Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
The quality of student research is influenced not only by methodological competence but also by psychological and behavioural self-regulation. This study examines the effects of motivation and time management on university students’ research quality during the thesis or final-project stage. A quantitative explanatory design was employed involving 336 students from seven Mathematics and Natural Sciences Education programmes at Universitas Jambi, Indonesia. Data were collected using a structured questionnaire measuring motivation, time management, and research quality. Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) was conducted to refine the measurement instrument, followed by Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM) to evaluate the measurement and structural models. The EFA retained 68 of 75 initial items, representing an overall retention rate of 90.7%. The measurement model demonstrated satisfactory indicator reliability, convergent validity, and internal consistency, with factor loadings ranging from 0.792 to 0.867, AVE values from 0.631 to 0.672, and composite reliability values from 0.910 to 0.932. The structural model showed that motivation had a positive and significant effect on research quality (β = 0.538, t = 12.285, p < 0.001), while time management also had a positive and significant effect (β = 0.574, t = 12.481, p < 0.001). Both predictors demonstrated large effect sizes, with f² = 0.48 for motivation and f² = 0.45 for time management. The model explained 65.3% of the variance in research quality (R² = 0.653) and demonstrated predictive relevance (Q² = 0.32). These findings indicate that motivation and time management are complementary student-level resources that substantially contribute to research quality. The study highlights the importance of integrating motivational development and self-regulatory time-management strategies into university research-readiness and thesis supervision programmes.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Kurniawan et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 8 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: