. Based on the preceding discussion, four interrelated hypotheses were proposed: - Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation would positively predict self-efficacy (Hypothesis 1) - Self-efficacy would serve as a predictor of critical thinking (Hypothesis 2) - Critical thinking and self-efficacy would positively predict self-regulation (Hypothesis 3) - Critical thinking, and self-regulation would positively predict achievement (Hypothesis 4) Hypotheses are grounded in established theory, considering the relevant literature and the specific context of the current study. The proposed design and hypotheses offer a fresh perspective on academic achievement, and the anticipated findings are expected to further contribute to the theoretical foundations of the field. Method Participants The current study’s participants were 250 undergraduate students enrolled in Education and Psychology study programs at Greek universities, specifically at the Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, the University of Western Macedonia in Florina, and the University of Macedonia in Thessaloniki. Since these two departments are in the social sciences, they were chosen because students are taught similar courses. The sample comprised 36 males (14.4%) and 214 females (85.6%). Their age varied from 18 to 57 years, with a mean of 24.97 years (SD = 10.73). Regarding their academic year, 62 (24.8%) students were in their first year, 77 (30.8%) students were in their second year, 66 (26.4%) students were in their third year, and 45 (18%) students were in their fourth year and more. Academic performance in Greek universities is assessed from 1 to 10, where 5 is a grade when you pass the exam. The academic performance of our sample varied from 5.70 to 9.80, with an average grade of 8.04 (SD = .84). Measures Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire (MSLQ) The Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire (MSLQ) by Pintrich (1991) is a self-report instrument designed to assess college students’ motivational orientations and their utilization of diverse learning strategies in the context of a college course. The questionnaire consists of 33 items, and participants respond on a 7-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (absolutely disagree) to 7 (absolutely agree). Precisely, it consists of 4 items referring to intrinsic goal orientations (e.g., In a class like this, I prefer course material that arouses my curiosity, even if it is challenging to learn. ), 4 items referring to extrinsic goal orientations (e.g., Getting a good grade in this class is the most satisfying thing for me right now.) , 8 items referring to self-efficacy (e.g. I believe I will receive an excellent grade in this class. ), 5 items referring to critical thinking (e.g., I often find myself questioning things I hear or read in this course to decide if I find them convincing. ) and 12 referring to self-regulation (e.g., When reading for this course, I make up questions to help focus my reading.). This instrument has already been translated in Greek ( Andreou & Metallidou, 2004 ). The MSLQ was used as it has been translated into numerous languages and is utilized by researchers and educators globally ( Duncan & McKeachie, 2005 ). The MSLQ is a valuable and reliable tool that can be adapted for various purposes for researchers, educators, and learners. Extrinsic and intrinsic motivation The questionnaire used by Pintrich (1991) measured extrinsic and intrinsic motivation. The model structure was assessed using confirmatory factor analysis, and the fit to the data was found to be good (χ 2 (19) = 75.17, p < .001, CFI = .887, GFI = .994, SRMR = .060, CI 90% [0.084-0.135], RMSEA = .109). The reliability of the subscales was satisfactory: intrinsic motivation α = .754 and extrinsic motivation α = .72. Self-efficacy The model structure was assessed using confirmatory factor analysis, and the fit to the data was found to be satisfactory (χ 2 (20) = 186.144, p < .001, CFI = .883, GFI = .974, SRMR = .054, CI90% [0.159-0.207], RMSEA = .182). The reliability of the subscale of self-efficacy was high, α = .92. Critical thinking The model structure was assessed using confirmatory factor analysis, and the fit to the data was found to be good (χ 2 (5) = 44.156, p < .001, CFI = .936, GFI = .988, SRMR = .046, CI90% [0.131-0.227], RMSEA = .177). The reliability of the subscale of critical thinking was good, α = .86. Self-regulation The model structure was assessed using confirmatory factor analysis, and the fit to the data was found to be good (χ 2 (27) = 62.216, p < .001, CFI = .954, GFI = .993, SRMR = .039, CI90% [0.049-0.096], RMSEA = .072). The reliability of the subscale of self-regulation was good α = .86. Achievement In addition, the survey included a question asking students to report their average grade across all previously completed courses. They were instructed to provide their exact average if they knew it, or to estimate it as accurately as possible (e.g. by entering an approximate value, such as 7.5). This self-reported average grade was used as a proxy for academic achievement in the statistical analysis. In line with standard practice, this measure was treated as a grade point average (GPA) on a 10-point scale, consistent with the grading system used in the institutional context of the study. Although self-reported grades may involve some estimation error, previous studies have demonstrated their strong correlation with official records, rendering them valid indicators in large-scale educational research where access to official transcripts is not feasible. Procedure The recruitment process entailed the transmission of secure email invitations via Google Forms and distributing questionnaires in person at the participating universities. Before completing the primary self-report questionnaires, students had to consent and furnish demographic data. In order to ensure the protection of anonymity and compliance with the standards of confidentiality of the respondents, rigorous measures were implemented throughout the data collection process. All participants were adults who consented to participate in the study and to the publication of the findings. This procedure was conducted after obtaining approval from the Research Ethics Committee and in strict adherence to the ethical guidelines set forth by the American Psychological Association (APA) and the European Union’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) regarding the management of sensitive personal data. Participants were recruited with care, and data collection was conducted over four months, from March to June 2024, strictly adhering to ethical standards and regulatory requirements. Data analyses Preliminary analyses were conducted using IBM SPSS (Version 26) to explore the relationships between motivation, self-efficacy, self-regulation, critical thinking, and academic achievement. These analyses also aimed to determine the suitability of parametric tests. The procedures included descriptive statistics and intercorrelation analyses, examining means, standard deviations, skewness, kurtosis, and correlations. Path analysis was employed using JASP ( https://jasp-stats.org/ ) to develop a model that explains the relationships between motivation, self-efficacy, self-regulation, critical thinking, and academic achievement. To evaluate the strength of the connections between variables, we computed standardized path coefficients (β), standard error (SE), and two-tailed p-values (considered significant at <.05). Additionally, to determine if the data aligned with our proposed model, we calculated several fit criteria, including the Chi-square test of model fit divided by degrees of freedom (χ2/df ) < 5, and additional fit indices such as the comparative fit index (CFI), goodness of fit index (GFI), Tucker–Lewis index (TLI), root-mean-square error approximation (RMSEA), and standardized root mean square residual (SRMR). Path analysis was applied to create a model explaining the relationships between motivation, self-efficacy, critical thinking and self-regulation academic performance via JASP. To assess the strength of the paths between two variables, we calculated the standardized (β) path coefficients, the standard error (SE), and two-tailed p values (significant at <.05). In addition, to investigate whether the data fit our hypothetical model, we calculated several criteria, including values of the Chi-square test of model fit divided by degrees of freedom (χ2/df ) < 5 and supplement fit indices such as comparative fit index (CFI), goodness of fit index (GFI), Tucker–Lewis index (TLI), the root-mean-square error approximation (RMSEA), and standardized root mean square residual (SRMR). Path analysis is an appropriate methodological choice because it allows for the simultaneous analysis of multiple predictors, supporting its widespread use in motivational research and educational psychology (e.g., Zeynali et al., 2019 ; Kulakow, 2020 ). The data are available at OSF repository ( Stavropoulou et al., 2025 ). Results Statistical analyses To initiate the analysis, descriptive statistics were utilized to provide a comprehensive overview of the principal measures for each variable. These statistics facilitate the comprehension of the dataset, providing insights that establish a foundational understanding. The results of this preliminary analyses are presented in Table 1 , which provides detailed information on specific measures, including the mean, standard deviation, minimum, and maximum values for each variable. This table provides a valuable point of reference for interpreting the subsequent analysis. Table 1. Descriptive measures for intrinsic motivation, extrinsic motivation, self-efficacy, critical thinking, self-regulation and achievement. Descriptive statistics Intrinsic motivation Extrinsic motivation Self efficacy Critical thinking Self regulation Achievement Valid 250 250 250 250 250 249 Missing 0 0 0 0 0 1 Mean 5.491 4.693 4.960 4.402 4.954 8.044 Std. Deviation 1.006 1.267 1.092 1.304 0.998 0.840 Skewness -0.676 -0.419 -0.213 -0.312 -0.252 -0.338 Std. Error of Skewness 0.154 0.154 0.154 0.154 0.154 0.154 Kurtosis 0.353 -0.055 0.179 -0.166 -0.193 -0.746 Std. Error of Kurtosis 0.307 0.307 0.307 0.307 0.307 0.307 Minimum 2.000 1.000 1.125 1.000 1.900 5.700 Maximum 7.000 7.000 7.000 7.000 7.000 9.800 Path analysis was used to explore the relationships among the variables under investigation. Table 2 shows the correlation matrix of the latent variables, and Table 3 presents the regression coefficients of the path model. The correlations among the variables under investigation were low, medium, and firm positive. Table 2. Correlations between intrinsic motivation, extrinsic motivation, self-efficacy, critical thinking, self-regulation, and achievement. Variable Intrinsic motivation Extrinsic motivation Self-efficacy Critical thinking Self regulation Achievement Intrinsic motivation — Extrinsic motivation 0.164 * — Self-efficacy 0.565 *** 0.194 ** — Critical thinking 0.534 *** 0.035 0.512 *** — Self-regulation 0.561 *** 0.144 * 0.588 *** 0.540 *** — Achievement 0.365 *** 0.076 0.427 *** 0.374 *** 0.400 *** — * p < .05. ** p < .01. *** p < .001. Table 3. Regression coefficients among the variables under investigation. Predictor Outcome Estimate Std. Error z-value p Lower Upper Self-efficacy Critical thinking 0.370 0.074 5.010 <.001 0.225 0.514 Intrinsic motivation Critical thinking 0.466 0.080 5.814 <.001 0.309 0.622 Self-efficacy 0.594 0.057 10.426 <.001 0.482 0.706 Extrinsic motivation Self-efficacy 0.090 0.045 1.994 0.046 0.002 0.179 Critical Thinking Self-regulation 0.185 0.044 4.196 <.001 0.099 0.271 Self-efficacy Self-regulation 0.295 0.054 5.475 <.001 0.190 0.401 Intrinsic motivation Self-regulation 0.248 0.059 4.162 <.001 0.131 0.364 Critical thinking Achievement 0.143 0.044 3.297 <.001 0.058 0.229 Self-regulation Achievement 0.235 0.057 4.126 <.001 0.123 0.346 Figure 1 shows the path model that includes direct and indirect effects, with self-efficacy, critical thinking and self-regulation acting as mediators. The model has good fit measure indices: χ 2 = 16.339, df = 5, p < .01; CFI = 0.998; TLI = 0.973; RMSEA = 0.095; 90% CI of RMSEA = [0.046; 0.149]; SRMR = 0.037; NNFI = 0.924; GFI = 0.999]. Figure 1. The path model describing the effects of academic factors in academic achievement. Figure 1 illustrates the path model that elucidates the impact of extrinsic and intrinsic motivation, self-efficacy, critical thinking, and self-regulation on academic achievement. The R 2 values for the dependent variable indicate that the most significant predictors are SlE (32.9%), CrT (35%), and SlR (46.1%). As illustrated in Figure 1 , the interrelationships between the variables and their respective effects are evident. The prediction of academic achievement is directly attributable to critical thinking ( b = .14, p < .001), and self-regulation (b = .24, p < .001). Self-efficacy is directly predicted by extrinsic motivation ( b = .09, p < .05) and intrinsic motivation ( b = .59, p < .001). The influence of intrinsic motivation ( b = .25, p < .01) and self-efficacy ( b = .37, p <.001) on critical thinking is direct. In conclusion, self-regulation is directly influenced by intrinsic motivation ( b = .25, p < .01), critical thinking ( b = .19, p < .001), and self-efficacy ( b = .30, p < .001). Discussion The present study employed path analysis to investigate the complex relationships between extrinsic motivation, intrinsic motivation, self-efficacy, critical thinking, self-regulation, and academic achievement. By analyzing both intrinsic (internal desire to learn) and extrinsic (external rewards or pressures) motivation, as well as self-efficacy (belief in one’s ability to succeed), the study explored how these motivational constructs impact critical thinking and self-regulation—key cognitive processes that contribute to academic success. While previous research has examined some of these variables in isolation this study tries to investigate their collective influence on academic achievement through a comprehensive path model. The findings provide important information into how these interconnected factors shape overall academic achievement, offering a comprehensive understanding of their roles within the educational context. This integrated approach contributes a new perspective to the literature by demonstrating not only the direct effects of motivational constructs but also their indirect influence through self-regulatory and cognitive mechanisms. The results offer significant insights into the interactions and contributions of these variables to our comprehension of the factors influencing academic achievement. The correlations among the latent variables exhibited varying strengths of association. Self-regulation exhibited a strong correlation with critical-thinking and self-efficacy. These findings are consistent with existing literature (e.g., Ayhan & Payan, 2023 ; Richardson et al., 2012 ; Tunçeli et al., 2022 ), indicating that students with higher levels of self-regulation tend to engage in more critical thinking and have greater confidence in their abilities (self-efficacy). Similarly, intrinsic motivation demonstrated strong correlations with self-efficacy and critical thinking, indicating that individuals with intrinsic motivation tend to exhibit higher self-belief and a proclivity for critical thinking. This finding is also consistent with the existing literature on the association between motivational variables and self-efficacy. For example, Greene et al. (2004) , Pintrich and De Groot (1990) , Stavropoulou et al. (2023) , and Walker et al. (2006) have all demonstrated this relationship. Furthermore, critical thinking is associated with motivation, as evidenced by the findings of Ames and Archer (1988) and Nolen (1988) . However, the present study builds on this foundation by revealing the strength and direction of these associations within a single analytical model, illustrating how critical thinking and self-regulation function as key mediators in the pathway from motivation to academic achievement. In contrast, the correlation between extrinsic motivation and the other variables was relatively weak. For instance, the correlation between extrinsic motivation and self-regulation was relatively low, indicating that external rewards or pressures may not significantly contribute to self-regulatory behaviors compared to intrinsic factors. The weaker relationship with other constructs, such as critical thinking and academic achievement, further supports the notion that extrinsic motivation plays a less central role in fostering higher-order thinking skills and academic success than intrinsic motivation and self-efficacy. These findings align with prior research indicating that students who adopt extrinsic motivation tend to exert less effort, given their limited knowledge ( Matt & Dale, 2002 ). Consequently, the learning outcomes are often immediate ( Ryan & Deci, 2017 , 2020 ). This result supports Self-Determination Theory ( Deci & Ryan, 1985 ), which suggests that extrinsic motivation is less effective than intrinsic motivation in promoting deep learning and sustained engagement. Learners motivated by personal interest or internalized goals are more likely to use metacognitive strategies and engage in complex thinking, whereas extrinsic rewards often lead to superficial effort. The current findings confirm that, when intrinsic motivation and self-efficacy are strong, extrinsic motivation contributes little to explaining self-regulation or critical thinking, highlighting the need to prioritize autonomous motivation in educational contexts. The path analysis provides a more nuanced understanding of the relationships among these variables. Self-efficacy emerged as a critical predictor across multiple pathways. Not only did it significantly influence self-regulation, but it was also a strong predictor of critical thinking. The model revealed that self-efficacy significantly predicted both self-regulation and critical thinking, consistent with Zimmerman’s (2000) model of self-regulated learning. Theoretical and empirical literature (e.g., Schunk & DiBenedetto, 2020 ) suggests that students with strong self-efficacy beliefs are more likely to engage in complex reasoning, question assumptions, and apply evidence-based logic, which are hallmarks of critical thinking. In this sense, self-efficacy serves not only as a motivational driver but also as a cognitive enabler, empowering learners to regulate their academic behaviors and think critically. These findings suggest that self-efficacy serves as a central mechanism by which constructs such as motivation and thinking skills translate into academic success and are in line with the literature (e.g., Richardson et al., 2012 ; Liem et al., 2008 ; McGeown et al., 2012 ; Ng et al., 2016 ; Stavropoulou et al., 2023 , 2024 ; Wolters et al., 2014 ). This reinforces the importance of self-efficacy as not merely a background factor but a driving force that directly impacts learners’ capacity for strategic thinking and autonomy, an insight that adds depth to existing frameworks. About motivation, intrinsic motivation was found to have a notable effect on self-regulation and critical thinking. These findings align with those of previous studies ( Chow & Yong, 2013 ; Cavallo et al., 2003 ; Matt & Dale, 2002 ). In contrast, extrinsic motivation had a comparatively weaker yet still significant effect on self-efficacy. This finding is consistent with previous research indicating that extrinsic motivators have limited efficacy in promoting deep, meaningful learning ( Ryan & Deci, 2017 ; 2020 ). Specifically, extrinsic motivation in education often lead to shallow, short-term learning focused on achieving specific goals like grades, rather than mastering the material. This reliance on external rewards can undermine intrinsic motivation and reduce students’ interest in learning for personal growth. It also limits the transfer of knowledge to new contexts, fosters a fear of failure, and discourages creativity. Engagement is often temporary, lasting only as long as the reward or threat persists. Additionally, extrinsic rewards can create competitive environments, hindering collaboration and deeper learning ( Chow & Yong, 2013 ; Featherstone & Habgood, 2019 ; Liu et al., 2020 ; Niemiec & Ryan, 2009 ; Ryan & Deci, 2017 , 2020 ). These findings collectively underscore that fostering intrinsic motivation and enhancing self-efficacy are not only beneficial but essential for developing students’ critical thinking, self-regulation, and long-term academic success. Predictors of academic achievement The path model illustrates that academic achievement is directly predicted by critical thinking and self-regulation. The findings indicate that self-regulation is the most influential predictor. Self-regulation is the most influential predictor suggesting that a learner’s ability to manage their own thoughts, emotions, and behaviors plays a critical role in their success. Self-regulation includes skills such as goal setting, time management, self-monitoring, and adapting strategies to overcome obstacles that are critical to effective learning ( Meece & Painter, 2012 ; Pintrich, 2004 ). This highlights the significance of self-regulatory behaviors in academic contexts, such as goal-setting, time management, and self-monitoring. Additionally, critical thinking and self-efficacy were identified as significant contributors. These findings lend support to the notion that students who are adept at critical thinking and who exhibit a strong sense of self-efficacy are more likely to be successful in their academic pursuits. Students who excel at critical thinking can analyze information, evaluate multiple perspectives, and solve complex problems. This ability helps them engage deeply with academic material, leading to better understanding and retention. They are more likely to think independently, ask meaningful questions, and approach assignments strategically, which improves their academic performance ( García-Martín & García-Sánchez, 2018 ; Panadero et al., 2018 ; Greene & Yu, 2016 ; Halpern, 2013 ; Panadero et al., 2017 ). A robust sense of self-efficacy—defined as the conviction in one’s capacity to achieve success—motivates students to establish ambitious objectives and demonstrate resilience in the presence of adversity. Students who believe in their abilities are more likely to approach difficult tasks with confidence, exert the necessary effort, and persevere when faced with challenges, which directly contributes to academic success ( Alhadabi & Karpinski, 2020 ; Celik, 2022 ; Liem et al., 2008 ; Sheu et al., 2018 ). Together, critical thinking and self-efficacy create a mindset in which students are not only equipped to handle academic demands, but also motivated to push beyond their comfort zones, fostering deeper learning and long-term achievement. Nevertheless, the comparatively weaker impact of critical thinking compared to self-regulation indicates that, although indispensable, higher-order thinking skills may necessitate additional supporting factors, such as self-regulation, to translate into academic performance fully. In conclusion, the path model identifies self-regulation and critical thinking as critical predictors of academic achievement, while self-efficacy serves as a central mediator. Although intrinsic motivation plays a significant role in these constructs, extrinsic motivation has a comparatively more minor effect. The findings underscore the necessity for educational strategies that foster self-regulation and self-efficacy, as these constructs emerge as pivotal in propelling academic success. Limitations In addition to presenting findings, the current study also identifies some limitations. One limitation of the study is the use of digital questionnaires, which resulted in a convenience sample that is likely to consist of highly motivated students with strong academic performance. This may further restrict the applicability of the results to a more diverse student population. The focus on a single cultural context and the selection of participants from Educational and Psychological departments may limit the generalizability of the findings to other educational settings. Furthermore, the use of self-reported data may be susceptible to biases, such as social desirability or inaccurate self-assessment. Another limitation of the present research is that cross-sectional data do not define causal relationships. Cross-sectional studies collect data at a single point in time, providing a “snapshot” of a population or set of variables. While this type of data is useful for identifying correlations and associations between variables, it cannot determine cause-and-effect relationships. Suggestions for future research Future research could benefit from several avenues to deepen our understanding of the relationships between motivation, self-efficacy, self-regulation, critical thinking, and academic achievement. Longitudinal studies are needed to track how changes in intrinsic and extrinsic motivation over time impact self-efficacy and academic success, providing insights into the long-term effects of motivational strategies. Additionally, intervention studies could focus on implementing and evaluating specific educational strategies designed to enhance these factors, assessing their effectiveness in natural classroom settings. Context-specific research is also valuable, as it can explore how cultural, socio-economic, and educational contexts influence these relationships, offering a more nuanced understanding of how different environments impact student outcomes. Further research could explore the role of technology in supporting self-efficacy, critical thinking, and self-regulation, such as examining the impact of digital tools and gamified learning environments. Studies could also investigate how professional development programs for educators affect their ability to foster these skills in students. Additionally, exploring individual differences, such as personality traits and learning styles, and their influence on these constructs could provide insights into personalized learning approaches. Cross-disciplinary research may reveal how subject-specific strategies impact these outcomes, while mixed methods research could offer a comprehensive view by combining quantitative and qualitative data. Finally, examining the role of peer and social influences and developing improved assessment tools could further enhance our understanding and effectiveness of educational interventions. Theoretical and practical implications The theoretical implications of our study extend our understanding of the interconnectedness between motivation, self-efficacy, critical thinking, and self-regulation, particularly in the context of academic achievement. Our findings support and expand existing theories that link self-efficacy with intrinsic and extrinsic motivation, demonstrating how these motivational factors serve as significant predictors of self-efficacy. This reinforces Bandura’s (1997) social cognitive theory, which posits that self-efficacy influences an individual’s cognitive processes and behaviors, including their motivation to engage in tasks. The study also adds to the body of literature that positions self-efficacy as a critical determinant of critical thinking, a fundamental cognitive process, thereby suggesting that self-efficacy not only affects how students feel about their capabilities but also how they engage in higher-order thinking skills. Furthermore, the research highlights the role of critical thinking and self-efficacy in predicting self-regulation, thereby integrating and extending theories related to self-regulated learning. The findings suggest that self-efficacy, through its impact on critical thinking, plays a foundational role in how students plan, monitor, and adjust their learning strategies, aligning with Zimmerman’s (2000) model of self-regulated learning. Additionally, by showing that critical thinking, self-efficacy, and self-regulation collectively predict academic achievement, the study provides empirical support for theories that advocate for a holistic approach to understanding student success. These implications suggest that educational theories must consider the dynamic and reciprocal relationships between motivation, cognitive processes, and self-regulation to fully capture the complexities of academic achievement. Our study’s results also highlight several practical implications for improving educational outcomes. First, enhancing both intrinsic and extrinsic motivation can significantly increase students’ self-efficacy, suggesting that educational programs should focus on creating engaging learning experiences and providing meaningful rewards. To further build self-efficacy and critical thinking skills, educators should incorporate activities and opportunities for students to succeed. This could include problem-based learning projects or collaborative tasks that require students to apply their knowledge in innovative ways. The key is to balance cognitive challenge with appropriate support to ensure that tasks remain within students’ zones of proximal development. The goal is not to overwhelm learners, but to design learning experiences that are sufficiently demanding to stimulate critical thinking, while also structured in a way that enables success, thereby enhancing self-efficacy. In addition, fostering critical thinking and self-efficacy is critical to promoting effective self-regulation. Therefore, educators should design assignments that encourage students to plan, monitor, and evaluate their own progress. Tools such as self-assessment checklists, reflective journals, and peer feedback sessions can help students develop these skills. A comprehensive educational approach that addresses these components can significantly help students succeed academically by supporting their motivation, confidence, and ability to manage their own learning processes effectively. One possible area for future exploration may include examining how integrated curricular approaches uch as activities that promote cognitive engagement and self-directed learning can be implemented in ways that align with these psychological constructs. However, such educational approaches should be developed with caution and evaluated in diverse academic contexts to assess their effectiveness. Ethics and consent Study-Specific Approval by the appropriate ethics committee for research involving humans: The research project was approved by the Ethics Committee of the Institute of Educational Policy of Greece (Research Section). The license number is 34/31-1-2024. The current research adheres to the Declaration of Helsinki. The date of ethical approval is 31-1-2024. Informed consent for research involving human participants: Students completed informed consent forms for their participation in the study. The license number is 34/31-1-2024. Those who took part in this research had signed a consent form which informed them of the purpose of the research, the benefits and how it would be carried out. Authorship contribution statement Stavropoulou, G.: Conceptualization, design, data collection, data analyses, writing, supervision Daniilidou, A.: Data collection, writing, editing Nerantzaki, K.: Data collection, writing, editing We believe that your article type is a . We have gone ahead and changed your article type on your submission. Data availability statement Open Science Framework: Exploring the Interplay of Motivation, Self-Efficacy, Critical Thinking, and Self-Regulation in Predicting Academic Achievement Among University Students, DOI: https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/HM6UZ ( Stavropoulou, G et al., 2025 ). The project contains the following underlying data: • Raw data as Dataset for f1000.xlsx Data are available under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license (CC-BY 4.0). References Agustina ET, Wahyudin AY, Pratiwi AA: The students’ motivation and academic achievement at tertiary level: A correlational study. Journal of Arts and Education 2021; 1 (1): 29–38. Publisher Full Text Alhadabi A, Karpinski AC: Grit, self-efficacy, achievement orientation goals, and academic performance in University students. Int. J. Adolesc. Youth. 2020; 25 (1): 519–535. Publisher Full Text Alyahyan E, Düştegör D: Predicting academic success in higher education: literature review and best practices. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education. 2020; 17 (1): 3. Publisher Full Text Ames C, Archer J: Achievement goals in the classroom: Students’ learning strategies and motivation processes. J. Educ. Psychol. 1988; 80 (3): 260–267. Publisher Full Text Andreou E, Metallidou P: The relationship of academic and social cognition to behaviour in bullying situations among Greek primary school children. Educ. Psychol. 2004; 24 (1): 27–41. Publisher Full Text Ayhan E, Payan A: The relationship between critical thinking and self-regulation in vocabulary learning. International Journal of Languages’ Education and Teaching. 2023; 11 (1): 122–134. Bandura A: Guide for constructing self-efficacy scales.Adolescence and education. Vol. 5 . . Self efficacy and adolescence. Pajares F, Urdan T, editors. Greenwich, CT: Information Age; 2006; pp. 307–337. Bandura A: Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. W.H. Freeman and Company; 1997. Publisher Full Text Bandura A, Locke EA: Negative self-efficacy and goal effects revisited. J. Appl. Psychol. 2003; 88 (1): 87–99. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text Bandura A, Wessels S: Self-efficacy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1997; pp. 4–6. Bong M: Between-and within-domain relations of academic motivation among middle and high school students: self-efficacy, task value, and achievement goals. J. Educ. Psychol. 2001; 93 (1): 23–34. Publisher Full Text Bong M, Skaalvik EM: Academic self-concept and self-efficacy: How different are they really? Educ. Psychol. Rev. 2003; 15 : 1–40. Publisher Full Text Bouffard T, Boisvert M, Vezeau C: The illusion of incompetence and its correlates among elementary school children and their parents. Learn. Individ. Differ. 2003; 14 (1): 31–46. Publisher Full Text Brown GT: Self-regulation of assessment beliefs and attitudes: A review of the students’ conceptions of assessment inventory. Educ. Psychol. 2011; 31 (6): 731–748. Publisher Full Text Cavallo AML, Rozman M, Blickenstaff J, et al. : Students’ learning approaches, reasoning abilities, motivational goals, and epistemological beliefs in differing science courses. J. Coll. Sci. Teach. 2003; 33 : 18–24. Celik B: The effect of metacognitive strategies on self-efficacy, motivation and academic achievement of university students. Canadian Journal of Educational and Social Studies. 2022; 2 (4): 37–55. Chow SJ, Yong BCS: Secondary school students’ motivation and achievement in combined science. Online Submission. 2013; 3 (4): 213–228. Collie RJ, Holliman AJ, Martin AJ: Adaptability, engagement, and academic achievement at university. Educ. Psychol. 2017; 37 (5): 632–647. Publisher Full Text Corno L, Mandinach EB: The role of cognitive engagement in classroom learning and motivation. Educ. Psychol. 1983; 18 (2): 88–108. Publisher Full Text Daniela P: The relationship between self-regulation, motivation, and performance at secondary school students. Procedia Soc. Behav. Sci. 2015; 191 : 2549–2553. Publisher Full Text Deci EL, Ryan RM: The general causality orientations scale: Self-determination in personality. J. Res. Pers. 1985; 19 (2): 109–134. Publisher Full Text Din M: Evaluating university students’ critical thinking ability as reflected in their critical reading skill: A study at bachelor level in Pakistan. Think. Skills Creat. 2020; 35 : 100627. Publisher Full Text Duncan TG, McKeachie WJ: The making of the motivated strategies for learning questionnaire. Educ. Psychol. 2005; 40 (2): 117–128. Publisher Full Text Elliot AJ, McGregor HA, Gable S: Achievement goals, study strategies, and exam performance: a mediational analysis. J. Educ. Psychol. 1999; 91 (3): 549–563. Publisher Full Text Entwistle N, Tait H, McCune V: Patterns of response to an approaches to studying inventory across contrasting groups and contexts. Eur. J. Psychol. Educ. 2000; 15 : 33–48. Publisher Full Text Featherstone M, Habgood J: Uni-Craft: Exploring the impact of asynchronous multiplayer game elements in gamification. Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud. 2019; 127 : 150–168. Publisher Full Text Fenollar P, Román S, Cuestas PJ: University students’ academic performance: An integrative conceptual framework and empirical analysis. Br. J. Educ. Psychol. 2007; 77 (4): 873–891. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text Florea NM, Hurjui E: Critical Thinking in Elementary School Children. Procedia. Soc. Behav. Sci. 2015; 180 : 565–572. Publisher Full Text Friedel JM, Cortina KS, Turner JC, et al. : Achievement goals, efficacy beliefs and coping strategies in mathematics: The roles of perceived parent and teacher goal emphases. Contemp. Educ. Psychol. 2007; 32 (3): 434–458. Publisher Full Text Froiland JM, Worrell FC: Intrinsic motivation, learning goals, engagement, and achievement in a diverse high school. Psychol. Schs. 2016; 53 (3): 321–336. Publisher Full Text Gagné M, Deci EL: Self-determination theory and work motivation. J. Organ. Behav. 2005; 26 (4): 331–362. Publisher Full Text García-Martín J, y García-Sánchez, J. N.: The instructional effectiveness of two virtual approaches: Processes and product. Revista Psicodidáctica (English ed.)2018: 23 (2): 117–127. Publisher Full Text Giesbers B, Rienties B, Tempelaar D, et al. : Investigating the relations between motivation, tool use, participation, and performance in an e-learning course using web-videoconferencing. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2013; 29 (1): 285–292. Publisher Full Text Girelli L, Alivernini F, Lucidi F, et al. : Autonomy supportive contexts, autonomous motivation, and self-efficacy predict academic adjustment of first-year university students. Front. Educ. 2018, November; 3 : 95. Publisher Full Text Gonida EN, Voulala K, Kiosseoglou G: Students’ achievement goal orientations and their behavioral and emotional engagement: Co-examining the role of perceived school goal structures and parent goals during adolescence. Learn. Individ. Differ. 2009; 19 (1): 53–60. Publisher Full Text Greene BA, Miller RB, Crowson HM, et al. : Predicting high school students’ cognitive engagement and achievement: Contributions of classroom perceptions and motivation. Contemp. Educ. Psychol. 2004; 29 (4): 462–482. Publisher Full Text Greene JA, Yu SB: Educating critical thinkers: The role of epistemic cognition. Policy Insights Behav. Brain Sci. 2016; 3 (1): 45–53. Publisher Full Text Halpern DF: Thought and knowledge: An introduction to critical thinking. 5th ed.Psychology Press; 2013. Publisher Full Text Harackiewicz JM, Barron KE, Tauer JM, et al. : Predicting success in college: A longitudinal study of achievement goals and ability measures as predictors of interest and performance from freshman year through graduation. J. Educ. Psychol. 2002; 94 (3): 562–575. Publisher Full Text Hewett R, Conway N: The undermining effect revisited: the salience of everyday verbal rewards and self-determined motivation. J. Organ. Behav. 2016; 37 : 436–455. Publisher Full Text Howard JL, Chong JX, Bureau JS: The tripartite model of intrinsic motivation in education: A 30-year retrospective and meta-analysis. J. Pers. 2020; 88 (6): 1268–1285. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text Hulleman CS, Kosovich JJ, Barron KE, et al. : Making connections: replicating and extending the utility value intervention in the classroom. J. Educ. Psychol. 2017; 109 (3): 387–404. Publisher Full Text Hwang MH, Choi HC, Lee A, et al. : The relationship between self-efficacy and academic achievement: A 5-year panel analysis. The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher. 2016; 25 : 89–98. Publisher Full Text Jatmiko B, Prahani BK, Munasir S, et al. : The Comparison of Oripa Teaching Model and Problem-Based Learning Model Effectiveness to Improve Critical Thinking Skills of Pre-Service Physics Teachers. J. Balt. Sci. Educ. 2018; 17 (2): 300–319. Publisher Full Text Komarraju M, Karau SJ, Schmeck RR, et al. : The Big Five personality traits, learning styles, and academic achievement. Personal. Individ. Differ. 2011; 51 (4): 472–477. Publisher Full Text Kotera Y, Taylor E, Fido D, et al. : Motivation of UK graduate students in education: Self-compassion moderates pathway from extrinsic motivation to intrinsic motivation. Curr. Psychol. 2023; 42 (12): 10163–10176. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text Kulakow S: Academic self-concept and achievement motivation among adolescent students in different learning environments: Does competence-support matter? Learn. Motiv. 2020; 70 : 101632. Publisher Full Text Laidra K, Pullmann H, Allik J: Personality and intelligence as predictors of academic achievement: A cross-sectional study from elementary to secondary school. Personal. Individ. Differ. 2007; 42 (3): 441–451. Publisher Full Text Lane J, Lane AM, Kyprianou A: Self-efficacy, self-esteem and their impact on academic performance. Soc. Behav. Personal. Int. J. 2004; 32 (3): 247–256. Publisher Full Text Lei SA: Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation: Evaluating benefits and drawbacks from college instructors’ perspectives. J. Instr. Psychol. 2010; 37 (2): 153–161. Leung DY, Kember D: The relationship between approaches to learning and reflection upon practice. Educ. Psychol. 2003; 23 (1): 61–71. Publisher Full Text Liem AD, Lau S, Nie Y: The role of self-efficacy, task value, and achievement goals in predicting learning strategies, task disengagement, peer relationship, and achievement outcome. Contemp. Educ. Psychol. 2008; 33 (4): 486–512. Publisher Full Text Liu Y, Hau KT, Liu H, et al. : Multiplicative effect of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation on academic performance: A longitudinal study of Chinese students. J. Pers. 2020; 88 (3): 584–595. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text Mace FC, Belfiore PJ, Hutchinson JM: Operant theory and research on self-regulation.Zimmerman BJ, Schunk DH, editors. Self-regulated learning and academic achievement. Routledge; 1989; pp. 37–62. Matt D, Dale W: Learning to teaching and teaching to learn mathematics: resources for professional development. Mathematical Association of America; 2002; p. 163. McGeown S, Goodwin H, Henderson N, et al. : Gender differences in reading motivation: Does sex or gender identity provide a better account? J. Res. Read. 2012; 35 (3): 328–336. Publisher Full Text McKenzie K, Schweitzer R: Who succeeds at university? Factors predicting academic performance in first-year Australian university students. High. Educ. Res. Dev. 2001; 20 (1): 21–33. Publisher Full Text Meece JL, Painter J: Gender, self-regulation, and motivation.Schunk DH, Zimmerman BJ, editors. Motivation and self-regulated learning. Routledge; 2012; pp. 339–367. Ng BL, Liu WC, Wang JC: Student motivation and learning in mathematics and science: A cluster analysis. Int. J. Sci. Math. Educ. 2016; 14 : 1359–1376. Publisher Full Text Niemiec CP, Ryan RM: Autonomy, competence, and relatedness in the classroom: Applying self-determination theory to educational practice. Theory Res. Educ. 2009; 7 (2): 133–144. Publisher Full Text Nolen SB: Reasons for studying: Motivational orientations and study strategies. Cogn. Instr. 1988; 5 (4): 269–287. Publisher Full Text Pajares F: Self-efficacy beliefs, motivation, and achievement in writing: A review of the literature. Read. Writ. Q. 2003; 19 (2): 139–158. Publisher Full Text Panadero E, Alonso-Tapia J, Reche E: Rubrics vs. self-assessment scripts effect on self-regulation, performance and self-efficacy in pre-service teachers. Stud. Educ. Eval. 2013; 39 (3): 125–132. Publisher Full Text Panadero E, Andrade H, Brookhart S: Fusing self-regulated learning and formative assessment: A roadmap of where we are, how we got here, and where we are going. Aust. Educ. Res. 2018; 45 : 13–31. Publisher Full Text Panadero E, Jonsson A, Botella J: Effects of self-assessment on self-regulated learning and self-efficacy: Four meta-analyses. Educational Research Review. 2017; 22 : 74–98. Publisher Full Text Panadero E, Tapia JA, Huertas JA: Rubrics and self-assessment scripts effects on self-regulation, learning and self-efficacy in secondary education. Learn. Individ. Differ. 2012; 22 (6): 806–813. Publisher Full Text Pestana SCC, Peixoto F, Pinto RP: Academic achievement and intrinsic motivation in higher education students: an analysis of the impact of using concept maps. Journal of Applied Research in Higher Education. 2023: 15 (3): 663–680. Publisher Full Text Phan HP: An examination of reflective thinking, learning approaches, and self-efficacy beliefs at the University of the South Pacific: A path analysis approach. Educ. Psychol. 2007; 27 (6): 789–806. Publisher Full Text Phan HP: Critical thinking as a self-regulatory process component in teaching and learning. Psicothema. 2010; 22 (2): 284–292. PubMed Abstract Phan HP: Predicting change in epistemological beliefs, reflective thinking and learning styles: A longitudinal study. Br. J. Educ. Psychol. 2008; 78 (1): 75–93. Publisher Full Text Pintrich PR: A conceptual framework for assessing motivation and self-regulated learning in college students. Educ. Psychol. Rev. 2004; 16 : 385–407. Publisher Full Text Pintrich PR: A manual for the use of the motivated strategies for learning questionnaire (MSLQ). ERIC Document Reproduction Service No ED, 338122. 1991. Pintrich PR, De Groot EV: Motivational and self-regulated learning components of classroom academic performance. J. Educ. Psychol. 1990; 82 (1): 33–40. Publisher Full Text Richardson M, Abraham C, Bond R: Psychological correlates of university students’ academic performance: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Psychological Βulletin. 2012; 138 (2): 353–387. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text Rodzalan SA, Saat MM: The Perception of Critical Thinking and Problem-Solving Skill among Malaysian Undergraduate Students. Procedia. Soc. Behav. Sci. 2015; 172 : 725–732. Publisher Full Text Ryan RM, Deci EL: Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations: Classic definitions and new directions. Contemp. Educ. Psychol. 2000a; 25 (1): 54–67. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text Ryan RM, Deci EL: Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation from a self-determination theory perspective: Definitions, theory, practices, and future directions. Contemporary Educational Psychology. 2020; 61 : 101860. Publisher Full Text Ryan RM, Deci EL: Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. Am. Psychol. 2000b; 55 (1): 68–78. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text Ryan RM, Deci EL: Self-determination theory: Basic psychological needs in motivation, development, and wellness. New York, NY: Guilford Publishing; 2017. Publisher Full Text Sansone C, Smith JL, Thoman DB, et al. : Regulating interest when learning online: Potential motivation and performance trade-offs. Internet High. Educ. 2012; 15 (3): 141–149. Publisher Full Text Sari RM, Sumarmi, Astina IK, et al. : Measuring Students Scientific Learning Perception and Critical Thinking Skill Using Paper-Based Testing: School and Gender Differences. Int. J. Emerg. Technol. Learn. 2019; 14 (19). Publisher Full Text Schmitz B, Wiese BS: New perspectives for the evaluation of training sessions in self-regulated learning: Time-series analyses of diary data. Contemp. Educ. Psychol. 2006; 31 (1): 64–96. Publisher Full Text Schunk D, Zimmerman B: Competence and control beliefs.Alexander PA, Winne PH, editors. Handbook of Educational Psychology. 2006; pp. 349–367. Schunk DH, DiBenedetto MK: Motivation and social cognitive theory. Contemporary Educational Psychology. 2020; 60 : 101832. Publisher Full Text Schunk DH, Pajares F: Competence perceptions and academic functioning.Elliot AG, Dweck CS, editors. Handbook of competence and motivation. 2005; 85 : 104. Schunk DH, Zimmerman BJ: Social origins of self-regulatory competence. Educ. Psychol. 1997; 32 (4): 195–208. Publisher Full Text Schunk DH, Zimmerman BJ: Influencing children’s self-efficacy and self-regulation of reading and writing through modeling. Read. Writ. Q. 2007; 23 (1): 7–25. Publisher Full Text Senko C, Dawson B: Performance-approach goal effects depend on how they are defined: Meta-analytic evidence from multiple educational outcomes. J. Educ. Psychol. 2017; 109 (4): 574–598. Publisher Full Text Sheu H-B, Lent RW, Miller MJ, et al. : Sources of Self-Efficacy and Outcome Expectations in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics Domains: A Meta-Analysis. Journal of Vocational Behavior. 2018; 109 : 118–136. Publisher Full Text Stamovlasis D, Gonida SEN: Dynamic Effects of Performance-Avoidance Goal Orientation on Student Achievement in Language and Mathematics. Nonlinear Dynamics Psychol. Life Sci. 2018; 22 (3): 335–358. PubMed Abstract Stavropoulou G, Stamovlasis D: Students’ Cognitive and Metacognitive Strategies in Writing as a Function of the Perceived Teacher Goals, Achievement-Goal Orientations and Self-Efficacy: A Structural Equation Model.J. Psychol. Educ. Res.2024; 32 (2), 67–83. Stavropoulou G, Stamovlasis D, Gonida SE: Perceived Didactic Practice, Student Achievement Goals and Cognitive Outcomes in the Transition to Secondary School. Hell. J. Psychol. 2024; 21 (3): 225–246. Publisher Full Text Stavropoulou G, Stamovlasis D, Gonida SE: Probing the effects of perceived teacher goals and achievement-goal orientations on students’ self-efficacy, cognitive and metacognitive strategies in writing: A person-centered approach. Learn. Motiv. 2023; 82 : 101888. Publisher Full Text Stavropoulou G, Daniilidou A, Nerantzaki K: Exploring the Interplay of Motivation, Self-Efficacy, Critical Thinking, and Self-Regulation in Predicting Academic Achievement Among University Students. Open Science Framework. 2025. Stavropoulou G, Stamovlasis D: Students’ Achievement Goal Orientations Scale: Psychometric properties, measurement invariance across genders and grades. J. Sch. Educ. Psychol. 2025; 5 (1): 18–30. Publisher Full Text Taylor G, Jungert T, Mageau GA, et al. : A self-determination theory approach to predicting school achievement over time: The unique role of intrinsic motivation. Contemp. Educ. Psychol. 2014; 39 (4): 342–358. Publisher Full Text Tunçeli Hİ, Yorulmaz A, Şahan Aktan B: Teacher candidates’ critical thinking and learning autonomy: the mediating role of self-regulation.2022. Urdan T, Kaplan A: The origins, evolution, and future directions of achievement goal theory. Contemp. Educ. Psychol. 2020; 61 : 101862. Publisher Full Text Walker CO, Greene BA, Mansell RA: Identification with academics, intrinsic/extrinsic motivation, and self-efficacy as predictors of cognitive engagement. Learn. Individ. Differ. 2006; 16 (1): 1–12. Publisher Full Text Washer P: Revisiting key skills: A practical framework for higher education. Qual. High. Educ. 2007; 13 (1): 57–67. Publisher Full Text Wechsler SM, Saiz C, Rivas SF, et al. : Creative and critical thinking: Independent or overlapping components?. Think. Skills Creat. 2018; 27 : 114–122. Publisher Full Text Wolters CA, Denton CA, York MJ, et al. : Adolescents’ motivation for reading: Group differences and relation to standardized achievement. Read. Writ. 2014; 27 : 503–533. Publisher Full Text Wormington SV, Linnenbrink-Garcia L: A new look at multiple goal pursuit: The promise of a person-centered approach. Educ. Psychol. Rev. 2017; 29 : 407–445. Publisher Full Text Zeegers P: Student learning in higher education: A path analysis of academic achievement in science. High. Educ. Res. Dev. 2004; 23 (1): 35–56. Publisher Full Text Zeynali S, Pishghadam R, Fatemi AH: Identifying the motivational and demotivational factors influencing students’ academic achievements in language education. Learn. Motiv. 2019; 68 : 101598. Publisher Full Text Zimmerman BJ: Self-regulated learning and academic achievement: An overview. Educ. Psychol. 1990; 25 (1): 3–17. Publisher Full Text Zimmerman BJ: Becoming a self-regulated learner: An overview. Theory Pract. 2002; 41 (2): 64–70. Publisher Full Text Zimmerman BJ: Investigating self-regulation and motivation: Historical background, methodological developments, and future prospects. Am. Educ. Res. J. 2008; 45 (1): 166–183. Publisher Full Text Reference Source Zimmerman BJ, Martinez-Pons M: Construct validation of a strategy model of student self-regulated learning. J. Educ. Psychol. 1988; 80 (3): 284–290. Publisher Full Text Comments on this article Comments (0) Version 2 VERSION 2 PUBLISHED 28 Mar 2025 ADD YOUR COMMENT Comment Author details Author details 1 Aristoteleio Panepistemio Thessalonikes Philosophike Schole, Thessaloniki, Makedonia Thraki, Greece 2 Panepistemio Makedonias, Thessaloniki, Makedonia Thraki, Greece Georgia Stavropoulou Roles: Conceptualization, Data Curation, Formal Analysis, Methodology, Supervision, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing Athena Daniilidou Roles: Data Curation, Formal Analysis, Methodology, Writing – Original Draft Preparation Katerina Nerantzaki Roles: Data Curation, Formal Analysis, Methodology, Writing – Original Draft Preparation Competing interests No competing interests were disclosed. Grant information The author(s) declared that no grants were involved in supporting this work. Article Versions (2) version 2 Revised Published: 07 Jul 2025, 14:344 https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.161821.2 version 1 Published: 28 Mar 2025, 14:344 https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.161821.1 Copyright © 2025 Stavropoulou G et al . This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. Download Export To Sciwheel Bibtex EndNote ProCite Ref. Manager (RIS) Sente metrics Views Downloads F1000Research - - PubMed Central info_outline Data from PMC are received and updated monthly. - - Citations open_in_new 0 open_in_new 0 open_in_new SEE MORE DETAILS CITE how to cite this article Stavropoulou G, Daniilidou A and Nerantzaki K. Exploring the Interplay of Motivation, Self-Efficacy, Critical Thinking, and Self-Regulation in Predicting Academic Achievement Among University Students [version 2; peer review: 2 approved, 1 approved with reservations] . F1000Research 2025, 14 :344 ( https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.161821.2 ) NOTE: If applicable, it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article. COPY CITATION DETAILS track receive updates on this article Track an article to receive email alerts on any updates to this article. TRACK THIS ARTICLE Share Open Peer Review Current Reviewer Status: ? Key to Reviewer Statuses VIEW HIDE Approved The paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approved Fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions Version 2 VERSION 2 PUBLISHED 07 Jul 2025 Revised Views 0 Cite How to cite this report: Burgos FS. Reviewer Report For: Exploring the Interplay of Motivation, Self-Efficacy, Critical Thinking, and Self-Regulation in Predicting Academic Achievement Among University Students [version 2; peer review: 2 approved, 1 approved with reservations] . F1000Research 2025, 14 :344 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.183628.r397957 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/14-344/v2#referee-response-397957 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. Close Copy Citation Details Reviewer Report 11 Aug 2025 Felipe Sanchez Burgos , Psychology, Universidad Catolica del Maule, Talca, Maule Region, Chile Approved VIEWS 0 https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.183628.r397957 From a strong literature review, the paper proposes an integration of key concepts in Higher Education learning and academic achievement: intrinsic and extrinsic motivation, critical thinking, and self-regulation. The aim here is to empirically establish how these relate between themselves, ... Continue reading READ ALL From a strong literature review, the paper proposes an integration of key concepts in Higher Education learning and academic achievement: intrinsic and extrinsic motivation, critical thinking, and self-regulation. The aim here is to empirically establish how these relate between themselves, looking at how they predict academic achievement. With a fairly decent sample of HE students in Greece and through solid statistical methods, the researchers achieve their purposes in arguing for a pathway model. The research is strong and highly valuable for the field, clearly stemming from an Educational Psychology background. Still, from a Higher Education Research perspective, this paper could be better understood if taken in relation with this latter field. It would be fair to assume that culturally and historically Higher Education has been a privilege and luxury for society for a long time, and only recently it has been transformed by its massification and democratization, and most current by its neo liberalization and marketisation. What once was considered to be a voluntary endeavour for the privileged and capable, some would argue that now it has been increasingly believed to be a necessity (regardless of the personal/developmental or systemic/economic reasoning behind it). To some degree, the question this paper asks implies that students are not necessarily motivated or engaged in HE beforehand, that they may not be critical thinkers, nor that they believe to be capable, and thus constitutes a new space for academic research. Here I do not argue with these ideas, nor I challenge them; instead, I want to offer an alternative route for arguing for the value and rationale for this paper. As I see it, looking at this from the field of Educational Psychology the issue is not new per se; in contrast, it very well may be so for Higher Education Research. Of course, setting up a further and larger context would most likely change this paper substantially as much as it would support its claim. My suggestion is not to rework it but to properly extend it into the field of Higher Education as a further development for future research. I see the paper as perfectly consistent as it is, working itself from Ed Psych. I will elaborate on a few aspects of the paper that have not been already addressed in past reviews. In a general sense, the literature review does what it promises, it offers a vast and well-balanced look at the field. Still, I see two main point for further development, one internal and one external. Internally, the section would benefit from an editorial review, as it is easy to find more than a few very broad and bold statements about how the concepts relate to each other without necessarily being supported by the argumentation threads. Moreover, proofreading could be useful as (a) some sentences could be refined and (b) the text could get a more cohesive feel. Externally, I wonder if a literature review is the only section needed prior to the aim and research hypotheses section. It seems that the paper is trying to establish relationships that are not clearly taken from the literature. As the section does not refer explicitly to how the conceptual relationships are established (for example, how they are not correlational), I see that a theoretical/conceptual section could be useful. Using theory to argue for conceptual relationships could offer an avenue that empirical findings on their own do not. (In future projects) I would encourage the research team to explore turning the paper on its head and start from a conceptual critique of the field and how each concept should/could relate to each other to make sense of the general learning process, for then contrasting such vision with empirical research. As an example of such work, I would suggest a critical review of the (intrinsic/extrinsic) motivation conceptualization. I'd question the internal consistency of such dichotomy and its value for understanding the issue. It seems that intrinsic motivation does not necessarily 'originate from within' the learner as said. In the literature review section, the argument for intrinsic motivation being influenced by a series of factors and so internalized could very well be read as it being developed or learnt. In that sense, internalization could be read from a Vygotskian perspective and so the distinction between intrinsic and extrinsic could be turned from an essential to developmental. So, the idea of an intrinsic motivation can be transformed as a more stably internalized motivation. This line of reasoning could open up the idea of a developing motivation for learning. This paper instead leaves the theoretical developments as hanging from empirical research without articulating internally how this may be. On the theoretical implications section, the team states that "that educational theories must consider the dynamic and reciprocal relationships between motivation, cognitive processes, and self-regulation to fully capture the complexities of academic achievement.". Still, the whole paper has been about unidirectional relationships by arguing for a path model. This is problematic because this statement reads as trying to situate itself within a holistic approach that it is in fact not taking. The conceptual relationships that have been developed here have been supported mainly by the method which sets the data into a particular order for then proving if that work. Here, the main accomplishment is that it works, but the downside is that it has been clearly underdeveloped theoretically. Lastly, regarding the future directions, the first paragraph seems moderately justified, yet it could use some improvement; moreover, the second paragraph reads more capricious and slightly outdated (for example, touching on learning styles which have been largely debunked). Overall, this paper is definitely valuable. Here, my suggestions are either cosmetic or future-oriented. Cosmetically, I suggest that the paper is reviewed to simplify and clean up its contribution. It is doing enough, yet that needs to be stated humbly and realistically. In a future oriented manner, I suggest to (i) contextualize the value of these concepts and line of research looking directly at the Higher Education research field, and (ii) theoretically address the concepts to internally articulate them, and then evaluate the benefits and hindrances of any empirical research model like the pathway one. Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature? Yes Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound? Yes Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others? Yes If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate? Yes Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility? Yes Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results? Yes Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise: Higher Education; Learning & Development; Social-Constructivism; Motivation, Emotion and Learning Experiences. I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard. Close READ LESS CITE CITE HOW TO CITE THIS REPORT Burgos FS. Reviewer Report For: Exploring the Interplay of Motivation, Self-Efficacy, Critical Thinking, and Self-Regulation in Predicting Academic Achievement Among University Students [version 2; peer review: 2 approved, 1 approved with reservations] . F1000Research 2025, 14 :344 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.183628.r397957 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/14-344/v2#referee-response-397957 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article. COPY CITATION DETAILS Report a concern Respond or Comment COMMENT ON THIS REPORT Views 0 Cite How to cite this report: Vieites T. Reviewer Report For: Exploring the Interplay of Motivation, Self-Efficacy, Critical Thinking, and Self-Regulation in Predicting Academic Achievement Among University Students [version 2; peer review: 2 approved, 1 approved with reservations] . F1000Research 2025, 14 :344 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.183628.r397256 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/14-344/v2#referee-response-397256 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. Close Copy Citation Details Reviewer Report 17 Jul 2025 Tania Vieites , Complutense University of Madrid, Madrid, Spain Approved VIEWS 0 https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.183628.r397256 I have ... Continue reading READ ALL I have no further comments. Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise: Educational Psychology: self-regulation of learning, motivation, psychological well-being, academic performance, etc. I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard. Close READ LESS CITE CITE HOW TO CITE THIS REPORT Vieites T. Reviewer Report For: Exploring the Interplay of Motivation, Self-Efficacy, Critical Thinking, and Self-Regulation in Predicting Academic Achievement Among University Students [version 2; peer review: 2 approved, 1 approved with reservations] . F1000Research 2025, 14 :344 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.183628.r397256 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/14-344/v2#referee-response-397256 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article. COPY CITATION DETAILS Report a concern Respond or Comment COMMENT ON THIS REPORT Version 1 VERSION 1 PUBLISHED 28 Mar 2025 Views 0 Cite How to cite this report: Michelle GM and Zhu L. Reviewer Report For: Exploring the Interplay of Motivation, Self-Efficacy, Critical Thinking, and Self-Regulation in Predicting Academic Achievement Among University Students [version 2; peer review: 2 approved, 1 approved with reservations] . F1000Research 2025, 14 :344 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.177905.r379667 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/14-344/v1#referee-response-379667 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. Close Copy Citation Details Reviewer Report 28 May 2025 GU Mingyue Michelle , The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, Hong Kong Lian Zhu , English Language Education, Education University of Hong Kong, Hongkong, Hong Kong Approved with Reservations VIEWS 0 https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.177905.r379667 Journal: F1000 Research Title: Exploring the interplay of motivation, self-efficacy, critical thinking, and self-regulation in predicting academic achievement among university students This manuscript reports on a quantitative study on the relationship between university students’ motivation, self-efficacy, ... Continue reading READ ALL Journal: F1000 Research Title: Exploring the interplay of motivation, self-efficacy, critical thinking, and self-regulation in predicting academic achievement among university students This manuscript reports on a quantitative study on the relationship between university students’ motivation, self-efficacy, self-regulation, critical thinking, and academic achievement. A number of problems are found in the manuscript, and below are some comments that the writers need to revise: A stronger argument about the research gap is needed in the Introduction section. More specifically, the justification for the study needs more attention. The authors listed a number of factors affecting academic achievement and then stated that motivation is the most important one. However, why they chose to study motivation should be further explained to make the argument more convincing. Although a lack of research and possible contextual differences are good starting points, there is a need to make a case for the study based on a sound problem statement. The authors pointed out the research concerning the relationship between motivational factors and students’ academic performance in higher education. However, there has been a lot of research conducted on motivation and academic achievement. In this regard, more literature concerning motivation and academic achievement in higher education is needed. Also, the authors may need to open the argument in a more systematic way about how this study is different from the previous ones. In the Literature review section, a clear definition of motivation can be put at the beginning of the section. However, the authors gave the definitions after a lot of information, which can be confusing. Also, the literature concerning motivation is too out-of-date. There have been lots of articles concerning motivation in recent years. Therefore, recent literature is needed. The researchers used intrinsic and extrinsic motivation in this paper. However, they paid more attention to intrinsic motivation rather than extrinsic motivation. It is not clear why they focused on the two motivational factors. A more nuanced statement is needed. More literature concerning extrinsic motivation is needed. Similarly, the references concerning self-efficacy are also out of date. The authors stated that self-regulation is highly associated with critical thinking. However, there is a lack of justification. The authors may need to provide more references to justify the importance of self-regulation in the learning process. Again, the authors pointed out the definition of the concept in the middle of the manuscript. They may put the definition at the beginning of the section to make the review clear. The participants were 250 students. However, for path analysis, the sample size was a bit small. For path analysis, the sample size should be recommended to be 10-20 times the number of parameters. However, 250 participants or more is appropriate and can be accepted. In terms of the measurements, the authors conducted EFA for each scale. Given that the authors obtained the developed scales in this research, only CFA is needed before conducting path analysis. The CFI and RMESA for self-efficacy and critical thinking are low (Hair et al., 2019). This might be because of the small sample size. Also, the measurement model can be further revised to improve the model fit for each scale before proceeding to further analysis. Also, the authors pointed out that students’ academic achievement was measured through their self-reported scores. However, the description of the measure was unclear. What subjects were used to examine participants’ academic achievement? Is it their GPA? Hence, a clear description of what scores were used should be further explained in the article. In addition, a serious concern is that the participants may report higher scores in data collection, which can have a huge impact on the findings. The literature review and discussion sections could be both strengthened and enriched by adding more recent relevant literature. Moreover, in the section of discussion, it would be necessary to provide more explanation of why the finding of the relationship between motivation, self-efficacy, critical thinking, self-regulation, and academic achievement is new to the literature. However, in this manuscript, the authors only discussed their findings in relation to previous empirical research without further discussion. This undermines the author's voice and agency. Hence, an improved and systematic discussion of how the findings are relevant to and different from and contribute to the literature. In the Implications section, the implications the authors outlined go beyond the data and the contexts. “For example, educators can introduce game-like elements or real-world applications to make learning more stimulating and relevant.” This is quite difficult to achieve at higher educational levels. Additionally, some of the implications are in conflict. For instance, “To further build self-efficacy and critical thinking skills, educators should incorporate challenging activities and opportunities for students to succeed and build confidence. This could include problem-based learning projects or collaborative tasks that require students to apply their knowledge in innovative ways.” Moreover, the last implication is quite strong and goes beyond the research focus. “This may involve developing a holistic curriculum that includes activities across subject areas that challenge students' cognitive skills and provide opportunities for self-regulated learning. A comprehensive educational approach that addresses these components can significantly help students succeed academically by supporting their motivation, confidence, and ability to manage their own learning processes effectively.” Also, the authors may need to pay attention to the grammar. Further editing is needed. For instance, “Developing critical thinking skills is paramount for students, enabling them to swiftly discern reliable information, enhance their focus on practical learning, and become attuned to real-world situations.” In addition, some of the expressions are unclear in the manuscript and should be rewritten. Overall, the manuscript needs substantial revision. I would not recommend the manuscript for indexing due to the research design, methods used, and its significance. Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature? Partly Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound? Partly Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others? Partly If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate? Partly Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility? Partly Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results? Partly Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise: language and identity, multilingualism and mobility, family language policy We confirm that we have read this submission and believe that we have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however we have significant reservations, as outlined above. Close READ LESS CITE CITE HOW TO CITE THIS REPORT Michelle GM and Zhu L. Reviewer Report For: Exploring the Interplay of Motivation, Self-Efficacy, Critical Thinking, and Self-Regulation in Predicting Academic Achievement Among University Students [version 2; peer review: 2 approved, 1 approved with reservations] . F1000Research 2025, 14 :344 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.177905.r379667 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/14-344/v1#referee-response-379667 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article. COPY CITATION DETAILS Report a concern Author Response 11 Sep 2025 Georgia Stavropoulou , Aristoteleio Panepistemio Thessalonikes Philosophike Schole, Thessaloniki, Greece 11 Sep 2025 Author Response Thank you for this insightful comment. In response, we have carefully revised the rationale in the Introduction section to make a clearer and more compelling case for the study. Specifically, ... Continue reading Thank you for this insightful comment. In response, we have carefully revised the rationale in the Introduction section to make a clearer and more compelling case for the study. Specifically, we strengthened the justification for focusing on motivation by emphasizing its dynamic, actionable nature compared to more static predictors of academic achievement. We also clarified the research gap by highlighting the lack of integrative models that examine how intrinsic and extrinsic motivation interact with self-efficacy, critical thinking, and self-regulation to predict academic achievement. Although these constructs have been studied extensively, they are often treated in isolation. Furthermore, we pointed out that existing studies are predominantly situated in Western contexts, underscoring the need for research that examines these relationships in diverse educational settings. We believe these revisions present a more robust problem statement and offer a stronger justification for the current study’s focus and contribution (pp.9-10). The authors pointed out the research concerning the relationship between motivational factors and students’ academic performance in higher education. However, there has been a lot of research conducted on motivation and academic achievement. In this regard, more literature concerning motivation and academic achievement in higher education is needed. We thank the reviewer for this valuable comment. In response, we have added more studies that refer to higher education. Page 9: Furthermore, a substantial body of research has investigated the relationship between motivational factors and academic performance in higher education (see Agustina et al., 2021; Author et al., 2024; Pestana et al., 2023) indicating the association between motivation and academic performance. Also, the authors may need to open the argument in a more systematic way about how this study is different from the previous ones. Thank you for your valuable suggestion. We added a paragraph that highlights why our research differs from others. Page 10: This study differs from previous research in that it takes an integrative and context-sensitive approach to understanding academic achievement. While previous studies have frequently examined motivation, self-efficacy, critical thinking or self-regulation as individual constructs or in limited combinations, this study unifies these variables within a theoretically grounded path model. This comprehensive framework enables the exploration of direct and indirect relationships between these constructs, providing deeper insight into how motivation influences cognitive and self-regulatory processes that affect achievement. Consequently, the study advances theoretical understanding and informs more effective, responsive educational practices. In the Literature review section, a clear definition of motivation can be put at the beginning of the section. However, the authors gave the definitions after a lot of information, which can be confusing. Also, the literature concerning motivation is too out-of-date. There have been lots of articles concerning motivation in recent years. Therefore, recent literature is needed. Thank you for this insightful comment. In response, we have reorganized the Literature Review section to begin with a clear and concise definition of motivation, providing readers with a solid foundation before presenting additional information. Additionally, we conducted a thorough update of the literature, incorporating more recent and relevant studies to ensure the review reflects the current state of research on motivation. We also took this opportunity to comprehensively rewrite the section to improve clarity and coherence (pp.3-5). The researchers used intrinsic and extrinsic motivation in this paper. However, they paid more attention to intrinsic motivation rather than extrinsic motivation. It is not clear why they focused on the two motivational factors. A more nuanced statement is needed. More literature concerning extrinsic motivation is needed. Thank you for your insightful comment. We appreciate the suggestion to clarify the focus on intrinsic and extrinsic motivation in our study. While both forms of motivation are important in educational contexts, our research emphasized intrinsic motivation because of its well-documented and enduring influence on student engagement, learning processes, and academic achievement, as supported by numerous studies (e.g., Taylor et al., 2014; Froiland & Worrell, 2016; Howard et al., 2020; Kotera et al., 2023). Intrinsic motivation, being driven by internal factors such as curiosity and personal relevance, tends to foster deeper and more sustained learning compared to extrinsic motivation, which often depends on external rewards or pressures (Ryan & Deci, 2020; Matt & Dale, 2002). That said, we acknowledge the important role of extrinsic motivation in prompting initial engagement and goal attainment, especially in structured learning environments. As mentioned above, we have accordingly expanded the literature review to include more recent and nuanced studies on extrinsic motivation. Our aim was to present a balanced perspective while highlighting why intrinsic motivation was the primary focus, given its more consistent association with positive and lasting educational outcomes. We have revised the manuscript to more clearly justify this focus and incorporated additional recent literature on extrinsic motivation to provide a fuller context for our study (pp.3-5). Similarly, the references concerning self-efficacy are also out of date. Thank you for your valuable comment. In response, we have updated the literature on self-efficacy by incorporating more recent and relevant references to ensure the discussion reflects the latest research developments (p. 5). The authors stated that self-regulation is highly associated with critical thinking. However, there is a lack of justification. The authors may need to provide more references to justify the importance of self-regulation in the learning process. Again, the authors pointed out the definition of the concept in the middle of the manuscript. They may put the definition at the beginning of the section to make the review clear. Thank you for your comment. We have revised the structure of this section by placing the definition at the very beginning (p. 7) to improve clarity. Additionally, we expanded the discussion to clearly explain the connection between self-regulation and critical thinking, supported by new relevant references (pp. 7-9). The participants were 250 students. However, for path analysis, the sample size was a bit small. For path analysis, the sample size should be recommended to be 10-20 times the number of parameters. However, 250 participants or more is appropriate and can be accepted. Thank you for your insightful comment regarding the sample size for path analysis. While it is true that a common rule of thumb recommends having 10–20 times the number of parameters to be estimated, the literature also recognizes that a sample size of around 200 participants is often considered a minimum acceptable threshold for path analysis, especially when using maximum likelihood estimation, regardless of model complexity (Kline, 2016). Given that our study included 250 participants, this exceeds that minimum benchmark and is therefore appropriate and acceptable for the proposed path analysis. We acknowledge that larger samples can improve stability and generalizability, but our sample size remains within the generally accepted range for valid parameter estimation. In terms of the measurements, the authors conducted EFA for each scale. Given that the authors obtained the developed scales in this research, only CFA is needed before conducting path analysis. Thank you for your valuable suggestion. We initially conducted both Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) and Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) to ensure a robust evaluation of the scales’ dimensionality and validity in our specific sample. However, following your recommendation and considering that the scales were already developed and validated in previous research, we have removed the EFA and retained only the CFA before conducting the path analysis. Extrinsic and intrinsic motivation The questionnaire used by Pintrich (1991) measured extrinsic and intrinsic motivation. The exploratory factor analysis in the current study revealed a two-factor solution. However, one item from extrinsic motivation was removed as its loading was <.42. Theis model structure was assessed using confirmatory factor analysis, and the fit to the data was found to be good ( χ 2 (19) = 75.17, p < .001, CFI = .887, GFI = .994, SRMR = .060, CI90% [0.084-0.135], RMSEA = .109). The reliability of the subscales was satisfactory: intrinsic motivation α = .75 and extrinsic motivation α = .72. Self-efficacy The exploratory factor analysis in the current study revealed a one-factor solution. Theis model structure was assessed using confirmatory factor analysis, and the fit to the data was found to be satisfactory ( χ 2 (20) = 186.144, p < .001, CFI = .883, GFI = .974, SRMR = .054, CI90% [0.159-0.207], RMSEA = .182). The reliability of the subscale of self-efficacy was high, α = .92. Critical thinking The exploratory factor analysis in the current study revealed a one-factor solution. Theis model structure was assessed using confirmatory factor analysis, and the fit to the data was found to be good ( χ 2 (5) = 44.156, p < .001, CFI = .936, GFI = .988, SRMR = .046, CI90% [0.131-0.227], RMSEA = .177). The reliability of the subscale of critical thinking was good, α = .86. Self-regulation The exploratory factor analysis in the current study revealed a one-factor solution. Theis model structure was assessed using confirmatory factor analysis, and the fit to the data was found to be good ( χ 2 (27) = 62.216, p < .001, CFI = .954, GFI = .993, SRMR = .039, CI90% [0.049-0.096], RMSEA = .072). The reliability of the subscale of self-regulation was good α = .86. The CFI and RMESA for self-efficacy and critical thinking are low (Hair et al., 2019). This might be because of the small sample size. Also, the measurement model can be further revised to improve the model fit for each scale before proceeding to further analysis. Thank you for your valuable comment regarding the model fit indices for the self-efficacy and critical thinking constructs. We acknowledge that the RMSEA values are higher and the CFI values slightly lower than the recommended thresholds (Hair et al., 2019), which may raise concerns about model fit. As noted, the small sample size (N = 250) likely influenced the fit indices. It is well-documented that RMSEA tends to be overestimated in models with small degrees of freedom and limited sample sizes, potentially leading to inflated values even when the model fits reasonably well (Kenny, Kaniskan, & McCoach, 2015). Despite this, we observed high reliability for both subscales (α = .92 for self-efficacy; α = .86 for critical thinking), and the SRMR and GFI indices were within acceptable ranges, suggesting an overall acceptable fit (Hu & Bentler, 1999). Nonetheless, we recognize the need for improvement in the measurement model. As recommended, we plan to revise and refine the measurement instruments in future studies to enhance model fit, ideally using a larger and more diverse sample to yield more stable estimates. Also, the authors pointed out that students’ academic achievement was measured through their self-reported scores. However, the description of the measure was unclear. What subjects were used to examine participants’ academic achievement? Is it their GPA? Hence, a clear description of what scores were used should be further explained in the article. In addition, a serious concern is that the participants may report higher scores in data collection, which can have a huge impact on the findings. We appreciate the reviewer’s thoughtful observation. In response, we have revised the manuscript to provide a clearer and more detailed explanation of how academic achievement was measured. Page 12: In addition, the survey included a question asking students to report their average grade across all previously completed courses. They were instructed to provide their exact average if they knew it, or to estimate it as accurately as possible (e.g. by entering an approximate value, such as 7.5). This self-reported average grade was used as a proxy for academic achievement in the statistical analysis. In line with standard practice, this measure was treated as a grade point average (GPA) on a 10-point scale, consistent with the grading system used in the institutional context of the study. Although self-reported grades may involve some estimation error, previous studies have demonstrated their strong correlation with official records, rendering them valid indicators in large-scale educational research where access to official transcripts is not feasible. The literature review and discussion sections could be both strengthened and enriched by adding more recent relevant literature. Moreover, in the section of discussion, it would be necessary to provide more explanation of why the finding of the relationship between motivation, self-efficacy, critical thinking, self-regulation, and academic achievement is new to the literature. However, in this manuscript, the authors only discussed their findings in relation to previous empirical research without further discussion. This undermines the author's voice and agency. Hence, an improved and systematic discussion of how the findings are relevant to and different from and contribute to the literature. Literature review and discussion sections are enriched with more recent relevant literature. Additionally, more explanation of why the finding of the relationship between motivation, self-efficacy, critical thinking, self-regulation, and academic achievement is new to the literature has been presented. We tried to enhance our discussion by making corrections in the whole part of the section (pp. 15-18). In the Implications section, the implications the authors outlined go beyond the data and the contexts. “For example, educators can introduce game-like elements or real-world applications to make learning more stimulating and relevant.” This is quite difficult to achieve at higher educational levels. Thank you for this insightful observation. We agree that implementing game-like elements or real-world applications may be more challenging in higher education due to curriculum constraints, class size, and the complexity of content. We removed the sentence. Page 18: For example, educators can introduce game-like elements or real-world applications to make learning more stimulating and relevant. Additionally, some of the implications are in conflict. For instance, “To further build self-efficacy and critical thinking skills, educators should incorporate challenging activities and opportunities for students to succeed and build confidence. This could include problem-based learning projects or collaborative tasks that require students to apply their knowledge in innovative ways .” Thank you for this important observation. We recognize that the implication may appear contradictory—suggesting both increased challenge and the need for opportunities to build confidence. We have revised the relevant section in the manuscript to explicitly state that challenging tasks should be scaffolded and progressively aligned with students’ skill levels to ensure they are both intellectually stimulating and achievable. Page 19: To further build self-efficacy and critical thinking skills, educators should incorporate challenging activities and opportunities for students to succeed and build confidence. This could include problem-based learning projects or collaborative tasks that require students to apply their knowledge in innovative ways. The key is to balance cognitive challenge with appropriate support to ensure that tasks remain within students’ zones of proximal development. The goal is not to overwhelm learners, but to design learning experiences that are sufficiently demanding to stimulate critical thinking, while also structured in a way that enables success, thereby enhancing self-efficacy. Moreover, the last implication is quite strong and goes beyond the research focus. “This may involve developing a holistic curriculum that includes activities across subject areas that challenge students' cognitive skills and provide opportunities for self-regulated learning. A comprehensive educational approach that addresses these components can significantly help students succeed academically by supporting their motivation, confidence, and ability to manage their own learning processes effectively.” Thank you for pointing this out. We acknowledge that the implication, as originally stated, may have extended beyond the direct scope of our findings. Our intention was to highlight potential practical applications of the study's results, particularly in emphasizing the interconnected role of motivation, self-efficacy, critical thinking, and self-regulation in academic success. However, we agree that the recommendation regarding curriculum development may have appeared too broad or prescriptive. In response, we have revised the wording to present this implication more cautiously, framing it as a suggestion for future exploration rather than a direct conclusion from our data. Page 20: These findings suggest that supporting students’ motivation, self-efficacy, critical thinking, and self-regulation could contribute positively to their academic development. One possible area for future exploration may include examining how integrated curricular approaches—such as activities that promote cognitive engagement and self-directed learning—can be implemented in ways that align with these psychological constructs. However, such educational approaches should be developed with caution and evaluated in diverse academic contexts to assess their effectiveness. Also, the authors may need to pay attention to the grammar. Further editing is needed. For instance, “Developing critical thinking skills is paramount for students, enabling them to swiftly discern reliable information, enhance their focus on practical learning, and become attuned to real-world situations.” In addition, some of the expressions are unclear in the manuscript and should be rewritten. Thank you for pointing out the need for improved clarity and grammatical accuracy. In response, we carefully reviewed and edited the entire manuscript to correct grammatical errors, improve sentence structure, and ensure clarity throughout. Page 6: It is paramount for students to develop critical thinking skills, as this enables them to swiftly discern reliable information, focus on practical learning and become attuned to real-world situations. Page 6: Similarly, the capacity for self-regulation is similarly of great consequence in academic contexts. Specifically, self-regulation is the process by which students generate their thoughts and behaviours in a structured way in order to achieve their learning goals. Page 8: When faced with authentic problems requiring innovative solutions, students are motivated to work beyond the classroom. They engage in hypothesis generation, analysis, synthesis, evaluation and the real-time presentation of their findings. Overall, the manuscript needs substantial revision. I would not recommend the manuscript for indexing due to the research design, methods used, and its significance. We sincerely appreciate the reviewer’s detailed feedback and acknowledge the importance of maintaining rigorous standards for publication. In response to the concerns raised, we have undertaken a comprehensive revision of the manuscript, with particular attention to improving the clarity and justification of the research design, refining the description of our methodology, strengthening the articulation of the study’s theoretical and practical significance and highlighting introduction and discussion with more recent studies. We hope that these substantial and thoughtful revisions demonstrate our commitment to improving the manuscript and ensuring that it meets scholarly expectations. We respectfully ask for reconsideration of the manuscript in light of these changes and our careful attention to each reviewer comment. Thank you for this insightful comment. In response, we have carefully revised the rationale in the Introduction section to make a clearer and more compelling case for the study. Specifically, we strengthened the justification for focusing on motivation by emphasizing its dynamic, actionable nature compared to more static predictors of academic achievement. We also clarified the research gap by highlighting the lack of integrative models that examine how intrinsic and extrinsic motivation interact with self-efficacy, critical thinking, and self-regulation to predict academic achievement. Although these constructs have been studied extensively, they are often treated in isolation. Furthermore, we pointed out that existing studies are predominantly situated in Western contexts, underscoring the need for research that examines these relationships in diverse educational settings. We believe these revisions present a more robust problem statement and offer a stronger justification for the current study’s focus and contribution (pp.9-10). The authors pointed out the research concerning the relationship between motivational factors and students’ academic performance in higher education. However, there has been a lot of research conducted on motivation and academic achievement. In this regard, more literature concerning motivation and academic achievement in higher education is needed. We thank the reviewer for this valuable comment. In response, we have added more studies that refer to higher education. Page 9: Furthermore, a substantial body of research has investigated the relationship between motivational factors and academic performance in higher education (see Agustina et al., 2021; Author et al., 2024; Pestana et al., 2023) indicating the association between motivation and academic performance. Also, the authors may need to open the argument in a more systematic way about how this study is different from the previous ones. Thank you for your valuable suggestion. We added a paragraph that highlights why our research differs from others. Page 10: This study differs from previous research in that it takes an integrative and context-sensitive approach to understanding academic achievement. While previous studies have frequently examined motivation, self-efficacy, critical thinking or self-regulation as individual constructs or in limited combinations, this study unifies these variables within a theoretically grounded path model. This comprehensive framework enables the exploration of direct and indirect relationships between these constructs, providing deeper insight into how motivation influences cognitive and self-regulatory processes that affect achievement. Consequently, the study advances theoretical understanding and informs more effective, responsive educational practices. In the Literature review section, a clear definition of motivation can be put at the beginning of the section. However, the authors gave the definitions after a lot of information, which can be confusing. Also, the literature concerning motivation is too out-of-date. There have been lots of articles concerning motivation in recent years. Therefore, recent literature is needed. Thank you for this insightful comment. In response, we have reorganized the Literature Review section to begin with a clear and concise definition of motivation, providing readers with a solid foundation before presenting additional information. Additionally, we conducted a thorough update of the literature, incorporating more recent and relevant studies to ensure the review reflects the current state of research on motivation. We also took this opportunity to comprehensively rewrite the section to improve clarity and coherence (pp.3-5). The researchers used intrinsic and extrinsic motivation in this paper. However, they paid more attention to intrinsic motivation rather than extrinsic motivation. It is not clear why they focused on the two motivational factors. A more nuanced statement is needed. More literature concerning extrinsic motivation is needed. Thank you for your insightful comment. We appreciate the suggestion to clarify the focus on intrinsic and extrinsic motivation in our study. While both forms of motivation are important in educational contexts, our research emphasized intrinsic motivation because of its well-documented and enduring influence on student engagement, learning processes, and academic achievement, as supported by numerous studies (e.g., Taylor et al., 2014; Froiland & Worrell, 2016; Howard et al., 2020; Kotera et al., 2023). Intrinsic motivation, being driven by internal factors such as curiosity and personal relevance, tends to foster deeper and more sustained learning compared to extrinsic motivation, which often depends on external rewards or pressures (Ryan & Deci, 2020; Matt & Dale, 2002). That said, we acknowledge the important role of extrinsic motivation in prompting initial engagement and goal attainment, especially in structured learning environments. As mentioned above, we have accordingly expanded the literature review to include more recent and nuanced studies on extrinsic motivation. Our aim was to present a balanced perspective while highlighting why intrinsic motivation was the primary focus, given its more consistent association with positive and lasting educational outcomes. We have revised the manuscript to more clearly justify this focus and incorporated additional recent literature on extrinsic motivation to provide a fuller context for our study (pp.3-5). Similarly, the references concerning self-efficacy are also out of date. Thank you for your valuable comment. In response, we have updated the literature on self-efficacy by incorporating more recent and relevant references to ensure the discussion reflects the latest research developments (p. 5). The authors stated that self-regulation is highly associated with critical thinking. However, there is a lack of justification. The authors may need to provide more references to justify the importance of self-regulation in the learning process. Again, the authors pointed out the definition of the concept in the middle of the manuscript. They may put the definition at the beginning of the section to make the review clear. Thank you for your comment. We have revised the structure of this section by placing the definition at the very beginning (p. 7) to improve clarity. Additionally, we expanded the discussion to clearly explain the connection between self-regulation and critical thinking, supported by new relevant references (pp. 7-9). The participants were 250 students. However, for path analysis, the sample size was a bit small. For path analysis, the sample size should be recommended to be 10-20 times the number of parameters. However, 250 participants or more is appropriate and can be accepted. Thank you for your insightful comment regarding the sample size for path analysis. While it is true that a common rule of thumb recommends having 10–20 times the number of parameters to be estimated, the literature also recognizes that a sample size of around 200 participants is often considered a minimum acceptable threshold for path analysis, especially when using maximum likelihood estimation, regardless of model complexity (Kline, 2016). Given that our study included 250 participants, this exceeds that minimum benchmark and is therefore appropriate and acceptable for the proposed path analysis. We acknowledge that larger samples can improve stability and generalizability, but our sample size remains within the generally accepted range for valid parameter estimation. In terms of the measurements, the authors conducted EFA for each scale. Given that the authors obtained the developed scales in this research, only CFA is needed before conducting path analysis. Thank you for your valuable suggestion. We initially conducted both Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) and Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) to ensure a robust evaluation of the scales’ dimensionality and validity in our specific sample. However, following your recommendation and considering that the scales were already developed and validated in previous research, we have removed the EFA and retained only the CFA before conducting the path analysis. Extrinsic and intrinsic motivation The questionnaire used by Pintrich (1991) measured extrinsic and intrinsic motivation. The exploratory factor analysis in the current study revealed a two-factor solution. However, one item from extrinsic motivation was removed as its loading was <.42. Theis model structure was assessed using confirmatory factor analysis, and the fit to the data was found to be good ( χ 2 (19) = 75.17, p < .001, CFI = .887, GFI = .994, SRMR = .060, CI90% [0.084-0.135], RMSEA = .109). The reliability of the subscales was satisfactory: intrinsic motivation α = .75 and extrinsic motivation α = .72. Self-efficacy The exploratory factor analysis in the current study revealed a one-factor solution. Theis model structure was assessed using confirmatory factor analysis, and the fit to the data was found to be satisfactory ( χ 2 (20) = 186.144, p < .001, CFI = .883, GFI = .974, SRMR = .054, CI90% [0.159-0.207], RMSEA = .182). The reliability of the subscale of self-efficacy was high, α = .92. Critical thinking The exploratory factor analysis in the current study revealed a one-factor solution. Theis model structure was assessed using confirmatory factor analysis, and the fit to the data was found to be good ( χ 2 (5) = 44.156, p < .001, CFI = .936, GFI = .988, SRMR = .046, CI90% [0.131-0.227], RMSEA = .177). The reliability of the subscale of critical thinking was good, α = .86. Self-regulation The exploratory factor analysis in the current study revealed a one-factor solution. Theis model structure was assessed using confirmatory factor analysis, and the fit to the data was found to be good ( χ 2 (27) = 62.216, p < .001, CFI = .954, GFI = .993, SRMR = .039, CI90% [0.049-0.096], RMSEA = .072). The reliability of the subscale of self-regulation was good α = .86. The CFI and RMESA for self-efficacy and critical thinking are low (Hair et al., 2019). This might be because of the small sample size. Also, the measurement model can be further revised to improve the model fit for each scale before proceeding to further analysis. Thank you for your valuable comment regarding the model fit indices for the self-efficacy and critical thinking constructs. We acknowledge that the RMSEA values are higher and the CFI values slightly lower than the recommended thresholds (Hair et al., 2019), which may raise concerns about model fit. As noted, the small sample size (N = 250) likely influenced the fit indices. It is well-documented that RMSEA tends to be overestimated in models with small degrees of freedom and limited sample sizes, potentially leading to inflated values even when the model fits reasonably well (Kenny, Kaniskan, & McCoach, 2015). Despite this, we observed high reliability for both subscales (α = .92 for self-efficacy; α = .86 for critical thinking), and the SRMR and GFI indices were within acceptable ranges, suggesting an overall acceptable fit (Hu & Bentler, 1999). Nonetheless, we recognize the need for improvement in the measurement model. As recommended, we plan to revise and refine the measurement instruments in future studies to enhance model fit, ideally using a larger and more diverse sample to yield more stable estimates. Also, the authors pointed out that students’ academic achievement was measured through their self-reported scores. However, the description of the measure was unclear. What subjects were used to examine participants’ academic achievement? Is it their GPA? Hence, a clear description of what scores were used should be further explained in the article. In addition, a serious concern is that the participants may report higher scores in data collection, which can have a huge impact on the findings. We appreciate the reviewer’s thoughtful observation. In response, we have revised the manuscript to provide a clearer and more detailed explanation of how academic achievement was measured. Page 12: In addition, the survey included a question asking students to report their average grade across all previously completed courses. They were instructed to provide their exact average if they knew it, or to estimate it as accurately as possible (e.g. by entering an approximate value, such as 7.5). This self-reported average grade was used as a proxy for academic achievement in the statistical analysis. In line with standard practice, this measure was treated as a grade point average (GPA) on a 10-point scale, consistent with the grading system used in the institutional context of the study. Although self-reported grades may involve some estimation error, previous studies have demonstrated their strong correlation with official records, rendering them valid indicators in large-scale educational research where access to official transcripts is not feasible. The literature review and discussion sections could be both strengthened and enriched by adding more recent relevant literature. Moreover, in the section of discussion, it would be necessary to provide more explanation of why the finding of the relationship between motivation, self-efficacy, critical thinking, self-regulation, and academic achievement is new to the literature. However, in this manuscript, the authors only discussed their findings in relation to previous empirical research without further discussion. This undermines the author's voice and agency. Hence, an improved and systematic discussion of how the findings are relevant to and different from and contribute to the literature. Literature review and discussion sections are enriched with more recent relevant literature. Additionally, more explanation of why the finding of the relationship between motivation, self-efficacy, critical thinking, self-regulation, and academic achievement is new to the literature has been presented. We tried to enhance our discussion by making corrections in the whole part of the section (pp. 15-18). In the Implications section, the implications the authors outlined go beyond the data and the contexts. “For example, educators can introduce game-like elements or real-world applications to make learning more stimulating and relevant.” This is quite difficult to achieve at higher educational levels. Thank you for this insightful observation. We agree that implementing game-like elements or real-world applications may be more challenging in higher education due to curriculum constraints, class size, and the complexity of content. We removed the sentence. Page 18: For example, educators can introduce game-like elements or real-world applications to make learning more stimulating and relevant. Additionally, some of the implications are in conflict. For instance, “To further build self-efficacy and critical thinking skills, educators should incorporate challenging activities and opportunities for students to succeed and build confidence. This could include problem-based learning projects or collaborative tasks that require students to apply their knowledge in innovative ways .” Thank you for this important observation. We recognize that the implication may appear contradictory—suggesting both increased challenge and the need for opportunities to build confidence. We have revised the relevant section in the manuscript to explicitly state that challenging tasks should be scaffolded and progressively aligned with students’ skill levels to ensure they are both intellectually stimulating and achievable. Page 19: To further build self-efficacy and critical thinking skills, educators should incorporate challenging activities and opportunities for students to succeed and build confidence. This could include problem-based learning projects or collaborative tasks that require students to apply their knowledge in innovative ways. The key is to balance cognitive challenge with appropriate support to ensure that tasks remain within students’ zones of proximal development. The goal is not to overwhelm learners, but to design learning experiences that are sufficiently demanding to stimulate critical thinking, while also structured in a way that enables success, thereby enhancing self-efficacy. Moreover, the last implication is quite strong and goes beyond the research focus. “This may involve developing a holistic curriculum that includes activities across subject areas that challenge students' cognitive skills and provide opportunities for self-regulated learning. A comprehensive educational approach that addresses these components can significantly help students succeed academically by supporting their motivation, confidence, and ability to manage their own learning processes effectively.” Thank you for pointing this out. We acknowledge that the implication, as originally stated, may have extended beyond the direct scope of our findings. Our intention was to highlight potential practical applications of the study's results, particularly in emphasizing the interconnected role of motivation, self-efficacy, critical thinking, and self-regulation in academic success. However, we agree that the recommendation regarding curriculum development may have appeared too broad or prescriptive. In response, we have revised the wording to present this implication more cautiously, framing it as a suggestion for future exploration rather than a direct conclusion from our data. Page 20: These findings suggest that supporting students’ motivation, self-efficacy, critical thinking, and self-regulation could contribute positively to their academic development. One possible area for future exploration may include examining how integrated curricular approaches—such as activities that promote cognitive engagement and self-directed learning—can be implemented in ways that align with these psychological constructs. However, such educational approaches should be developed with caution and evaluated in diverse academic contexts to assess their effectiveness. Also, the authors may need to pay attention to the grammar. Further editing is needed. For instance, “Developing critical thinking skills is paramount for students, enabling them to swiftly discern reliable information, enhance their focus on practical learning, and become attuned to real-world situations.” In addition, some of the expressions are unclear in the manuscript and should be rewritten. Thank you for pointing out the need for improved clarity and grammatical accuracy. In response, we carefully reviewed and edited the entire manuscript to correct grammatical errors, improve sentence structure, and ensure clarity throughout. Page 6: It is paramount for students to develop critical thinking skills, as this enables them to swiftly discern reliable information, focus on practical learning and become attuned to real-world situations. Page 6: Similarly, the capacity for self-regulation is similarly of great consequence in academic contexts. Specifically, self-regulation is the process by which students generate their thoughts and behaviours in a structured way in order to achieve their learning goals. Page 8: When faced with authentic problems requiring innovative solutions, students are motivated to work beyond the classroom. They engage in hypothesis generation, analysis, synthesis, evaluation and the real-time presentation of their findings. Overall, the manuscript needs substantial revision. I would not recommend the manuscript for indexing due to the research design, methods used, and its significance. We sincerely appreciate the reviewer’s detailed feedback and acknowledge the importance of maintaining rigorous standards for publication. In response to the concerns raised, we have undertaken a comprehensive revision of the manuscript, with particular attention to improving the clarity and justification of the research design, refining the description of our methodology, strengthening the articulation of the study’s theoretical and practical significance and highlighting introduction and discussion with more recent studies. We hope that these substantial and thoughtful revisions demonstrate our commitment to improving the manuscript and ensuring that it meets scholarly expectations. We respectfully ask for reconsideration of the manuscript in light of these changes and our careful attention to each reviewer comment. Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Close Report a concern Respond or Comment COMMENTS ON THIS REPORT Author Response 11 Sep 2025 Georgia Stavropoulou , Aristoteleio Panepistemio Thessalonikes Philosophike Schole, Thessaloniki, Greece 11 Sep 2025 Author Response Thank you for this insightful comment. In response, we have carefully revised the rationale in the Introduction section to make a clearer and more compelling case for the study. Specifically, ... Continue reading Thank you for this insightful comment. In response, we have carefully revised the rationale in the Introduction section to make a clearer and more compelling case for the study. Specifically, we strengthened the justification for focusing on motivation by emphasizing its dynamic, actionable nature compared to more static predictors of academic achievement. We also clarified the research gap by highlighting the lack of integrative models that examine how intrinsic and extrinsic motivation interact with self-efficacy, critical thinking, and self-regulation to predict academic achievement. Although these constructs have been studied extensively, they are often treated in isolation. Furthermore, we pointed out that existing studies are predominantly situated in Western contexts, underscoring the need for research that examines these relationships in diverse educational settings. We believe these revisions present a more robust problem statement and offer a stronger justification for the current study’s focus and contribution (pp.9-10). The authors pointed out the research concerning the relationship between motivational factors and students’ academic performance in higher education. However, there has been a lot of research conducted on motivation and academic achievement. In this regard, more literature concerning motivation and academic achievement in higher education is needed. We thank the reviewer for this valuable comment. In response, we have added more studies that refer to higher education. Page 9: Furthermore, a substantial body of research has investigated the relationship between motivational factors and academic performance in higher education (see Agustina et al., 2021; Author et al., 2024; Pestana et al., 2023) indicating the association between motivation and academic performance. Also, the authors may need to open the argument in a more systematic way about how this study is different from the previous ones. Thank you for your valuable suggestion. We added a paragraph that highlights why our research differs from others. Page 10: This study differs from previous research in that it takes an integrative and context-sensitive approach to understanding academic achievement. While previous studies have frequently examined motivation, self-efficacy, critical thinking or self-regulation as individual constructs or in limited combinations, this study unifies these variables within a theoretically grounded path model. This comprehensive framework enables the exploration of direct and indirect relationships between these constructs, providing deeper insight into how motivation influences cognitive and self-regulatory processes that affect achievement. Consequently, the study advances theoretical understanding and informs more effective, responsive educational practices. In the Literature review section, a clear definition of motivation can be put at the beginning of the section. However, the authors gave the definitions after a lot of information, which can be confusing. Also, the literature concerning motivation is too out-of-date. There have been lots of articles concerning motivation in recent years. Therefore, recent literature is needed. Thank you for this insightful comment. In response, we have reorganized the Literature Review section to begin with a clear and concise definition of motivation, providing readers with a solid foundation before presenting additional information. Additionally, we conducted a thorough update of the literature, incorporating more recent and relevant studies to ensure the review reflects the current state of research on motivation. We also took this opportunity to comprehensively rewrite the section to improve clarity and coherence (pp.3-5). The researchers used intrinsic and extrinsic motivation in this paper. However, they paid more attention to intrinsic motivation rather than extrinsic motivation. It is not clear why they focused on the two motivational factors. A more nuanced statement is needed. More literature concerning extrinsic motivation is needed. Thank you for your insightful comment. We appreciate the suggestion to clarify the focus on intrinsic and extrinsic motivation in our study. While both forms of motivation are important in educational contexts, our research emphasized intrinsic motivation because of its well-documented and enduring influence on student engagement, learning processes, and academic achievement, as supported by numerous studies (e.g., Taylor et al., 2014; Froiland & Worrell, 2016; Howard et al., 2020; Kotera et al., 2023). Intrinsic motivation, being driven by internal factors such as curiosity and personal relevance, tends to foster deeper and more sustained learning compared to extrinsic motivation, which often depends on external rewards or pressures (Ryan & Deci, 2020; Matt & Dale, 2002). That said, we acknowledge the important role of extrinsic motivation in prompting initial engagement and goal attainment, especially in structured learning environments. As mentioned above, we have accordingly expanded the literature review to include more recent and nuanced studies on extrinsic motivation. Our aim was to present a balanced perspective while highlighting why intrinsic motivation was the primary focus, given its more consistent association with positive and lasting educational outcomes. We have revised the manuscript to more clearly justify this focus and incorporated additional recent literature on extrinsic motivation to provide a fuller context for our study (pp.3-5). Similarly, the references concerning self-efficacy are also out of date. Thank you for your valuable comment. In response, we have updated the literature on self-efficacy by incorporating more recent and relevant references to ensure the discussion reflects the latest research developments (p. 5). The authors stated that self-regulation is highly associated with critical thinking. However, there is a lack of justification. The authors may need to provide more references to justify the importance of self-regulation in the learning process. Again, the authors pointed out the definition of the concept in the middle of the manuscript. They may put the definition at the beginning of the section to make the review clear. Thank you for your comment. We have revised the structure of this section by placing the definition at the very beginning (p. 7) to improve clarity. Additionally, we expanded the discussion to clearly explain the connection between self-regulation and critical thinking, supported by new relevant references (pp. 7-9). The participants were 250 students. However, for path analysis, the sample size was a bit small. For path analysis, the sample size should be recommended to be 10-20 times the number of parameters. However, 250 participants or more is appropriate and can be accepted. Thank you for your insightful comment regarding the sample size for path analysis. While it is true that a common rule of thumb recommends having 10–20 times the number of parameters to be estimated, the literature also recognizes that a sample size of around 200 participants is often considered a minimum acceptable threshold for path analysis, especially when using maximum likelihood estimation, regardless of model complexity (Kline, 2016). Given that our study included 250 participants, this exceeds that minimum benchmark and is therefore appropriate and acceptable for the proposed path analysis. We acknowledge that larger samples can improve stability and generalizability, but our sample size remains within the generally accepted range for valid parameter estimation. In terms of the measurements, the authors conducted EFA for each scale. Given that the authors obtained the developed scales in this research, only CFA is needed before conducting path analysis. Thank you for your valuable suggestion. We initially conducted both Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) and Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) to ensure a robust evaluation of the scales’ dimensionality and validity in our specific sample. However, following your recommendation and considering that the scales were already developed and validated in previous research, we have removed the EFA and retained only the CFA before conducting the path analysis. Extrinsic and intrinsic motivation The questionnaire used by Pintrich (1991) measured extrinsic and intrinsic motivation. The exploratory factor analysis in the current study revealed a two-factor solution. However, one item from extrinsic motivation was removed as its loading was <.42. Theis model structure was assessed using confirmatory factor analysis, and the fit to the data was found to be good ( χ 2 (19) = 75.17, p < .001, CFI = .887, GFI = .994, SRMR = .060, CI90% [0.084-0.135], RMSEA = .109). The reliability of the subscales was satisfactory: intrinsic motivation α = .75 and extrinsic motivation α = .72. Self-efficacy The exploratory factor analysis in the current study revealed a one-factor solution. Theis model structure was assessed using confirmatory factor analysis, and the fit to the data was found to be satisfactory ( χ 2 (20) = 186.144, p < .001, CFI = .883, GFI = .974, SRMR = .054, CI90% [0.159-0.207], RMSEA = .182). The reliability of the subscale of self-efficacy was high, α = .92. Critical thinking The exploratory factor analysis in the current study revealed a one-factor solution. Theis model structure was assessed using confirmatory factor analysis, and the fit to the data was found to be good ( χ 2 (5) = 44.156, p < .001, CFI = .936, GFI = .988, SRMR = .046, CI90% [0.131-0.227], RMSEA = .177). The reliability of the subscale of critical thinking was good, α = .86. Self-regulation The exploratory factor analysis in the current study revealed a one-factor solution. Theis model structure was assessed using confirmatory factor analysis, and the fit to the data was found to be good ( χ 2 (27) = 62.216, p < .001, CFI = .954, GFI = .993, SRMR = .039, CI90% [0.049-0.096], RMSEA = .072). The reliability of the subscale of self-regulation was good α = .86. The CFI and RMESA for self-efficacy and critical thinking are low (Hair et al., 2019). This might be because of the small sample size. Also, the measurement model can be further revised to improve the model fit for each scale before proceeding to further analysis. Thank you for your valuable comment regarding the model fit indices for the self-efficacy and critical thinking constructs. We acknowledge that the RMSEA values are higher and the CFI values slightly lower than the recommended thresholds (Hair et al., 2019), which may raise concerns about model fit. As noted, the small sample size (N = 250) likely influenced the fit indices. It is well-documented that RMSEA tends to be overestimated in models with small degrees of freedom and limited sample sizes, potentially leading to inflated values even when the model fits reasonably well (Kenny, Kaniskan, & McCoach, 2015). Despite this, we observed high reliability for both subscales (α = .92 for self-efficacy; α = .86 for critical thinking), and the SRMR and GFI indices were within acceptable ranges, suggesting an overall acceptable fit (Hu & Bentler, 1999). Nonetheless, we recognize the need for improvement in the measurement model. As recommended, we plan to revise and refine the measurement instruments in future studies to enhance model fit, ideally using a larger and more diverse sample to yield more stable estimates. Also, the authors pointed out that students’ academic achievement was measured through their self-reported scores. However, the description of the measure was unclear. What subjects were used to examine participants’ academic achievement? Is it their GPA? Hence, a clear description of what scores were used should be further explained in the article. In addition, a serious concern is that the participants may report higher scores in data collection, which can have a huge impact on the findings. We appreciate the reviewer’s thoughtful observation. In response, we have revised the manuscript to provide a clearer and more detailed explanation of how academic achievement was measured. Page 12: In addition, the survey included a question asking students to report their average grade across all previously completed courses. They were instructed to provide their exact average if they knew it, or to estimate it as accurately as possible (e.g. by entering an approximate value, such as 7.5). This self-reported average grade was used as a proxy for academic achievement in the statistical analysis. In line with standard practice, this measure was treated as a grade point average (GPA) on a 10-point scale, consistent with the grading system used in the institutional context of the study. Although self-reported grades may involve some estimation error, previous studies have demonstrated their strong correlation with official records, rendering them valid indicators in large-scale educational research where access to official transcripts is not feasible. The literature review and discussion sections could be both strengthened and enriched by adding more recent relevant literature. Moreover, in the section of discussion, it would be necessary to provide more explanation of why the finding of the relationship between motivation, self-efficacy, critical thinking, self-regulation, and academic achievement is new to the literature. However, in this manuscript, the authors only discussed their findings in relation to previous empirical research without further discussion. This undermines the author's voice and agency. Hence, an improved and systematic discussion of how the findings are relevant to and different from and contribute to the literature. Literature review and discussion sections are enriched with more recent relevant literature. Additionally, more explanation of why the finding of the relationship between motivation, self-efficacy, critical thinking, self-regulation, and academic achievement is new to the literature has been presented. We tried to enhance our discussion by making corrections in the whole part of the section (pp. 15-18). In the Implications section, the implications the authors outlined go beyond the data and the contexts. “For example, educators can introduce game-like elements or real-world applications to make learning more stimulating and relevant.” This is quite difficult to achieve at higher educational levels. Thank you for this insightful observation. We agree that implementing game-like elements or real-world applications may be more challenging in higher education due to curriculum constraints, class size, and the complexity of content. We removed the sentence. Page 18: For example, educators can introduce game-like elements or real-world applications to make learning more stimulating and relevant. Additionally, some of the implications are in conflict. For instance, “To further build self-efficacy and critical thinking skills, educators should incorporate challenging activities and opportunities for students to succeed and build confidence. This could include problem-based learning projects or collaborative tasks that require students to apply their knowledge in innovative ways .” Thank you for this important observation. We recognize that the implication may appear contradictory—suggesting both increased challenge and the need for opportunities to build confidence. We have revised the relevant section in the manuscript to explicitly state that challenging tasks should be scaffolded and progressively aligned with students’ skill levels to ensure they are both intellectually stimulating and achievable. Page 19: To further build self-efficacy and critical thinking skills, educators should incorporate challenging activities and opportunities for students to succeed and build confidence. This could include problem-based learning projects or collaborative tasks that require students to apply their knowledge in innovative ways. The key is to balance cognitive challenge with appropriate support to ensure that tasks remain within students’ zones of proximal development. The goal is not to overwhelm learners, but to design learning experiences that are sufficiently demanding to stimulate critical thinking, while also structured in a way that enables success, thereby enhancing self-efficacy. Moreover, the last implication is quite strong and goes beyond the research focus. “This may involve developing a holistic curriculum that includes activities across subject areas that challenge students' cognitive skills and provide opportunities for self-regulated learning. A comprehensive educational approach that addresses these components can significantly help students succeed academically by supporting their motivation, confidence, and ability to manage their own learning processes effectively.” Thank you for pointing this out. We acknowledge that the implication, as originally stated, may have extended beyond the direct scope of our findings. Our intention was to highlight potential practical applications of the study's results, particularly in emphasizing the interconnected role of motivation, self-efficacy, critical thinking, and self-regulation in academic success. However, we agree that the recommendation regarding curriculum development may have appeared too broad or prescriptive. In response, we have revised the wording to present this implication more cautiously, framing it as a suggestion for future exploration rather than a direct conclusion from our data. Page 20: These findings suggest that supporting students’ motivation, self-efficacy, critical thinking, and self-regulation could contribute positively to their academic development. One possible area for future exploration may include examining how integrated curricular approaches—such as activities that promote cognitive engagement and self-directed learning—can be implemented in ways that align with these psychological constructs. However, such educational approaches should be developed with caution and evaluated in diverse academic contexts to assess their effectiveness. Also, the authors may need to pay attention to the grammar. Further editing is needed. For instance, “Developing critical thinking skills is paramount for students, enabling them to swiftly discern reliable information, enhance their focus on practical learning, and become attuned to real-world situations.” In addition, some of the expressions are unclear in the manuscript and should be rewritten. Thank you for pointing out the need for improved clarity and grammatical accuracy. In response, we carefully reviewed and edited the entire manuscript to correct grammatical errors, improve sentence structure, and ensure clarity throughout. Page 6: It is paramount for students to develop critical thinking skills, as this enables them to swiftly discern reliable information, focus on practical learning and become attuned to real-world situations. Page 6: Similarly, the capacity for self-regulation is similarly of great consequence in academic contexts. Specifically, self-regulation is the process by which students generate their thoughts and behaviours in a structured way in order to achieve their learning goals. Page 8: When faced with authentic problems requiring innovative solutions, students are motivated to work beyond the classroom. They engage in hypothesis generation, analysis, synthesis, evaluation and the real-time presentation of their findings. Overall, the manuscript needs substantial revision. I would not recommend the manuscript for indexing due to the research design, methods used, and its significance. We sincerely appreciate the reviewer’s detailed feedback and acknowledge the importance of maintaining rigorous standards for publication. In response to the concerns raised, we have undertaken a comprehensive revision of the manuscript, with particular attention to improving the clarity and justification of the research design, refining the description of our methodology, strengthening the articulation of the study’s theoretical and practical significance and highlighting introduction and discussion with more recent studies. We hope that these substantial and thoughtful revisions demonstrate our commitment to improving the manuscript and ensuring that it meets scholarly expectations. We respectfully ask for reconsideration of the manuscript in light of these changes and our careful attention to each reviewer comment. Thank you for this insightful comment. In response, we have carefully revised the rationale in the Introduction section to make a clearer and more compelling case for the study. Specifically, we strengthened the justification for focusing on motivation by emphasizing its dynamic, actionable nature compared to more static predictors of academic achievement. We also clarified the research gap by highlighting the lack of integrative models that examine how intrinsic and extrinsic motivation interact with self-efficacy, critical thinking, and self-regulation to predict academic achievement. Although these constructs have been studied extensively, they are often treated in isolation. Furthermore, we pointed out that existing studies are predominantly situated in Western contexts, underscoring the need for research that examines these relationships in diverse educational settings. We believe these revisions present a more robust problem statement and offer a stronger justification for the current study’s focus and contribution (pp.9-10). The authors pointed out the research concerning the relationship between motivational factors and students’ academic performance in higher education. However, there has been a lot of research conducted on motivation and academic achievement. In this regard, more literature concerning motivation and academic achievement in higher education is needed. We thank the reviewer for this valuable comment. In response, we have added more studies that refer to higher education. Page 9: Furthermore, a substantial body of research has investigated the relationship between motivational factors and academic performance in higher education (see Agustina et al., 2021; Author et al., 2024; Pestana et al., 2023) indicating the association between motivation and academic performance. Also, the authors may need to open the argument in a more systematic way about how this study is different from the previous ones. Thank you for your valuable suggestion. We added a paragraph that highlights why our research differs from others. Page 10: This study differs from previous research in that it takes an integrative and context-sensitive approach to understanding academic achievement. While previous studies have frequently examined motivation, self-efficacy, critical thinking or self-regulation as individual constructs or in limited combinations, this study unifies these variables within a theoretically grounded path model. This comprehensive framework enables the exploration of direct and indirect relationships between these constructs, providing deeper insight into how motivation influences cognitive and self-regulatory processes that affect achievement. Consequently, the study advances theoretical understanding and informs more effective, responsive educational practices. In the Literature review section, a clear definition of motivation can be put at the beginning of the section. However, the authors gave the definitions after a lot of information, which can be confusing. Also, the literature concerning motivation is too out-of-date. There have been lots of articles concerning motivation in recent years. Therefore, recent literature is needed. Thank you for this insightful comment. In response, we have reorganized the Literature Review section to begin with a clear and concise definition of motivation, providing readers with a solid foundation before presenting additional information. Additionally, we conducted a thorough update of the literature, incorporating more recent and relevant studies to ensure the review reflects the current state of research on motivation. We also took this opportunity to comprehensively rewrite the section to improve clarity and coherence (pp.3-5). The researchers used intrinsic and extrinsic motivation in this paper. However, they paid more attention to intrinsic motivation rather than extrinsic motivation. It is not clear why they focused on the two motivational factors. A more nuanced statement is needed. More literature concerning extrinsic motivation is needed. Thank you for your insightful comment. We appreciate the suggestion to clarify the focus on intrinsic and extrinsic motivation in our study. While both forms of motivation are important in educational contexts, our research emphasized intrinsic motivation because of its well-documented and enduring influence on student engagement, learning processes, and academic achievement, as supported by numerous studies (e.g., Taylor et al., 2014; Froiland & Worrell, 2016; Howard et al., 2020; Kotera et al., 2023). Intrinsic motivation, being driven by internal factors such as curiosity and personal relevance, tends to foster deeper and more sustained learning compared to extrinsic motivation, which often depends on external rewards or pressures (Ryan & Deci, 2020; Matt & Dale, 2002). That said, we acknowledge the important role of extrinsic motivation in prompting initial engagement and goal attainment, especially in structured learning environments. As mentioned above, we have accordingly expanded the literature review to include more recent and nuanced studies on extrinsic motivation. Our aim was to present a balanced perspective while highlighting why intrinsic motivation was the primary focus, given its more consistent association with positive and lasting educational outcomes. We have revised the manuscript to more clearly justify this focus and incorporated additional recent literature on extrinsic motivation to provide a fuller context for our study (pp.3-5). Similarly, the references concerning self-efficacy are also out of date. Thank you for your valuable comment. In response, we have updated the literature on self-efficacy by incorporating more recent and relevant references to ensure the discussion reflects the latest research developments (p. 5). The authors stated that self-regulation is highly associated with critical thinking. However, there is a lack of justification. The authors may need to provide more references to justify the importance of self-regulation in the learning process. Again, the authors pointed out the definition of the concept in the middle of the manuscript. They may put the definition at the beginning of the section to make the review clear. Thank you for your comment. We have revised the structure of this section by placing the definition at the very beginning (p. 7) to improve clarity. Additionally, we expanded the discussion to clearly explain the connection between self-regulation and critical thinking, supported by new relevant references (pp. 7-9). The participants were 250 students. However, for path analysis, the sample size was a bit small. For path analysis, the sample size should be recommended to be 10-20 times the number of parameters. However, 250 participants or more is appropriate and can be accepted. Thank you for your insightful comment regarding the sample size for path analysis. While it is true that a common rule of thumb recommends having 10–20 times the number of parameters to be estimated, the literature also recognizes that a sample size of around 200 participants is often considered a minimum acceptable threshold for path analysis, especially when using maximum likelihood estimation, regardless of model complexity (Kline, 2016). Given that our study included 250 participants, this exceeds that minimum benchmark and is therefore appropriate and acceptable for the proposed path analysis. We acknowledge that larger samples can improve stability and generalizability, but our sample size remains within the generally accepted range for valid parameter estimation. In terms of the measurements, the authors conducted EFA for each scale. Given that the authors obtained the developed scales in this research, only CFA is needed before conducting path analysis. Thank you for your valuable suggestion. We initially conducted both Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) and Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) to ensure a robust evaluation of the scales’ dimensionality and validity in our specific sample. However, following your recommendation and considering that the scales were already developed and validated in previous research, we have removed the EFA and retained only the CFA before conducting the path analysis. Extrinsic and intrinsic motivation The questionnaire used by Pintrich (1991) measured extrinsic and intrinsic motivation. The exploratory factor analysis in the current study revealed a two-factor solution. However, one item from extrinsic motivation was removed as its loading was <.42. Theis model structure was assessed using confirmatory factor analysis, and the fit to the data was found to be good ( χ 2 (19) = 75.17, p < .001, CFI = .887, GFI = .994, SRMR = .060, CI90% [0.084-0.135], RMSEA = .109). The reliability of the subscales was satisfactory: intrinsic motivation α = .75 and extrinsic motivation α = .72. Self-efficacy The exploratory factor analysis in the current study revealed a one-factor solution. Theis model structure was assessed using confirmatory factor analysis, and the fit to the data was found to be satisfactory ( χ 2 (20) = 186.144, p < .001, CFI = .883, GFI = .974, SRMR = .054, CI90% [0.159-0.207], RMSEA = .182). The reliability of the subscale of self-efficacy was high, α = .92. Critical thinking The exploratory factor analysis in the current study revealed a one-factor solution. Theis model structure was assessed using confirmatory factor analysis, and the fit to the data was found to be good ( χ 2 (5) = 44.156, p < .001, CFI = .936, GFI = .988, SRMR = .046, CI90% [0.131-0.227], RMSEA = .177). The reliability of the subscale of critical thinking was good, α = .86. Self-regulation The exploratory factor analysis in the current study revealed a one-factor solution. Theis model structure was assessed using confirmatory factor analysis, and the fit to the data was found to be good ( χ 2 (27) = 62.216, p < .001, CFI = .954, GFI = .993, SRMR = .039, CI90% [0.049-0.096], RMSEA = .072). The reliability of the subscale of self-regulation was good α = .86. The CFI and RMESA for self-efficacy and critical thinking are low (Hair et al., 2019). This might be because of the small sample size. Also, the measurement model can be further revised to improve the model fit for each scale before proceeding to further analysis. Thank you for your valuable comment regarding the model fit indices for the self-efficacy and critical thinking constructs. We acknowledge that the RMSEA values are higher and the CFI values slightly lower than the recommended thresholds (Hair et al., 2019), which may raise concerns about model fit. As noted, the small sample size (N = 250) likely influenced the fit indices. It is well-documented that RMSEA tends to be overestimated in models with small degrees of freedom and limited sample sizes, potentially leading to inflated values even when the model fits reasonably well (Kenny, Kaniskan, & McCoach, 2015). Despite this, we observed high reliability for both subscales (α = .92 for self-efficacy; α = .86 for critical thinking), and the SRMR and GFI indices were within acceptable ranges, suggesting an overall acceptable fit (Hu & Bentler, 1999). Nonetheless, we recognize the need for improvement in the measurement model. As recommended, we plan to revise and refine the measurement instruments in future studies to enhance model fit, ideally using a larger and more diverse sample to yield more stable estimates. Also, the authors pointed out that students’ academic achievement was measured through their self-reported scores. However, the description of the measure was unclear. What subjects were used to examine participants’ academic achievement? Is it their GPA? Hence, a clear description of what scores were used should be further explained in the article. In addition, a serious concern is that the participants may report higher scores in data collection, which can have a huge impact on the findings. We appreciate the reviewer’s thoughtful observation. In response, we have revised the manuscript to provide a clearer and more detailed explanation of how academic achievement was measured. Page 12: In addition, the survey included a question asking students to report their average grade across all previously completed courses. They were instructed to provide their exact average if they knew it, or to estimate it as accurately as possible (e.g. by entering an approximate value, such as 7.5). This self-reported average grade was used as a proxy for academic achievement in the statistical analysis. In line with standard practice, this measure was treated as a grade point average (GPA) on a 10-point scale, consistent with the grading system used in the institutional context of the study. Although self-reported grades may involve some estimation error, previous studies have demonstrated their strong correlation with official records, rendering them valid indicators in large-scale educational research where access to official transcripts is not feasible. The literature review and discussion sections could be both strengthened and enriched by adding more recent relevant literature. Moreover, in the section of discussion, it would be necessary to provide more explanation of why the finding of the relationship between motivation, self-efficacy, critical thinking, self-regulation, and academic achievement is new to the literature. However, in this manuscript, the authors only discussed their findings in relation to previous empirical research without further discussion. This undermines the author's voice and agency. Hence, an improved and systematic discussion of how the findings are relevant to and different from and contribute to the literature. Literature review and discussion sections are enriched with more recent relevant literature. Additionally, more explanation of why the finding of the relationship between motivation, self-efficacy, critical thinking, self-regulation, and academic achievement is new to the literature has been presented. We tried to enhance our discussion by making corrections in the whole part of the section (pp. 15-18). In the Implications section, the implications the authors outlined go beyond the data and the contexts. “For example, educators can introduce game-like elements or real-world applications to make learning more stimulating and relevant.” This is quite difficult to achieve at higher educational levels. Thank you for this insightful observation. We agree that implementing game-like elements or real-world applications may be more challenging in higher education due to curriculum constraints, class size, and the complexity of content. We removed the sentence. Page 18: For example, educators can introduce game-like elements or real-world applications to make learning more stimulating and relevant. Additionally, some of the implications are in conflict. For instance, “To further build self-efficacy and critical thinking skills, educators should incorporate challenging activities and opportunities for students to succeed and build confidence. This could include problem-based learning projects or collaborative tasks that require students to apply their knowledge in innovative ways .” Thank you for this important observation. We recognize that the implication may appear contradictory—suggesting both increased challenge and the need for opportunities to build confidence. We have revised the relevant section in the manuscript to explicitly state that challenging tasks should be scaffolded and progressively aligned with students’ skill levels to ensure they are both intellectually stimulating and achievable. Page 19: To further build self-efficacy and critical thinking skills, educators should incorporate challenging activities and opportunities for students to succeed and build confidence. This could include problem-based learning projects or collaborative tasks that require students to apply their knowledge in innovative ways. The key is to balance cognitive challenge with appropriate support to ensure that tasks remain within students’ zones of proximal development. The goal is not to overwhelm learners, but to design learning experiences that are sufficiently demanding to stimulate critical thinking, while also structured in a way that enables success, thereby enhancing self-efficacy. Moreover, the last implication is quite strong and goes beyond the research focus. “This may involve developing a holistic curriculum that includes activities across subject areas that challenge students' cognitive skills and provide opportunities for self-regulated learning. A comprehensive educational approach that addresses these components can significantly help students succeed academically by supporting their motivation, confidence, and ability to manage their own learning processes effectively.” Thank you for pointing this out. We acknowledge that the implication, as originally stated, may have extended beyond the direct scope of our findings. Our intention was to highlight potential practical applications of the study's results, particularly in emphasizing the interconnected role of motivation, self-efficacy, critical thinking, and self-regulation in academic success. However, we agree that the recommendation regarding curriculum development may have appeared too broad or prescriptive. In response, we have revised the wording to present this implication more cautiously, framing it as a suggestion for future exploration rather than a direct conclusion from our data. Page 20: These findings suggest that supporting students’ motivation, self-efficacy, critical thinking, and self-regulation could contribute positively to their academic development. One possible area for future exploration may include examining how integrated curricular approaches—such as activities that promote cognitive engagement and self-directed learning—can be implemented in ways that align with these psychological constructs. However, such educational approaches should be developed with caution and evaluated in diverse academic contexts to assess their effectiveness. Also, the authors may need to pay attention to the grammar. Further editing is needed. For instance, “Developing critical thinking skills is paramount for students, enabling them to swiftly discern reliable information, enhance their focus on practical learning, and become attuned to real-world situations.” In addition, some of the expressions are unclear in the manuscript and should be rewritten. Thank you for pointing out the need for improved clarity and grammatical accuracy. In response, we carefully reviewed and edited the entire manuscript to correct grammatical errors, improve sentence structure, and ensure clarity throughout. Page 6: It is paramount for students to develop critical thinking skills, as this enables them to swiftly discern reliable information, focus on practical learning and become attuned to real-world situations. Page 6: Similarly, the capacity for self-regulation is similarly of great consequence in academic contexts. Specifically, self-regulation is the process by which students generate their thoughts and behaviours in a structured way in order to achieve their learning goals. Page 8: When faced with authentic problems requiring innovative solutions, students are motivated to work beyond the classroom. They engage in hypothesis generation, analysis, synthesis, evaluation and the real-time presentation of their findings. Overall, the manuscript needs substantial revision. I would not recommend the manuscript for indexing due to the research design, methods used, and its significance. We sincerely appreciate the reviewer’s detailed feedback and acknowledge the importance of maintaining rigorous standards for publication. In response to the concerns raised, we have undertaken a comprehensive revision of the manuscript, with particular attention to improving the clarity and justification of the research design, refining the description of our methodology, strengthening the articulation of the study’s theoretical and practical significance and highlighting introduction and discussion with more recent studies. We hope that these substantial and thoughtful revisions demonstrate our commitment to improving the manuscript and ensuring that it meets scholarly expectations. We respectfully ask for reconsideration of the manuscript in light of these changes and our careful attention to each reviewer comment. Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Close Report a concern COMMENT ON THIS REPORT Views 0 Cite How to cite this report: Vieites T. Reviewer Report For: Exploring the Interplay of Motivation, Self-Efficacy, Critical Thinking, and Self-Regulation in Predicting Academic Achievement Among University Students [version 2; peer review: 2 approved, 1 approved with reservations] . F1000Research 2025, 14 :344 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.177905.r377235 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/14-344/v1#referee-response-377235 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. Close Copy Citation Details Reviewer Report 30 Apr 2025 Tania Vieites , Complutense University of Madrid, Madrid, Spain Approved VIEWS 0 https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.177905.r377235 Review Summary This article presents a robust and well-structured investigation into how intrinsic and extrinsic motivation, self-efficacy, critical thinking, and self-regulation influence academic achievement among university students. Drawing on a sample of 250 undergraduate students in Greece and employing ... Continue reading READ ALL Review Summary This article presents a robust and well-structured investigation into how intrinsic and extrinsic motivation, self-efficacy, critical thinking, and self-regulation influence academic achievement among university students. Drawing on a sample of 250 undergraduate students in Greece and employing path analysis, the authors provide compelling evidence for the interdependence of these variables. The research is grounded in relevant theoretical frameworks, including Self-Determination Theory and Social Cognitive Theory, and offers both theoretical and practical contributions to the field of educational psychology. Detailed Evaluation 1. Clarity and Structure The manuscript is well-organized, clearly written, and easy to follow. Each section—from introduction to conclusions—is logically developed and supported with appropriate references. The use of visuals and tables enhances the reader's comprehension of complex statistical relationships. 2. Scientific Rigor The methodological approach is appropriate and thoroughly applied. The use of the MSLQ and path analysis is justified and effectively executed. The statistical reporting is clear, and the model fit indices support the conclusions drawn. 3. Contribution to the Field This study provides a valuable contribution by empirically testing the relationships between key motivational and cognitive variables in a higher education context. It addresses an important gap in the literature and offers practical implications for educational practice. 4. Ethical Standards The study was conducted with appropriate ethical oversight, and participant consent was obtained. Ethical standards are clearly met. 5. Recommendations No changes are required. The article meets the criteria for indexing in its current form. Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature? Yes Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound? Yes Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others? Yes If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate? Yes Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility? Yes Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results? Yes Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise: Educational Psychology: self-regulation of learning, motivation, psychological well-being, academic performance, etc. I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard. Close READ LESS CITE CITE HOW TO CITE THIS REPORT Vieites T. Reviewer Report For: Exploring the Interplay of Motivation, Self-Efficacy, Critical Thinking, and Self-Regulation in Predicting Academic Achievement Among University Students [version 2; peer review: 2 approved, 1 approved with reservations] . F1000Research 2025, 14 :344 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.177905.r377235 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/14-344/v1#referee-response-377235 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article. COPY CITATION DETAILS Report a concern Author Response 11 Sep 2025 Georgia Stavropoulou , Aristoteleio Panepistemio Thessalonikes Philosophike Schole, Thessaloniki, Greece 11 Sep 2025 Author Response We sincerely thank the reviewer for the thorough and positive evaluation of our manuscript titled “Exploring the Interplay of Motivation, Self-Efficacy, Critical Thinking, and Self-Regulation in Predicting Academic Achievement Among ... Continue reading We sincerely thank the reviewer for the thorough and positive evaluation of our manuscript titled “Exploring the Interplay of Motivation, Self-Efficacy, Critical Thinking, and Self-Regulation in Predicting Academic Achievement Among University Students.” We greatly appreciate the thoughtful and encouraging feedback provided, and we are pleased that the reviewer found our work to be clearly presented, methodologically sound, and of value to the academic community. We sincerely thank the reviewer for the thorough and positive evaluation of our manuscript titled “Exploring the Interplay of Motivation, Self-Efficacy, Critical Thinking, and Self-Regulation in Predicting Academic Achievement Among University Students.” We greatly appreciate the thoughtful and encouraging feedback provided, and we are pleased that the reviewer found our work to be clearly presented, methodologically sound, and of value to the academic community. Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Close Report a concern Respond or Comment COMMENTS ON THIS REPORT Author Response 11 Sep 2025 Georgia Stavropoulou , Aristoteleio Panepistemio Thessalonikes Philosophike Schole, Thessaloniki, Greece 11 Sep 2025 Author Response We sincerely thank the reviewer for the thorough and positive evaluation of our manuscript titled “Exploring the Interplay of Motivation, Self-Efficacy, Critical Thinking, and Self-Regulation in Predicting Academic Achievement Among ... Continue reading We sincerely thank the reviewer for the thorough and positive evaluation of our manuscript titled “Exploring the Interplay of Motivation, Self-Efficacy, Critical Thinking, and Self-Regulation in Predicting Academic Achievement Among University Students.” We greatly appreciate the thoughtful and encouraging feedback provided, and we are pleased that the reviewer found our work to be clearly presented, methodologically sound, and of value to the academic community. We sincerely thank the reviewer for the thorough and positive evaluation of our manuscript titled “Exploring the Interplay of Motivation, Self-Efficacy, Critical Thinking, and Self-Regulation in Predicting Academic Achievement Among University Students.” We greatly appreciate the thoughtful and encouraging feedback provided, and we are pleased that the reviewer found our work to be clearly presented, methodologically sound, and of value to the academic community. Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Close Report a concern COMMENT ON THIS REPORT Comments on this article Comments (0) Version 2 VERSION 2 PUBLISHED 28 Mar 2025 ADD YOUR COMMENT Comment keyboard_arrow_left keyboard_arrow_right Open Peer Review Reviewer Status info_outline Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article: Approved The paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approved Fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions Reviewer Reports Invited Reviewers 1 2 3 Version 2 (revision) 07 Jul 25 read read Version 1 28 Mar 25 read read Tania Vieites , Complutense University of Madrid, Madrid, Spain GU Mingyue Michelle , The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, Hong Kong Lian Zhu , Education University of Hong Kong, Hongkong, Hong Kong Felipe Sanchez Burgos , Universidad Catolica del Maule, Talca, Chile Comments on this article All Comments (0) Add a comment Sign up for content alerts Sign Up You are now signed up to receive this alert Browse by related subjects keyboard_arrow_left Back to all reports Reviewer Report 0 Views copyright © 2025 Burgos F. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. 11 Aug 2025 | for Version 2 Felipe Sanchez Burgos , Psychology, Universidad Catolica del Maule, Talca, Maule Region, Chile 0 Views copyright © 2025 Burgos F. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. format_quote Cite this report speaker_notes Responses (0) Approved info_outline Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article: Approved The paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approved Fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions From a strong literature review, the paper proposes an integration of key concepts in Higher Education learning and academic achievement: intrinsic and extrinsic motivation, critical thinking, and self-regulation. The aim here is to empirically establish how these relate between themselves, looking at how they predict academic achievement. With a fairly decent sample of HE students in Greece and through solid statistical methods, the researchers achieve their purposes in arguing for a pathway model. The research is strong and highly valuable for the field, clearly stemming from an Educational Psychology background. Still, from a Higher Education Research perspective, this paper could be better understood if taken in relation with this latter field. It would be fair to assume that culturally and historically Higher Education has been a privilege and luxury for society for a long time, and only recently it has been transformed by its massification and democratization, and most current by its neo liberalization and marketisation. What once was considered to be a voluntary endeavour for the privileged and capable, some would argue that now it has been increasingly believed to be a necessity (regardless of the personal/developmental or systemic/economic reasoning behind it). To some degree, the question this paper asks implies that students are not necessarily motivated or engaged in HE beforehand, that they may not be critical thinkers, nor that they believe to be capable, and thus constitutes a new space for academic research. Here I do not argue with these ideas, nor I challenge them; instead, I want to offer an alternative route for arguing for the value and rationale for this paper. As I see it, looking at this from the field of Educational Psychology the issue is not new per se; in contrast, it very well may be so for Higher Education Research. Of course, setting up a further and larger context would most likely change this paper substantially as much as it would support its claim. My suggestion is not to rework it but to properly extend it into the field of Higher Education as a further development for future research. I see the paper as perfectly consistent as it is, working itself from Ed Psych. I will elaborate on a few aspects of the paper that have not been already addressed in past reviews. In a general sense, the literature review does what it promises, it offers a vast and well-balanced look at the field. Still, I see two main point for further development, one internal and one external. Internally, the section would benefit from an editorial review, as it is easy to find more than a few very broad and bold statements about how the concepts relate to each other without necessarily being supported by the argumentation threads. Moreover, proofreading could be useful as (a) some sentences could be refined and (b) the text could get a more cohesive feel. Externally, I wonder if a literature review is the only section needed prior to the aim and research hypotheses section. It seems that the paper is trying to establish relationships that are not clearly taken from the literature. As the section does not refer explicitly to how the conceptual relationships are established (for example, how they are not correlational), I see that a theoretical/conceptual section could be useful. Using theory to argue for conceptual relationships could offer an avenue that empirical findings on their own do not. (In future projects) I would encourage the research team to explore turning the paper on its head and start from a conceptual critique of the field and how each concept should/could relate to each other to make sense of the general learning process, for then contrasting such vision with empirical research. As an example of such work, I would suggest a critical review of the (intrinsic/extrinsic) motivation conceptualization. I'd question the internal consistency of such dichotomy and its value for understanding the issue. It seems that intrinsic motivation does not necessarily 'originate from within' the learner as said. In the literature review section, the argument for intrinsic motivation being influenced by a series of factors and so internalized could very well be read as it being developed or learnt. In that sense, internalization could be read from a Vygotskian perspective and so the distinction between intrinsic and extrinsic could be turned from an essential to developmental. So, the idea of an intrinsic motivation can be transformed as a more stably internalized motivation. This line of reasoning could open up the idea of a developing motivation for learning. This paper instead leaves the theoretical developments as hanging from empirical research without articulating internally how this may be. On the theoretical implications section, the team states that "that educational theories must consider the dynamic and reciprocal relationships between motivation, cognitive processes, and self-regulation to fully capture the complexities of academic achievement.". Still, the whole paper has been about unidirectional relationships by arguing for a path model. This is problematic because this statement reads as trying to situate itself within a holistic approach that it is in fact not taking. The conceptual relationships that have been developed here have been supported mainly by the method which sets the data into a particular order for then proving if that work. Here, the main accomplishment is that it works, but the downside is that it has been clearly underdeveloped theoretically. Lastly, regarding the future directions, the first paragraph seems moderately justified, yet it could use some improvement; moreover, the second paragraph reads more capricious and slightly outdated (for example, touching on learning styles which have been largely debunked). Overall, this paper is definitely valuable. Here, my suggestions are either cosmetic or future-oriented. Cosmetically, I suggest that the paper is reviewed to simplify and clean up its contribution. It is doing enough, yet that needs to be stated humbly and realistically. In a future oriented manner, I suggest to (i) contextualize the value of these concepts and line of research looking directly at the Higher Education research field, and (ii) theoretically address the concepts to internally articulate them, and then evaluate the benefits and hindrances of any empirical research model like the pathway one. Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature? Yes Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound? Yes Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others? Yes If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate? Yes Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility? Yes Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results? Yes Competing Interests No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise Higher Education; Learning & Development; Social-Constructivism; Motivation, Emotion and Learning Experiences. I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard. reply Respond to this report Responses (0) Burgos FS. Peer Review Report For: Exploring the Interplay of Motivation, Self-Efficacy, Critical Thinking, and Self-Regulation in Predicting Academic Achievement Among University Students [version 2; peer review: 2 approved, 1 approved with reservations] . F1000Research 2025, 14 :344 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.183628.r397957) NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/14-344/v2#referee-response-397957 keyboard_arrow_left Back to all reports Reviewer Report 0 Views copyright © 2025 Vieites T. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. 17 Jul 2025 | for Version 2 Tania Vieites , Complutense University of Madrid, Madrid, Spain 0 Views copyright © 2025 Vieites T. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. format_quote Cite this report speaker_notes Responses (0) Approved info_outline Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article: Approved The paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approved Fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions I have no further comments. Competing Interests No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise Educational Psychology: self-regulation of learning, motivation, psychological well-being, academic performance, etc. I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard. reply Respond to this report Responses (0) Vieites T. Peer Review Report For: Exploring the Interplay of Motivation, Self-Efficacy, Critical Thinking, and Self-Regulation in Predicting Academic Achievement Among University Students [version 2; peer review: 2 approved, 1 approved with reservations] . F1000Research 2025, 14 :344 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.183628.r397256) NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/14-344/v2#referee-response-397256 keyboard_arrow_left Back to all reports Reviewer Report 0 Views copyright © 2025 Michelle G et al. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. 28 May 2025 | for Version 1 GU Mingyue Michelle , The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, Hong Kong Lian Zhu , English Language Education, Education University of Hong Kong, Hongkong, Hong Kong 0 Views copyright © 2025 Michelle G et al. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. format_quote Cite this report speaker_notes Responses (1) Approved With Reservations info_outline Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article: Approved The paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approved Fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions Journal: F1000 Research Title: Exploring the interplay of motivation, self-efficacy, critical thinking, and self-regulation in predicting academic achievement among university students This manuscript reports on a quantitative study on the relationship between university students’ motivation, self-efficacy, self-regulation, critical thinking, and academic achievement. A number of problems are found in the manuscript, and below are some comments that the writers need to revise: A stronger argument about the research gap is needed in the Introduction section. More specifically, the justification for the study needs more attention. The authors listed a number of factors affecting academic achievement and then stated that motivation is the most important one. However, why they chose to study motivation should be further explained to make the argument more convincing. Although a lack of research and possible contextual differences are good starting points, there is a need to make a case for the study based on a sound problem statement. The authors pointed out the research concerning the relationship between motivational factors and students’ academic performance in higher education. However, there has been a lot of research conducted on motivation and academic achievement. In this regard, more literature concerning motivation and academic achievement in higher education is needed. Also, the authors may need to open the argument in a more systematic way about how this study is different from the previous ones. In the Literature review section, a clear definition of motivation can be put at the beginning of the section. However, the authors gave the definitions after a lot of information, which can be confusing. Also, the literature concerning motivation is too out-of-date. There have been lots of articles concerning motivation in recent years. Therefore, recent literature is needed. The researchers used intrinsic and extrinsic motivation in this paper. However, they paid more attention to intrinsic motivation rather than extrinsic motivation. It is not clear why they focused on the two motivational factors. A more nuanced statement is needed. More literature concerning extrinsic motivation is needed. Similarly, the references concerning self-efficacy are also out of date. The authors stated that self-regulation is highly associated with critical thinking. However, there is a lack of justification. The authors may need to provide more references to justify the importance of self-regulation in the learning process. Again, the authors pointed out the definition of the concept in the middle of the manuscript. They may put the definition at the beginning of the section to make the review clear. The participants were 250 students. However, for path analysis, the sample size was a bit small. For path analysis, the sample size should be recommended to be 10-20 times the number of parameters. However, 250 participants or more is appropriate and can be accepted. In terms of the measurements, the authors conducted EFA for each scale. Given that the authors obtained the developed scales in this research, only CFA is needed before conducting path analysis. The CFI and RMESA for self-efficacy and critical thinking are low (Hair et al., 2019). This might be because of the small sample size. Also, the measurement model can be further revised to improve the model fit for each scale before proceeding to further analysis. Also, the authors pointed out that students’ academic achievement was measured through their self-reported scores. However, the description of the measure was unclear. What subjects were used to examine participants’ academic achievement? Is it their GPA? Hence, a clear description of what scores were used should be further explained in the article. In addition, a serious concern is that the participants may report higher scores in data collection, which can have a huge impact on the findings. The literature review and discussion sections could be both strengthened and enriched by adding more recent relevant literature. Moreover, in the section of discussion, it would be necessary to provide more explanation of why the finding of the relationship between motivation, self-efficacy, critical thinking, self-regulation, and academic achievement is new to the literature. However, in this manuscript, the authors only discussed their findings in relation to previous empirical research without further discussion. This undermines the author's voice and agency. Hence, an improved and systematic discussion of how the findings are relevant to and different from and contribute to the literature. In the Implications section, the implications the authors outlined go beyond the data and the contexts. “For example, educators can introduce game-like elements or real-world applications to make learning more stimulating and relevant.” This is quite difficult to achieve at higher educational levels. Additionally, some of the implications are in conflict. For instance, “To further build self-efficacy and critical thinking skills, educators should incorporate challenging activities and opportunities for students to succeed and build confidence. This could include problem-based learning projects or collaborative tasks that require students to apply their knowledge in innovative ways.” Moreover, the last implication is quite strong and goes beyond the research focus. “This may involve developing a holistic curriculum that includes activities across subject areas that challenge students' cognitive skills and provide opportunities for self-regulated learning. A comprehensive educational approach that addresses these components can significantly help students succeed academically by supporting their motivation, confidence, and ability to manage their own learning processes effectively.” Also, the authors may need to pay attention to the grammar. Further editing is needed. For instance, “Developing critical thinking skills is paramount for students, enabling them to swiftly discern reliable information, enhance their focus on practical learning, and become attuned to real-world situations.” In addition, some of the expressions are unclear in the manuscript and should be rewritten. Overall, the manuscript needs substantial revision. I would not recommend the manuscript for indexing due to the research design, methods used, and its significance. Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature? Partly Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound? Partly Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others? Partly If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate? Partly Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility? Partly Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results? Partly Competing Interests No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise language and identity, multilingualism and mobility, family language policy We confirm that we have read this submission and believe that we have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however we have significant reservations, as outlined above. reply Respond to this report Responses (1) Author Response 11 Sep 2025 Georgia Stavropoulou, Aristoteleio Panepistemio Thessalonikes Philosophike Schole, Thessaloniki, Greece Thank you for this insightful comment. In response, we have carefully revised the rationale in the Introduction section to make a clearer and more compelling case for the study. Specifically, we strengthened the justification for focusing on motivation by emphasizing its dynamic, actionable nature compared to more static predictors of academic achievement. We also clarified the research gap by highlighting the lack of integrative models that examine how intrinsic and extrinsic motivation interact with self-efficacy, critical thinking, and self-regulation to predict academic achievement. Although these constructs have been studied extensively, they are often treated in isolation. Furthermore, we pointed out that existing studies are predominantly situated in Western contexts, underscoring the need for research that examines these relationships in diverse educational settings. We believe these revisions present a more robust problem statement and offer a stronger justification for the current study’s focus and contribution (pp.9-10). The authors pointed out the research concerning the relationship between motivational factors and students’ academic performance in higher education. However, there has been a lot of research conducted on motivation and academic achievement. In this regard, more literature concerning motivation and academic achievement in higher education is needed. We thank the reviewer for this valuable comment. In response, we have added more studies that refer to higher education. Page 9: Furthermore, a substantial body of research has investigated the relationship between motivational factors and academic performance in higher education (see Agustina et al., 2021; Author et al., 2024; Pestana et al., 2023) indicating the association between motivation and academic performance. Also, the authors may need to open the argument in a more systematic way about how this study is different from the previous ones. Thank you for your valuable suggestion. We added a paragraph that highlights why our research differs from others. Page 10: This study differs from previous research in that it takes an integrative and context-sensitive approach to understanding academic achievement. While previous studies have frequently examined motivation, self-efficacy, critical thinking or self-regulation as individual constructs or in limited combinations, this study unifies these variables within a theoretically grounded path model. This comprehensive framework enables the exploration of direct and indirect relationships between these constructs, providing deeper insight into how motivation influences cognitive and self-regulatory processes that affect achievement. Consequently, the study advances theoretical understanding and informs more effective, responsive educational practices. In the Literature review section, a clear definition of motivation can be put at the beginning of the section. However, the authors gave the definitions after a lot of information, which can be confusing. Also, the literature concerning motivation is too out-of-date. There have been lots of articles concerning motivation in recent years. Therefore, recent literature is needed. Thank you for this insightful comment. In response, we have reorganized the Literature Review section to begin with a clear and concise definition of motivation, providing readers with a solid foundation before presenting additional information. Additionally, we conducted a thorough update of the literature, incorporating more recent and relevant studies to ensure the review reflects the current state of research on motivation. We also took this opportunity to comprehensively rewrite the section to improve clarity and coherence (pp.3-5). The researchers used intrinsic and extrinsic motivation in this paper. However, they paid more attention to intrinsic motivation rather than extrinsic motivation. It is not clear why they focused on the two motivational factors. A more nuanced statement is needed. More literature concerning extrinsic motivation is needed. Thank you for your insightful comment. We appreciate the suggestion to clarify the focus on intrinsic and extrinsic motivation in our study. While both forms of motivation are important in educational contexts, our research emphasized intrinsic motivation because of its well-documented and enduring influence on student engagement, learning processes, and academic achievement, as supported by numerous studies (e.g., Taylor et al., 2014; Froiland & Worrell, 2016; Howard et al., 2020; Kotera et al., 2023). Intrinsic motivation, being driven by internal factors such as curiosity and personal relevance, tends to foster deeper and more sustained learning compared to extrinsic motivation, which often depends on external rewards or pressures (Ryan & Deci, 2020; Matt & Dale, 2002). That said, we acknowledge the important role of extrinsic motivation in prompting initial engagement and goal attainment, especially in structured learning environments. As mentioned above, we have accordingly expanded the literature review to include more recent and nuanced studies on extrinsic motivation. Our aim was to present a balanced perspective while highlighting why intrinsic motivation was the primary focus, given its more consistent association with positive and lasting educational outcomes. We have revised the manuscript to more clearly justify this focus and incorporated additional recent literature on extrinsic motivation to provide a fuller context for our study (pp.3-5). Similarly, the references concerning self-efficacy are also out of date. Thank you for your valuable comment. In response, we have updated the literature on self-efficacy by incorporating more recent and relevant references to ensure the discussion reflects the latest research developments (p. 5). The authors stated that self-regulation is highly associated with critical thinking. However, there is a lack of justification. The authors may need to provide more references to justify the importance of self-regulation in the learning process. Again, the authors pointed out the definition of the concept in the middle of the manuscript. They may put the definition at the beginning of the section to make the review clear. Thank you for your comment. We have revised the structure of this section by placing the definition at the very beginning (p. 7) to improve clarity. Additionally, we expanded the discussion to clearly explain the connection between self-regulation and critical thinking, supported by new relevant references (pp. 7-9). The participants were 250 students. However, for path analysis, the sample size was a bit small. For path analysis, the sample size should be recommended to be 10-20 times the number of parameters. However, 250 participants or more is appropriate and can be accepted. Thank you for your insightful comment regarding the sample size for path analysis. While it is true that a common rule of thumb recommends having 10–20 times the number of parameters to be estimated, the literature also recognizes that a sample size of around 200 participants is often considered a minimum acceptable threshold for path analysis, especially when using maximum likelihood estimation, regardless of model complexity (Kline, 2016). Given that our study included 250 participants, this exceeds that minimum benchmark and is therefore appropriate and acceptable for the proposed path analysis. We acknowledge that larger samples can improve stability and generalizability, but our sample size remains within the generally accepted range for valid parameter estimation. In terms of the measurements, the authors conducted EFA for each scale. Given that the authors obtained the developed scales in this research, only CFA is needed before conducting path analysis. Thank you for your valuable suggestion. We initially conducted both Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) and Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) to ensure a robust evaluation of the scales’ dimensionality and validity in our specific sample. However, following your recommendation and considering that the scales were already developed and validated in previous research, we have removed the EFA and retained only the CFA before conducting the path analysis. Extrinsic and intrinsic motivation The questionnaire used by Pintrich (1991) measured extrinsic and intrinsic motivation. The exploratory factor analysis in the current study revealed a two-factor solution. However, one item from extrinsic motivation was removed as its loading was <.42. Theis model structure was assessed using confirmatory factor analysis, and the fit to the data was found to be good ( χ 2 (19) = 75.17, p < .001, CFI = .887, GFI = .994, SRMR = .060, CI90% [0.084-0.135], RMSEA = .109). The reliability of the subscales was satisfactory: intrinsic motivation α = .75 and extrinsic motivation α = .72. Self-efficacy The exploratory factor analysis in the current study revealed a one-factor solution. Theis model structure was assessed using confirmatory factor analysis, and the fit to the data was found to be satisfactory ( χ 2 (20) = 186.144, p < .001, CFI = .883, GFI = .974, SRMR = .054, CI90% [0.159-0.207], RMSEA = .182). The reliability of the subscale of self-efficacy was high, α = .92. Critical thinking The exploratory factor analysis in the current study revealed a one-factor solution. Theis model structure was assessed using confirmatory factor analysis, and the fit to the data was found to be good ( χ 2 (5) = 44.156, p < .001, CFI = .936, GFI = .988, SRMR = .046, CI90% [0.131-0.227], RMSEA = .177). The reliability of the subscale of critical thinking was good, α = .86. Self-regulation The exploratory factor analysis in the current study revealed a one-factor solution. Theis model structure was assessed using confirmatory factor analysis, and the fit to the data was found to be good ( χ 2 (27) = 62.216, p < .001, CFI = .954, GFI = .993, SRMR = .039, CI90% [0.049-0.096], RMSEA = .072). The reliability of the subscale of self-regulation was good α = .86. The CFI and RMESA for self-efficacy and critical thinking are low (Hair et al., 2019). This might be because of the small sample size. Also, the measurement model can be further revised to improve the model fit for each scale before proceeding to further analysis. Thank you for your valuable comment regarding the model fit indices for the self-efficacy and critical thinking constructs. We acknowledge that the RMSEA values are higher and the CFI values slightly lower than the recommended thresholds (Hair et al., 2019), which may raise concerns about model fit. As noted, the small sample size (N = 250) likely influenced the fit indices. It is well-documented that RMSEA tends to be overestimated in models with small degrees of freedom and limited sample sizes, potentially leading to inflated values even when the model fits reasonably well (Kenny, Kaniskan, & McCoach, 2015). Despite this, we observed high reliability for both subscales (α = .92 for self-efficacy; α = .86 for critical thinking), and the SRMR and GFI indices were within acceptable ranges, suggesting an overall acceptable fit (Hu & Bentler, 1999). Nonetheless, we recognize the need for improvement in the measurement model. As recommended, we plan to revise and refine the measurement instruments in future studies to enhance model fit, ideally using a larger and more diverse sample to yield more stable estimates. Also, the authors pointed out that students’ academic achievement was measured through their self-reported scores. However, the description of the measure was unclear. What subjects were used to examine participants’ academic achievement? Is it their GPA? Hence, a clear description of what scores were used should be further explained in the article. In addition, a serious concern is that the participants may report higher scores in data collection, which can have a huge impact on the findings. We appreciate the reviewer’s thoughtful observation. In response, we have revised the manuscript to provide a clearer and more detailed explanation of how academic achievement was measured. Page 12: In addition, the survey included a question asking students to report their average grade across all previously completed courses. They were instructed to provide their exact average if they knew it, or to estimate it as accurately as possible (e.g. by entering an approximate value, such as 7.5). This self-reported average grade was used as a proxy for academic achievement in the statistical analysis. In line with standard practice, this measure was treated as a grade point average (GPA) on a 10-point scale, consistent with the grading system used in the institutional context of the study. Although self-reported grades may involve some estimation error, previous studies have demonstrated their strong correlation with official records, rendering them valid indicators in large-scale educational research where access to official transcripts is not feasible. The literature review and discussion sections could be both strengthened and enriched by adding more recent relevant literature. Moreover, in the section of discussion, it would be necessary to provide more explanation of why the finding of the relationship between motivation, self-efficacy, critical thinking, self-regulation, and academic achievement is new to the literature. However, in this manuscript, the authors only discussed their findings in relation to previous empirical research without further discussion. This undermines the author's voice and agency. Hence, an improved and systematic discussion of how the findings are relevant to and different from and contribute to the literature. Literature review and discussion sections are enriched with more recent relevant literature. Additionally, more explanation of why the finding of the relationship between motivation, self-efficacy, critical thinking, self-regulation, and academic achievement is new to the literature has been presented. We tried to enhance our discussion by making corrections in the whole part of the section (pp. 15-18). In the Implications section, the implications the authors outlined go beyond the data and the contexts. “For example, educators can introduce game-like elements or real-world applications to make learning more stimulating and relevant.” This is quite difficult to achieve at higher educational levels. Thank you for this insightful observation. We agree that implementing game-like elements or real-world applications may be more challenging in higher education due to curriculum constraints, class size, and the complexity of content. We removed the sentence. Page 18: For example, educators can introduce game-like elements or real-world applications to make learning more stimulating and relevant. Additionally, some of the implications are in conflict. For instance, “To further build self-efficacy and critical thinking skills, educators should incorporate challenging activities and opportunities for students to succeed and build confidence. This could include problem-based learning projects or collaborative tasks that require students to apply their knowledge in innovative ways .” Thank you for this important observation. We recognize that the implication may appear contradictory—suggesting both increased challenge and the need for opportunities to build confidence. We have revised the relevant section in the manuscript to explicitly state that challenging tasks should be scaffolded and progressively aligned with students’ skill levels to ensure they are both intellectually stimulating and achievable. Page 19: To further build self-efficacy and critical thinking skills, educators should incorporate challenging activities and opportunities for students to succeed and build confidence. This could include problem-based learning projects or collaborative tasks that require students to apply their knowledge in innovative ways. The key is to balance cognitive challenge with appropriate support to ensure that tasks remain within students’ zones of proximal development. The goal is not to overwhelm learners, but to design learning experiences that are sufficiently demanding to stimulate critical thinking, while also structured in a way that enables success, thereby enhancing self-efficacy. Moreover, the last implication is quite strong and goes beyond the research focus. “This may involve developing a holistic curriculum that includes activities across subject areas that challenge students' cognitive skills and provide opportunities for self-regulated learning. A comprehensive educational approach that addresses these components can significantly help students succeed academically by supporting their motivation, confidence, and ability to manage their own learning processes effectively.” Thank you for pointing this out. We acknowledge that the implication, as originally stated, may have extended beyond the direct scope of our findings. Our intention was to highlight potential practical applications of the study's results, particularly in emphasizing the interconnected role of motivation, self-efficacy, critical thinking, and self-regulation in academic success. However, we agree that the recommendation regarding curriculum development may have appeared too broad or prescriptive. In response, we have revised the wording to present this implication more cautiously, framing it as a suggestion for future exploration rather than a direct conclusion from our data. Page 20: These findings suggest that supporting students’ motivation, self-efficacy, critical thinking, and self-regulation could contribute positively to their academic development. One possible area for future exploration may include examining how integrated curricular approaches—such as activities that promote cognitive engagement and self-directed learning—can be implemented in ways that align with these psychological constructs. However, such educational approaches should be developed with caution and evaluated in diverse academic contexts to assess their effectiveness. Also, the authors may need to pay attention to the grammar. Further editing is needed. For instance, “Developing critical thinking skills is paramount for students, enabling them to swiftly discern reliable information, enhance their focus on practical learning, and become attuned to real-world situations.” In addition, some of the expressions are unclear in the manuscript and should be rewritten. Thank you for pointing out the need for improved clarity and grammatical accuracy. In response, we carefully reviewed and edited the entire manuscript to correct grammatical errors, improve sentence structure, and ensure clarity throughout. Page 6: It is paramount for students to develop critical thinking skills, as this enables them to swiftly discern reliable information, focus on practical learning and become attuned to real-world situations. Page 6: Similarly, the capacity for self-regulation is similarly of great consequence in academic contexts. Specifically, self-regulation is the process by which students generate their thoughts and behaviours in a structured way in order to achieve their learning goals. Page 8: When faced with authentic problems requiring innovative solutions, students are motivated to work beyond the classroom. They engage in hypothesis generation, analysis, synthesis, evaluation and the real-time presentation of their findings. Overall, the manuscript needs substantial revision. I would not recommend the manuscript for indexing due to the research design, methods used, and its significance. We sincerely appreciate the reviewer’s detailed feedback and acknowledge the importance of maintaining rigorous standards for publication. In response to the concerns raised, we have undertaken a comprehensive revision of the manuscript, with particular attention to improving the clarity and justification of the research design, refining the description of our methodology, strengthening the articulation of the study’s theoretical and practical significance and highlighting introduction and discussion with more recent studies. We hope that these substantial and thoughtful revisions demonstrate our commitment to improving the manuscript and ensuring that it meets scholarly expectations. We respectfully ask for reconsideration of the manuscript in light of these changes and our careful attention to each reviewer comment. View more View less Competing Interests No competing interests were disclosed. reply Respond Report a concern Michelle GM and Zhu L. Peer Review Report For: Exploring the Interplay of Motivation, Self-Efficacy, Critical Thinking, and Self-Regulation in Predicting Academic Achievement Among University Students [version 2; peer review: 2 approved, 1 approved with reservations] . F1000Research 2025, 14 :344 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.177905.r379667) NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/14-344/v1#referee-response-379667 keyboard_arrow_left Back to all reports Reviewer Report 0 Views copyright © 2025 Vieites T. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. 30 Apr 2025 | for Version 1 Tania Vieites , Complutense University of Madrid, Madrid, Spain 0 Views copyright © 2025 Vieites T. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. format_quote Cite this report speaker_notes Responses (1) Approved info_outline Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article: Approved The paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approved Fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions Review Summary This article presents a robust and well-structured investigation into how intrinsic and extrinsic motivation, self-efficacy, critical thinking, and self-regulation influence academic achievement among university students. Drawing on a sample of 250 undergraduate students in Greece and employing path analysis, the authors provide compelling evidence for the interdependence of these variables. The research is grounded in relevant theoretical frameworks, including Self-Determination Theory and Social Cognitive Theory, and offers both theoretical and practical contributions to the field of educational psychology. Detailed Evaluation 1. Clarity and Structure The manuscript is well-organized, clearly written, and easy to follow. Each section—from introduction to conclusions—is logically developed and supported with appropriate references. The use of visuals and tables enhances the reader's comprehension of complex statistical relationships. 2. Scientific Rigor The methodological approach is appropriate and thoroughly applied. The use of the MSLQ and path analysis is justified and effectively executed. The statistical reporting is clear, and the model fit indices support the conclusions drawn. 3. Contribution to the Field This study provides a valuable contribution by empirically testing the relationships between key motivational and cognitive variables in a higher education context. It addresses an important gap in the literature and offers practical implications for educational practice. 4. Ethical Standards The study was conducted with appropriate ethical oversight, and participant consent was obtained. Ethical standards are clearly met. 5. Recommendations No changes are required. The article meets the criteria for indexing in its current form. Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature? Yes Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound? Yes Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others? Yes If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate? Yes Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility? Yes Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results? Yes Competing Interests No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise Educational Psychology: self-regulation of learning, motivation, psychological well-being, academic performance, etc. I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard. reply Respond to this report Responses (1) Author Response 11 Sep 2025 Georgia Stavropoulou, Aristoteleio Panepistemio Thessalonikes Philosophike Schole, Thessaloniki, Greece We sincerely thank the reviewer for the thorough and positive evaluation of our manuscript titled “Exploring the Interplay of Motivation, Self-Efficacy, Critical Thinking, and Self-Regulation in Predicting Academic Achievement Among University Students.” We greatly appreciate the thoughtful and encouraging feedback provided, and we are pleased that the reviewer found our work to be clearly presented, methodologically sound, and of value to the academic community. View more View less Competing Interests No competing interests were disclosed. reply Respond Report a concern Vieites T. Peer Review Report For: Exploring the Interplay of Motivation, Self-Efficacy, Critical Thinking, and Self-Regulation in Predicting Academic Achievement Among University Students [version 2; peer review: 2 approved, 1 approved with reservations] . F1000Research 2025, 14 :344 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.177905.r377235) NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/14-344/v1#referee-response-377235 Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article: Approved - the paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations - A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approved - fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions Adjust parameters to alter display View on desktop for interactive features Includes Interactive Elements View on desktop for interactive features Competing Interests Policy Provide sufficient details of any financial or non-financial competing interests to enable users to assess whether your comments might lead a reasonable person to question your impartiality. Consider the following examples, but note that this is not an exhaustive list: Examples of 'Non-Financial Competing Interests' Within the past 4 years, you have held joint grants, published or collaborated with any of the authors of the selected paper. You have a close personal relationship (e.g. parent, spouse, sibling, or domestic partner) with any of the authors. You are a close professional associate of any of the authors (e.g. scientific mentor, recent student). You work at the same institute as any of the authors. You hope/expect to benefit (e.g. favour or employment) as a result of your submission. You are an Editor for the journal in which the article is published. Examples of 'Financial Competing Interests' You expect to receive, or in the past 4 years have received, any of the following from any commercial organisation that may gain financially from your submission: a salary, fees, funding, reimbursements. You expect to receive, or in the past 4 years have received, shared grant support or other funding with any of the authors. You hold, or are currently applying for, any patents or significant stocks/shares relating to the subject matter of the paper you are commenting on. Stay Updated Sign up for content alerts and receive a weekly or monthly email with all newly published articles Register with F1000Research Already registered? Sign in Not now, thanks close PLEASE NOTE If you are an AUTHOR of this article, please check that you signed in with the account associated with this article otherwise we cannot automatically identify your role as an author and your comment will be labelled as a “User Comment”. If you are a REVIEWER of this article, please check that you have signed in with the account associated with this article and then go to your account to submit your report, please do not post your review here. If you do not have access to your original account, please contact us . All commenters must hold a formal affiliation as per our Policies . The information that you give us will be displayed next to your comment. User comments must be in English, comprehensible and relevant to the article under discussion. We reserve the right to remove any comments that we consider to be inappropriate, offensive or otherwise in breach of the User Comment Terms and Conditions . Commenters must not use a comment for personal attacks. When criticisms of the article are based on unpublished data, the data should be made available. I accept the User Comment Terms and Conditions Please confirm that you accept the User Comment Terms and Conditions. Affiliation ✕ refresh Please enter your institution. Note: To add your institution or organisation, start typing the name and then select the correct name from the list. Where applicable, the name will appear in both the original language and in English. Do not paste in the name. If the name does not appear in the drop-down list, we will display the information you have entered. ✕ refresh Country/Region * USA UK Canada China France Germany Afghanistan Aland Islands Albania Algeria American Samoa Andorra Angola Anguilla Antarctica Antigua and Barbuda Argentina Armenia Aruba Australia Austria Azerbaijan Bahamas Bahrain Bangladesh Barbados Belarus Belgium Belize Benin Bermuda Bhutan Bolivia Bosnia and Herzegovina Botswana Bouvet Island Brazil British Indian Ocean Territory British Virgin Islands Brunei Bulgaria Burkina Faso Burundi Cambodia Cameroon Canada Cape Verde Cayman Islands Central African Republic Chad Chile China Christmas Island Cocos (Keeling) Islands Colombia Comoros Congo Cook Islands Costa Rica Cote d'Ivoire Croatia Cuba Cyprus Czech Republic Democratic Republic of the Congo Denmark Djibouti Dominica Dominican Republic Ecuador Egypt El Salvador Equatorial Guinea Eritrea Estonia Ethiopia Falkland Islands Faroe Islands Federated States of Micronesia Fiji Finland France French Guiana French Polynesia French Southern Territories Gabon Georgia Germany Ghana Gibraltar Greece Greenland Grenada Guadeloupe Guam Guatemala Guernsey Guinea Guinea-Bissau Guyana Haiti Heard Island and Mcdonald Islands Holy See (Vatican City State) Honduras Hong Kong Hungary Iceland India Indonesia Iran Iraq Ireland Israel Italy Jamaica Japan Jersey Jordan Kazakhstan Kenya Kiribati Kosovo (Serbia and Montenegro) Kuwait Kyrgyzstan Lao People's Democratic Republic Latvia Lebanon Lesotho Liberia Libya Liechtenstein Lithuania Luxembourg Macao Madagascar Malawi Malaysia Maldives Mali Malta Marshall Islands Martinique Mauritania Mauritius Mayotte Mexico Minor Outlying Islands of the United States Moldova Monaco Mongolia Montenegro Montserrat Morocco Mozambique Myanmar Namibia Nauru Nepal Netherlands Antilles New Caledonia New Zealand Nicaragua Niger Nigeria Niue Norfolk Island North Korea North Macedonia Northern Mariana Islands Norway Oman Pakistan Palau Palestinian Territory Panama Papua New Guinea Paraguay Peru Philippines Pitcairn Poland Portugal Puerto Rico Qatar Reunion Romania Russian Federation Rwanda Saint Helena Saint Kitts and Nevis Saint Lucia Saint Pierre and Miquelon Saint Vincent and the Grenadines Samoa San Marino Sao Tome and Principe Saudi Arabia Senegal Serbia Seychelles Sierra Leone Singapore Slovakia Slovenia Solomon Islands Somalia South Africa South Georgia and the South Sandwich Is South Korea South Sudan Spain Sri Lanka Sudan Suriname Svalbard and Jan Mayen Swaziland Sweden Switzerland Syria Taiwan Tajikistan Tanzania Thailand The Gambia The Netherlands Timor-Leste Togo Tokelau Tonga Trinidad and Tobago Tunisia Turkey Turkmenistan Turks and Caicos Islands Tuvalu UK USA Uganda Ukraine United Arab Emirates United States Virgin Islands Uruguay Uzbekistan Vanuatu Venezuela Vietnam Wallis and Futuna West Bank and Gaza Strip Western Sahara Yemen Zambia Zimbabwe Please select your country/region. You must enter a comment. Competing Interests Please disclose any competing interests that might be construed to influence your judgment of the article's or peer review report's validity or importance. Competing Interests Policy Provide sufficient details of any financial or non-financial competing interests to enable users to assess whether your comments might lead a reasonable person to question your impartiality. Consider the following examples, but note that this is not an exhaustive list: Examples of 'Non-Financial Competing Interests' Within the past 4 years, you have held joint grants, published or collaborated with any of the authors of the selected paper. You have a close personal relationship (e.g. parent, spouse, sibling, or domestic partner) with any of the authors. You are a close professional associate of any of the authors (e.g. scientific mentor, recent student). You work at the same institute as any of the authors. You hope/expect to benefit (e.g. favour or employment) as a result of your submission. You are an Editor for the journal in which the article is published. Examples of 'Financial Competing Interests' You expect to receive, or in the past 4 years have received, any of the following from any commercial organisation that may gain financially from your submission: a salary, fees, funding, reimbursements. You expect to receive, or in the past 4 years have received, shared grant support or other funding with any of the authors. You hold, or are currently applying for, any patents or significant stocks/shares relating to the subject matter of the paper you are commenting on. Please state your competing interests The comment has been saved. An error has occurred. Please try again. Cancel Post var lTitle = "Exploring the Interplay of Motivation, Self-Efficacy,...".replace("'", ''); var linkedInUrl = "http://www.linkedin.com/shareArticle?url=https://f1000research.com/articles/14-344/v2" + "&title=" + encodeURIComponent(lTitle) + "&summary=" + encodeURIComponent('Read the article by '); var deliciousUrl = "https://del.icio.us/post?url=https://f1000research.com/articles/14-344/v2&title=" + encodeURIComponent(lTitle); var redditUrl = "http://reddit.com/submit?url=https://f1000research.com/articles/14-344/v2" + "&title=" + encodeURIComponent(lTitle); linkedInUrl += encodeURIComponent('Stavropoulou G et al.'); var offsetTop = /chrome/i.test( navigator.userAgent ) ? 4 : -10; var addthis_config = { ui_offset_top: offsetTop, services_compact : "facebook,twitter,www.linkedin.com,www.mendeley.com,reddit.com", services_expanded : "facebook,twitter,www.linkedin.com,www.mendeley.com,reddit.com", services_custom : [ { name: "LinkedIn", url: linkedInUrl, icon:"/img/icon/at_linkedin.svg" }, { name: "Mendeley", url: "http://www.mendeley.com/import/?url=https://f1000research.com/articles/14-344/v2/mendeley", icon:"/img/icon/at_mendeley.svg" }, { name: "Reddit", url: redditUrl, icon:"/img/icon/at_reddit.svg" }, ] }; var addthis_share = { url: "https://f1000research.com/articles/14-344", templates : { twitter : "Exploring the Interplay of Motivation, Self-Efficacy, Critical.... Stavropoulou G et al., published by " + "@F1000Research" + ", https://f1000research.com/articles/14-344/v2" } }; if (typeof(addthis) != "undefined"){ addthis.addEventListener('addthis.ready', checkCount); addthis.addEventListener('addthis.menu.share', checkCount); } $(".f1r-shares-twitter").attr("href", "https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?text=" + addthis_share.templates.twitter); $(".f1r-shares-facebook").attr("href", "https://www.facebook.com/sharer/sharer.php?u=" + addthis_share.url); $(".f1r-shares-linkedin").attr("href", addthis_config.services_custom[0].url); $(".f1r-shares-reddit").attr("href", addthis_config.services_custom[2].url); $(".f1r-shares-mendelay").attr("href", addthis_config.services_custom[1].url); function checkCount(){ setTimeout(function(){ $(".addthis_button_expanded").each(function(){ var count = $(this).text(); if (count !== "" && count != "0") $(this).removeClass("is-hidden"); else $(this).addClass("is-hidden"); }); }, 1000); } close How to cite this report {{reportCitation}} Cancel Copy Citation Details $(function(){R.ui.buttonDropdowns('.dropdown-for-downloads');}); $(function(){R.ui.toolbarDropdowns('.toolbar-dropdown-for-downloads');}); $.get("/articles/acj/161821/183628") new F1000.Clipboard(); new F1000.ThesaurusTermsDisplay("articles", "article", "183628"); $(document).ready(function() { $( "#frame1" ).on('load', function() { var mydiv = $(this).contents().find("div"); var h = mydiv.height(); console.log(h) }); var tooltipLivingFigure = jQuery(".interactive-living-figure-label .icon-more-info"), titleLivingFigure = tooltipLivingFigure.attr("title"); tooltipLivingFigure.simpletip({ fixed: true, position: ["-115", "30"], baseClass: 'small-tooltip', content:titleLivingFigure + " " }); tooltipLivingFigure.removeAttr("title"); $("body").on("click", ".cite-living-figure", function(e) { e.preventDefault(); var ref = $(this).attr("data-ref"); $(this).closest(".living-figure-list-container").find("#" + ref).fadeIn(200); }); $("body").on("click", ".close-cite-living-figure", function(e) { e.preventDefault(); $(this).closest(".popup-window-wrapper").fadeOut(200); }); $(document).on("mouseup", function(e) { var metricsContainer = $(".article-metrics-popover-wrapper"); if (!metricsContainer.is(e.target) && metricsContainer.has(e.target).length === 0) { $(".article-metrics-close-button").click(); } }); var articleId = $('#articleId').val(); if($("#main-article-count-box").attachArticleMetrics) { $("#main-article-count-box").attachArticleMetrics(articleId, { articleMetricsView: true }); } }); var figshareWidget = $(".new_figshare_widget"); if (figshareWidget.length > 0) { window.figshare.load("f1000", function(Widget) { // Select a tag/tags defined in your page. In this tag we will place the widget. _.map(figshareWidget, function(el){ var widget = new Widget({ articleId: $(el).attr("figshare_articleId") //height:300 // this is the height of the viewer part. [Default: 550] }); widget.initialize(); // initialize the widget widget.mount(el); // mount it in a tag that's on your page // this will save the widget on the global scope for later use from // your JS scripts. This line is optional. //window.widget = widget; }); }); } close Error Close Add Reset F1000.MICROSERVICES.AFFILIATION = ''; $(document).ready(function () { $('.js-affiliations-form').each((index, form) => { new AffiliationForm({ formId: form.id, institutionErrorSelector: '.comment-enter-institution', departmentErrorSelector: '.comment-enter-department', placeSelector: '.js-add-comment-place', stateSelector: '.js-add-comment-state', zipCodeSelector: '.js-add-comment-zipcode', countrySelector: '.js-add-comment-country', countryErrorSelector: '.comment-enter-country', }); }); }); $(document).ready(function () { var reportIds = { "397958": 0, "397959": 0, "397255": 0, "397956": 0, "397957": 8, "377228": 0, "377231": 0, "374671": 0, "397964": 0, "377230": 0, "374670": 0, "397965": 0, "397962": 0, "397963": 0, "377227": 0, "397256": 12, "397960": 0, "377226": 0, "397961": 0, "379669": 0, "374677": 0, "379668": 0, "377236": 0, "374676": 0, "379671": 0, "374679": 0, "379670": 0, "374678": 0, "377233": 0, "374673": 0, "377232": 0, "374672": 0, "379667": 20, "374675": 0, "377235": 20, "379666": 0, "377234": 0, "374674": 0, "379673": 0, "379672": 0, "379675": 0, "379674": 0, }; $(".referee-response-container,.js-referee-report").each(function(index, el) { var reportId = $(el).attr("data-reportid"), reportCount = reportIds[reportId] || 0; $(el).find(".comments-count-container,.js-referee-report-views").html(reportCount); }); var uuidInput = $("#article_uuid"), oldUUId = uuidInput.val(), newUUId = "35870a11-ca53-4567-bdb8-4445d5a95c95"; uuidInput.val(newUUId); $("a[href*='article_uuid=']").each(function(index, el) { var newHref = $(el).attr("href").replace(oldUUId, newUUId); $(el).attr("href", newHref); }); }); An innovative open access publishing platform offering rapid publication and open peer review, whilst supporting data deposition and sharing. Browse Gateways Collections How it Works Contact For Developers Cookie Notice Privacy Notice RSS Submit Your Research Follow us © 2012-2026 F1000 Research Ltd. ISSN 2046-1402 | Legal | Partner of Research4Life • CrossRef • ORCID • FAIRSharing R.templateTests.simpleTemplate = R.template(' $text $text $text $text $text '); R.templateTests.runTests(); var F1000platform = new F1000.Platform({ name: "f1000research", displayName: "F1000Research", hostName: "f1000research.com", id: "1", editorialEmail: "[email protected]", infoEmail: "[email protected]", usePmcStats: true }); $(function(){R.ui.dropdowns('.dropdown-for-authors, .dropdown-for-about, .dropdown-for-myresearch');}); // $(function(){R.ui.dropdowns('.dropdown-for-referees');}); $(document).ready(function () { if ($(".cookie-warning").is(":visible")) { $(".sticky").css("margin-bottom", "35px"); $(".devices").addClass("devices-and-cookie-warning"); } $(".cookie-warning .close-button").click(function (e) { $(".devices").removeClass("devices-and-cookie-warning"); $(".sticky").css("margin-bottom", "0"); }); $("#tweeter-feed .tweet-message").each(function (i, message) { var self = $(message); self.html(linkify(self.html())); }); $(".partner").on("mouseenter mouseleave", function() { $(this).find(".gray-scale, .colour").toggleClass("is-hidden"); }); }); Sign In Remember me Forgotten your password? Sign In Cancel Email or password not correct. Please try again Please wait... $(function(){ // Note: All the setup needs to run against a name attribute and *not* the id due the clonish // nature of facebox... $("a[id=googleSignInButton]").click(function(event){ event.preventDefault(); $("input[id=oAuthSystem]").val("GOOGLE"); $("form[id=oAuthForm]").submit(); }); $("a[id=facebookSignInButton]").click(function(event){ event.preventDefault(); $("input[id=oAuthSystem]").val("FACEBOOK"); $("form[id=oAuthForm]").submit(); }); $("a[id=orcidSignInButton]").click(function(event){ event.preventDefault(); $("input[id=oAuthSystem]").val("ORCID"); $("form[id=oAuthForm]").submit(); }); }); If you've forgotten your password, please enter your email address below and we'll send you instructions on how to reset your password. The email address should be the one you originally registered with F1000. Email address not valid, please try again You registered with F1000 via Google, so we cannot reset your password. To sign in, please click here . If you still need help with your Google account password, please click here . You registered with F1000 via Facebook, so we cannot reset your password. To sign in, please click here . If you still need help with your Facebook account password, please click here . Code not correct, please try again Reset password Cancel Email us for further assistance. Server error, please try again. If your email address is registered with us, we will email you instructions to reset your password. If you think you should have received this email but it has not arrived, please check your spam filters and/or contact for further assistance. Please wait... Register $(document).ready(function () { signIn.createSignInAsRow($("#sign-in-form-gfb-popup")); $(".target-field").each(function () { var uris = $(this).val().split("/"); if (uris.pop() === "login") { $(this).val(uris.toString().replace(",","/")); } }); });