Recent research has identified factors influencing the choice of a special education career; however, it has not thoroughly examined their connection with personality traits and identity status. Thus, the present study was designed to explore how different personality traits and identity statuses correlate with the motives and perceptions associated with the choice to teach in special education. The study involved 209 pre-service special education teachers. The NEO-Five Factor Inventory was used to measure the Big 5 personality traits. The Ego Identity Process Questionnaire assessed identity commitment and exploration. The Factors Influencing Teaching Choice Scale was used to evaluate motivations and perceptions about teaching. Regarding the factors that influenced the decision to pursue a career in special education, intrinsic value, shaping children’s future, social equity, making social contributions, working with children, task demands, and job satisfaction were highly rated. Additionally, extraversion, openness to experience, conscientiousness, and identity statuses were identified as positive predictors for certain factors influencing the choice of a teaching career in special education. Finally, the study identified two distinct groups of students: "Identity Achievers" characterized by high positive personality traits, and identity commitment, and "Identity Explorers" characterized by lower positive personality traits and higher identity exploration. Differences were observed between the groups in their motives and perceptions concerning teaching in special education. In conclusion, this study highlights the relationships between personality, identity status, and career decision factors, offering insights into the factors that influence this critical career decision among future special educators. Directions for future research are discussed.

Research in higher education has revealed a significant connection between executive functions (EF) and study success. Previous investigations have typically assessed EF using either neuropsychological tasks, which provide direct and objective measures of core EF such as inhibition, working memory, and cognitive flexibility, or self-report questionnaires, which offer indirect and subjective assessments. However, studies rarely utilize both assessment methods simultaneously despite their potential to offer complementary insights into EF. This study aims to evaluate the predictive capabilities of performance-based and self-reported EF measures on study success. Employing a retrospective cohort design, 748 first-year Applied Psychology students completed performance-based and self-report questionnaires to assess EF. Maximum likelihood correlations were computed for 474 students, with data from 562-586 first-year students subsequently subjected to hierarchical regression analysis, accommodating pairwise missing values. Our results demonstrate minimal overlap between performance-based and self-reported EF measures. Additionally, the model incorporating self-reported EF accounted for 13% of the variance in study success after one year, with the inclusion of performance-based EF raising this proportion to 16%. Self-reported EF assessments modestly predict study success. However, monitoring levels of self-reported EF could offer valuable insights for students and educational institutions, given that EF play a crucial role in learning. Additionally, one in five students reports experiencing significant EF difficulties, highlighting the importance of addressing EF concerns for learning and study success.

Faculty members’ beliefs in their ability to conduct research and publish research outputs are expected to impact research productivity directly. Thus, the study described the research self-efficacy and productivity among faculty members, their research self-efficacy influence on productivity, and their challenges in research writing and publication. The study utilized a mixed-method sequential explanatory research design, with 36 and nine faculty member-participants for the quantitative and qualitative study. For the quantitative study, the faculty members’ research self-efficacy was ascertained using a validated questionnaire, and their research productivity was determined through a researcher-made survey instrument. Meanwhile, the qualitative study focused on the faculty members’ research writing and publication challenges, which were gathered through focus group discussions. Results showed average research self-efficacy and low research productivity among faculty members. Research self-efficacy significantly predicted research productivity regarding refereed and indexed publications, paper presentations, and bibliometrics. Further, themed findings showed that the faculty members encountered challenges such as a lack of research exposure, time constraints, lack of institutional support, and publication pressure. The study may serve as an inference for higher education institutions in designing faculty development plans and in-service training programs to capacitate its members.