Psychological capital (PsyCap)—a higher-order construct comprising hope, self-efficacy, resilience, and optimism—is increasingly studied in educational settings, yet its antecedents remain underexplored. This study aimed to identify longitudinal psychosocial predictors of PsyCap in adolescents using a machine learning framework. We analyzed data from 283 Italian junior high school students (aged ~12–13) who completed validated self-report measures assessing PsyCap and a broad range of psychosocial variables (including positive self-beliefs, dimensions of school motivation, personality traits, individual differences, and school-related social resources) at two time points (T1 = December 2020; T2 = May/June 2021). To predict PsyCap at T2 from T1 variables, we used Elastic Net and Random Forest models, supported by eXplainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI) techniques. Most models achieved R² > .60 on the test set, indicating good predictive performance. Beyond the autoregressive effect, the strongest lagged predictors of PsyCap were openness to experience, conscientiousness, and math self-concept. These findings underscore the importance of personality traits and domain-specific positive self-beliefs in shaping PsyCap. Educational implications include the potential for school-based interventions focused on strengthening math self-concept and personality-related learning attitudes to foster adolescents’ psychological resources. Finally, we provide detailed end-to-end Python notebooks for applying this pipeline to other research endeavors.
AhmedW.MinnaertA.KuyperH.Van der WerfG. (2012). Reciprocal relationships between math self-concept and math anxiety. Learning and Individual Differences, 22(3), 385–389. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2011.12.004
2.
AlessandriG.BorgogniL.ConsiglioC.MitidieriG. (2015). Psychometric properties of the Italian version of the Psychological Capital Questionnaire. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 23(2), 149–159. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijsa.12103
3.
AlessandriG.ConsiglioC.LuthansF.BorgogniL. (2018). Testing a dynamic model of the impact of psychological capital on work engagement and job performance. Career Development International, 23(1), 33–47. https://doi.org/10.1108/CDI-11-2016-0210
4.
AliyevR.KarakusM. (2015). The effects of positive psychological capital and negative feelings on students’ violence tendency. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 190, 69–76. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.04.918
5.
AlpaydinE. (2020). Introduction to machine learning. MIT Press.
6.
AveyJ. B.LuthansF.SmithR. M.PalmerN. F. (2010). Impact of positive psychological capital on employee well-being over time. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 15(1), 17–28. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0016998
7.
AveyJ. B.ReichardR. J.LuthansF.MhatreK. H. (2011). Meta-analysis of the impact of positive psychological capital on employee attitudes, behaviors, and performance. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 22(2), 127–152. https://doi.org/10.1002/hrdq.20070
8.
BakerO.MontefineseM.CastroN.StellaM. (2023). Multiplex lexical networks and artificial intelligence unravel cognitive patterns of picture naming in people with anomic aphasia. Cognitive Systems Research, 79, 43–54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogsys.2023.01.007
9.
BarbaranelliC.FidaR.PacielloM.Di GiuntaL.CapraraG. V. (2008). Assessing personality in early adolescence through self-report and other-ratings: A multitrait-multimethod analysis of the BFQ-C. Personality and Individual Differences, 44(4), 876–886. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2007.10.014
10.
BatesT. C.EnkhbatT.GrayE.LeeJ.ZakharinM. (2023). How to get things done: Tight linkage of conscientiousness with twelve mechanisms of Goal Setting Theory. Personality and Individual Differences, 214, Article 112331. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2023.112331
11.
BenkendorfD. J.HawkinsC. P. (2020). Effects of sample size and network depth on a deep learning approach to species distribution modeling. Ecological Informatics, 60, Article 101137. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoinf.2020.101137
12.
BrianK.StellaM. (2023). Introducing mindset streams to investigate stances towards STEM in high school students and experts. Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and Its Applications, 626, Article 129074. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physa.2023.129074
13.
CapraraG. V.VecchioneM.AlessandriG.GerbinoM.BarbaranelliC. (2011). The contribution of personality traits and self-efficacy beliefs to academic achievement: A longitudinal study. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 81(1), 78–96. https://doi.org/10.1348/2044-8279.002004
14.
Carmona-HaltyM.SalanovaM.LlorensS.SchaufeliW. B. (2019). How psychological capital mediates between study–related positive emotions and academic performance. Journal of Happiness Studies, 20(2), 605–617. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-018-9963-5
15.
CarterJ. W.Youssef-MorganC. M. (2019). The positive psychology of mentoring: A longitudinal analysis of psychological capital development and performance in a formal mentoring program. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 30(3), 383–405. https://doi.org/10.1002/hrdq.21348
CrockerJ.LuhtanenR. K.CooperM. L.BouvretteA. (2003). Contingencies of self-worth in college students: Theory and measurement. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85(5), 894–908. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.85.5.894
18.
CurranP. J.WestS. G.FinchJ. F. (1996). The robustness of test statistics to nonnormality and specification error in confirmatory factor analysis. Psychological Methods, 1(1), 16–29. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.1.1.16
19.
DatuJ. A. D.ValdezJ. P. M. (2019). Psychological capital is associated with higher levels of life satisfaction and school belongingness. School Psychology International, 40(4), 331–346. https://doi.org/10.1177/0143034319838011
20.
Dello RussoS.StoykovaP. (2015). Psychological Capital Intervention (PCI): A replication and extension. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 26(3), 329–347. https://doi.org/10.1002/hrdq.21212
21.
DesjardinsC. D.BulutO. (2018). Handbook of educational measurement and psychometrics using R. CRC Press.
22.
Di RisoD.SalcuniS.ChessaD.RaudinoA.LisA.AltoèG. (2010). The Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ). Early evidence of its reliability and validity in a community sample of Italian children. Personality and Individual Differences, 49(6), 570–575. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2010.05.005
23.
DuckworthA. L.GrossJ. J. (2024). Self-control. In GrossJ. J.FordB. Q. (Eds.), Handbook of emotion regulation (3rd ed., pp. 250–257). The Guilford Press.
24.
FinchJ.FarrellL. J.WatersA. M. (2020). Searching for the hero in youth: Does psychological capital (PsyCap) predict mental health symptoms and subjective wellbeing in Australian school-aged children and adolescents?Child Psychiatry & Human Development, 51, 1025–1036. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10578-020-01023-3
25.
GéronA. (2023). Hands-on machine learning with scikit-learn, keras & tensorflow: Concepts, tools, and techniques to build intelligent systems (3rd ed.). O’Reilly.
26.
GiniG.PozzoliT.BusseyK. (2014). Collective moral disengagement: Initial validation of a scale for adolescents. European Journal of Developmental Psychology, 11(3), 386–395. https://doi.org/10.1080/17405629.2013.851024
27.
GoodmanA.LampingD. L.PloubidisG. B. (2010). When to use broader internalising and externalising subscales instead of the hypothesised five subscales on the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ): Data from British parents, teachers and children. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 38, 1179–1191. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10802-010-9434-x
28.
GutmanL. M.SchoonI. (2013). The impact of non-cognitive skills on outcomes for young people. a literature review (tech. rep.). Education Endowment Foundation. https://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/id/eprint/10125763/
29.
HassijaV.ChamolaV.MahapatraA.SingalA.GoelD.HuangK.ScardapaneS.SpinelliI.MahmudM.HussainA. (2024). Interpreting black-box models: A review on explainable artificial intelligence. Cognitive Computation, 16(1), 45–74. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12559-023-10179-8
30.
HuA.LiX.SongH. (2023). The influence of Big Five personality traits on college students’ key competencies: The mediating effect of psychological capital. Frontiers in Psychology, 14, Article 1242557. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1242557
31.
JacobucciR. (2022). A critique of using the labels confirmatory and exploratory in modern psychological research. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, Article 1020770. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.1020770
32.
JacobucciR.GrimmK. J.ZhangZ. (2023). Machine learning for social and behavioral research. Guilford.
KautzT.HeckmanJ. J.DirisR.Ter WeelB.BorghansL. (2014). Fostering and measuring skills: Improving cognitive and non-cognitive skills to promote lifetime success (tech. rep.). National Bureau of Economic Research. https://www.nber.org/papers/w20749
35.
KingR. B.CaleonI. S. (2021). School psychological capital: Instrument development, validation, and prediction. Child Indicators Research, 14(1), 341–367. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12187-020-09757-1
36.
Lavelle-HillR.SmithG.MurayamaK. (2025). Bridging traditional-statistics and machine-learning approaches in psychology: Navigating small samples, measurement error, nonindependent observations, and missing data. Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science, 8(3), 1–31. https://doi.org/10.1177/25152459251345696
37.
LipnevichA. A.RobertsR. D. (2012). Noncognitive skills in education: Emerging research and applications in a variety of international contexts. Learning and Individual Differences, 22(2), 173–177. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2011.11.016
38.
LucasR. E. (2023). Why the cross-lagged panel model is almost never the right choice. Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science, 6(1), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1177/25152459231158378
39.
LundbergS. M.ErionG.ChenH.DeGraveA.PrutkinJ. M.NairB.KatzR.HimmelfarbJ.BansalN.LeeS.-I. (2020). From local explanations to global understanding with explainable AI for trees. Nature Machine Intelligence, 2(1), 56–67. https://doi.org/10.1038/s42256-019-0138-9
LupșaD.VîrgaD.MaricuțoiuL. P.RusuA. (2020). Increasing psychological capital: A pre-registered meta-analysis of controlled interventions. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 69(4), 1506–1556. https://doi.org/10.1111/apps.12219
42.
LuthansF.AvolioB. J.AveyJ. B.NormanS. M. (2007). Positive psychological capital: Measurement and relationship with performance and satisfaction. Personnel Psychology, 60(3), 541–572. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2007.00083.x
43.
LuthansF.LuthansK. W.LuthansB. C. (2004). Positive psychological capital: Beyond human and social capital. Business Horizons, 47(1), 45–50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bushor.2003.11.007
44.
LuthansF.Youssef-MorganC. M. (2017). Psychological capital: An evidence-based positive approach. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 4, 339–366. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-032516-113324
45.
LuthansF.Youssef-MorganC. M.AvolioB. (2015). Psychological capital and beyond. Oxford University Press.
MarshH. W.PekrunR.ParkerP. D.MurayamaK.GuoJ.DickeT.ArensA. K. (2019). The murky distinction between self-concept and self-efficacy: Beware of lurking jingle-jangle fallacies. Journal of Educational Psychology, 111(2), 331–353. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000281
48.
MorandoG.PlattL. (2022). The impact of centre-based childcare on non-cognitive skills of young children. Economica, 89(356), 908–946. https://doi.org/10.1111/ecca.12440
49.
NapolitanoC. M.DuckworthA. L.GrossJ. J. (2024). Trait self-control: A Process Model perspective. Current Opinion in Psychology, 59, Article 101858. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2024.101858
50.
NewsomJ. T. (2024). Longitudinal structural equation modeling: A comprehensive introduction (2nd ed.). Routledge.
51.
PargentF.SchoedelR.StachlC. (2023). Best practices in supervised machine learning: A tutorial for psychologists. Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science, 6(3), 1–35. https://doi.org/10.1177/25152459231162559
52.
PedregosaF.VaroquauxG.GramfortA.MichelV.ThirionB.GriselO.BlondelM.PrettenhoferP.WeissR.DubourgV.VanderplasJ.PassosA.CournapeauD.BrucherM.PerrotM.DuchesnayÉ. (2011). Scikit-learn: Machine learning in Python. Journal of Machine Learning Research, 12(85), 2825–2830. http://jmlr.org/papers/v12/pedregosa11a.html
53.
PerinelliE.AlessandriG.VecchioneM.ManciniD. (2022). A comprehensive analysis of the psychometric properties of the contingencies of self-worth scale (CSWS). Current Psychology, 41(8), 5307–5322. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-020-01007-5
54.
PerinelliE.PisanuF.ChecchiD.ScalasL. F.FraccaroliF. (2022). Academic self-concept change in junior high school students and relationships with academic achievement. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 69, Article 102071. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2022.102071
55.
PetersonS. J.LuthansF.AvolioB. J.WalumbwaF. O.ZhangZ. (2011). Psychological capital and employee performance: A latent growth modeling approach. Personnel Psychology, 64(2), 427–450. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2011.01215.x
56.
PoropatA. E. (2009). A meta-analysis of the five-factor model of personality and academic performance. Psychological Bulletin, 135(2), 322–338. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0014996
RosenbuschH.SoldnerF.EvansA. M.ZeelenbergM. (2021). Supervised machine learning methods in psychology: A practical introduction with annotated R code. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 15(2), Article e12579. https://doi.org/10.1111/spc3.12579
59.
RothenbergW. A.BizzegoA.EspositoG.LansfordJ. E.Al-HassanS. M.BacchiniD.BornsteinM. H.ChangL.Deater-DeckardK.Di GiuntaL.DodgeK. A.GurdalS.LiuQ.LongQ.OburuP.PastorelliC.SkinnerA. T.SorbringE.TapanyaS.. . .AlampayL. P. (2023). Predicting adolescent mental health outcomes across cultures: A Machine Learning approach. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 52(8), 1595–1619. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-023-01767-w
60.
RyanR. M.DeciE. L. (2017). Self-determination theory: Basic psychological needs in motivation, development, and wellness. Guilford.
61.
SamuelG.StellaM.BeatyR. E.KenettY. N. (2023). Predicting openness to experience via a multiplex cognitive network approach. Journal of Research in Personality, 104, Article 104369. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2023.104369
62.
SewasewD.SchroedersU. (2019). The developmental interplay of academic self-concept and achievement within and across domains among primary school students. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 58, 204–212. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2019.03.009
63.
SimonsD. J.ShodaY.LindsayD. S. (2017). Constraints on generality (COG): A proposed addition to all empirical papers. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 12(6), 1123–1128. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691617708630
64.
SmithersL. G.SawyerA. C.ChittleboroughC. R.DaviesN. M.Davey SmithG.LynchJ. W. (2018). A systematic review and meta-analysis of effects of early life non-cognitive skills on academic, psychosocial, cognitive and health outcomes. Nature Human Behaviour, 2(11), 867–880. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-018-0461-x
65.
SotoC. J.TackettJ. L. (2015). Personality traits in childhood and adolescence: Structure, development, and outcomes. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 24(5), 358–362. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721415589345
66.
SpierE. (2016). Alaska school climate and connectedness survey: 2016. Statewide report (tech. rep.). American Institutes for Research (AIR). https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED577047
67.
StellaM. (2019). Modelling early word acquisition through multiplex lexical networks and machine learning. Big Data and Cognitive Computing, 3(1), Article 10. https://doi.org/10.3390/bdcc3010010
68.
StellaM. (2022). Network psychometrics and cognitive network science open new ways for understanding math anxiety as a complex system. Journal of Complex Networks, 10(3), Article cnac012. https://doi.org/10.1093/comnet/cnac012
69.
Vilariño del CastilloD.Lopez-ZafraE. (2022). Antecedents of psychological capital at work: A systematic review of moderator–mediator effects and a new integrative proposal. European Management Review, 19(1), 154–169. https://doi.org/10.1111/emre.12460
70.
VittadiniG.SturaroC.FolloniG. (2022). Non-cognitive skills and cognitive skills to measure school efficiency. Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, 81, Article 101058. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.seps.2021.101058
71.
WagnerJ.OrthU.BleidornW.HopwoodC. J.KandlerC. (2020). Toward an integrative model of sources of personality stability and change. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 29(5), 438–444. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721420924751
72.
XuH.KinfuK. A.LeVineW.PandaS.DeyJ.AinsworthM.. . .PriebeC. E. (2021). When are deep networks really better than decision forests at small sample sizes, and how? arXiv preprint arXiv:2108.13637. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2108.13637
73.
YarkoniT.WestfallJ. (2017). Choosing prediction over explanation in psychology: Lessons from machine learning. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 12(6), 1100–1122. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691617693393
74.
ZuffianòA.AlessandriG.GerbinoM.KanacriB. P. L.Di GiuntaL.MilioniM.CapraraG. V. (2013). Academic achievement: The unique contribution of self-efficacy beliefs in self-regulated learning beyond intelligence, personality traits, and self-esteem. Learning and Individual Differences, 23, 158–162. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2012.07.010
