A
The Role of Psychological Factors and Transfer Experiences in STEM Identity: A Regression Analysis of Vertical and Lateral TransfersAbstract
Background.
STEM transfer students tend to have lower transfer rates, lower degree completion rates, and longer time to degree. STEM identity, defined as how individuals perceive and position themselves within STEM fields, positively influences persistence and success in STEM majors and careers. While previous research has studied STEM identity among non-transfer four-year students, little is known about its development among transfer students, who face unique academic and social challenges during the transfer process. This study quantitatively examined the role of psychological factors and transfer experiences in shaping STEM identity among transfer students attending a large, public, research-intensive, four-year university in Louisiana. This study includes both vertical transfers—those who transfer from a community college to a four-year institution—and four-year lateral transfers—those who transfer between four-year institutions, filling the research gap caused by the lack of studies on lateral transfers.
Results.
We collected survey data from 210 transfer students and matched it with institutional transcript data. The results of confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) confirmed the four-item structure for self-efficacy, the five-item structure for STEM identity, the two-item structure for STEM interest, and the four-item structure for STEM recognition. The regression model results indicated that STEM interest, STEM recognition, and post-transfer social adjustment positively predict STEM identity development. Transfer type (vertical or lateral transfer) was not a significant predictor, indicating that lateral transfers face similar processes and challenges in STEM identity development as vertical transfers.
Conclusion and Implications.
The findings help both community college and four-year institution leaders and practitioners better understand the STEM identity development of transfer students, with a focus on the role of STEM interest, STEM recognition, and social adjustment as key predictors of transfer students’ STEM identity. We suggest that institutions should collaborate to support successful transfers and a smooth post-transfer adjustment for STEM transfer students. Implementing targeted transition programs aimed at developing STEM identity will be an effective strategy to help students overcome challenges after transferring. These institutional programs should include both vertical and lateral transfers, recognizing the needs of lateral transfers.
Keywords:
STEM identity
STEM self-efficacy
STEM interest
STEM recognition
STEM transfer students
Introduction
A
A
A
Background
Nationwide, 38% of all college students transferred to a different institution within six years (Shapiro, et.al., 2018). Among all transfer types, vertical transfers, or those who transferred from a two-year community college to a four-year institution, received the most attention. The community college transfer pathway serves as a vital route to bachelor’s degrees and careers in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM), especially for underserved and economically disadvantaged students. However, students navigating this vertical transfer pathway often encounter unique barriers that can hinder persistence and degree completion in STEM. They tend to have lower transfer rates, and among those who successfully transfer, they typically have lower degree completion rates and longer time-to-degree (Hu & Ortagus, 2019; Wang, 2015). In engineering and computer science, vertical transfer students are twice as likely not to graduate within five years compared to their non-transfer peers (McCord et al., 2019).
Compared to vertical transfers, lateral transfers—students who transfer from one four-year institution to another four-year institution or from one two-year institution to another two-year institution—are understudied despite their considerable size (Bahr, 2009; Taylor & Jain, 2017). Nationally, about half of the transfer students from a four-year institution laterally transfer to another four-year institution (Shapiro, et al., 2018). Although the four-year lateral transfers face similar transfer challenges as vertical transfers, they are often not forewarned about these potential issues, and their needs are often overlooked by the receiving institutions (Kirk-Kuwaye & Kirk-Kuwaye, 2007; Li, 2010; McKee, 2019).
STEM identity, defined as how individuals perceive and position themselves within STEM fields, positively influences persistence and success in STEM majors and careers (Chemers et al., 2011; Martin-Hansen, 2018; Seyranian et al., 2018). A strong STEM identity has also been shown to buffer against academic challenges and stereotype threat, motivating students to persist in the face of adversity (Carlone & Johnson, 2007; Hazari et al., 2010). Building a strong STEM identity is therefore essential for STEM transfer students’ persistence and career aspirations.
Various psychological factors influence STEM identity development, such as self-efficacy, interest, and recognition. Studies show that students who have strong STEM interests and confidence in their ability to succeed at STEM-related tasks are more likely to see themselves as future scientists or engineers (Chiu 2024; Flowers & Banda, 2016; Head & Wilson, 2025; Williams & George, 2014). Additionally, recognition from teachers, peers, and family members is also influential in affirming one’s identity in STEM (Ladachart et al., 2024; Rodriguez et al., 2017; Zuckerman et al., 2021).
While previous research has studied STEM identity among non-transfer four-year students, little is known about its development among transfer students, who face unique academic and social challenges during the transfer process. This study aims to address these gaps by exploring how psychological factors (e.g., STEM self-efficacy, interest, and recognition) and transfer experiences influence the development of STEM identity among transfer students. Notably, this study includes both vertical transfers—those who transfer from a community college to a four-year institution—and four-year lateral transfers—those who transfer between four-year institutions (Taylor & Jain, 2017).
Literature Review
Defining STEM Identity
Some previous studies on students’ identity development have used “science” to refer to specific disciplines, such as biology, physics, and chemistry, while others have used “science” to encompass the broad fields of STEM (Dou & Cian, 2022). In this study, we focus on a “STEM” identity to examine the identity development among transfer students who enroll in all STEM majors. However, in the literature review section, we included studies that examined the concept of “science” identity to gather all relevant existing knowledge that may inform this study.
Building on social identity theory, Kim et al. (2018) define STEM identity as “a socially based identity grounded in the extent to which individuals see themselves and are accepted as a member of a STEM discipline or field” (p. 591). STEM identity plays a critical role in shaping students’ learning and success in STEM disciplines (Seyranian et al., 2018; Vincent-Ruz & Schunn, 2018). For example, science identity is the most significant psychological factor predicting college students’ enrollment in STEM majors (Chang et al., 2023); it is also associated with persistence in science over time (Robinson et al., 2019). In addition, STEM identity mediates the effects of support programs on desirable STEM outcomes such as commitment to STEM careers and persistence in STEM (Chemers et al., 2011; Martin-Hansen, 2018; Robnett, 2012). For instance, research experiences, mentoring, community involvement, and peer climate positively influence STEM identity development, which in turn, leads to greater commitment to a STEM major and career (Chemers et al., 2011; Robnett, 2012; Syed et al., 2019).
Previous studies have explored STEM identity development among women and racial/ethnic minority students. Nealy and Orgill (2019) found that many racial/ethnic minority students did not have a strong or positive science identity compared to their White peers. Previous research also explored how the intersection of race and gender identities shapes STEM identity. For instance, Smith et al. (2019) discussed how Black women negotiate their sense of racial identity as they advance in STEM. Rodriguez and Blaney (2021) discovered that Latina students’ STEM identity was heavily influenced by the academic and social environment at four-year institutions.
Psychological Factors Influencing STEM Identity Development
Psychological factors such as STEM self-efficacy, STEM interests, and STEM recognition are significant predictors of STEM identity (Dou & Cian, 2022). STEM self-efficacy refers to an individual’s belief in their ability to successfully perform tasks within STEM domains (Bandura, 1997). It has been measured by both discipline-specific scales (e.g., mathematics or science self-efficacy) (Hu et al., 2022; Murphy & Kelp, 2023) and scales that capture multiple STEM domains (Dou & Cian, 2022; Kwon et al., 2019; Syed et al., 2019). Previous studies found that STEM self-efficacy is closely related to STEM identity (Flowers & Banda, 2016; Head & Wilson, 2025; Williams & George, 2014), or that the two influence each other reciprocally (Zhao et al., 2024). Students who believe they can succeed in STEM tasks are more likely to identify themselves as “STEM people” and persist in STEM pathways (Carlone & Johnson, 2007; Godwin et al., 2016; Larson et al., 2015).
STEM interest refers to an individual’s curiosity, enjoyment, and intrinsic motivation to engage with STEM content and activities (Eccles & Wigfield, 2002). It encompasses both feeling- and value-related components (Schiefele, 1991). Students with STEM interests either enjoy STEM-related activities or perceive STEM-related objects as important for their personal development. STEM interest has been measured through subscales within broader instruments, such as the STEM Career Interest Survey (Kier et al., 2014). Students with greater STEM interest are more likely to enjoy STEM learning, exhibit stronger self-efficacy, and develop a more committed STEM identity (Chui 2023; Verhoeven et al., 2019).
Students’ STEM identity is significantly influenced by the social recognition they receive from family members, instructors, and peers (Dou et al., 2019; Ladachart et al., 2024; Rodriguez et al., 2019; Zuckerman et al., 2021). Students who consistently receive validation from teachers and family members tend to have a stronger STEM identity and higher aspirations for STEM careers (Starr et al., 2020). Recognition in STEM can also support STEM retention among those facing significant barriers and those with intersecting identities, such as women who also identify as racial minorities (Jackson et al., 2019; Rodriguez et al., 2019).
STEM Identity Among Transfer Students
Transfer students, who generally represent a more diverse population than their non-transfer peers, often face unique challenges in building a strong STEM identity and pursuing a STEM pathway (Laanan et al., 2010; Townsend & Wilson, 2006). Nationwide, STEM transfer students are more likely to take longer to complete a bachelor’s degree compared to their non-transfer counterparts (National Science Board, 2021). Factors contributing to this lower success rate include credit loss (Giani, 2019; Spencer, 2023), insufficient transfer advising (Taylor & Jain, 2017), perceived transfer stigma and feeling unwelcome from faculty and peers (Author & Author, 2024; Blaney et al., 2025; Shaw et al., 2019), and challenges in adjusting to a more rigid and highly structured curricula (Townsend & Wilson, 2006; Wyner et al., 2016). These challenges often lead to frustration and increased stress, which can negatively affect transfer students’ STEM identity. As a result, many STEM transfer students experience delays in degree completion or leave STEM altogether (Corwin et al., 2020; Starobin & Laanan, 2010).
Transfer students with minority identities, such as women, racial/ethnic minority students, first-generation students, adult learners, and veterans, may face additional challenges (Holland Zahner & Harper, 2022; Jackson et al., 2013). For example, due to gender stereotypes and biases, women transfer students often have lower STEM self-efficacy compared to men (Blaney, 2025; Starobin et al., 2016). African American and Latinx students may struggle to find safe spaces to develop STEM identities at Predominantly White Institutions (PWIs) (Alexander et al., 2007; Jackson, 2013).
Institutional support is crucial for overcoming stereotypes and fostering STEM identity among transfer students, especially for those who are racial/ethnic minorities and women (Martin-Hansen, 2018; Shin et al., 2016; Rodriguez et al., 2019). For example, successful mentoring programs can help affirm the identities of racial/ethnic minority transfer students and build their sense of belonging in STEM fields (Atkins et al., 2020; Zuckerman et al., 2024). Santiago et al. (2022) suggested that professional development workshops that encourage faculty and peer recognition can strengthen science identity among transfer students by creating an equitable and inclusive campus environment.
While an increasing body of literature emphasizes STEM identity among transfer students, research gaps remain to be addressed. First, more studies are needed to quantitatively examine how psychological factors such as STEM self-efficacy, interest, and recognition shape STEM identity among transfer students. Second, it remains unclear how the unique challenges associated with the transfer process influence STEM identity development. Third, most research on STEM transfer students has focused on vertical transfers, leaving the experiences of lateral transfer unexplored. This study aims to address these gaps by quantitatively examining psychological predictors of STEM identity and the pre- and post-transfer experiences of vertical and lateral transfers who successfully transferred into a STEM major at a four-year institution.
Aims and Research Questions
This study examines predictors of STEM identity among a sample of vertical and lateral transfer students enrolled in STEM majors at a public four-year institution. We aim to explore the influence of relevant psychological factors as well as the unique transfer experiences in predicting STEM identity. We seek to answer the following research questions:
1.
Do psychological factors such as STEM self-efficacy, STEM interests, and STEM recognition significantly predict STEM identity among vertical and lateral transfer students?
2.
What are some unique predictors of STEM identity among vertical and lateral transfer students in STEM? Specifically,
a.
Do pre-transfer factors (e.g., transfer GPA, previous degree, etc.) significantly predict the STEM identity?
b.
Do post-transfer experiences (e.g., enrollment type, course-taking patterns, post-transfer adjustment, etc.) significantly predict STEM identity?
Theoretical Frameworks
This study was guided by multiple theoretical frameworks. First, it adopted the expanded structural model for STEM identity development (Dou & Cian, 2022) to conceptualize the relationships between relevant psychological factors. Specifically, Dou and Cian (2022) identified STEM performance competence (i.e., self-efficacy), STEM interest, and STEM recognition as key factors influencing STEM identity development. While Dou and Cian’s (2022) model hypothesized that STEM interest and recognition mediate the effect of STEM performance competence on STEM identity, this study did not test the mediation. Instead, we focused on the roles of STEM self-efficacy, interest, and recognition as three predictors of STEM identity. Dou and Cian’s model was tested with undergraduate students at a Hispanic-serving institution (Dou & Cian, 2022), indicating its tenability in diverse college student populations.
Second, Wang’s (2016) STEM transfer posits that STEM vertical transfer is shaped by students’ learning experiences, motivational beliefs, and environmental contexts. This model identified key factors influencing vertical transfer decisions in STEM, including science and math attitudes, transfer capital, major declaration, science preparation in high school, along with other background characteristics (Wang et al., 2020). Wang’s model provides a comprehensive view of influential pre-transfer factors, emphasizing the importance of psychological beliefs, prior learning experiences, and contextual environmental factors for STEM transfer students.
Third, this study is also guided by Laanan’s transfer student adjustment model (Laanan, 2001; Laanan et al., 2010). Laanan’s model predicts the academic and social adjustment of vertical transfers through pre-college characteristics, experiences at previous colleges, and experiences at the receiving institution. It supplements Wang’s model by providing post-transfer measures. Although both models were developed based on vertical transfer experiences, lateral transfers, who face similar challenges as vertical transfers, also fit within these models. Together, Laanan and Wang’s models informed the variable selection for the regression analyses in this study.
Methodology
Setting
This quantitative study examines predictors of STEM identity among transfer students in STEM majors enrolled at a public four-year institution. We collected data at a large, predominantly White, research-intensive, public four-year university located in Louisiana, namely Louisiana Research University (LRU, pseudonym). LRU currently enrolls over 24,000 undergraduate students, including approximately 8,000 students pursuing STEM degrees. About 2,500 transfer students, including both vertical and lateral transfers, are currently enrolled at LRU.
Data Collection and Sample
A
We disseminated a Qualtrics survey, the LRU post-transfer success survey, in spring 2023 and spring 2024 at LRU. We send an email invitation to all current transfer students at LRU. Additional weekly email reminders were sent to those who did not respond. In spring 2023, participants who completed the survey entered a random draw to win four $100 cash awards. In spring 2024, all participants who completed the survey received a $5 cash award. The 2023 and 2024 surveys collected 520 complete responses, resulting in a 15% response rate.The survey responses (n = 520) were matched with students’ academic records in the LRU Registrar’s office. The LRU Registrar’s office replaced all student identifiers with random IDS before sharing the matched data with us. This study received IRB approval from LRU.
This study focused on 210 of the 520 participants who majored in STEM. As shown in Table 1, the sample included equal proportions of females (44.3%, n = 93) and males (42.9%, n = 90). About 9.5% were 25 years old or older. Compared to 63% White in the overall LRU undergraduate population, only 51.4% of these transfer students were White. More than 11% of the transfer students were first-generation college students. Most participants declared a major in science (56.2%, n = 118) or engineering (38.6%, n = 81).
Variables | Labels | Frequencies (%) | |
|---|---|---|---|
Transfer Type | Vertical Transfer | 78 | 37.1% |
Lateral Transfer | 113 | 53.8% | |
Missing | 19 | 9.0% | |
Gender | Male | 90 | 42.9% |
Female | 93 | 44.3% | |
Trans, Queer & Other | 5 | 2.3% | |
Missing | 22 | 10.5% | |
Age | 18–24 | 190 | 90.5% |
25 and older | 20 | 9.5% | |
Missing | 38 | 18.1% | |
Race/Ethnicity | White | 108 | 51.4% |
Black or African American | 33 | 15.7% | |
Hispanics | 17 | 8.1% | |
Asian | 16 | 7.6% | |
American Indian or Alaskan Native | 1 | 0.5% | |
Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander | 1 | 0.5% | |
Two or more races | 11 | 5.2% | |
Race/Ethnicity Unknown | 1 | 0.5% | |
Missing | 22 | 10.5% | |
Frist Generation | Yes | 25 | 11.9% |
No | 167 | 79.5% | |
Missing | 18 | 8.6% | |
Native Speaker | Yes | 170 | 81.0% |
No | 18 | 8.6% | |
Missing | 22 | 10.5% | |
Enrollment Pattern | Full-time | 174 | 82.9% |
Part-time | 35 | 16.7% | |
Missing | 1 | 0.5% | |
Major | Science | 118 | 56.2% |
Technologies | 9 | 4.3% | |
Math | 2 | 1.0% | |
Engineering | 81 | 38.6% | |
Instrument and Measures
The LRU post-transfer success survey consists of four sections: self-efficacy and identity, experiences at previous institutions, post-transfer experiences, and demographics. It includes 20 survey items that assess STEM identity, STEM self-efficacy, STEM interest, and STEM recognition. These items are adapted from existing psychometric scales that have been validated among college students (Chemers et al., 2011; Deemer et al., 2014; Dou & Cian, 2022; Glynn et al., 2011). All scales are measured through a five-point Likert scale from strongly agree to strongly disagree. STEM identity was measured with the revised Deemer et al. (2014) five-item science identity scale. We changed the wording of “science” identity to “STEM” identity to match this study’s focus. STEM interest and STEM recognition were measured through Dou and Cian’s (2022) validated scales, with four items measuring STEM recognition and two items measuring STEM interest. STEM self-efficacy was measured with four items adapted from the Motivation Questionnaire II developed by Glynn et al. (2011).
A
Additional variables were utilized to capture participants’ transfer experiences. A
Among these, we utilized two previously validated constructs, academic adjustment and social adjustment, to represent participants’ post-transfer adjustment. These two measures were examined in previous studies about transfer students (Laanan et al., 2010) and were validated with LRU transfer students before this study (Author, 2023). The detailed information about these measures was summarized in Appendix A.Analytical Plan
The analytic plan included (1) a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) to confirm the measurement structures of STEM self-efficacy, STEM interests, STEM recognition, and STEM identity, and (2) a regression analysis to examine significant predictors of STEM identity among transfer students.
The CFA for STEM identity and self-efficacy was conducted using the full sample, while the CFA for STEM recognition and STEM interest was performed using the 2024 sample, as these two measures were only included in the 2024 survey. Model fit was evaluated using the Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA), Comparative Fit Index (CFI), Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI), and Standardized Root Mean Square Residual (SRMR). After the CFA, we created four composite variables by averaging relevant items respectively, and used these composite variables in the subsequent analyses. Two additional composite variables, academic and social adjustment, were based on previously validated measures. These two measures went through exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses with similar samples, so a CFA was not necessary in this study (Author, 2023).
Next, we tested a multiple linear regression model to examine key factors predicting STEM identity development among transfer students. The dependent variable, STEM identity, was measured by averaging five items describing how students see themselves as STEM students. Guided by the theoretical frameworks, independent variables were entered in blocks. As shown in Fig. 1, block one includes demographic and background variables such as age, gender, race, and first-generation status. Block two focuses on students’ pre-transfer experiences, including transfer type (i.e., vertical or lateral transfers), transfer GPA, and previous degree. Block three adds post-transfer information, including attendance patterns, course-taking information, and post-transfer academic and social adjustment, at LRU. Block four includes key psychological factors such as STEM self-efficacy, STEM interests, and STEM recognition.
Fig. 1
Conceptual Model for the Regression Model
Note
* The variable is a composite variable generated by the factor analysis
Results
Findings of Confirmatory Factor Analysis
The measurement structure of STEM self-efficacy and STEM identity was confirmed by a CFA using the full sample (n = 210). Another CFA confirming the structure of STEM interest and STEM recognition was performed with the 2024 participants only (n = 118). Both models had good fits (
, RMSEA=0.075, CFI=0.979, TLI=0.968, SRMR=0.032;
, RMSEA=0.034, CFI=0.998, TLI=0.946, SRMR=0.026). All factor loadings were high (ranging between 0.598 and 0.936) and statistically significant. Results confirmed the four-item structure for self-efficacy, the five-item structure for STEM identity, the two-item structure for STEM interest, and the four-item structure for STEM recognition. See Tables 2 and 3 for details.
Factors and Statements | Estimate | Std Estimate | S.E. | P-Value |
|---|---|---|---|---|
STEM Identity | ||||
I see myself as a STEM student. | 1.000 | .831*** | .000 | < .001 |
I am pleased to be a STEM student. | 1.149 | .829*** | .085 | < .001 |
I feel strong ties with other STEM students. | 1.139 | .733*** | .102 | < .001 |
I identify with other STEM students. | 1.141 | .780*** | .092 | < .001 |
I feel that being a STEM student is an important reflection of who I am. | 1.081 | .699*** | .101 | < .001 |
STEM Self-efficacy | ||||
I believe I can earn a grade "A" in STEM courses. | 1.000 | .676*** | .000 | < .001 |
I am confident I will do well on tests of STEM. | 1.067 | .707*** | .128 | < .001 |
I believe I can master STEM knowledge and skills. | 1.062 | .876*** | .161 | < .001 |
I am sure I can understand contents taught in my STEM major courses. | 1.200 | .932*** | .172 | < .001 |
p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001
Factors and Statements | Estimate | Std Estimate | S.E. | P-Value |
|---|---|---|---|---|
STEM Interests | ||||
Topics in STEM are exciting to me. | 1.000 | .876*** | .000 | < .001 |
I am interested in learning more about STEM. | .942 | .936*** | .094 | < .001 |
STEM Recognition | ||||
My teachers see me as a STEM person. | 1.000 | .689*** | .000 | < .001 |
My friends/classmates see me as a STEM person. | 1.351 | .894*** | .156 | < .001 |
My family sees me as a STEM person. | 1.299 | .864*** | .163 | < .001 |
Others ask me for help in STEM. | .911 | .598*** | .153 | < .001 |
p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001
Significant Predictors of STEM Identity
A sequential multiple regression model was examined for predicting STEM identity development among transfer students. Independent variables were entered in four blocks. As shown in Table 4, models 2, 3, and 4 yielded significant F-tests. The final model with all four blocks explained 70.3% of the variance in STEM identity (adjusted R square = .703).
In the final model, among the psychological predictors, STEM interest (β = 0.199, p < .05) and STEM recognition (β = 0.673, p < .001) positively predict STEM identity development. Higher STEM interest and greater STEM recognition are associated with a stronger STEM identity. Surprisingly, STEM self-efficacy was not a significant predictor (β=-.065, p > .05). Among pre- and post-transfer predictors, post-transfer academic adjustment (β = 0.207, p < .05) and social adjustment (β = 0.343, p < .001) were both significant predictors in Model 3. When psychological predictors were added in Block 4, only social adjustment remained significant (β = 0.191, p < .01). Better social adjustment predicts a higher STEM identity. Notably, transfer type (whether the student is a vertical transfer or a lateral transfer) was not a significant predictor in the final model, indicating no significant difference in STEM identity between vertical and lateral transfers. Table 5 summarized all model results in detail.
Model | R | R Square | Adjusted R Square | R Square Change | F | Sig. F | F Change | Sig. F Change |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | .111a | .012 | − .024 | .012 | .339 | .797 | .339 | .797 |
2 | .250b | .062 | − .010 | .050 | .865 | .524 | 1.386 | .253 |
3 | .569c | .324 | .243 | .262 | 3.998 | .000 | 9.687 | .000 |
4 | .866d | .750 | .709 | .426 | 18.036 | .000 | 40.970 | .000 |
| Note: Dependent Variable: STEM Identity | ||||||||
Model 1 | Model 2 | Model 3 | Model 4 | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Variables | B | Beta | Sig. | B | Beta | Sig. | B | Beta | Sig. | B | Beta | Sig. |
(Constant) | 4.019 | .000 | 3.821 | .221 | 2.404 | .008 | .152 | .806 | ||||
Female | .053 | .031 | .787 | .057 | .033 | .772 | .25 | .143 | .162 | .137 | .079 | .217 |
Entry Age | − .009 | − .042 | .709 | − .008 | − .036 | .758 | − .006 | − .027 | .816 | .000 | .002 | .982 |
Non-White | − .171 | − .093 | .411 | − .067 | − .036 | .765 | − .137 | − .075 | .493 | − .126 | − .068 | .330 |
First generation | − .070 | − .027 | .812 | − .049 | − .019 | .87 | − .079 | − .031 | .761 | − .058 | − .022 | .724 |
Vertical Transfer | − .018 | − .01 | .932 | .152 | .085 | .436 | − .006 | − .004 | .959 | |||
Transfer GPA | .062 | .037 | .763 | − .133 | − .079 | .539 | − .004 | − .002 | .976 | |||
Previous Degree Earned | − .692 | − .233 | .056 | − .430 | − .145 | .194 | .143 | .048 | .541 | |||
First-semester GPA | .074 | .07 | .578 | − .055 | − .052 | .513 | ||||||
Part-time | − .304 | − .113 | .334 | − .05 | − .018 | .800 | ||||||
Academic adjustment | .207 | .23 | .038* | .039 | .044 | .574 | ||||||
Social adjustment | .343 | .414 | .000*** | .191 | .230 | .002** | ||||||
STEM self-efficacy | − .065 | − .067 | .521 | |||||||||
STEM interests | .199 | .209 | .020** | |||||||||
STEM recognition | .673 | 0.656 | .000*** | |||||||||
| Note: The Dependent variable is STEM identity. GPA is Grade Point Average. STEM refers to Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics. *p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001; | ||||||||||||
Discussion
This study expanded knowledge of STEM identity development among transfer students. Findings confirmed that STEM interests and STEM recognition are key factors shaping how transfer students develop their STEM identity. A stronger STEM interest and greater STEM recognition are associated with higher STEM identity. While STEM interest reflects individuals’ intrinsic motivation to engage in STEM activities, STEM recognition highlights the influence of others surrounding them. For transfer students at four-year institutions, interactions with professors, non-transfer peers, and staff are essential for receiving recognition. Therefore, increasing awareness of the characteristics and needs of STEM transfer students among administrators, faculty, and staff at the receiving institution is important. This can help create a welcoming and supportive culture that is more likely to generate the necessary social recognition for STEM transfer students (Jain et al., 2016).
In contrast, STEM self-efficacy was not a significant predictor in this study. This suggests that self-efficacy may not directly predict transfer students’ STEM identity development. Rather, it may predict STEM identity indirectly through the mediation of other psychological factors, such as STEM interest and STEM recognition, as well as post-transfer factors such as academic adjustment. Previous studies have shown that students’ subject self-efficacy significantly predicts academic performance (Kwon et al., 2019; Larson et al., 2015), as well as STEM recognition and STEM interest (Dou & Cian, 2022). Future research should explore the underlying relationships between STEM self-efficacy, STEM interest, STEM recognition, and STEM performance among transfer students.
Additionally, the regression model results showed that both academic and social adjustments were significant predictors of STEM identity development for transfer students. However, only social adjustment remained statistically significant after the psychological factors were added to the model. Academic adjustment relates to how well transfer students adapt to academic rigor, instructors’ expectations, and learning styles (Author, 2023; Laanan et al., 2010). The regression findings indicated that while academic adjustment was a significant predictor of STEM identity, its influence can be explained by the three psychological factors, as prior research has demonstrated the significant relationship between psychological factors and academic success (Kwon et al., 2019; Syed et al., 2018). In contrast, post-transfer social adjustment reflects how well transfer students can make friends and find their place at the receiving institution (Author, 2023; Laanan et al., 2010). Positive social adjustment fosters connectedness and a sense of belonging, which in turn contributes to STEM students’ identity development. At a PWI like LRU, the influence of social adjustment on identity development may vary between White and racial/ethnic minority students, since racial/ethnic minority transfer students may face additional barriers as they navigate the campus and negotiate their intersecting identities (Blaney, 2025; Rodriguez et al., 2019; Starobin et al., 2016). Future research can dive deeper into how social adjustment plays a role in the STEM identity development among racial/ethnic minority transfer students.
Further, the sample in this study included lateral transfers—those who transfer between four-year institutions. The transfer type (vertical or lateral transfers) was not a significant predictor of STEM identity development, suggesting that lateral transfers share similar experiences with vertical transfers regarding STEM identity development. This finding highlights the need for more institutional attention to lateral transfers, as they are often overlooked and excluded from targeted programs that aim to promote transfer success.
Finally, this study has some methodological limitations worth noting. First, data was collected from a single, public, predominantly White research university. Readers should use caution when applying these findings to other types of institutions, such as minority-serving institutions, private institutions, and institutions located in different regions. Future research could compare the STEM identity development of transfer students across various institution types to determine if institutional characteristics influence this process. Second, this study collected data from students who successfully transferred to a four-year institution to include both pre- and post-transfer factors. Those who did not successfully transfer might show different patterns in STEM identity development. This is especially relevant to vertical transfers, as developing a strong STEM identity early could help facilitate successful transfer in STEM. Future studies could examine STEM identity development among all community college students who aspired to transfer, regardless of whether they transferred successfully.
Conclusions and Implications for Policy and Practice
This study confirmed the significant role of STEM interest, recognition, and post-transfer adjustment in STEM identity development among vertical and lateral transfer students. Findings offer important implications to institutional leaders, administrators, faculty members, and student affairs professionals aiming to support STEM transfer success. First, the findings help both community college and four-year institution leaders and practitioners better understand the STEM identity development among transfer students. Specifically, recognizing the importance of STEM recognition and social adjustment, leaders and practitioners can intentionally create inclusive, supportive environments that foster identity development. In institutional strategies and targeted services for STEM transfer students, it is recommended to focus on enhancing STEM recognition and facilitating social adjustment. It is also recommended to educate administrators, faculty, and staff about the importance of STEM identity and the factors that influence its development. This knowledge should be shared through accessible resources such as professional development workshops, website materials, and recorded training sessions.
Second, community colleges and the receiving four-year institutions should collaborate to support a successful transfer and a smooth post-transfer adjustment for STEM vertical transfers. For pre-transfer STEM students, providing accurate and timely transfer advising that addresses both academic and psychological aspects is essential. Such pre-transfer advising should include reliable information about which STEM credits will transfer, as well as valuable insights into the academic rigor, curriculum structure, and expectations at the four-year institution. More importantly, effective transfer advising should foster students’ intrinsic interests in STEM, acknowledge their identities in STEM, and help promote their persistence and success in STEM majors and careers.
Another effective strategy is to implement targeted programs that support both vertical and lateral transfer students in overcoming challenges during their transition to the new institution. For example, a summer bridge program can help STEM transfer students familiarize themselves with the receiving institution before their transfer. It is also crucial to offer opportunities for interaction with STEM faculty and non-transfer peers during these programs. Such interactions can build social recognition, foster a welcoming and inclusive environment, and facilitate smoother adjustment after transfer. As the receiving institution implements these programs, it is recommended to include lateral transfers and intentionally address their specific needs.
Third, since STEM identity mediates the effects of institutional programs on STEM outcomes (Chemers et al., 2011; Syed et al., 2019), it is recommended to include STEM identity development as a goal when designing targeted programs for STEM transfer students. The validated STEM identity and other psychological measures used in this study offer practical tools for evaluating the effectiveness of these programs. Institutional researchers can incorporate these measures in pre- and post-program surveys to track changes. They can also utilize these measures as key metrics in a longitudinal study that compares multiple cohorts of transfer students.
List of Abbreviations
CFA
Confirmatory Factor Analysis
CFI
Comparative Fit Index
LRU
Louisiana Research University
PWIs
Predominantly White Institutions
RMSEA
Root Mean Square Error of Approximation
SRMR
Standardized Root Mean Square Residual
STEM
Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics
TLI
Tucker-Lewis Index
URM
Underrepresented Racial Minority
A
Author Contribution
Y. C. contributed to the study’s conceptualization and design, methodology, data collection, data analysis, and writing. J. L. contributed to data collection, data analysis, figures, tables, and writing. All authors reviewed and approved the manuscript.
References
Author. (2023). [Article information masked for blind review]
Author & Author (2024). [Article information masked for blind review]
Alexander, B. C., Garcia, V., Gonzalez, L., Grimes, G., & O’Brien, D. (2007). Barriers in the transfer process for Hispanic and Hispanic immigrant students. Journal of Hispanic Higher Education, 6(2), 174–184. https://doi.org/10.1177/1538192706297440
Bandura, A. (Ed.). (1997). Self-efficacy in changing societies. Cambridge university press.
Blaney, J. M., Hernandez, T. E., Feldon, D. F., & Wofford, A. M. (2025). Transfer student receptivity in patriarchal STEM contexts: Evidence of gendered transfer student stigma in computer science from a mixed methods study. Community College Review, 53(1), 28–60. https://doi.org/10.1177/00915521231218233
Carlone, H. B., & Johnson, A. (2007). Understanding the science experiences of successful women of color: Science identity as an analytic lens. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44(8), 1187–1218. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20237
Chemers, M.M., Zurbriggen, E.L., Syed, M., Goza, B.K. and Bearman, S. (2011), The Role of Efficacy and Identity in Science Career Commitment Among Underrepresented Minority Students. Journal of Social Issues, 67: 469–491. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4560.2011.01710.x
Chiu, T.K. (2024) Using self-determination theory (SDT) to explain student STEM interest and identity development. Instr Sci 52, 89–107. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-023-09642-8
Corwin, L. A., Morton, T. R., Demetriou, C., & Panter, A. T. (2020). A qualitative investigation of STEM students’ switch to non–STEM majors post–transfer. Journal of Women and Minorities in Science and Engineering, 26(3), 263–301. https://doi.org/10.1615/jwomenminorscieneng.2020027736
Deemer, E. D., Smith, J. L., Thoman, D. B., & Chase, J. P. (2014). Precision in career motivation assessment: Testing the subjective science attitude change measures. Journal of Career Assessment, 22(3), 489–504. https://doi.org/10.1177/1069072713498683
Dou, R., & Cian, H. (2022). Constructing STEM identity: An expanded structural model for STEM identity research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 59(3), 458–490. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21734
Dou, R., Hazari, Z., Dabney, K., Sonnert, G., & Sadler, P. (2019). Early informal STEM experiences and STEM identity: The importance of talking science. Science Education, 103(3), 623–637. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21499
Giani, M. S. (2019). The correlates of credit loss: How demographics, pre-transfer academics, and institutions relate to the loss of credits for vertical transfer students. Research in Higher Education, 60(8), 1113–1141. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11162-019-09548-w
Godwin, A., Potvin, G., Hazari, Z., & Lock, R. (2016). Identity, critical agency, and engineering: An affective model for predicting engineering as a career choice. Journal of engineering Education, 105(2), 312–340. https://doi.org/10.1002/jee.20118
Glynn, S. M., Brickman, P., Armstrong, N., & Taasoobshirazi, G. (2011). Science Motivation Questionnaire II: Validation with science majors and nonscience majors. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 48(10), 1159–1176. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20442
Hazari, Z., Sonnert, G., Sadler, P. M., & Shanahan, M.-C. (2010). Connecting high school physics experiences, outcome expectations, physics identity, and physics career choice: A gender study. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47(8), 978–1003. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20363
Head, M., & Wilson, S. B. (2025). Identifying differences in STEM self-efficacy, sense of belonging, and STEM professional identity statuses among diverse learners. Studies in Higher Education, 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2025.2505927
Holland Zahner, D. G., & Harper, R. P. (2025). Validation of belonging among underrepresented undergraduates in STEM majors: Comparison of former transfer and non-transfer students. Journal of College Student Retention: Research, Theory & Practice, 26(4), 1072–1099. https://doi.org/10.1177/1521025122114611
Hu, X., Jiang, Y. & Bi, H. (2022). Measuring science self-efficacy with a focus on the perceived competence dimension: using mixed methods to develop an instrument and explore changes through cross-sectional and longitudinal analyses in high school. IJ STEM Ed 9, 47. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-022-00363-x
Hu, X., & Ortagus, J. C. (2019). A national study of the influence of the community college pathway on female students’ STEM baccalaureate success. Community College Review, 41(3), 242–273. https://doi.org/10.1177/0091552119850321
Jackson, D. (2013). A balancing act: Impacting and initiating the success of African American female community college transfer students in STEM into the HBCU environment. Journal of Negro Education, 82(3), 255–271. https://doi.org/10.7709/jnegroeducation.82.3.0255
Jackson, D. L., Starobin, S. S., & Laanan, F. S. (2013). The shared experiences: Facilitating successful transfer of women and underrepresented minorities in STEM fields. New Directions for Higher Education, 2013(162), 69–76. https://doi.org/10.1002/he.20058
Jackson, M.C., Leal, C.C., Zambrano, J. et al. (2019). Talking about science interests: the importance of social recognition when students talk about their interests in STEM. Soc Psychol Educ 22, 149–167. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11218-018-9469-3
Jain, D., Bernal, S., Lucero, I., Herrera, A., & Solorzano, D. (2016). Toward a Critical Race Perspective of Transfer: An Exploration of a Transfer Receptive Culture. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 40(12), 1013–1024. https://doi.org/10.1080/10668926.2016.1213674
Kier, M.W., Blanchard, M.R., Osborne, J.W., & Albert, J. L. (2014). The Development of the STEM Career Interest Survey (STEM-CIS). Res Sci Educ 44, 461–481. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-013-9389-3
Kim, A. Y., Sinatra, G. M., & Seyranian, V. (2018). Developing a STEM identity among young women: A social identity perspective. Review of educational research, 88(4), 589–625. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654318779957
Kirk-Kuwaye, C., & Kirk-Kuwaye, M. (2007). A study of engagement patterns of lateral and vertical transfer students during their first semester at a public research university. Journal of the First-Year Experience & Students in Transition, 19(2), 9–27.
Kwon, H., Vela, K., Williams, A., & Barroso, L. (2019). Mathematics and science self-efficacy and STEM careers: A path analysis. Journal of Mathematics Education, 12(1), 74–89.
Laanan, F. S. (2001). Transfer student adjustment. New directions for community colleges, 2001(114), 5–13.
Laanan F. S., Starobin S. S., & Eggleston, L. E. (2010). Adjustment of community college students at a four-year university: Role and relevance of transfer student capital for student retention. Journal of College Student Retention: Research, Theory & Practice, 12(2), 175–209. https://doi.org/10.2190/CS.12.2.d
Ladachart, L., Sriboonruang, O., & Ladachart, L. (2024). Whose recognition is meaningful in developing a STEM identity? A preliminary exploration with Thai secondary school students. Research in Science Education, 54(5), 809–825. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-023-10151-4
Larson, L. M., Pesch, K. M., Surapaneni, S., Bonitz, V. S., Wu, T. F., & Werbel, J. D. (2015). Predicting graduation: The role of mathematics/science self-efficacy. Journal of Career Assessment, 23(3), 399–409. https://doi.org/10.1177/1069072714547322
Li, D. (2010). They need help: Transfer students from four-year to four-year institutions. The Review of Higher Education, 33(2), 207–238. https://dx.doi.org/10.1353/rhe.0.0131.
Martin-Hansen, L. (2018). Examining ways to meaningfully support students in STEM. International Journal of STEM Education, 5(53), https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-018-0150-3
McCord, R., Keffer, D. J., Retherford, J., Wetteland, C., Kocak, M. S., & Griffin, T. (2019). NSF S-STEM: Transfer success co-design for engineering disciplines (TRANSCEND). ASEE Annual Conference and Exposition, Conference Proceedings.
Murphy, K. M., & Kelp, N. C. (2023). Undergraduate STEM students’ science communication skills, science identity, and science self-efficacy influence their motivations and behaviors in STEM community engagement. Journal of microbiology & biology education, 24(1), e00182-22. https://doi.org/10.1128/jmbe.00182-22
National Science Board. (2021, August 31). The STEM labor force of today: Scientists, engineers, and skilled technical workers (Science and Engineering Indicators 2022, NSB–2021–2). Alexandria, VA: National Science Board / National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics, National Science Foundation. Retrieved from https://ncses.nsf.gov/pubs/nsb20212
Nealy, S., & Orgill, M. (2019). Postsecondary Underrepresented Minority STEM Students’ Perceptions of Their Science Identity. Journal of Negro Education 88(3), 249–268. https://muse.jhu.edu/article/802592.
Robinson, K. A., Perez, T., Carmel, J. H., & Linnenbrink-Garcia, L. (2019). Science identity development trajectories in a gateway college chemistry course: Predictors and relations to achievement and STEM pursuit. Contemporary educational psychology, 56, 180–192. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2019.01.004
Robnett, R. D. (2012). The role of peer support for girls and women in the STEM pipeline: Implications for identity and anticipated retention. International Journal of Gender, Science and Technology, 5, 232–253.
Rodriguez, S. L., & Blaney, J. M. (2021). “We’re the unicorns in STEM”: Understanding how academic and social experiences influence sense of belonging for Latina undergraduate students. Journal of Diversity in Higher Education, 14(3), 441. https://doi.org/10.1037/dhe0000176
Rodriguez, S., Cunningham, K., & Jordan, A. (2019). STEM identity development for Latinas: The role of self and outside recognition. Journal of Hispanic Higher Education, 18(3), 254–272. https://doi.org/10.1177/1538192717739958
Santiago, N. A, Gee, C., Howard, S. L, Macho, J. M, & Pozo Buil, M. (2022). Utilizing Equitable and Inclusive Design Principles to Promote STEM Identity of Community College Transfer Students. UC Santa Cruz: Leaders in effective and inclusive STEM: Twenty years of the Institute for Scientist & Engineer Educators. Retrieved from https://escholarship.org/uc/item/2kz8h9s7
Schiefele, U. (1991). Interest, learning, and motivation. Educational Psychologist, 26(3–4), 299–323.
Seyranian, V., Madva, A., Duong, N. et al. (2018). The longitudinal effects of STEM identity and gender on flourishing and achievement in college physics. International Journal of STEM Education, 5 (51). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-018-0137-0
Shaw, S. T., Spink, K., & Chin-Newman, C. (2019). “Do I really belong here?” The stigma of being a community college transfer student at a four-year university. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 43(9), 657–660. https://doi.org/10.1080/10668926.2018.1528907
Smith, K. C., Boakye, B., Williams, D., & Fleming, L. (2019). The exploration of how identity intersectionality strengthens STEM identity for Black female undergraduates attending a historically Black college and university (HBCU). Journal of Negro Education, 88(3), 407–418. https://muse.jhu.edu/article/802629.
Spencer, G. (2023). The costs of time: Examining the extent of the credit loss penalty in college transfer. The Journal of Higher Education, 94(4), 473–497. https://doi.org/10.1080/00221546.2022.2141453
Starr, C. R., Hunter, L., Dunkin, R., Honig, S., Palomino, R., & Leaper, C. (2020). Engaging in science practices in classrooms predicts increases in undergraduates' STEM motivation, identity, and achievement: A short-term longitudinal study. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 57(7), 1093–1118. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21623
Starobin, S. S., & Laanan, F. S. (2010). From community college to PhD: Educational pathways in STEM disciplines. New Directions for Institutional Research, 2010(149), 81–93.
https://doi.org/10.1615/JWomenMinorScienEng.v16.i1.50
Starobin, S. S., Smith, D. J., & Santos Laanan, F. (2016). Deconstructing the transfer student capital: Intersect between cultural and social capital among female transfer students in STEM fields. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 40(12), 1040–1057. https://doi.org/10.1080/10668926.2016.1204964
Syed, M., Zurbriggen, E. L., Chemers, M. M., Goza, B. K., Bearman, S., Crosby, F. J., … Morgan, E. M. (2019). The role of self-efficacy and identity in mediating the effects of STEM support experiences. Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy, 19(1), 7–49. https://doi.org/10.1111/asap.12183
Taylor, J. L., & Jain, D. (2017). The Multiple Dimensions of Transfer: Examining the Transfer Function in American Higher Education. Community College Review, 45(4), 273–293. https://doi.org/10.1177/0091552117725177
Townsend, B. K., & Wilson, K. B. (2006). “A hand hold for a little bit”: Factors facilitating the success of community college transfer students to a large research university. Journal of College Student Development, 47(4), 439–456. https://doi.org/10.1353/csd.2006.0052.
Verhoeven, M., Poorthuis, A. M., & Volman, M. (2019). The role of school in adolescents’ identity development. A literature review. Educational psychology review, 31(1), 35–63. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-018-9457-3
Shin, J. E. L., Levy, S. R., & B. London (2016). Effects of role model exposure on STEM and non-STEM student engagement. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 46(7), 410–427. DOI: 10.1111/jasp.12371
Vincent-Ruz, P. & Schunn, C.D. (2018). The nature of science identity and its role as the driver of student choices. International Journal of STEM Education, 5(48) https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-018-0140-5
Wang, X. (2015). Pathway to a baccalaureate in STEM fields: Are community colleges a viable route and does early STEM momentum matter?. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 37(3), 376–393. https://doi.org/10.3102/0162373714552561
Wang, X. (2016). Upward transfer in STEM fields of study: A new conceptual framework and survey instrument for institutional research. New Directions for Institutional Research, 2016(170), 49–60. https://doi.org/10.1002/ir.20184
Wang, X., Wickersham, K., Lee, S. Y., Lor, N. B., Gaskew, A., & Prevost, A. (2020). The Road to Becoming a Scientist: A Mixed-Methods Investigation of Supports and Barriers Experienced by First-Year Community College Students. Teachers College Record, 122(2), 1–50. https://doi.org/10.1177/016146812012200208
Williams, M. M., & George-Jackson, C. (2014). Using and doing science: Gender, self-efficacy, and science identity of undergraduate students in STEM. Journal of Women and Minorities in Science and Engineering, 20(2). https://doi.org/10.1615/JWomenMinorScienEng.2014004477
Wyner, J., Deane, K. C., Jenkins, D., & Fink, J. (2016). The Transfer Playbook: Essential Practices for Two-and Four-Year Colleges. Aspen Institute.
Zhao, M., Ozturk, E., Law, F. R., Joy, A., Deutsch, A. R., Marlow, C. S., … Hartstone–Rose, A. (2024). Reciprocal associations between science efficacy, STEM identity, and scientist career interest among adolescent girls within the context of informal science learning. International Journal of STEM Education, 11(1), 7. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-024-00482-7
Zuckerman, A. L., & Lo, S. M. (2021). Transfer student experiences and identity navigation in STEM: Overlapping figured worlds of success. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 20(3), ar48. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.20-06-0121
Appendix A
Survey Items for Academic and Social Adjustment
Name | Survey Items |
|---|---|
Academic adjustment (α = .702) | I did not experience a dip in grades (GPA) during my first semester at LRU. |
Adjusting to the academic standards at LRU has been easy. | |
Instructor or students expressed confidence in my ability to succeed in class. | |
My level of stress increased when I started LRU. | |
Social adjustment (α = .703) | It is easy to make friends at LRU. |
Adjusting to the social environment at LRU has been easy. |
Note. All items are measured on a five-point Likert scale, ranging from 1= “strongly disagree” to 5= “strongly agree”.
Declarations
A
Funding
Declarations:
This study is funded by the National Science Foundation (NSF), award number 2145520.
Human Ethics and Consent to Participate Declarations:
This study received IRB approval from the participating university.
A
All participants signed a consent form prior to participating in the study.