The Journal of College and University Student Housing - Volume 42, No. 2 - 70

Krista M. Soria * Leonard Taylor, Jr.

1.960, p = .058. College experiences were
entered in step two and explained unique variance in students' engagement, R = .183, R2 =
.034, F(14, 941) = 2.328, p < .01; R2 Change =
.019. Finally, we entered in students' strengths
interactions at step three, and they explained
a signiﬁcant amount of unique variance in
students' engagement above and beyond the
variance accounted for by previously entered
variables, R = .402, R2 = .162, F(24, 931) =
7.463, p < .001; R2 Change = .128. The results
suggest that students' strengths interactions
account for a signiﬁcant level of variance in
their engagement above and beyond the variance explained by demographic variables and
college experiences.

signiﬁcantly (p < .001) improve the ability to
predict retention after taking into account the
relationships between demographic variables
and college experience variables. The ﬁnal
pseudo-R2 values in the model were .106 (Cox
& Snell, 1989) and .283 (Nagelkerke, 1991). The
results suggest that ﬁrst-year students who had
strengths-based conversations with their community advisors were signiﬁcantly more likely
to be retained to their second year over their
peers who did not have these discussions. Additionally, students who had strengths-based
discussions with their CAs and participated in
strengths-related programming or activities in
housing were signiﬁcantly more likely to be retained to their second year.

The results of the ﬁrst regression analysis
also suggest that ﬁrst-year students who had
strengths-based conversations with their community advisors reported signiﬁcantly higher
engagement than did their peers. Additionally,
students who had strengths-based discussions
with their CAs and participated in strengths-related programming or activities in housing had
signiﬁcantly higher engagement than did their
peers. The value of strengths to students was
also positively associated with engagement, as
was students' perceptions that the strengths
program on campus positively contributed to
their sense of belonging. Finally, the number
of strengths-based assignments in classes and
group/one-to-one discussions were positively
associated with students' engagement.

LIMITATIONS

The results of the hierarchical binary logistic regression examining the relationships
between students' strengths experiences and
retention suggest that students' strengths
experiences (the third block of the analysis)

There are several limitations to the present
study; one is the relatively small sample
size, given the larger ﬁrst-year population on
this campus. Additionally, the respondents
were not representative of the population
when considering race and gender; thus, our
sample may suffer from response bias. This
study was conducted at a large public research
university, which may limit the generalizable
nature of the ﬁndings. Finally, given the sheer
number of community advisors on campus,
it is likely the case that every CA's unique approach to incorporating strengths may have
led to differential student outcomes. Future
research incorporating experimental methods
along with consistent treatment conditions
(e.g., a standardized approach to incorporating strengths) would greatly expand scholarship given these limitations.

THE JOURNAL OF COLLEGE AND UNIVERSITY STUDENT HOUSING

The Journal of College and University Student Housing - Volume 42, No. 2

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of The Journal of College and University Student Housing - Volume 42, No. 2