Volume 22, Issue 2
May 18, 2021
ISSN 1099-839X
Factors Associated with Online Doctoral Student Persistence:
A Critical Integrative Review of the Literature
Tara J. Lehan, PhD
Heather D. Hussey, PhD
&
Thomas Hotz, MPA
Northcentral University
Abstract: Online doctoral students may be at especially high risk for not completing their program.
The purpose of this paper is to synthesize and critically analyze the body of research examining
factors associated with persistence among online doctoral students, a relatively understudied
population. Consistent with the notion that integration and institutional factors exert more
influence on doctoral persistence than student characteristics, with the exception of leadership and
motivation, few student-related characteristics examined were found to be associated with online
doctoral student persistence. However, findings should be considered in light of the limitations of
the existing research. Based on this critical integrative review of the literature, implications for
research and practice as well as recommendations for next steps are offered.
Keywords: higher education, online doctoral students, persistence, completion, attrition
Citation: Lehan, T. J., Hussey, H. D., & Hotz, T. (2021). Factors associated with online doctoral
student persistence: A critical integrative review of the literature. Current Issues in
Education, 22(2). http://cie.asu.edu/ojs/index.php/cieatasu/article/view/1961
Accepted: 3/20/2021
Introduction
In higher education, enrollment in online courses and programs continues to grow and
outpace that of traditional programs (Lederman, 2019). However, one of the greatest issues for
higher education administrators (Bergman et al., 2014; Lee & Choi, 2011) is the reportedly higher
attrition rates for online programs compared to traditional face-to-face programs (Cochran et al.,
2014; Stevenson, 2013; Ivankova & Stick, 2007; Rockinson-Szapkiw et al., 2016; Terrell et al.,
2016; Terrell et al., 2009; Wladis et al., 2014). It has been found that doctoral students are less
likely to persist to degree completion than undergraduate and master’s students (Cockrell &
Shelley, 2010; Spaulding & Rockinson-Szapkiw, 2012). Varying by field and modality (Terrell et
al., 2012), the proportion of students who leave doctoral programs is relatively high (30-70%) and
Current Issues in Education Vol. 22 No. 2
has remained steady for about 50 years (Zahl, 2015). Taken together, it seems that online doctoral
learners are at an especially high risk for not completing their program (Cross, 2014). This is
problematic for a number of reasons, including loss of student self-esteem and a potential reduction
in institutional profit (Lee & Choi, 2011).
The majority of retention research in higher education has focused on students in traditional
face-to-face programs (Bergman et al., 2014; Cochran et al., 2014; Hachey et al., 2014; Stevenson,
2013); however, online doctoral programs and learners warrant scholarly attention, as they have
unique characteristics and needs (Akojie et al., 2019; Cockrell & Shelley, 2010; Hachey et al.,
2014; Stevenson, 2013). Somewhat complicating the research is the myriad of factors that likely
impact online doctoral students’ decision to persist as well as the difficulty in tracking students
once they withdraw (Fetzner, 2013; Layne et al., 2013; Stevenson, 2013; Willging & Johnson,
2009; Zahl, 2015).
The purpose of this paper is to synthesize and critically analyze the body of research
examining factors associated with persistence among online doctoral students. Online doctoral
student persistence does not seem to be the result of a single factor (Akojie et al., 2019; Spaulding
& Rockinson-Szapkiw, 2012). Instead, it involves the interaction of multiple factors relating to
both students and the institution (Ivankova & Stick, 2007). It is theorized that these factors
contribute to the extent to which the student becomes integrated into the university, which is
essential to persistence (Tinto, 1993). This framework will be used to organize the existing
literature.
Methodology
To meet the inclusion criteria, a journal article had to (1) be peer-reviewed, (2) include
original data, (3) examine persistence, (4) include only doctoral students taking courses online, (5)
be written in English, and (6) be published within the last 15 years. Relevant research articles were
located using Education Research Complete, ERIC, EBSCOhost, and Google Scholar. No article
in which master’s and doctoral students were incorporated in the same sample were included
because it was impossible to distinguish what was true of just doctoral students. In addition, no
dissertations or book chapters were included. The following search terms were used: "persistence"
OR "retention" OR "attrition" OR "drop out" OR "dropout" OR "completion" OR "graduation"
AND "online" OR "distance" OR "distributed" OR "blended" OR "hybrid" OR 'limited residency"
AND "doctoral students". Articles with seemingly relevant titles were identified, then their
abstracts were read. If the article still appeared to be relevant, the entire document was reviewed.
The reference list of each relevant article identified was also searched to locate additional articles.
Ultimately, 20 articles were deemed to meet the inclusion criteria. Each of these articles was
reviewed closely, and the most relevant information was documented in the table in the Appendix.
Findings
Settings and Programs
As shown in the Appendix, more than half the research comes from only two research
groups: Terrell and colleagues and Rockinson-Szapkiw and colleagues. Terrell and colleagues
examined students or graduates from a limited-residency doctoral program at a private
metropolitan university in the Southeast. Rockinson-Szapkiw and colleagues recruited students or
graduates from a Doctor of Education program requiring 50 online credit hours and 10 residential
credit hours at a private, religious, non-profit, liberal arts university. In addition to the limited
diversity of perspective that characterizes the research, it is problematic because the two programs
Lehan et al: Online Doctoral Student Persistence
from which these authors recruited students have unique characteristics; therefore, the ability to
generalize the findings beyond these institutions might be limited. With few exceptions (e.g., Fiore
et al., 2019; Lee et al., 2020), the participants in these studies reviewed were current or former
students or graduates from one or two programs (usually education-related) at one institution.
Moreover, most of the programs examined in this body of literature were limited residency or
hybrid in nature. Such programs have different characteristics and outcomes than completely
online programs (Davidson et al., 2014). In some cases, the research reportedly was initiated in
association with a large number of students’ leaving the program (e.g., Brown, 2017; Terrell,
2005b).
Methodologies and Frameworks
As shown in the Appendix table, qualitative (case study, phenomenology, grounded
theory), quantitative (correlational, causal-comparative), and mixed (sequential explanatory)
methods were employed in the body of literature on factors associated with online doctoral student
persistence. In addition, with the exception of the studies involving grounded theory, most
previous researchers identified a conceptual or theoretical framework that guided the study.
Frequently, their work was informed by one or more models of attrition, most commonly that of
Tinto (1993), Bean (1980), and Bean and Metzner (1985). In his model of institutional departure,
Tinto maintains that students need integration into formal (academic performance) and informal
(faculty/staff interactions) academic systems and formal (extracurricular activities) and informal
(peer-group interactions) social systems to persist. In his model, Bean stressed that student
integration and interactions combine with subjective evaluations of the educational process,
institution, and experience to influence satisfaction directly and intentions to persist indirectly.
At the same time, external factors that are beyond the control of the institution, such as
opportunity to transfer, family commitments, and financial constraints, directly influence intention
to leave and drop out. In their model, Bean and Metzner (1985) included four sets of variables:
academic performance, intent to leave, background and defined variables, and, most importantly,
environmental variables. According to the model, student attrition is most directly affected by
environmental variables, such as finance, working hours, outside encouragement, family
responsibilities, and opportunity to transfer. It is important to note that Tinto’s model was created
with a focus on traditional undergraduate students, whereas Bean’s (1980) and Bean and Metzner’s
models focused on nontraditional undergraduate students. That is, neither was developed to
explain attrition among online and/or doctoral students.
In general, the sample sizes in qualitative studies were under 20, although Brown (2017),
Spaulding and Rockinson-Szapkiw (2012), and Deshpande (2016) included 75, 76, and 91 online
doctoral students, respectively. The sample sizes in quantitative studies were relatively larger
(range: 51 [Terrell, 2005a] to 303 [Gomez, 2013]).
Variables and Constructs
Whereas some researchers measured their variables and constructs of interest directly (e.g.,
Terrell, 2005a, 2005b, 2014, 2015), others did so indirectly by soliciting participants’ perceptions
and seeking to understand their lived experiences (e.g., Kennedy et al., 2015; Terrell et al., 2016;
Spaulding & Rockinson-Spakiw, 2012; Zahl, 2015). Researchers also varied the way they
measured online doctoral student persistence, with some conceptualizing it as choosing to remain
continuously enrolled (e.g., Brown, 2017; Rockinson-Szapkiw et al., 2016), and others as the
successful completion of the program (e.g., Gomez, 2013, Spaulding & Rockinson-Szapkiw,
Current Issues in Education Vol. 22 No. 2
2012). In general, when reported, the completion rates of the students in the programs examined
were relatively low (e.g., 49% in Terrell, 2005a; 37.6% in Terrell, 2005b, 42.9% in Terrell, 2014).
Student-Related Factors
Demographic Factors. Despite the importance of demographic factors to online doctoral
student success (see Spaulding & Rockinson-Szapkiw, 2012), only some researchers presented
demographic information about the individuals in their studies; even fewer included demographic
factors in their analyses. Gomez (2013) examined the influence of gender, whereas Terrell (2005b,
2014) explored the impact of gender as well as age and ethnicity on online doctoral student
persistence. Gender was not a significant predictor of persistence in either study. In addition,
neither age nor ethnicity significantly predicted persistence.
Academic Factors. Only one researcher analyzed the educational background of the online
doctoral students in their samples. Gomez (2013) found no significant influence of master’s grade
point average or application summary score on program completion (e.g., Gomez. 2013).
Cognitive Factors. Researchers also examined the potential impact of online doctoral
students’ critical thinking and learning styles. In Gomez (2013), although graduates had higher
critical thinking scores by an average of 4.5%, it was not significantly associated with program
completion. In an examination of 216 students who began a limited-residency doctoral program,
approximately 38% of them graduated but those rates did not differ significantly by learning style
(Terrell, 2005b). Although not statistically significant, the effect sizes in one study showed that
students with a preference for information perception through sensing were more likely to succeed
in programs like the one examined (Terrell, 2005a). However, in a study about a decade later,
neither learning style or preference appeared to be related to attrition (Terrell, 2014). The
relationship between brain hemispheric preference and attrition has also been examined, but has
found to not significantly predict attrition (Terrell, 2015).
Personality. One researcher examined the influence of leadership behaviors and
psychological type on program completion among online doctoral students (Gomez, 2013).
Graduates had higher Leadership Practice Inventory Modeling the Way scores by an average of
3.8% and exhibited higher percentages (average of 10%) in the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator
categories of Introvert, Sensing, Thinking, and Judging. Only Leadership Practices Inventory
Modeling the Way emerged as a significant predictor of graduation. Ivankova and Stick (2007)
also reported that self-motivation was one of the most important factors to persistence. Similarly,
Fiore and colleagues (2019) reported that students believed that “persistence comes from within.”
Experience of Disruption and Loss. Qualitative studies offered richer descriptions of
online doctoral students’ experiences impacting their persistence. Individuals with earned
doctorates described personal sacrifice (e.g., summer breaks, sleep, time with loved ones) and
disruptive life experiences (e.g., job promotion, marriage, layoff of a partner) (Spaulding &
Rockinson-Szapkiw, 2012). Death and illness of either a loved one or a dissertation committee
member also delayed progress for students (Spaulding & Rockinson-Szapkiw, 2012). Material loss
(e.g., furniture, utilities, home) and relational loss due to divorce, death, and exposure to drug,
alcohol, and physical abuse was also transformative for many students from backgrounds of
poverty (Rockinson-Szapkiw, Spaulding, Swezey, & Wicks, 2014). Among these students, risk
factors served as resilience mechanisms. For them, education was as a way out of their previous
circumstances. For this reason, they reportedly felt compelled to continue their education. In
Rockinson-Szapkiw, Spaulding, Swezey, and Wicks (2014), it was reported that students’ inability
Lehan et al: Online Doctoral Student Persistence
to consistently rely on adults influenced them to become more independent. Their faith also played
a role in their self-reliance. At the same time, these students could easily name one or two
significant individuals who helped them to develop positive traits and values.
Integration
Researchers have found a link between persistence and online doctoral students’ sense of
community and positive interactions with others (e.g., Terrell et al., 2009); however, the research
has been mixed (e.g., Ivankova & Stick, 2007). Zahl (2015) defined community as “the
development of social networks through relationships in the academic setting” (p. 302), using
Kadushin’s (2004) work in defining social networks as “relationships that one can draw upon as
resources during graduate study” (p. 302). These relationships then serve as resources for doctoral
students who often face unique challenges while pursuing their degree, and the lack of these
relationships or removal of can have a negative impact on student persistence (Zahl, 2015). Online
doctoral students report that “doctoral research feels lonely” (Fiore et al., 2019). For those
attending doctoral programs part-time and online, developing these supportive relationships can
be extra challenging due to distance, lack of time together, changing of cohorts, as well as outside
competing obligations (Ivankova & Stick, 2007; Rockinson-Szapkiw et al., 2016; Zahl, 2015).
However, the literature continues to grow in showing the importance of these relationships for
online doctoral students (Rockinson-Szapkiw et al., 2016).
Relationships within the Institution. Researchers have found online doctoral students’
relationship with their advisor to be critical to their success, including the time spent together,
frequency of interactions, and the sense of care and trust that they perceive (Rockinson-Szapkiw
et al., 2016). Relatedly, Ivankova and Stick (2007) found that graduate students who were inactive
or had withdrawn were less likely to rate their advisors positively. Consistent scholarly interactions
with peers and faculty have also been found to build a sense of community (Zahl, 2015). Further,
supportive faculty mentors are perceived as having a profound impact on student persistence (Zahl,
2015), with students often looking to their faculty for guidance and support more than their
academic peers (Ivankova & Stick, 2005). Assigning a faculty advisor to help doctoral students
build this positive relationship can help support student success (Rockinson-Szapkiw et al., 2016).
Many students recommend carefully selecting their chair and committee members, as
negative experiences with these relationships is often one of the biggest challenges reported by
online doctoral students (Rockinson-Szapkiw et al., 2016; Terrell et al., 2016). This can result in
a lack of connectedness and increases attrition (Terrell et al., 2009). It is also important to note that
online doctoral students may be looking to their advisors to foster these relationships, which may
not happen without effort on the student’s end (Terrell et al., 2009). Online doctoral students
recommend new student orientations where students are matched with peer mentors to establish
connectedness and supports for persistence as well as formal processes throughout students’
programs to ensure student connectedness to peers, advisors, and faculty (Terrell et al., 2016).
Relationships with academic peers also appear to impact online doctoral student
persistence, as many students look to their peers for support when facing challenges (Rockinson-
Szapkiw et al., 2016; Zahl, 2015). However, formal academic peer relationships formed through
assigned group work at the graduate level led to reported dissatisfaction with courses in some cases
(Rockinson-Szapkiw et al., 2016) and, in others, helped form peer mentors between those earlier
and later in their academic journeys (Ivankova & Stick, 2005). These informal interactions with
peers as well as staff and faculty helped develop a sense of connectedness to academic departments
Current Issues in Education Vol. 22 No. 2
and a sense of belonging (Zahl, 2015). Novice students appeared to be drawn to and appreciative
of the support of students further along in their academic programs (Ivankova & Stick, 2005).
Nevertheless, many online doctoral students struggle to establish long-term relationships
with their online academic peers (Ivankova & Stick, 2007), and this sense of isolation can lead to
drop out (Rockinson-Szapkiw et al., 2016). This may be due in part to students’ lack of self-
efficacy to communicate easily with other in the online learning environment (Terrell et al., 2009).
Helping build these relationships through scaffolded communications in courses can help build
students’ abilities to more effectively communicate with peers online and develop those long-
lasting connections (Ivankova & Stick, 2005). For example, students reported preferring classes
that were not too small or too large (ideal was 6-10 students) with opportunities for synchronous
communication and those communications were with those who shared similar goals and values
(Ivankova & Stick, 2005). Creating informal discussion areas or places to gather (e.g., “Virtual
Cafeteria”) are another way students reported building a sense of community in their online
learning environments (Ivankova & Stick, 2005).
Spaulding and Rockinson-Szapkiw (2012) mentioned economic integration as an
important contributing factor to online doctoral student persistence. Likewise, Deshpande (2016)
noted the impact of financial difficulties as an impediment on the road to doctoral persistence.
Rockinson-Szapkiw, Spaulding, and Spaulding (2016) pointed to financial integration (the
interaction between financial support from the higher education institution and the student’s
personal finances) as a source of both support and emotional strain felt by online doctoral
candidates. This was distinguished from financial support, which was specified as economic
support provided solely by the higher education institution.
Relationships outside the Institution. For online doctoral students spending much of their
time at school and work, their peers at work can help address feelings of isolation often felt by
online students who struggle to make academic peers (Rockinson-Szapkiw et al., 2016). As many
doctoral students also work, their work peers are sometimes also their academic peers, which has
been viewed both positively and negatively by students trying to manage those dual roles (Zahl,
2015). Successful online graduate students reported the greatest perceived support from
employers, family, and friends compared to those who were inactive or had withdrawn (Ivankova
& Stick, 2007). A lack of support from employers reportedly lead to financial strain and decreased
likelihood of persistence (Rockinson-Szapkiw et al., 2016).
Supportive partners and family members who can help with childcare and household
responsibilities have also been reported to support student success (Spaulding & Rockinson-
Szapkiw, 2012). In addition, remaining connected to family while also working to complete a
doctoral degree has been shown to support persistence (Rockinson-Szapkiw et al., 2016); others
use their family as motivation to obtain their degree (Spaulding & Rockinson-Szapkiw, 2012).
However, this can be a challenge for online doctoral students who often report sacrificing time
spent with family in order to complete their degree, which adds an additional emotional toll
(Spaulding & Rockinson-Szapkiw, 2012). Online doctoral students reported using financial gains
and promotions as motivators to help with persistence (Spaulding & Rockinson-Szapkiw, 2012).
Institutional Factors
Several researchers investigated program and/or institutional factors associated with
persistence in online doctoral students. In Spaulding and Rockinson-Szapkiw (2012), program
characteristics frequently were associated with persistence. Students’ finding a reputable program
with similar values that are compatible with their circumstances and learning styles was also
Lehan et al: Online Doctoral Student Persistence
mentioned as being important. Brown (2017) also explored doctoral students’ perceptions of the
university that contributed to their choice to remain continuously enrolled in their online degree
program.
Support Services. In particular, support services, such as academic advising, career
services, and library resources, seem important to online doctoral student success (Fiore et al.,
2019; Rockinson-Szapkiw et al., 2016), as do the quality of academic experiences, support, and
assistance (Ivankova & Stick, 2007). Brown (2017) described how some students taking courses
online can become overwhelmed by program requirements in combination with work and family
demands. In this study, the students’ most prevalent university support centered on assistance from
instructors and advisors. However, online doctoral students also expressed that they did not feel
that they were receiving adequate or consistent support (Fiore et al., 2019; Terrell et al., 2009).
Relatedly, inadequate advising and program supports were reported to have contributed to
students’ leaving their doctoral program (Kennedy et al., 2015).
Brown (2017) examined supports not received that students believed would have helped
them to achieve additional success. One theme that emerged was that, although students sought an
online program for the flexibility, they missed some aspects of traditional programs, such as face-
to-face communication and professor availability after business hours. A lack of time was cited as
the greatest challenge for these students. Similarly, Deshpande (2016) reported that the absence of
human interaction was a barrier to persistence. Full-time student enrollment was found to be
correlated with persistence and degree completion in Zahl (2015), as part-time students perceived
faculty as being unavailable to them and at times and that they catered to full-time students.
Rockinson-Szapkiw and colleagues (2016) suggested that programs can assign a faculty member
to serve in an advisory capacity from program entry through program completion. They argued
that this faculty member can support acculturation into academia and socialization surrounding the
nature of the doctoral journey and the skills and knowledge needed across the distinct phases.
In addition, institutional technology supports are important for online doctoral students’
success. Technology issues when computers crashed were noted as impediments to student
progress (Ivankova & Stick, 2005). In addition, the online learning environment was cited as
important to persistence in Ivankova and Stick (2007). Moreover, in Lee and colleagues (2020),
the ease of use, flexibility, and usefulness of available technology was highlighted.
Curriculum and Instruction. Curriculum and instruction have also been found to be
important to online doctoral student persistence (Rockinson-Szapkiw et al., 2016), with some
students reporting course structure and workload as barriers to persistence (Deshpande, 2016). In
Spaulding and Rockinson-Szapkiw (2012), many participants cited earlier coursework as
preparing them for the challenges associated with the dissertation. “Knowledgeable” and “high-
quality” faculty were identified as key to success. Similarly, in Ivankova and Stick (2005), the
course instructor was described as “a participant, expert, leader, designer, facilitator, and mediator
of the course” (p. 8). In the words of one student, “The instructor is the course” (p. 8). According
to Ivankova and Stick (2007), instructor accessibility and promptness of feedback were found to
be more important that the quality of feedback and willingness to accommodate student needs.
Likewise, Terrell and colleagues (2012) found that longer-than-expected response times
from dissertation supervisors might contribute to a lack of student success. These authors also
highlighted a need for mentorship and other assistance with the dissertation process. Challenges
in completing the dissertation were reported to have contributed to students’ leaving their doctoral
Current Issues in Education Vol. 22 No. 2
program (Kennedy et al., 2015). In Spaulding and Rockinson-Szapkiw (2012), participants also
mentioned challenges associated with the dissertation impacting their success.
Discussion
Previous researchers used diverse methodologies and measures to focus on widely varying
student, integration, and institutional factors in their attempts to understand persistence in online
doctoral students. The resulting lack of overlap makes it difficult to identify convergence and
divergence in the research. Nonetheless, important takeaways exist.
The purpose of this literature review was to examine factors related to online doctoral
student persistence. This review shows that the literature is not clearly aligned in terms of the
factors examined and the definition of persistence. Therefore, it is difficult to ask more
sophisticated questions relating to under what conditions factors are related to persistence.
Consistent with the notion that integration and institutional factors exert more influence on
doctoral persistence than student characteristics (Lovitts, 2001), with the exception of leadership
and motivation, few student-related characteristics examined were found to be statistically
significantly associated with online doctoral student persistence.
There is evidence that students’ sense of community and positive interactions with others
reportedly are linked to their persistence (e.g., Fiore et al., 2019; Terrell et al., 2009; Zahl, 2015).
Zahl (2015) postulated that research has yet to elucidate how doctoral students develop
community. However, “an ideal online learning environment has high levels of faculty-to-student
and student-to-student connectedness evidenced by authentic and ongoing discourse and
information sharing”, with less than ideal conditions leading to attrition (Terrell et al., 2009, p.
114). During their moments of despair, having just one supportive person in the online learning
environment can help create a sense of community and support student success (Zahl, 2015). In
addition, program and institutional characteristics frequently were associated with persistence
(Spaulding & Rockinson-Szapkiw, 2017). Brown (2017) argued that faculty members need to be
encouraged to communicate often with online students and to be provided with the technological
tools necessary to facilitate that communication. That is, institutions must provide the time,
opportunities, and resources for such support to occur.
Implications for Future Research
To connect and build upon the current body of literature, future researchers can take several steps.
First, they can examine some of the same factors included in previous research in an attempt to
replicate the findings. Second, they can study completely online students as opposed to students
taking one course online or students in a hybrid program. Third, given that most of the students
included in previous studies were in an education-related program, it is critical to examine students
from a variety of programs, disciplines, and institutions. Researchers have found differences across
programs in terms of persistence. Attrition rates can be as high as 70% for Doctor of Education
(EdD) programs compared to 40% to 60% for other doctoral programs, with online programs
having a 10% to 20% higher attrition rate than traditional face-to-face programs (Nettles & Millett,
2006). Fourth, future researchers can use more direct measures of variables and constructs of
interest as opposed to soliciting participants’ perceptions and seeking to understand their lived
experiences. Fifth, more research might be done on external and informal support, including family
members and pets. Sixth, more research on factors, such as the impact of caregiving, is needed.
Seventh, whereas individual and institutional factors have received a great deal of scholarly
attention, academic factors might be examined to a greater extent. Eighth, other factors, such as
learning outcomes and time to completion, might be explored.
Lehan et al: Online Doctoral Student Persistence
Table 1
APPENDIX
Articles Included in the Critical Integrative Review of the Literature
Citation
Brown (2017)
Focus
Doctoral students'
perceptions of work,
university, and patterns of
familial support that
contribute to students'
choice to remain
continuously enrolled in the
online degree program
Framework
Andragogy
Methods
Qualitative
Interview and
demographic
questionnaire
Participants & Setting
75 students enrolled in a university's
newly developed online doctoral
program in Educational Leadership
Deshpande
(2016)
Challenges in persistence in
an online DBA Program in
England
Unclear
Qualitative
91 doctoral students at one institution
Interviews and survey 63.5% males, approx. 36% females
Fiore, Heitner,
& Shaw
(2019)
Online doctoral students’
perceptions of the role of
academic advising on their
persistence as they
transition from coursework
to research in doctoral
study
Unclear, but mentioned
Tinto’s work, Bean and
Metzner’s work, the ABD
phenomenon
Qualitative
Interviews
18 ABD students who were currently
enrolled in an online doctoral program
(n=6), online ABD students who
completed their coursework within
the past five years but were no longer
enrolled in an online doctoral program
(n=5), and students who had
graduated from an online doctoral
program in the past five years (n=7)
5 men, 13 women
8 participants identified as white, 10
identified as non-white
Current Issues in Education Vol. 22 No. 2
Gomez (2013)
Predictive impact of
student characteristics on
persistence in an online
doctoral leadership
program
Unclear
Ivankova &
Stick (2005)
Experiences reported by
doctoral students in an
online course related to
community building and
persistence.
Unclear
Ivankova &
Stick (2007)
Predictive power of internal
and external factors on
Tinto’s student integration
theory, Bean’s student
attrition model, and
Participants’ ages ranged from under
45 years of age (27.8%), age 45-54
(33.3%), and over 55 years of age
(38.9%)
The most popular fields of doctoral
study were education (39%) and
psychology (28%)
Quantitative
Secondary and
program-specific data
303 doctoral students in a multi-
disciplinary online doctoral program
in organizational and in strategic
leadership at a private graduate
university
179 graduated (113 male, 66 female),
124 attritted (86 male, 38 female)
Qualitative
Online discussion
questions
34 doctoral students in educational
leadership in higher education
program enrolled in online course.
All had completed at least one online
course.
approximately 50% had completed 3
or more online courses.
Students were from around the globe,
with 31 paying non-resident tuition.
Students ranged in age from 33-52
and all were employed full-time.
Mixed methods
207 active and inactive students who
took more than half their classes
online in educational leadership in
Lehan et al: Online Doctoral Student Persistence
doctoral students’
persistence
Kennedy,
Terrell, &
Lohle (2015)
A grounded theory of
persistence in a limited-
residency doctoral program
Lee, Chang, &
Bryant (2020)
Rockinson-
Szapkiw,
Spaulding, &
Lunde (2017)
Impact of technological
factors (TF) and relational
factors (RF) on doctoral
student learning success
(SLS)
How distance education
women EdD students who
are mothers balanced and
integrated their multiple
identities to persist
Rockinson-
Szapkiw,
Spaulding, &
Spaulding
(2016)
Identifying significant
integration and
institutional factors that
predict online doctoral
persistence
Kember’s model of
dropout from distance
education courses
Unclear
TF, RF, SLS
Jones and McEwen’s
conceputalization of
identity, conceputalization
of intersectionality drawn
from critical race theory,
Tinto’s theory of
integration
Classic persistence models
of Tinto, Bean, and Bean
and Metzner
Interviews, academic
transcripts and student
files, elicitation
materials,
questionnaire,
archived courses,
survey
Grounded theory
Interviews
higher education program (202
admitted and active, 13 admitted but
inactive, 26 graduated, and 37
withdrawn or terminated from the
program)
Typical participants were between 36
and 54 years of age, predominantly
women, employed full-time, mostly
out-of-state, and married with
children
17 students who left a limited-
residency doctoral program.
Quantitative
Survey
210 doctoral students from 26 online
doctoral leadership programs in the
U.S.
140 female students, 70 male students
Qualitative
Questionnaires, life
maps, and interviews
17 women candidates in one of two
distance education EdD programs
with second-generation characteristics
at universities in the southeastern US
Quantitative
Archival survey
148 doctoral candidates enrolled in an
online Doctor of Education program
with second-generation characteristics
24 African American, 116 Caucasian,
3 Latino, 4 Asian, 1 American Indian
participants
Current Issues in Education Vol. 22 No. 2
Rockinson-
Szapkiw,
Spaulding,
Swezey, &
Wicks (2014)
Poverty and Persistence: A
Model for Understanding
Individuals' Pursuit and
Persistence in a Doctor of
Education Program
Deci and Ryan’s self-
determination theory,
Tinto’s integration theory,
resilience framework
Spaulding &
Rockinson-
Szapkiw
(2012)
To analyze the narratives of
successful doctoral
candidates to uncover the
personal, social, and
institutional factors and
contexts leading to the
completion of the doctorate
Resilience framework,
Tinto’s integration theory
Terrell
(2005a)
A longitudinal
investigation of the effect
of information
perception and focus on
attrition in online
learning environments
Jung’s theory of
psychological type
Majority was 30-49 and female,
married, and working full time
Qualitative
Survey and interviews
12 students (7 female, 5 male)
enrolled in a Doctor of Education
(EdD) program requiring 50 online
credit hours and 10 residential credits
at a private, religious, non-profit,
liberal arts university in the eastern
United States
1 Africa-American, 1 Hispanic, 10
Caucasian students
Qualitative
Interviews
Data from 42 women and 34 men
with earned doctorates in education
and employed in the field were
analyzed
55 Caucasian, 16 African-American,
2 Latino, 2 Asian, and 1 “other”
participant(s)
Quantitative
Longitudinal survey
51 students in limited residency
doctoral program.
84.3% male, 37.3% identified as
members of a minority group.
Average age 42 (range 24-64), 78.4%
married.
51% dropped from the program or
failed to finish within 7 years
Lehan et al: Online Doctoral Student Persistence
Terrell
(2005b)
Relationship between age,
gender, ethnicity, learning
style and their effect on
attrition from an online
doctoral program.
Kolb’s learning styles
Terrell (2014)
The Use of Experiential
Learning Styles to Predict
Attrition from a Limited-
Residency Information
Systems Graduate Program
Kolb’s learning styles
Terrell (2015)
Relationship between brain
hemispheric preference and
attrition in students
enrolled in a limited-
residency doctoral
program.
Theory of brain
hemisphericity
Terrell, Lohle,
& Kennedy
(2016)
Lived experiences that
contributed to persistence
for students who graduated
from a limited-residency
information systems
doctoral program.
Unclear
Terrell,
Snyder, &
Limited-residency
doctoral students' feelings
of connectedness towards
Unclear
Quantitative
Longitudinal survey
216 students who began a limited-
residency doctoral program between
1993 and 1998 and graduated or left
by 2003
Quantitative
Surveys
54.6% male, 22.2% identified as
members of a minority group, average
age was 43.37 years old and
approximately 38% graduated
.
56 students enrolled in a course
within a limited-residency
information systems program
82.1% male, 37.5% identified as a
member of a minority group, and
42.9% graduated
Quantitative
Longitudinal surveys
152 students in a limited-residency
information systems doctoral program
53.9% female, average age of 44, and
19.7% identified as belonging to a
minority group
Qualitative
Interviews
Graduates from a limited-residency
doctoral program
Although 7 students who had
graduated
agreed to participate, data collection
stopped after 5 due to saturation
Mixed methods
Survey
223 students in a limited-residency
doctoral program currently working
on their dissertation as part of a
Current Issues in Education Vol. 22 No. 2
Dringus
(2009)
Terrell,
Snyder,
Dringus, &
Maddrey
(2012)
each other and the faculty
by using a survey
developed specifically for
that purpose
A Grounded Theory of
Connectivity and
Persistence in a Limited
Residency Doctoral
Program
Unclear
Qualitative
Survey, online
questionnaire
Zahl (2015)
Ways part-time Ph.D.
students develop
community within the
academic department and
how a sense of community
is related to persistence
Tinto’s theory of doctoral
student persistence
Weidman et al.’s four stage
model of doctoral student
socialization
Qualitative
Interviews
degree in either educational
technology or information systems
17 students, representing three
different dissertation advisors
Approximately 80% of students were
in at least their fourth year of the
program and had enrolled in an
average of 5.8 terms for dissertation
credit
65% male, with 64.7% of all students
yet to complete their idea paper
12 participants (10 students and 2
program chairs) in 2 academic
departments (4 from Nursing and 6
from Education) at one urban research
institution
Students were at or near the
qualifying examination phase of their
program (they were allowed to have
up to two courses remaining)
Lehan et al: Online Doctoral Student Persistence
References
Akojie, P., Entrekin, F., Bacon, D., & Kanai, T. (2019) Qualitative meta-data analysis:
Perceptions and experiences of online doctoral students. American Journal of
Qualitative Research, 3(1), 117-135.
Bean, J. P. (1980). Dropouts and turnover: The synthesis and test of a causal model of student
attrition. Research in Higher Education, 12(2), 155–187.
Bean, J. P., & Metzner, B. S. (1985). A conceptual model of nontraditional undergraduate student
attrition. Review of educational Research, 55(4), 485-540.
Bergman, M., Gross, J. P. K., Berry, M., & Shuck, B. (2014). If life happened but a degree
didn’t: Examining factors that impact adult student persistence. The Journal of
Continuing Higher Education, 62, 90–101.
Brown, C. (2017). The persistence and attrition of online learners. School Leadership Review,
12(1), 47-58.
Cochran, J. D., Campbell, S. M., Baker, H. M., & Leeds, E. M. (2014). The role of student
characteristics in predicting retention in online courses. Research in Higher Education, 55,
27-48.
Cockrell, C. N., & Shelley, K. (2010). The relationship between academic support systems
and intended persistence in doctoral education. Journal of College Student Retention:
Research, Theory, & Practice, 12(4), 469-484.
Cross, T. (2014). The gritty: Grit and non-traditional doctoral student success. Journal of
Educators Online, 11(3), 1-30.
Davidson, S. C., Metzger, R. L., & Finley, S. (2014). Comparison of hybrid and completely online
RN-to-BSN curricula: Aspects of program structure that lead to success. The Journal of
Continuing Education in Nursing, 45(5), 219-224.
Deshpande, A. (2016). A qualitative examination of challenges influencing doctoral students in an
online doctoral program. International Education Studies, 9(6), 139-149.
Fetzner, M. (2013). What do unsuccessful online students want us to know? Journal of
Asynchronous Learning Networks, 17(1), 13-27.
Fiore, T. D., Heitner, K. L., & Shaw, M. E. (2019). Academic advising and online doctoral
student persistence from coursework to independent research. Online Journal of Distance
Learning Administration, 22(3), 111-122.
Gomez, D. (2013). Leadership behavior and its impact on student success and retention in online
graduate education. Academy of Educational Leadership Journal, 17(2), 13-37.
Hachey, A. C., Wladis, C. W., Conway, K. M. (2014). Do prior online course outcomes provide
more information than G.P.A. alone in predicting subsequent online course grades and
retention? An observational study at an urban community college. Computers &
Education, 72, 59-67.
Ivankova, N. V., & Stick, S. L. (2007). Students’ persistence in a distributed doctoral program in
educational leadership in higher education: A mixed methods study. Research in Higher
Education, 48(1), 93–135.
Kennedy, D. H., Terrell, S. R., & Lohle, M. (2015). A grounded theory of persistence in a limited-
residency doctoral program. The Qualitative Report, 20(3), 215+. https://link-gale-
com.proxy1.ncu.edu/apps/doc/A449836787/AONE?u=pres1571&sid=AONE&xid=e977
65e0
Layne, M., Boston, W. W., & Ice, P. (2013). A longitudinal study of online learners: Shoppers,
swirlers, stoppers, and succeeders as a function of demographic characteristics. Online
Current Issues in Education Vol. 22 No. 2
Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 16(2). Retrieved from
http://www.westga.edu/~distance/ojdla/summer162/layne_boston_ice162.html
Lederman, D. (2019, December 11). Online enrollments grow, but pace slows. InsideHigherEd.
Retrieved from https://www.insidehighered.com/digital-learning/article/2019/12/11/more-
students-study-online-rate-growth-slowed-2018
Lee, H., Chang, H., & Bryan, L. (2020). Doctoral students’ learning success in online-based
leadership programs: Intersection with technological and relational factors. International
Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 21(1), 61-81.
Lee, Y., & Choi, J. (2011). A review of online course dropout research: Implications for practice
and future research. Educational Technology Research and Development, 59, 593-618.
Lovitts, B. E. (2001). Leaving the ivory tower: The causes and consequences of departure from
doctoral study. Rowman & Littlefield.
Nettles, M. T., & Millett, C. M. (2006). Three magic letters: Getting to Ph.D. The Johns Hopkins
University Press.
Rockinson-Szapkiw, A. J., Spaulding, L. S., & Spaulding, M. T. (2016). Identifying significant
integration and institutional factors that predict online doctoral persistence. The Internet
and Higher Education, 31, 101–112.
https://doi-org.proxy1.ncu.edu/10.1016/j.iheduc.2016.07.003
Rockinson-Szapkiw, A. J., Spaulding, L. S., & Lunde, R. (2017). Women in distance doctoral
programs: How they negotiate their identities as mothers, professionals, and academics in
order to persist. International Journal of Doctoral Studies, 12, 49–71.
http://www.informingscience.org/Publications/367
Rockinson-Szapkiw, A. J., Spaulding, L. S., Swezey, J., A., & Wicks, C. J. (2014). Poverty and
persistence: A model for understanding individuals’ pursuit and persistence in a doctor of
education program. International Journal of Doctoral Studies, 9, 181–190.
http://ijds.org/Volume9/IJDSv9p181-203Rockinson0606.pdf
Spaulding, L. S., & Rockinson-Szapkiw, A. J. (2012). Hearing their voices: Factors doctoral
candidates attribute to their persistence. International Journal of Doctoral Studies, 7, 199-
219.
Stevenson, T. (2013). Online student persistence: What matters is outside the classroom. Journal
of Applied Learning Technology, 3(1), 21-25.
Terrell, S. R. (2005a). A longitudinal investigation of the effect of information perception and
focus on attrition in online learning environments. The Internet and Higher
Education, 8, 213–219. https://www-sciencedirect-
com.proxy1.ncu.edu/science/article/pii/S1096751605000357
Terrell, S. R. (2005b). Supporting different learning styles in an online learning environment:
Does it really matter in the long run? Online Journal of Distance Learning
Administration, 8(2). https://www.westga.edu/~distance/ojdla/summer82/terrell82.htm
Terrell, S. R. (2014). The use of experiential learning styles to predict attrition from a limited-
residency information systems graduate program. Online Journal of Applied Knowledge
Management, 2(1), 1–10.
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Steven_Terrell/publication/265051003_The_use_of
_experiential_learning_styles_to_predict_attrition_from_a_limited_residency_informatio
n_systems_graduate_program/links/53fe086d0cf21edafd139627.pdf
Lehan et al: Online Doctoral Student Persistence
Terrell, S. R. (2015). Using hemispheric preference as a predictor of success in a limited-residency
information systems doctoral program. Online Journal of Applied Knowledge
Management, 3(2), 127–133.
http://www.iiakm.org/ojakm/articles/2015/volume3_2/OJAKM_Volume3_2pp127-
133.pdf
Terrell, S. R., Snyder, M. M., & Dringus, L. P. (2012). A grounded theory of connectivity and
persistence in a limited residency doctoral program. The Qualitative Report, 17(62), 1–
14. http://www.nova.edu/ssss/QR/QR17/terrell.pdf
Terrell, S., Snyder, M., & Dringus, L. (2009). The development, validation, and application of the
Doctoral Student Connectedness Scale. Internet and Higher Education, 12(2), 112-116.
Tinto, V. (1993). Leaving college: Rethinking the causes and cures of student attrition (2nd ed.).
The University of Chicago Press.
Willging, P. A., & Johnson, S. D. (2009). Factors that influence students’ decision to dropout of
online courses. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 13(3), 115-127.
Wladis, C., Wladis, K., & Hahey, A. (2014). The role of enrollment choice in online education:
Course selection rationale and course difficulty as factors affecting retention. Online
Learning, 18(3), 1-14.
Zahl, S. B. (2015). The impact of community for part-time doctoral students: How relationships
in the academic department affect student persistence. International Journal of Doctoral
Studies, 10, 301-321.
Author Notes
Tara Lehan, PhD
Northcentral University
tlehan@ncu.edu
Heather D. Hussey, PhD
Northcentral University
Thomas Hotz, MPA
Northcentral University
More details of this Creative Commons license are available at
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/. Current Issues in
Education is published by the Mary Lou Fulton Institute and Graduate
School of Education at Arizona State University.