Perseverance of Effort Versus Consistency of Interests

Last Updated May 26, 2026

Perseverance of effort and consistency of interests are the two major dimensions of grit. They are often combined into a single grit score, but they do not mean the same thing. Perseverance of effort concerns sustained work through difficulty, frustration, delay, boredom, setback, and repeated failure. Consistency of interests concerns the stability of long-term aims, the ability to remain oriented toward a broad purpose or domain rather than continually shifting direction.

This distinction matters because the two dimensions can tell different stories. A person may work hard but change direction often. Another person may care deeply about a long-term goal but struggle to sustain daily effort. A third person may show both durable effort and stable interest. A fourth may be in a period of exploration, burnout, recovery, or transition that makes any simple grit score misleading.

A serious account of grit should therefore resist treating perseverance and consistency as interchangeable. Perseverance of effort is often the more practically powerful and empirically robust facet. Consistency of interests is conceptually important but more developmentally complicated, because healthy human lives require exploration, revision, changing commitments, and the wisdom to leave goals that no longer fit. The best interpretation of grit is not a single moral label. It is a profile of effort, interest, time, context, and judgment.

Overview

Grit is commonly defined as perseverance and passion for long-term goals. That definition contains two ideas: the effort to continue and the interest or passion that gives continuity a direction. In measurement terms, these ideas are usually represented as two facets: perseverance of effort and consistency of interests.

Perseverance of effort asks whether a person continues working through difficulty. Does the person persist after setbacks? Do they keep practicing when progress is slow? Do they return to difficult work after discouragement? Do they sustain effort when rewards are delayed?

Consistency of interests asks whether a person maintains stable long-term interests and goals. Does the person remain attached to a broad direction over time? Do they avoid constantly abandoning one aim for another? Do their efforts accumulate within a coherent domain or purpose?

These questions are related, but they are not identical. The distinction is crucial because a single grit score can hide different psychological profiles. A student, researcher, athlete, artist, worker, or organizer may be high in effort but low in stable interest, high in stable interest but low in effort, high in both, or low in both for reasons that require careful interpretation.

Back to top ↑

Why the distinction matters

The distinction between perseverance of effort and consistency of interests matters because the two facets do different psychological work. Effort moves a person through difficulty. Interest gives effort continuity and direction. Without effort, interest can remain aspirational. Without interest, effort can become scattered, compliant, or unsustainable.

In practice, people often vary across these dimensions. Someone may be highly industrious but restless, moving from project to project before any one path matures. Another person may have a stable dream but struggle with daily habits, emotional regulation, time management, or follow-through. Someone else may be both committed and hard-working. Another person may be in a life stage where neither stable interest nor sustained effort is easy because of illness, precarity, caregiving burden, trauma, burnout, or lack of opportunity.

If these profiles are collapsed into a single score, interpretation becomes shallow. A total grit score may be useful for broad research purposes, but it can mislead when used to understand real developmental patterns. Facet-level interpretation allows a more precise question: is the challenge effort, direction, support, strategy, recovery, opportunity, or goal fit?

Back to top ↑

Perseverance of effort

Perseverance of effort is the work dimension of grit. It concerns whether a person continues to invest effort when a goal becomes difficult. This includes persistence after failure, sustained practice, willingness to revise, tolerance for slow progress, and the ability to keep returning to meaningful work after discouragement.

This facet is often easier to observe than consistency of interests. Teachers can see whether students revise drafts, return to difficult problems, and continue after poor performance. Coaches can see whether athletes practice fundamentals after losses. Supervisors can see whether workers follow through on demanding projects. Researchers can see whether scholars continue refining a difficult question after initial results disappoint.

Perseverance of effort is also conceptually close to industriousness, diligence, effort regulation, and aspects of conscientiousness. That overlap is important. It means perseverance may be the practically powerful part of grit, but not necessarily a wholly new psychological construct.

Healthy perseverance is not the same as relentless output. It includes recovery, rest, feedback, strategy change, and attention to limits. The person who pauses to recover from injury, seeks better instruction, changes a flawed method, or protects sleep may be preserving long-term perseverance rather than abandoning it.

Back to top ↑

Consistency of interests

Consistency of interests is the direction dimension of grit. It concerns whether a person’s interests remain stable enough for long-term development to occur. This does not mean constant excitement or unchanging preference. It means durable orientation toward a broad domain, purpose, craft, vocation, question, or life project.

This facet is conceptually important because effort compounds only when it has enough continuity. A person who changes direction every few weeks may work hard but fail to accumulate deep skill. Long-term development often requires staying with a field long enough to move beyond novelty, encounter difficulty, receive feedback, and build competence.

Yet consistency of interests is also the more ambiguous facet. Human development requires exploration. Young people should be able to try different subjects, identities, activities, and possible futures. Adults may change careers wisely. Scholars revise research agendas. Artists change forms. Workers leave exploitative environments. Communities abandon strategies that no longer work. A change in interest is not automatically a failure of grit.

The phrase “consistency of interests” should therefore be interpreted as coherent long-term direction, not rigid sameness. The question is not whether a person has never changed course. The question is whether their life shows some capacity for durable commitment once a meaningful direction has been found.

Back to top ↑

A four-profile model of grit facets

One of the clearest ways to understand the distinction is to treat perseverance of effort and consistency of interests as separate axes. This creates four broad profiles. The profiles should not be used to label people rigidly, but they can help clarify interpretation.

This profile approach is more humane and more analytically useful than a simple high-grit versus low-grit label. It allows effort and direction to be understood separately. It also makes room for context. A person’s profile may reflect temperament, habit, development, institutional support, health, opportunity, stress, or life stage.

For example, high effort with low consistency may be common among people in exploration-heavy stages of life. Low effort with high consistency may appear in people who have a meaningful goal but lack time, energy, resources, or a workable strategy. A high-high profile may support achievement, but it can still become harmful if the person persists in an exploitative system or refuses to revise a failing path.

Back to top ↑

The measurement problem

The measurement problem is that a single grit score can make a multidimensional construct look simpler than it is. If perseverance of effort and consistency of interests are averaged together, the total score may obscure the specific pattern that matters most.

Consider two people with the same total score. One may have high perseverance and low consistency. The other may have low perseverance and high consistency. Their total scores can appear similar, but their developmental needs are different. The first may need help with goal selection, identity, and long-term direction. The second may need support with routines, self-regulation, feedback, recovery, or practical barriers.

This is especially important when grit measures are used in research. If the facets have different relationships with outcomes, then a total score may weaken interpretation. A researcher may conclude that “grit” predicts or fails to predict an outcome when, in fact, perseverance of effort and consistency of interests are behaving differently.

Measurement also becomes ethically risky when scores are used outside research. Schools, workplaces, and programs may be tempted to treat a total grit score as a simple indicator of character. That use is too blunt. Facet scores are still limited, but they are more informative than a single undifferentiated number.

Back to top ↑

Predictive validity and empirical caution

The empirical debate around grit often turns on predictive validity: does grit predict achievement, retention, performance, or persistence beyond other traits and conditions? The answer depends partly on whether researchers examine total grit or separate facets.

Perseverance of effort often appears more directly connected to achievement-related outcomes because many outcomes require continued work. If a person keeps practicing, revising, studying, training, or trying again, they may create more opportunities for improvement. This does not guarantee success, but it is a plausible pathway.

Consistency of interests has a more complex relationship with outcomes. Stable interests may support long-term skill accumulation, but rigid consistency can be developmentally inappropriate. In some contexts, changing interests is not failure; it is learning. This is especially true in adolescence, early career formation, research development, creative practice, and periods of personal change.

Later critiques of grit research have argued that grit overlaps substantially with conscientiousness and that its predictive effects are often more modest than popular accounts suggest. This criticism does not make grit meaningless. It makes the facet distinction more important. Researchers and practitioners should ask which part of grit is doing the predictive work and what remains after related constructs and contexts are included.

Back to top ↑

Developmental context: exploration, maturity, and change

Consistency of interests is especially difficult to interpret without developmental context. Children, adolescents, students, early-career adults, and people in life transitions often need exploration. They may try different subjects, jobs, identities, relationships, creative forms, intellectual traditions, and possible futures. This exploration can look inconsistent on a scale, but it may be necessary for mature commitment later.

Long-term passion is often developed, not discovered fully formed. A person may begin with curiosity, encounter challenge, receive encouragement, develop competence, experience belonging, and gradually form a stable interest. Consistency emerges through interaction with opportunity, feedback, identity, and success. It should not be demanded before a person has had a meaningful chance to explore.

Perseverance of effort also changes developmentally. A young person may not lack effort in general; they may lack a goal that feels meaningful, a context that supports effort, or the strategies needed to persist effectively. Adults may experience changes in effort because of caregiving, illness, economic instability, grief, burnout, or institutional pressure.

A developmental account therefore treats grit facets as patterns that can change across time. It asks how effort and interests are shaped, supported, depleted, and revised rather than assuming they are fixed moral properties.

Back to top ↑

Adaptive persistence versus rigid consistency

Perseverance of effort is valuable when it remains adaptive. Adaptive persistence means continuing in ways that support learning, growth, health, and meaningful progress. It includes feedback, strategy change, rest, collaboration, and the ability to revise goals when evidence changes.

Rigid consistency is different. It occurs when a person remains attached to a goal or identity because changing course feels threatening, shameful, or impossible. Rigid consistency may look like grit on the surface, but it can be driven by sunk cost, fear of failure, external pressure, perfectionism, or institutional coercion.

This distinction is important because the consistency facet can be misread as inherently good. Stable interests can support mastery, but only when the goal remains worth pursuing. If a person stays in a harmful program, exploitative workplace, abusive relationship, or dead-end strategy because they believe quitting is weakness, consistency has become dangerous.

The mature grit question is not “Can this person stay the same?” It is “Can this person sustain meaningful commitment while remaining capable of learning, revising, and leaving what should be left?”

Back to top ↑

Implications for education

In education, the distinction between perseverance of effort and consistency of interests can improve how teachers, advisors, and institutions understand students. A student who struggles with effort may need better feedback, more structured practice, executive-function support, tutoring, rest, psychological safety, or a clearer sense of purpose. A student whose interests shift may need exploration, mentoring, domain exposure, and help building a coherent goal hierarchy.

It is a mistake to treat every academic challenge as a grit problem. A student may not persist because the instruction is poor, the environment is unsafe, the work feels meaningless, the student is hungry or exhausted, or the institution has not provided adequate support. A student may change interests because they are learning who they are, not because they lack character.

Facet-level interpretation can make educational support more precise. High effort with low consistency suggests a need for advising and goal development. Low effort with high consistency suggests a need for strategy, habit support, feedback, or barrier removal. Low scores on both facets should prompt curiosity rather than blame.

Schools should never use grit-facet scores as high-stakes labels. They should use the distinction to design better learning environments: more feedback, more revision opportunities, more belonging, more exposure to meaningful domains, and more humane expectations.

Back to top ↑

Implications for work and organizations

Organizations often praise perseverance, but they frequently misunderstand it. Sustained effort is valuable when people are working toward meaningful, ethical, well-supported goals. It becomes harmful when organizations use grit language to normalize overload, understaffing, poor management, unfair pay, or chronic burnout.

The distinction between effort and interest can help organizations diagnose different problems. If employees are high in effort but low in consistency, the organization may have unclear career paths, unstable priorities, weak mission alignment, or roles that do not support identity and development. If employees have strong interest but low effort, the issue may be workload, burnout, poor tools, lack of autonomy, weak feedback, or leadership failure.

Consistency of interests should also be interpreted carefully in work settings. A person who changes jobs or careers may be developing a better fit, leaving a harmful culture, or responding to changing life conditions. Workplace loyalty is not automatically virtue. Organizations must earn commitment.

A healthy organization supports adaptive perseverance by designing work that is sustainable, meaningful, and fair. It does not demand grit from individuals while refusing to repair systems that deplete them.

Back to top ↑

Social context and structural conditions

Perseverance and consistency are not expressed in a vacuum. They are shaped by social conditions. Stable housing, safe schools, health care, family support, time, transportation, mentoring, fair wages, psychological safety, and institutional trust all affect whether long-term effort and stable interest can develop.

People facing poverty, discrimination, illness, trauma, unstable work, unsafe neighborhoods, caregiving burden, or institutional exclusion may have fewer opportunities to sustain effort toward long-term goals. Their interests may shift because survival requires adaptation. Their effort may appear inconsistent because conditions are unstable.

This is why grit-facet interpretation must not become a tool of blame. Low perseverance may reflect exhaustion. Low consistency may reflect constrained opportunity. High perseverance may reflect extraordinary strength under difficult conditions, but it may also reflect institutions demanding too much from people with too little support.

A socially serious account of grit asks both individual and institutional questions. What effort patterns does the person show? What long-term interests are emerging? What barriers shape those patterns? What support is missing? What conditions would make meaningful persistence possible?

Back to top ↑

A mathematical lens on grit facets

A simple mathematical lens can clarify why perseverance of effort and consistency of interests should be interpreted separately. Suppose total grit is modeled as a weighted combination of the two facets:

If \(w_P\) and \(w_C\) are treated as equal, the model assumes that effort and consistency contribute equally to the total score. But that may not be true in every context. Perseverance of effort may be more predictive of some outcomes, while consistency of interests may matter more in domains where long-term specialization is required.

A facet-specific outcome model can be written as:

This model is more informative than a total-score model because it allows perseverance and consistency to have different coefficients. A researcher can ask whether effort predicts the outcome after accounting for consistency, whether consistency adds anything after effort, and how both change when context is included.

A dynamic model can show how effort and interest interact over time:

These dynamic equations show that effort and interest are not fixed substances inside a person. They are shaped over time by feedback, meaning, support, burnout, identity, and opportunity.

Back to top ↑

Responsible use of grit-facet interpretation

Responsible use begins with humility. Perseverance of effort and consistency of interests are useful concepts, but they should not be used as moral labels. They are interpretive tools for understanding patterns of effort and direction.

Facet-level interpretation is most useful when it leads to better questions. If effort is low, what barriers, strategies, supports, or recovery needs are present? If consistency is low, is the person exploring, avoiding, adapting, or responding to unstable conditions? If both are high, is the goal meaningful and sustainable? If both are low, what context might explain disengagement?

The distinction should never be used to rank people as strong or weak. It should be used to support development, research, advising, coaching, mentoring, and institutional design. A responsible user treats grit facets as signals that require context, not verdicts that end inquiry.

Back to top ↑

Python workflow: modeling perseverance and consistency separately

The following Python workflow uses synthetic data to model perseverance of effort and consistency of interests as separate predictors. It compares a total grit model with a facet-level model and a broader contextual model. The purpose is to show why facet-level interpretation can be more informative than a single total score.

# Python workflow: Perseverance of Effort Versus Consistency of Interests
# 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

# Grit facets
perseverance_effort = rng.normal(0, 1, n)
consistency_interests = rng.normal(0, 1, n)

# Related traits and context
conscientiousness = 0.62 * perseverance_effort + rng.normal(0, 0.80, n)
self_control = 0.45 * perseverance_effort + rng.normal(0, 0.90, n)
social_support = rng.normal(0, 1, n)
prior_achievement = rng.normal(0, 1, n)
burnout = rng.normal(0, 1, n)

# Total grit score
grit_total = 0.60 * perseverance_effort + 0.40 * consistency_interests

# Synthetic outcome: long-term project completion or achievement-related persistence
long_term_outcome = (
    0.28 * perseverance_effort
    + 0.08 * consistency_interests
    + 0.25 * prior_achievement
    + 0.18 * conscientiousness
    + 0.20 * social_support
    - 0.22 * burnout
    + rng.normal(0, 1, n)
)

df = pd.DataFrame({
    "perseverance_effort": perseverance_effort,
    "consistency_interests": consistency_interests,
    "grit_total": grit_total,
    "conscientiousness": conscientiousness,
    "self_control": self_control,
    "social_support": social_support,
    "prior_achievement": prior_achievement,
    "burnout": burnout,
    "long_term_outcome": long_term_outcome
})

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

# Model 1: total grit only
model_total_grit = sm.OLS(
    df["long_term_outcome"],
    sm.add_constant(df[["grit_total"]])
).fit()

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

# Model 3: facets plus context
model_contextual = sm.OLS(
    df["long_term_outcome"],
    sm.add_constant(df[[
        "perseverance_effort",
        "consistency_interests",
        "prior_achievement",
        "conscientiousness",
        "self_control",
        "social_support",
        "burnout"
    ]])
).fit()

comparison = pd.DataFrame({
    "model": [
        "total_grit_only",
        "facets_only",
        "facets_plus_context"
    ],
    "r_squared": [
        model_total_grit.rsquared,
        model_facets.rsquared,
        model_contextual.rsquared
    ],
    "adjusted_r_squared": [
        model_total_grit.rsquared_adj,
        model_facets.rsquared_adj,
        model_contextual.rsquared_adj
    ]
})

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

print("\nFacet model coefficients:")
print(model_facets.params.round(4))

print("\nContextual model coefficients:")
print(model_contextual.params.round(4))

print("\nInterpretation:")
print(
    "If perseverance of effort and consistency of interests have different "
    "coefficients, a total grit score may hide important information. "
    "Facet-level interpretation is often more useful than a single score."
)

This workflow demonstrates the article’s central argument. A total grit score may be efficient, but separate facet models can show whether effort and interest are contributing differently. Adding context makes the interpretation more realistic.

Back to top ↑

R workflow: facet profiles and contextual interpretation

The following R workflow creates synthetic grit-facet data, classifies broad profiles, and compares total-score and facet-level models. It is intended for research-method demonstration only.

# R workflow: Perseverance of Effort Versus Consistency of Interests
# 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

# Grit facets
perseverance_effort <- rnorm(n)
consistency_interests <- rnorm(n)

# Related traits and context
conscientiousness <- 0.62 * perseverance_effort + rnorm(n, sd = 0.80)
self_control <- 0.45 * perseverance_effort + rnorm(n, sd = 0.90)
social_support <- rnorm(n)
prior_achievement <- rnorm(n)
burnout <- rnorm(n)

# Total grit score
grit_total <- 0.60 * perseverance_effort + 0.40 * consistency_interests

# Synthetic long-term outcome
long_term_outcome <- (
  0.28 * perseverance_effort +
  0.08 * consistency_interests +
  0.25 * prior_achievement +
  0.18 * conscientiousness +
  0.20 * social_support -
  0.22 * burnout +
  rnorm(n)
)

df <- data.frame(
  perseverance_effort,
  consistency_interests,
  grit_total,
  conscientiousness,
  self_control,
  social_support,
  prior_achievement,
  burnout,
  long_term_outcome
)

# Create broad profile groups using median splits.
# This is for demonstration only, not individual diagnosis.
pe_median <- median(df$perseverance_effort)
ci_median <- median(df$consistency_interests)

df$facet_profile <- ifelse( df$perseverance_effort >= pe_median & df$consistency_interests >= ci_median,
  "high_effort_high_consistency",
  ifelse(
    df$perseverance_effort >= pe_median & df$consistency_interests < ci_median,
    "high_effort_low_consistency",
    ifelse(
      df$perseverance_effort < pe_median & df$consistency_interests >= ci_median,
      "low_effort_high_consistency",
      "low_effort_low_consistency"
    )
  )
)

profile_summary <- aggregate(
  long_term_outcome ~ facet_profile,
  data = df,
  FUN = mean
)

print(profile_summary)

# Model 1: total grit only
model_total_grit <- lm(long_term_outcome ~ grit_total, data = df)

# Model 2: facets separately
model_facets <- lm(
  long_term_outcome ~ perseverance_effort + consistency_interests,
  data = df
)

# Model 3: facets plus context
model_contextual <- lm(
  long_term_outcome ~ perseverance_effort + consistency_interests +
    prior_achievement + conscientiousness + self_control +
    social_support + burnout,
  data = df
)

comparison <- data.frame(
  model = c("total_grit_only", "facets_only", "facets_plus_context"),
  r_squared = c(
    summary(model_total_grit)$r.squared,
    summary(model_facets)$r.squared,
    summary(model_contextual)$r.squared
  ),
  adjusted_r_squared = c(
    summary(model_total_grit)$adj.r.squared,
    summary(model_facets)$adj.r.squared,
    summary(model_contextual)$adj.r.squared
  )
)

print(round(comparison, 4))

cat("
Interpretation:
The total grit score is efficient, but the separate facets can tell different
developmental stories. Perseverance of effort and consistency of interests
should be interpreted alongside prior achievement, related traits, social
support, burnout, and opportunity.
")

This workflow uses simple synthetic data to show why the distinction matters. A person’s grit profile is not only a number. It is a pattern of effort and direction shaped by support, depletion, opportunity, and developmental context.

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

Perseverance of effort and consistency of interests are both central to grit, but they should not be treated as identical. Perseverance concerns sustained work through difficulty. Consistency concerns durable direction across time. Together, they help explain long-term goal pursuit. Separately, they reveal different psychological and developmental patterns.

The distinction matters because a single grit score can hide important differences. High effort with low consistency is not the same as low effort with high consistency. Both differ from high scores on both facets or low scores on both. Each profile raises different questions about support, strategy, exploration, burnout, identity, opportunity, and goal fit.

Perseverance of effort is often the more practically powerful facet because achievement frequently requires sustained action. Consistency of interests remains important, but it is developmentally complicated. Healthy lives require exploration, revision, and the ability to leave harmful or misaligned goals. Consistency becomes a strength only when it supports meaningful, adaptive, and humane commitment.

The best use of grit-facet interpretation is therefore careful and contextual. It should help people ask better questions, not label them. It should clarify the difference between effort and direction, not reduce human development to a score. It should recognize persistence as valuable while still preserving the wisdom to change course.

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 Original Grit Scale and What It Measures
• The Short Grit Scale and the Problem of Measurement
• Perseverance of Effort: The Work Dimension of Grit
• Consistency of Interest: The Passion Dimension of Grit
• Grit and Conscientiousness: Overlap, Distinction, and Debate
• 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
• 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
• Datu, J.A.D., Valdez, J.P.M. and King, R.B. (2016) ‘Perseverance counts but consistency does not! Validating the Short Grit Scale in a collectivist setting’, Current Psychology, 35, pp. 121–130. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-015-9374-2
• 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
• Gonzalez, O., Canning, J.R., Smyth, H. and MacKinnon, D.P. (2020) ‘A psychometric evaluation of the Short Grit Scale’, European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 36(4), pp. 646–657. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1027/1015-5759/a000535
• 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 ↑