The Original Grit Scale and What It Measures

Last Updated May 27, 2026

The Original Grit Scale was created to measure grit as a trait-level pattern of perseverance and passion for long-term goals. It helped turn grit from a broad moral idea into a research construct that could be studied, compared, criticized, and refined. The scale asks whether people tend to sustain effort through difficulty and whether their interests remain stable enough for long-term development to occur.

This matters because grit is not simply hard work, toughness, ambition, or short-term self-control. The original scale was designed to capture a longer psychological pattern: the degree to which a person keeps returning to meaningful goals across time, setback, boredom, distraction, and changing circumstances. It measures tendencies, not destiny. It can support research and reflection, but it should not be treated as a full assessment of character, potential, worth, or future success.

A responsible account of the Original Grit Scale must therefore do two things at once. It must explain what the scale was designed to measure: perseverance of effort and consistency of interest. It must also explain what the scale cannot measure: opportunity, instruction, health, social support, discrimination, institutional quality, economic security, goal quality, wisdom, or the ethical value of persistence itself.

Overview

The Original Grit Scale, often called Grit-O, was introduced as a way to measure grit: perseverance and passion for long-term goals. Its importance lies in the shift from everyday language to psychological measurement. People had long recognized persistence, endurance, and commitment as important qualities. The scale made it possible to study those qualities empirically.

Grit-O was designed as a self-report instrument. People respond to statements about their tendencies, habits, interests, and effort patterns. Their responses are combined into an overall grit score and can also be examined through two major dimensions: perseverance of effort and consistency of interest.

The scale helped researchers ask several questions. Do people who report higher grit persist longer in demanding settings? Does grit predict achievement-related outcomes? Is grit distinct from conscientiousness? Are perseverance of effort and consistency of interest equally important? Can grit be measured reliably? Should grit be used in schools, workplaces, military training, athletics, or personal development?

The answers are mixed and require caution. Grit is meaningful, but it is not magic. It predicts some outcomes in some contexts, but it overlaps with established personality traits and is shaped by measurement limits. The scale should be understood as a research tool, not a moral verdict.

Back to top ↑

Why the Original Grit Scale was created

The Original Grit Scale was created to study a problem that talent alone could not explain. In many demanding settings, people with high ability do not always persist, and people with less obvious early talent sometimes achieve through sustained effort, practice, and commitment. The scale was meant to capture this long-term pattern.

The central idea was that achievement often depends on the duration and direction of effort. Short bursts of intensity may help with immediate tasks, but long-term goals require continuity. A person must remain engaged after novelty fades, after setbacks occur, and after rewards are delayed. The Original Grit Scale was designed to measure this tendency as an individual difference.

This measurement project fit into a broader psychological concern with traits and capacities beyond cognitive ability. Intelligence, prior preparation, and domain-specific skill matter. But they do not exhaust the explanation of achievement. Grit was proposed as one non-cognitive or character-related factor that might help explain persistence across difficult long-term pursuits.

At the same time, the creation of a scale introduced responsibility. Once a trait becomes measurable, institutions may be tempted to use the score in ways that exceed the evidence. The scale’s research value does not mean it should be used casually to judge students, workers, applicants, or citizens.

Back to top ↑

What the scale measures

The Original Grit Scale measures self-reported tendencies related to long-term goal pursuit. It asks about patterns of effort, follow-through, interest stability, and commitment across time. It does not measure one isolated behavior. It measures a general tendency to persist and remain directed.

The scale is usually understood through two dimensions. The first is perseverance of effort: whether people continue working through difficulty and setbacks. The second is consistency of interest: whether people maintain stable interests and goals rather than frequently shifting direction. Together, these dimensions reflect the idea that grit requires both effort and direction.

Perseverance without stable direction may become scattered. A person can work hard on many different things without accumulating depth in any one domain. Consistency without effort may become passive attachment. A person can care about a goal without doing the sustained work needed to pursue it. Grit combines the two.

Still, the scale measures reported tendencies, not the full reality of a person’s life. A score is not the person. It is a limited indicator that should be interpreted with humility.

Back to top ↑

Perseverance of effort

Perseverance of effort is the part of the Original Grit Scale most closely aligned with ordinary ideas of persistence. It concerns whether people continue working when goals become difficult. This includes effort after failure, follow-through on demanding projects, tolerance for slow improvement, and willingness to keep practicing when rewards are delayed.

This dimension is often the strongest part of the grit construct. Many later discussions of grit emphasize that perseverance of effort is more consistently related to achievement outcomes than consistency of interest. That makes sense conceptually. Goals become real through action. Long-term commitment matters, but it must be enacted through repeated effort.

Perseverance of effort should not be confused with constant productivity. People can persist while resting, recovering, revising, or changing strategy. A person who takes time to recover from injury, seeks better instruction, or adjusts their method is not necessarily lacking perseverance. They may be protecting the conditions that make long-term persistence possible.

The best interpretation of perseverance is therefore adaptive effort. It is not merely continuing. It is continuing in ways that remain connected to learning, feedback, health, and purpose.

Back to top ↑

Consistency of interest

Consistency of interest measures whether people maintain stable interests and long-term commitments. It reflects the “passion” side of the grit definition, but passion here does not mean constant excitement. It means durable commitment to a meaningful direction.

This dimension is important because deep achievement often requires continuity. A person must stay with a domain long enough to accumulate knowledge, skill, relationships, reputation, and judgment. If interests change too quickly, effort may not compound. The scale therefore asks whether a person tends to remain attached to goals over time or repeatedly shifts direction.

However, consistency of interest is also the more complicated dimension. Human development requires exploration. Young people should try things. Adults may change careers wisely. Scholars may revise research questions. Artists may change forms. A person who leaves a harmful path, abandons an exploitative institution, or discovers a better-fitting vocation is not necessarily low in grit. They may be exercising judgment.

Consistency should therefore be understood as coherent direction, not rigid sameness. It is the difference between developmental continuity and chronic abandonment, not the refusal to grow.

Back to top ↑

What the scale does not measure

The Original Grit Scale measures self-reported perseverance and consistency of interest. It does not measure the full ecology of achievement. This distinction is essential because grit scores can be tempting to overinterpret.

The scale does not measure opportunity. A person may have low achievement not because they lack grit, but because they lacked access to safe schools, stable housing, adequate health care, advanced coursework, mentorship, economic security, or time. It does not measure discrimination, trauma, caregiving burden, unsafe work, or institutional failure.

The scale also does not measure goal quality. A person can be persistent toward a harmful goal. A person can maintain interest in a path that damages health or relationships. A person can continue because of pride, fear, coercion, or sunk cost rather than wisdom. The scale may capture persistence, but it cannot by itself determine whether persistence is good.

It also does not measure skill, strategy, intelligence, creativity, domain knowledge, emotional complexity, moral judgment, or practical wisdom. These factors matter deeply. Grit may help people continue, but continuation alone does not guarantee learning, excellence, or flourishing.

Back to top ↑

How the scale is scored conceptually

The Original Grit Scale uses responses to multiple statements to estimate a person’s grit. Conceptually, the score reflects the average pattern across items related to perseverance of effort and consistency of interest. Some items are worded so that agreement reflects higher grit, while others require reverse scoring because agreement reflects lower grit-related tendencies.

The exact scoring procedure depends on the version of the scale and the research context. Conceptually, however, the logic is straightforward: responses are transformed so that higher values consistently indicate more grit-related tendencies, and then the items are combined into facet scores or an overall score.

The distinction between facet scores and total scores matters. A total score may be useful for broad comparison, but the two dimensions can tell different stories. Someone may have high perseverance of effort but lower consistency of interest. Another person may have stable long-term interests but lower daily follow-through. These profiles have different meanings and should not be flattened too quickly.

Because the scale is self-report, scoring should not be confused with direct observation. A score reflects how respondents describe themselves according to scale items. It is not a full behavioral record.

Back to top ↑

How to interpret a grit score

A grit score should be interpreted as a limited estimate of self-reported long-term persistence. It can suggest whether a person tends to see themselves as persistent, goal-directed, and stable in their interests. It cannot determine whether the person will succeed, whether their goals are wise, whether they have adequate support, or whether their life conditions make persistence possible.

A higher score may indicate stronger tendencies toward effort and consistency, but it should not be treated as automatically good. If persistence is tied to harmful overwork, perfectionism, fear of failure, institutional exploitation, or inability to revise goals, a high grit score may not indicate flourishing. The moral meaning of persistence depends on context.

A lower score should also be interpreted carefully. It may reflect exploration, developmental transition, burnout, discouragement, lack of opportunity, unstable conditions, or healthy willingness to change course. Low consistency of interest in adolescence, for example, may reflect normal exploration rather than character deficiency.

The best interpretation is profile-based and contextual. What is the balance between perseverance and consistency? What domain is being discussed? What supports are present? What barriers exist? What goals are being pursued? Is persistence producing learning, health, contribution, and meaning, or only exhaustion?

Back to top ↑

Measurement limits and cautions

The Original Grit Scale is useful, but it is limited. Like any self-report scale, it depends on how people understand themselves and how they respond to items. People may answer aspirationally, defensively, modestly, or in relation to different comparison groups. A student surrounded by highly driven peers may rate themselves lower than an equally persistent student in another environment.

Measurement also depends on language and culture. Concepts like passion, effort, consistency, and long-term goals may be interpreted differently across communities. A scale developed in one context cannot automatically be assumed to function identically in every population.

There are also stakes-related concerns. A scale used for research may be acceptable when confidentiality, consent, and proper interpretation are present. The same scale becomes ethically risky if used for admissions, hiring, punishment, evaluation, or institutional accountability. When people know a score may affect them, responses can become strategic, anxious, or distorted.

Measurement should therefore be purpose-driven. The question is not merely whether a grit score can be produced. The question is whether the score is valid for the intended use, whether the use is fair, and whether the interpretation respects the scale’s limits.

Back to top ↑

Grit-O and Grit-S

The Original Grit Scale is commonly referred to as Grit-O. A later version, the Short Grit Scale, or Grit-S, was developed to provide a more efficient measure while preserving the core construct. Grit-S reduced the number of items and became widely used in later research.

The move from Grit-O to Grit-S reflects an ordinary process in psychological measurement. Researchers often begin with a longer measure, examine item performance, test reliability and validity, and then create shorter versions that retain the most useful items. Shorter scales can reduce respondent burden and make research easier, but they must still preserve measurement quality.

The existence of Grit-S does not make Grit-O irrelevant. Grit-O remains historically important because it introduced the original measurement framework. It also clarifies the construct’s two-dimensional structure. Grit-S represents a refinement, not a replacement of the underlying scientific debate.

Both versions require cautious interpretation. A shorter scale is not automatically better in every context, and a longer scale is not automatically more valid. The choice of measure should depend on the research question, population, purpose, and ethical setting.

Back to top ↑

Grit, conscientiousness, and construct overlap

One of the most important debates about the Original Grit Scale concerns overlap with conscientiousness. Conscientiousness is a broad personality trait associated with responsibility, diligence, organization, dependability, and goal-directed behavior. Grit, especially perseverance of effort, is strongly related to this family of traits.

This overlap matters scientifically. If grit predicts outcomes mostly because it captures a narrower version of conscientiousness, then researchers should be careful about claiming that grit is a wholly distinct construct. The question is not whether grit is meaningful, but whether it adds explanatory value beyond established personality measures.

Later meta-analytic work raised concerns about grit’s distinctiveness and predictive power. In particular, the perseverance facet often appears more useful than the consistency facet, and grit’s relationship with achievement can become more modest when conscientiousness and other predictors are considered.

This does not make the Original Grit Scale worthless. It makes interpretation more precise. Grit may be valuable because it focuses attention on long-term goals and sustained effort. But it should be studied as part of a larger network of personality, motivation, self-regulation, and context.

Back to top ↑

Ethical use in education and organizations

The Original Grit Scale should be used ethically, especially in schools and workplaces. These are environments where measurement can easily become evaluation. A research instrument designed to study human development can become harmful if used to sort, label, punish, or blame individuals.

In education, grit measures should not be used to rank students or evaluate teachers based on student grit scores. Students differ in background, opportunity, stress, support, disability, culture, and life conditions. A score may reflect many forces beyond individual persistence. Using grit scores for accountability can encourage shallow interventions and unfair judgments.

In organizations, grit language can be used to celebrate commitment, but it can also be used to justify overwork. Measuring grit in employees may become especially problematic if it encourages management to reward endurance while ignoring workload, leadership quality, compensation, psychological safety, or burnout.

Responsible use is low-stakes, reflective, contextual, and developmental. The scale may help people think about their goals, habits, and persistence patterns. It may help researchers study long-term effort. It should not be used as a proxy for merit, character, employability, or moral worth.

Back to top ↑

A mathematical lens on grit measurement

A simple measurement model can clarify what the Original Grit Scale is trying to do. Suppose an observed grit score is a combination of perseverance of effort and consistency of interest:

This model shows why the two dimensions matter. If perseverance of effort and consistency of interest are not equally predictive in a given setting, then the total score may hide important information. Researchers may need to analyze \(P_i\) and \(C_i\) separately rather than relying only on \(G_i\).

A second model distinguishes true score from measurement error:

This equation is important because a grit score is not pure truth. It is an observed measurement that contains error. Responsible interpretation must account for that uncertainty.

A third model represents how grit might be studied in relation to outcomes:

This broader model shows why grit should not be studied alone. If related traits and contextual variables are omitted, grit may appear more powerful than it is. A better model asks what grit contributes after accounting for prior achievement, personality, support, and opportunity.

Back to top ↑

Python workflow: modeling Original Grit Scale dimensions

The following Python workflow uses synthetic data to demonstrate how the Original Grit Scale can be represented through two dimensions: perseverance of effort and consistency of interest. It also shows how an observed score may relate to an outcome before and after adding related constructs and context.

# Python workflow: The Original Grit Scale and what it measures
# Synthetic data for article support and research-method demonstration only.
# Do not use this workflow to evaluate, rank, hire, discipline, or assess real people.

import numpy as np
import pandas as pd
import statsmodels.api as sm

rng = np.random.default_rng(42)
n = 900

# Latent grit dimensions
perseverance_effort = rng.normal(0, 1, n)
consistency_interest = rng.normal(0, 1, n)

# Related construct and context
conscientiousness = 0.60 * perseverance_effort + rng.normal(0, 0.80, n)
social_support = rng.normal(0, 1, n)
prior_achievement = rng.normal(0, 1, n)

# Observed grit score with measurement noise
true_grit = 0.60 * perseverance_effort + 0.40 * consistency_interest
measurement_error = rng.normal(0, 0.30, n)
observed_grit_score = true_grit + measurement_error

# Synthetic outcome
long_term_outcome = (
    0.20 * observed_grit_score
    + 0.34 * prior_achievement
    + 0.24 * conscientiousness
    + 0.25 * social_support
    + rng.normal(0, 1, n)
)

df = pd.DataFrame({
    "perseverance_effort": perseverance_effort,
    "consistency_interest": consistency_interest,
    "true_grit": true_grit,
    "observed_grit_score": observed_grit_score,
    "conscientiousness": conscientiousness,
    "social_support": social_support,
    "prior_achievement": prior_achievement,
    "long_term_outcome": long_term_outcome
})

print("Correlation matrix:")
print(df.corr().round(3))

# Model 1: observed grit only
model_grit_only = sm.OLS(
    df["long_term_outcome"],
    sm.add_constant(df[["observed_grit_score"]])
).fit()

# Model 2: grit facets separately
model_facets = sm.OLS(
    df["long_term_outcome"],
    sm.add_constant(df[[
        "perseverance_effort",
        "consistency_interest"
    ]])
).fit()

# Model 3: grit plus controls
model_contextual = sm.OLS(
    df["long_term_outcome"],
    sm.add_constant(df[[
        "observed_grit_score",
        "prior_achievement",
        "conscientiousness",
        "social_support"
    ]])
).fit()

comparison = pd.DataFrame({
    "model": [
        "observed_grit_only",
        "facets_only",
        "observed_grit_plus_controls"
    ],
    "r_squared": [
        model_grit_only.rsquared,
        model_facets.rsquared,
        model_contextual.rsquared
    ],
    "adjusted_r_squared": [
        model_grit_only.rsquared_adj,
        model_facets.rsquared_adj,
        model_contextual.rsquared_adj
    ]
})

print("\nModel comparison:")
print(comparison.round(4))

print("\nObserved grit model:")
print(model_grit_only.summary())

print("\nFacet model:")
print(model_facets.summary())

print("\nContextual model:")
print(model_contextual.summary())

print("\nInterpretation:")
print(
    "The Original Grit Scale should be interpreted as a self-report indicator "
    "of perseverance and consistency, not as a complete measure of character, "
    "opportunity, wisdom, or future success."
)

This workflow highlights three lessons. First, a total score can be modeled, but facet-level analysis may reveal different patterns. Second, observed scores include measurement error. Third, grit should be interpreted alongside prior achievement, conscientiousness, support, and context.

Back to top ↑

R workflow: grit facets, reliability, and interpretation

The following R workflow creates synthetic item-style responses for perseverance of effort and consistency of interest. It computes facet scores, an overall grit score, and a simple reliability-style summary using average inter-item correlations. The workflow is illustrative rather than psychometrically complete.

# R workflow: The Original Grit Scale and what it measures
# Synthetic data for article support and research-method demonstration only.
# Do not use this workflow to evaluate, rank, hire, discipline, or assess real people.

set.seed(42)

n <- 900

# Latent dimensions
perseverance_effort <- rnorm(n)
consistency_interest <- rnorm(n)

# Create synthetic item-style responses for two facets
# These are not the copyrighted scale items; they are simulated indicators.
pe_items <- data.frame(
  pe_1 = perseverance_effort + rnorm(n, sd = 0.60),
  pe_2 = perseverance_effort + rnorm(n, sd = 0.60),
  pe_3 = perseverance_effort + rnorm(n, sd = 0.60),
  pe_4 = perseverance_effort + rnorm(n, sd = 0.60),
  pe_5 = perseverance_effort + rnorm(n, sd = 0.60),
  pe_6 = perseverance_effort + rnorm(n, sd = 0.60)
)

ci_items <- data.frame(
  ci_1 = consistency_interest + rnorm(n, sd = 0.60),
  ci_2 = consistency_interest + rnorm(n, sd = 0.60),
  ci_3 = consistency_interest + rnorm(n, sd = 0.60),
  ci_4 = consistency_interest + rnorm(n, sd = 0.60),
  ci_5 = consistency_interest + rnorm(n, sd = 0.60),
  ci_6 = consistency_interest + rnorm(n, sd = 0.60)
)

# Facet scores
perseverance_score <- rowMeans(pe_items)
consistency_score <- rowMeans(ci_items)

# Overall grit score
grit_score <- rowMeans(data.frame(perseverance_score, consistency_score))

# Related variables
conscientiousness <- 0.60 * perseverance_effort + rnorm(n, sd = 0.80)
social_support <- rnorm(n)
prior_achievement <- rnorm(n)

long_term_outcome <- (
  0.20 * grit_score +
  0.34 * prior_achievement +
  0.24 * conscientiousness +
  0.25 * social_support +
  rnorm(n)
)

df <- data.frame(
  perseverance_score,
  consistency_score,
  grit_score,
  conscientiousness,
  social_support,
  prior_achievement,
  long_term_outcome
)

# Helper function for average inter-item correlation
average_inter_item_correlation <- function(items) {
  cormat <- cor(items)
  mean(cormat[upper.tri(cormat)])
}

reliability_summary <- data.frame(
  facet = c("perseverance_effort", "consistency_interest"),
  average_inter_item_correlation = c(
    average_inter_item_correlation(pe_items),
    average_inter_item_correlation(ci_items)
  )
)

print(round(reliability_summary, 3))

# Compare models
model_grit_only <- lm(long_term_outcome ~ grit_score, data = df)

model_facets <- lm(
  long_term_outcome ~ perseverance_score + consistency_score,
  data = df
)

model_contextual <- lm(
  long_term_outcome ~ grit_score + prior_achievement +
    conscientiousness + social_support,
  data = df
)

comparison <- data.frame(
  model = c("grit_only", "facets_only", "grit_plus_controls"),
  r_squared = c(
    summary(model_grit_only)$r.squared,
    summary(model_facets)$r.squared,
    summary(model_contextual)$r.squared
  ),
  adjusted_r_squared = c(
    summary(model_grit_only)$adj.r.squared,
    summary(model_facets)$adj.r.squared,
    summary(model_contextual)$adj.r.squared
  )
)

print(round(comparison, 4))

cat("
Interpretation:
The Original Grit Scale measures self-reported perseverance and consistency.
Facet scores can be more informative than a total score, and any grit score
should be interpreted alongside measurement error, related traits, social
support, prior achievement, and institutional context.
")

This workflow demonstrates the measurement logic without reproducing scale items. It shows how researchers can think about facets, internal consistency, total scores, and contextual interpretation while avoiding overclaiming.

Back to top ↑

GitHub Repository

The companion GitHub repository provides a reproducible research-code structure for the Grit knowledge series, including article-specific workflows, synthetic data examples, documentation, and multi-language modeling assets.

Back to top ↑

Conclusion

The Original Grit Scale made grit measurable. That was its scientific contribution. By translating perseverance and passion for long-term goals into a self-report instrument, it allowed researchers to study grit systematically, compare it with related traits, examine its relationship to achievement, and debate its limits.

What the scale measures is important: self-reported perseverance of effort and consistency of interest. These dimensions capture meaningful parts of long-term goal pursuit. Perseverance helps explain continued effort through difficulty. Consistency helps explain durable direction. Together, they provide one lens on how people pursue goals across time.

What the scale does not measure is equally important. It does not measure opportunity, structural conditions, health, wisdom, goal quality, institutional support, or the moral value of persistence. It does not tell the whole story of achievement or flourishing. It should not be used as a high-stakes tool for ranking, selection, blame, or accountability.

The best use of the Original Grit Scale is careful, contextual, and modest. It can support research and reflection when interpreted as a limited measure of self-reported long-term persistence. It becomes dangerous when treated as a complete measure of character. A grit score should begin a conversation, not end one.

Back to top ↑

Related articles

• What Is Grit?
• Angela Duckworth and the Modern Science of Grit
• Perseverance and Passion for Long-Term Goals
• Grit in Positive Psychology
• The Short Grit Scale: Why Grit-S Was Developed
• Perseverance of Effort: The Work Dimension of Grit
• Consistency of Interest: The Passion Dimension of Grit
• Grit and Conscientiousness: Overlap, Distinction, and Debate
• Grit Measurement: Reliability, Validity, and Ethical Use
• Grit, Burnout, and the Risks of Overpersistence

Further reading

• Duckworth, A.L. (2016) Grit: The Power of Passion and Perseverance. New York: Scribner.
• Peterson, C. and Seligman, M.E.P. (2004) Character Strengths and Virtues: A Handbook and Classification. New York: Oxford University Press.
• Seligman, M.E.P. (2011) Flourish: A Visionary New Understanding of Happiness and Well-being. New York: Free Press.
• National Research Council (2012) Education for Life and Work: Developing Transferable Knowledge and Skills in the 21st Century. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. Available at: https://www.nationalacademies.org/publications/13398/education-for-life-and-work-developing-transferable-knowledge-and-skills-in-the-21st-century
• American Educational Research Association (2015) Measurement Matters: Assessing Personal Qualities Other Than Cognitive Ability for Educational Purposes. Available at: https://www.aera.net/Newsroom/Recent-AERA-Research/Measurement-Matters-Assessing-Personal-Qualities-Other-Than-Cognitive-Ability-for-Educational-Purposes
• University of Chicago Consortium on School Research (2015) Foundations for Young Adult Success: A Developmental Framework. Available at: https://consortium.uchicago.edu/publications/foundations-young-adult-success-developmental-framework

Back to top ↑

References

• Credé, M., Tynan, M.C. and Harms, P.D. (2017) ‘Much ado about grit: A meta-analytic synthesis of the grit literature’, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 113(3), pp. 492–511. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000102
• Duckworth, A.L. (n.d.) Research. Available at: https://angeladuckworth.com/research/
• Duckworth, A.L., Peterson, C., Matthews, M.D. and Kelly, D.R. (2007) ‘Grit: Perseverance and passion for long-term goals’, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92(6), pp. 1087–1101. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.92.6.1087
• Duckworth, A.L. and Quinn, P.D. (2009) ‘Development and validation of the Short Grit Scale (Grit–S)’, Journal of Personality Assessment, 91(2), pp. 166–174. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/00223890802634290
• Duckworth, A.L. and Yeager, D.S. (2015) ‘Measurement matters: Assessing personal qualities other than cognitive ability for educational purposes’, Educational Researcher, 44(4), pp. 237–251. Available at: https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X15584327
• Jachimowicz, J.M., Wihler, A., Bailey, E.R. and Galinsky, A.D. (2018) ‘Why grit requires perseverance and passion to positively predict performance’, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 115(40), pp. 9980–9985. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1803561115
• National Research Council (2012) Education for Life and Work: Developing Transferable Knowledge and Skills in the 21st Century. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. Available at: https://www.nationalacademies.org/publications/13398/education-for-life-and-work-developing-transferable-knowledge-and-skills-in-the-21st-century
• Roberts, B.W., Kuncel, N.R., Shiner, R., Caspi, A. and Goldberg, L.R. (2007) ‘The power of personality: The comparative validity of personality traits, socioeconomic status, and cognitive ability for predicting important life outcomes’, Perspectives on Psychological Science, 2(4), pp. 313–345. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-6916.2007.00047.x
• University of Chicago Consortium on School Research (2015) Foundations for Young Adult Success: A Developmental Framework. Chicago: University of Chicago Consortium on School Research. Available at: https://consortium.uchicago.edu/publications/foundations-young-adult-success-developmental-framework

Back to top ↑