A proposal for measuring entrepreneurial intention among university students

1. Introduction

Entrepreneurship among university students in the Latin American context has emerged as a response to the challenges of unemployment and underemployment in the region, particularly among young university graduates (Gwija et al., 2014; ILO, 2017; OECD, 2020; United Nations, 2020). Youth unemployment in Latin America is three times higher than the overall unemployment rate (De Vries & Navarro, 2011; Saavedra García & Blanco González, 2024), and Mexico is no exception. This situation is especially concerning given that one quarter of the country’s population is young (aged 15–29), totaling 31.5 million people (México cómo vamos, 2023). Moreover, according to the Mexican Institute for Competitiveness (IMCO, 2022), 51.9% of young people who have completed a university degree are employed in the informal sector. Although higher education offers the opportunity to obtain formal employment with better income prospects, graduates face labor market conditions that often hinder their professional development. As De Vries and Navarro (2011) demonstrated, this is largely due to an oversupply of professionals. In this context, entrepreneurship presents an opportunity for self-employment and offers a viable career path.

Despite growing interest in understanding entrepreneurial intention within the university setting, the existing literature reveals significant limitations in the instruments used. Ajzen’s (1991) theory of planned behavior and its subsequent developments—such as the Entrepreneurial Intention Questionnaire (EIQ) by Liñán and Chen (2009)—have been widely applied but primarily focus on attitudinal variables, overlooking other relevant dimensions of students’ academic, social, and psychological environments. Similarly, the scale developed by Krueger et al. (2000) has improved the predictive accuracy of entrepreneurial intention but remains limited in its adaptability to diverse cultural contexts. Moreover, most of these tools were developed and validated in European or Anglo-Saxon countries, which restricts their direct applicability in settings such as Latin America (Moriano et al., 2012; Sánchez-García et al., 2018). These limitations underscore the need for a broader, contextually grounded, and empirically robust measurement approach that integrates the psychological, social, educational, and structural dimensions shaping entrepreneurial intention among university students.

Against this backdrop, there is a need to develop a measurement instrument capable of identifying the factors that drive entrepreneurial activity among university students. Although various instruments have been proposed to measure entrepreneurial intention, they tend to focus primarily on personality traits, demographic characteristics, and individuals’ prior experience with similar activities (Alcaraz & Villasana, 2015). For example, González Sánchez et al. (2017) found that students from privileged socioeconomic backgrounds, those with family business experience, older students, and those with a strong entrepreneurial mindset and work capacity are more likely to pursue entrepreneurship. Leiva et al. (2021) likewise confirmed that both the university context and cognitive variables contribute to explaining entrepreneurial intention among students. Similarly, Mavila Hinojoza et al. (2009) identified the following key factors that motivate students to engage in entrepreneurship: social skills, creativity, planning abilities, and personal fulfillment.

However, these studies have largely overlooked economic and political variables specific to the local context that directly affect the promotion of entrepreneurship within higher education institutions. Such variables are particularly relevant in Mexico, where entrepreneurs often face limited access to financing and where the absence of clear investor protections deters capital inflows—both of which influence entrepreneurial intention (México cómo vamos, 2023; Saavedra & Saavedra, 2015).

This study proposes the design and validation of a comprehensive instrument for measuring entrepreneurial intention among university students. The proposed scale is grounded in an extensive review of the literature and is operationalized through an initial questionnaire comprising 140 items grouped into 23 theoretical dimensions. The instrument is then empirically validated using a large sample of students from a representative Mexican university. The methodological process includes reliability analysis, exploratory factor analysis, and item refinement procedures to ensure the internal consistency and structural validity of the proposed scale.

The resulting measurement instrument is intended to assess university students’ attitudes toward entrepreneurial activity. Accordingly, the objective of this study was to propose and validate a data collection instrument to measure entrepreneurial intention among university students, using exploratory factor analysis.

This article is structured in three parts. The first presents a review of the literature on attitudes toward entrepreneurship, perceived social norms, entrepreneurial self-efficacy, business and entrepreneurial competencies, factors that promote and inhibit entrepreneurship, and the drivers of entrepreneurship within the university context. These topics provide the theoretical foundation for the variables included in the measurement instrument. The second part describes the study’s methodology. The third presents the results of the analysis and their interpretation. Finally, the discussion, conclusions, and recommendations for future research are provided.

2. Literature review

This section reviews the main theoretical and empirical approaches that have guided the study of entrepreneurial intention in university contexts. First, it outlines the foundations of the theory of planned behavior and its applications in the field of entrepreneurship. Next, it analyzes various existing measurement approaches, with particular attention to their dimensions, limitations, and empirical validations. Finally, it examines individual, social, and educational factors that influence entrepreneurial intention, providing the basis for the theoretical framework and measurement instrument proposed in this study.

2.1 Attitudes toward entrepreneurship

Research has focused on identifying ways in which entrepreneurs exhibit similar attitudes despite clear cultural differences. Countries as distinct as Spain, the United Kingdom, and Taiwan share a common trend toward innovation in entrepreneurship (Liñán et al., 2020; Liñán & Chen, 2009). These cross-cultural similarities in entrepreneurial attitudes aim to foster a deeper theoretical understanding of entrepreneurial behavior. Such efforts have included adaptations of theories such as Ajzen’s (1991) theory of planned behavior, informed by empirical findings in the business domain related to entrepreneurial intention.

Other studies grounded in the model developed by Liñán and Chen (2009) have also identified differences in entrepreneurial attitudes between Mexican and Spanish students, with Mexican students exhibiting a more positive attitude toward entrepreneurship. They reported stronger perceived support from subjective norms, viewed entrepreneurship as a more enriching professional option, and perceived it as a more satisfying and advantageous activity. Mexican students also expressed less fear of failure (29.8% vs. 46.9%, respectively) and had a more favorable perception of their education (54.4% vs. 25%) and entrepreneurial experience (49.7% vs. 41.9%) compared to their Spanish counterparts (Guerrero et al., 2016).

Conversely, several attitudinal factors can hinder entrepreneurial activity. Among entrepreneurs, these include risk intolerance, a tendency to postpone unpleasant tasks or bad news, and fear of failure (Hoogendoorn et al., 2019; Laachach et al., 2024). These individual factors interact with external factors, such as perceptions of national corruption (Costa & Mainardes, 2016), shaping negative attitudes toward expected outcomes and external conditions. Such dynamics have significant repercussions for entrepreneurial outcomes, as they influence what entrepreneurs are willing to do under given circumstances. For example, an overly optimistic attitude regarding potential outcomes and personal capabilities can lead to overconfidence and an underestimation of financial risks (Invernizzi et al., 2017). Thus, there is a dynamic interaction between entrepreneurs’ perceptions of the external business environment and their sense of self-efficacy, which together shape entrepreneurial decision-making (Calanchez Urribarri et al., 2023; Taneja et al., 2024; Vilanova & Vitanova, 2020). These interactions are critical to understanding the factors that contribute to entrepreneurial success and underscore the importance of personal attitudes.

In this regard, Shriha et al. (2025) state that entrepreneurial intention captures the mental and motivational processes that inspire individuals to launch new businesses. Entrepreneurial intention thus represents a deliberate state of mind that focuses attention and energy on starting new ventures and pursuing self-employment. Numerous factors—including social, cultural, and environmental—affect an individual’s attitude, perceived behavioral control, and subjective norms regarding entrepreneurship, all of which can influence the desire to become an entrepreneur.

Shriha et al. (2025) further note that the extent to which a person develops the intention to behave in a particular way may be influenced by social pressure. In this context, subjective norms refer to the perceived social pressure from significant others (such as family members, friends, and peers) to engage or not engage in entrepreneurial behavior (Ajzen, 1991). In other words, subjective norms reflect the degree to which an individual believes that important people in their environment approve or disapprove of entrepreneurial behavior. Shriha et al. (2025) found a moderate correlation between subjective norms and entrepreneurial intention. In contrast, Duong (2022) found no correlation between subjective norms and entrepreneurial intention, arguing that this relationship may be mediated by other factors—an observation that opens new avenues for research.

Regarding perceived behavioral control, Shriha et al. (2025) conceptualize it as individuals’ control-oriented attitudes toward becoming an entrepreneur. Perceived control plays a crucial role in determining whether someone becomes an entrepreneur, as it reflects the degree to which an individu al believes they have control over a given behavior and is shaped by beliefs about factors that may facilitate or hinder successful performance of that behavior. Both Duong (2022) and Shriha et al. (2025), in their empirical work, found a strong correlation between perceived behavioral control and entrepreneurial intention.

In addition, Liao et al. (2022) identified entrepreneurial knowledge as a key antecedent of entrepreneurial intention, as it influences the cognitive foundations of individuals engaged in new ventures. Personal attitude and self-efficacy are also vital predictors of entrepreneurial intention. In this regard, entrepreneurship education plays an important role in developing the attitudes, knowledge, and skills associated with entrepreneurial practice. Consistent with this finding, Karyaningsih et al. (2020) demonstrated that students who completed entrepreneurship courses—or related coursework such as business planning, marketing strategies, and other entrepreneurial skills—exhibited stronger entrepreneurial intention than those who did not. Similarly, Shriha et al. (2025), in their empirical study, found a strong correlation between entrepreneurial knowledge and entrepreneurial intention.

2.2 Perception of social norms

Abaddi (2024) and Shriha et al. (2025) define subjective norms as the perceived social pressure from close individuals (such as family members, friends, and peers) to engage or not engage in entrepreneurial behavior. Subjective norms reflect the degree to which an individual believes that others approve or disapprove of their entrepreneurial behavior. It is expected that subjective norms will influence entrepreneurial intentions, as a supportive social environment can encourage and inspire potential entrepreneurs.

Among university students, particular attention has been given to aspects of personal development in shaping attitudes toward entrepreneurship, including the interaction between upbringing and traits conducive to entrepreneurial activity. In this regard, Calanchez Urribarri et al. (2023) found that, among students, only perceived social support was directly associated with a stronger entrepreneurial orientation.

Among the variables most closely linked to entrepreneurial intention, family influence and individualist values stand out, along with educational experiences that promote self-employment (Moriano León et al., 2006).

To the original model—which includes personal attitude toward becoming an entrepreneur, subjective norms (i.e., the approval of significant others regarding entrepreneurial activity), and perceived behavioral control (i.e., perceptions of the difficulty or ease of becoming an entrepreneur)—additional factors have been incorporated. These include social evaluation, which encompasses cultural attitudes that encourage or discourage certain entrepreneurial traits and behaviors, and close social evaluation, which refers to the influence of family members, friends, and colleagues with whom the entrepreneur interacts daily. The model also considers entrepreneurial skills (as a measure of the degree to which such skills are possessed) and knowledge of the business environment (i.e., the level of awareness and understanding the individual has of themselves and their support systems) (Calanchez Urribarri et al., 2023; Liñán et al., 2020).

2.3 Entrepreneurial capacity

Training for entrepreneurial activity, aimed at developing business skills, may be limited by individuals’ existing attitudes. For example, those with greater risk tolerance—i.e., a more positive attitude toward risk—derive greater benefit from entrepreneurship training (Calanchez Urribarri et al., 2023; Fairlie & Holleran, 2012; Laachach et al., 2024; Shriha et al., 2025). As Shriha et al. (2025) observe, a positive attitude toward risk can enhance the creativity and innovation of potential entrepreneurs in seizing business opportunities. However, they did not find a direct association between risk propensity and entrepreneurial intention, explaining that this inconsistency may result from the influence of cultural, social, and economic factors that vary across countries.

Gender differences have also been observed. Shinnar et al. (2014) found that in entrepreneurship training courses, women exhibited lower initial and final scores for both entrepreneurial intention and self-efficacy. Unsurprisingly, the best outcomes were observed among those with favorable personal conditions, a strong capacity to achieve their goals, and a higher perception of their own abilities. Thus, attitudes play a central role in both goal setting and goal attainment.

In a sample of Mexican university students, Barrera González et al. (2024) found that young people express an intention to pursue entrepreneurship and display a positive attitude toward acquiring the knowledge, skills, abilities, and competencies needed to enter the business world in the future.

Positive effects are also observed in attitudes such as perceived control over one’s own activities and the perceived importance that one’s social group places on entrepreneurship (Karimi et al., 2016). This is particularly relevant when the entrepreneur’s reference group does not support such activities, as education can moderate the negative influence of social disapproval—an effect that was especially notable among women (Entrialgo & Iglesias, 2016). It is worth noting that as entrepreneurial training increases, the relationship between perceived personal capacity and entrepreneurial intention strengthens, while the influence of social approval weakens (Akinleke, 2024; Arruda et al., 2023; Entrialgo & Iglesias, 2016; Potishuk & Kratzer, 2017). In other words, training helps individuals resist the disapproval of those close to them by providing information and tools that strengthen their confidence in their own capacity.

Among the types of content that have demonstrated the strongest effects on entrepreneurial intention and attitudes are those that foster positive attitudes toward the usefulness of acquired knowledge and promote self-perceptions of being capable of launching successful ventures—ultimately improving risk tolerance. Such training also helps moderate the attitudes of individuals who may initially exhibit excessive confidence due to a lack of experience with project rejection, particularly in technological fields (Bandera et al., 2018).

In programs targeting adolescents (average age 15), training in four components—(1) accounting, finance, marketing, and management; (2) self-efficacy, proactivity, and risk-taking; (3) business plan development; and (4) experiential learning—delivered through lectures, reading discussions, exercises, games, and computer simulations resulted in significant improvements in self-efficacy, proactivity, and risk-taking. These, in turn, had a positive impact on participants’ intention to pursue self-employment in the future. Among all the variables studied, self-efficacy showed the strongest correlation with the others, even before participation in the educational program (Sánchez, 2013).

Thus, the impact of entrepreneurship training—particularly prior to engaging in ventures through trial and error, as allowed by simulations—can lead to better planning, control, and sustainability of entrepreneurial efforts, in addition to fostering attitudes that support personal growth. In this regard, Arruda et al. (2023) found a positive relationship between entrepreneurship education among university students and their entrepreneurial attitudes, knowledge, skills, self-efficacy, and initial entrepreneurial behavior. Similarly, Nogaibayeva et al. (2024) confirmed a significant relationship between entrepreneurship education and students’ enthusiasm and determination to pursue entrepreneurship. Taneja et al. (2024) found a positive relationship between entrepreneurial success and self-efficacy, while Al-Tekreeti et al. (2024), Jiatong et al. (2021) and Murad et al. (2021) reported a strong, positive, and significant relationship between creativity and entrepreneurial intention.

Regarding the perceived attractiveness of entrepreneurship as a career option, Al-Mamary et al. (2020), Duong (2022), Liñán et al. (2020), and Liñán and Chen (2009) found that students generally view entrepreneurial activity positively as a professional path. In contrast, Pérez Paredes et al. (2022) did not find evidence of strong interest among university students in pursuing entrepreneurship after completing their university education.

Entrepreneurial intention can be defined as a process of acquiring the knowledge needed to launch a business—a process that guides individuals in planning and taking action to create a new enterprise. In this sense, entrepreneurship education has been identified as a driver of entrepreneurial intention, although findings on this relationship have been somewhat mixed (Al-Tekreeti et al., 2024).

In addition, education can foster entrepreneurial intention, particularly by enhancing perceptions of preparedness, improving access to relevant information, and strengthening perceptions of personal characteristics such as a stronger internal locus of control and self-efficacy. With regard to self-efficacy, Kalitanyi (2019) and Taneja et al. (2024) suggest that universities should place greater emphasis on including training components aimed at improving students’ entrepreneurial self-efficacy.

Moreover, exposure to entrepreneurial activity through work experience can also contribute to more positive entrepreneurial attitudes. Individuals who have worked in small businesses or who have attempted an entrepreneurial venture themselves may develop a more favorable view of entrepreneurship. For example, in Mexico, among the 21% of students who reported having created a business, 42% had entrepreneurial parents (Guerrero et al., 2016).

2.4 Business and entrepreneurial competencies

Entrepreneurial competencies are typically associated with knowledge and skills; however, they are also closely linked to initiative and creativity, as well as to the importance of personal independence and creative capacity. In other words, training for entrepreneurial competence must help individuals generate new projects and develop additional competencies that go beyond the technical performance of entrepreneurial tasks (Ahumada Méndez, 2014; Arruda et al., 2023).

Varela (2014) defines business competencies as "the set of attributes—namely motivations, attitudes, values, self-concepts, knowledge, and skills—of a person, which are expressed through definable, observable, and measurable behaviors, and which are causally linked to superior performance in entrepreneurial activity" (p. 3).

Bird (1995) similarly describes entrepreneurial competencies as "the underlying characteristics of individuals, including specific knowledge, motivation, traits, self-perception, social roles, and skills that can lead to the creation, growth, or survival of a business" (p. 51).

The list of business and entrepreneurial competencies is extensive, making it unsurprising that various authors have proposed overlapping frameworks. Table 1 summarizes the principal competencies identified by the authors reviewed in this study.

Identifying business and entrepreneurial competencies makes it possible to view them as the set of characteristics, skills, attitudes, knowledge, and values that, collectively, enable an individual to achieve business objectives—that is, to create, sustain, and/or develop an organization.

In this regard, Villa and Poblete (2008) highlight three key components of entrepreneurial competence:

1. motivating a group, team, or organization;
2. developing individual potential; and
3. taking risks in a specific context while being aware of the associated commitments.

Considering these elements as part of an effort to improve the discouraging employment prospects faced by many young people in Latin America underscores the urgent need for investments in competency development and the creation of new opportunities for entrepreneurship. Such measures could help young people transition more smoothly from education to the labor market by empowering them to become active participants who can take advantage of opportunities arising from political, social, and economic changes.

An important point to note is the observation by San-Martín et al. (2020), who argue that entrepreneurship education can enhance students’ attitudes, skills, and business competencies—effects that, in turn, motivate them to pursue entrepreneurship. It is therefore essential to foster entrepreneurial skills and abilities, attitudes, and knowledge through education and training.

2.5 Factors that promote or inhibit entrepreneurship

Bird (1988) notes that entrepreneurial intention combines contextual factors—such as political, economic, and social elements—with personal factors, including competencies, experience, and characteristics that define the entrepreneur. Together, these factors can create conditions that motivate and foster entrepreneurial activity. Similarly, Neira et al. (2013) classify the factors that shape entrepreneurship into three broad categories: individual, social, and macroeconomic.

Individual factors refer to psychological characteristics (such as attitudes) and demographic attributes (such as gender, age, occupation, education level, and work experience). These factors are important because they strongly influence an individual's decision to pursue entrepreneurship. In particular, gender, education level, and income level have been shown to affect entrepreneurship rates across different contexts.

Social factors relate to the availability of social capital and to the norms that support the emergence of entrepreneurial initiatives (Neira et al., 2013). According to Bourdieu (2000), capital can take three fundamental forms: economic, social, and cultural. In the context of entrepreneurship, social capital allows entrepreneurs to leverage support networks that facilitate business development. Moreover, it is important that social capital be complemented by economic, cultural, and symbolic capital.

In this regard, Sánchez García et al. (2005) argue that the combination of individual and social factors influences the development of entrepreneurial intention. Both personal history and vicarious experience (experience acquired through observing others), along with personal characteristics and skills, affect individuals’ entrepreneurial intention. In addition, the social context—including culture, cooperative networks, and subjective norms—also contributes to shaping this intention (Maslakcı et al., 2021; Neira et al., 2013; Oliveira et al., 2015).

Finally, macroeconomic factors—such as access to financing, unemployment, and inflation—force individuals to make decisions they might not otherwise consider if they had more favorable alternatives or a more supportive environment.

The capital that entrepreneurs invest themselves is typically the primary source of funding for developing their business ideas. However, this personal capital is often insufficient, prompting entrepreneurs to seek external financing (Irwin & Scott, 2010). Among these external sources, bank loans remain one of the most common, though they frequently involve significant barriers—especially for small and medium-sized enterprises—as banks may perceive these businesses as high-risk ventures (Arango Vásquez & Durango Gutiérrez, 2014).

Arango Benjumea (2017) emphasizes that the family is the most influential factor in entrepreneurship, surpassing other actors such as the state and universities. In line with this view, Guerrero et al. (2016) found that among students who expressed an intention to pursue entrepreneurship, 48% had at least one parent who was an entrepreneur; 65% reported that another family member was an entrepreneur; 35% cited a friend; 12% mentioned a teacher; and 65% identified another person close to them. These findings are consistent with the observations of scholars such as Caballero García et al. (2019) and Davidsson and Honig (2003), who argue that individuals are more likely to undertake entrepreneurial ventures if their parents, friends, or neighbors are entrepreneurs or have attempted entrepreneurship themselves.

The relationship between entrepreneurs and the legal framework required to create or develop a business is critical. The factors involved—such as legal requirements and accessibility—directly affect the difficulty of starting and growing a business and thus influence entrepreneurial performance. Within this component of the entrepreneurial ecosystem, elements such as regulation, bureaucratic procedures, taxation, and corruption can either foster or hinder the creation of new ventures (Aguirre-González, 2020; IMCO, 2014).

Organizations and programs that support entrepreneurs—by providing guidance, planning, access to financing, and other resources—play an important role. Such support is often provided by incubators and accelerators and is especially valuable, as many entrepreneurs lack information about marketing, industry structure, and business networks (Calanchez Urribarri et al., 2023; IMCO, 2014). Examples of entrepreneurial support services include accelerators, incubators, and mentorship programs.

Among the factors that inhibit entrepreneurship, Çera et al. (2021) highlight the macroeconomic environment: contextual conditions—including institutional and economic factors—affect individuals’ cognition, preferences, and intentions regarding entrepreneurship. Similarly, Aguirre-González (2020) found that limited government support constitutes a significant barrier to entrepreneurship among university students.

2.6 Fostering entrepreneurship in the university context

According to the OECD (2019), "Higher education contributes to inclusive growth by strengthening human capital formation, research and development (R&D), and innovation. One of the primary goals of higher education is to produce graduates with the competencies needed to succeed in the labor market. This is particularly important in today’s innovation-driven and skills-based global economies and aligns well with students’ expectations of finding suitable employment upon graduation" (p. 12).

In line with this perspective, the 2018 edition of the GUESSS Global Report emphasizes that the university context is fundamental for fostering entrepreneurship. Engaging in entrepreneurial activities during the university years encourages students to generate business ideas and envision a future in entrepreneurship. For this reason, investing in entrepreneurship education is a worthwhile strategy to increase the number of students who are prepared to start their own ventures (Calanchez Urribarri et al., 2023; Sieger et al., 2019).

Some universities also offer an extensive support network for entrepreneurs, including incubators, accelerators, innovation labs, and business development centers. These resources aim to help students generate new ideas and perspectives. In some cases, this activity extends to faculty members, who serve as advisors and mentors for student-led business projects. Certain universities even extend these services to the broader community, positioning themselves as catalysts for business creation and playing an increasingly important role within the entrepreneurial ecosystem. This support is critical in encouraging university students to engage in entrepreneurial activity (Calanchez Urribarri et al., 2023).

Moreover, it is widely recognized that "Research and knowledge are essential for innovation and entrepreneurship. The creation of innovative businesses based on university-generated knowledge is a valuable way to contribute to the desirable goals of economic growth and social cohesion" (Red Emprendía, 2015, p. 3).

In the realm of innovation, ideas developed within universities can give rise to startups or spin-offs. Startups are innovative ventures that, with the support of university services, evolve into high-growth companies. Spin-offs originate from scientific and/or technological developments that—when supported by university knowledge, infrastructure, and services—can be linked to productive sectors to create technology-based enterprises.

According to Eisenberg et al. (2019), several critical factors support collaboration between universities and industry, including organizational structure and personnel. The former fosters the creation of a framework for industry partnerships. Such relationships offer several advantages, including access to and collaboration with students and university staff who contribute talent to support emerging businesses. One example is the Triple and Quintuple Helix Models, in which universities, businesses, government, and other actors form a virtuous circle of support for industry and regional development. In these models, universities often participate through technology parks, contributing knowledge, research, and other resources.

Amponsah et al. (2025) argue that students’ entrepreneurial behavior depends on the quality and effectiveness of the entrepreneurship education provided by universities. Their empirical study confirmed a significant positive relationship between university support for entrepreneurship, entrepreneurship training, and entrepreneurial intention—findings consistent with those of Leiva et al. (2021). However, Duong (2022) did not find a direct relationship between entrepreneurship training and entrepreneurial intention. Rather, when attitude toward entrepreneurship and perceived behavioral control were included as mediating variables, a correlation between entrepreneurship training and entrepreneurial intention did emerge. Similarly, Hoang et al. (2020) confirmed that entrepreneurship training positively affects entrepreneurial intention, with this relationship mediated by both learning orientation and self-efficacy. Moreover, they found that entrepreneurship training is significantly and positively related to entrepreneurial efficacy (Hoang et al., 2020).

Figure 1. Variables included in the measurement instrument Source: Prepared by the authors based on the reviewed literature

Çera et al. (2021) also emphasize that human capital acquired through education is a key factor in fostering entrepreneurial spirit. Furthermore, the university environment can either encourage or discourage students from pursuing entrepreneurship. In this respect, higher education institutions play an essential role in motivating students to choose an entrepreneurial career—a finding that was empirically validated by these authors.

Based on the literature review, the variables for this study were defined, as the primary objective of this research is to propose and validate a measurement instrument to assess entrepreneurial intention among university students (see Figure 1).

3. Method

3.1 Sample selection

The target population for this study consists of undergraduate students enrolled in the Faculty of Accounting and Business Administration (FCA) at the National Autonomous University of Mexico (UNAM). According to data from UNAM’s General Directorate of Academic Affairs and Enrollment, the faculty had a total enrollment of 10,682 students in 2018. The distribution of these students is presented in Table 2.

The sample used in this study consisted of volunteer students who elected to participate in the research.

3.2 Questionnaire

Based on the literature review, a structured direct questionnaire was developed, consisting of seven variables and 140 items and questions, as summarized in Table 3. Response options included a 6-point Likert scale and yes/no choices for dichotomous questions. The full version of the questionnaire as administered to students is provided in Table A1.

A pilot test was conducted with a sample of 30 students who completed the questionnaire in a self-administered format. This process allowed for adjustments to several questions to clarify their content and for modifications to some response options to improve their accuracy.

3.3 Data collection

Given the conditions under which this study was conducted (the COVID-19 pandemic), the questionnaire was created using Google Forms, a free survey administration platform provided by Google. The questionnaire was distributed to students via a link, with the support of program coordinators and faculty members from the Faculty of Accounting and Business Administration who agreed to assist with the research. As such, the questionnaire was self-administered and conducted in June 2021.

To mitigate potential bias associated with collecting data via Google Forms, faculty members were first asked to explain to students the purpose of the questionnaire and the potential benefits they could derive from the study’s results. Additionally, a 5% margin of error was established, recognizing that the inability to administer the questionnaire in person—due to pandemic restrictions—constituted a limitation of the study. However, this was the only feasible method available under the circumstances.

As a result of the data collection process, 1,141 completed questionnaires were obtained. The distribution of responses by academic program and semester is presented in Table 4. As shown, the distribution of the collected data is proportionally consistent with the population described in Table 2.

4. Results

Analysis of demographic variables

The demographic variables considered in this analysis included age, gender, marital status, and work experience. These are presented in Table 5. As shown, the average age of the sample ranged from 19 to 21 years. Female students predominated across most programs, with the exception of the Computer Science program, where male students were the majority. In terms of marital status, a high percentage of students were single, with 100% of students in both the Computer Science and International Business programs reporting that they were single. Regarding work experience, only about one-third of the students reported having prior work experience.

When examining the relationship between entrepreneurial intention and the age of the students in the sample, the results indicated no significant relationship. In this case, the findings contrast with those of Liao et al. (2022), who found that older students were more likely to start a business than younger ones.

When correlating entrepreneurial intention with students’ gender, no significant relationship was found. This result is consistent with the findings of Laachach et al. (2024), who reported no differences between men and women in their entreprenurial intentions. However, it contrasts with the findings of Akinleke (2024), Liao et al. (2022) and Mykolenko et al. (2022), who found that a higher proportion of male students were willing to start their own businesses upon completing their university studies.

In contrast, a significant relationship was observed between prior work experience and entrepreneurial intention. The results suggest that greater work experience is associated with higher entrepreneurial intention. This finding aligns with the results of Mykolenko et al. (2022), who reported that students with prior work experience in the business field demonstrated a stronger entrepreneurial orientation than those without relevant experience.

Reliability analysis

To assess the reliability of the questionnaire, Cronbach’s alpha coefficient was calculated using SPSS PC version 20 for Windows. The overall result was 0.868, which is close to 1, indicating a high level of reliability. Table 7 presents the Cronbach’s alpha values for each variable included in the data collection instrument, all of which exceed 0.80, further confirming the instrument’s high reliability.

Factor analysis

Before conducting the factor analysis, the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) measure and Bartlett’s test of sphericity were computed to determine whether the dataset was suitable for factor analysis. A KMO value closer to 1 indicates a good instrument; according to George and Mallery (2019), a value of 0.70 or higher is considered acceptable. Similarly, if the significance level of Bartlett’s test of sphericity is below 0.05, factor analysis is considered appropriate. As shown in Table 6, the results confirm that the data meet the necessary conditions for conducting factor analysis.

Principal component analysis

To proceed with the factor analysis, the optimal number of factors was extracted using a communalities table, which identifies the underlying variables that explain the construct of entrepreneurial intention. The communality of a variable represents the proportion of its variance explained by the factor model. By examining the extracted communalities, it is possible to assess which variables are least explained by the model. In this case, 23 out of 26 variables reached values above 0.40 (see Table 7). A factor loading of 0.40 was used as the validity threshold, following the guidelines of Stevens (2016), who recommends that for a sample size of 50, a loading of 0.722 is considered significant; for 100, the loading should exceed 0.512; for 200, greater than 0.364; for 300, greater than 0.298; for 600, greater than 0.210; and for 1,000, greater than 0.162.

The amount of variance in a variable explained by a factor can be obtained by squaring the factor loading. Accordingly, Stevens (2016) recommends interpreting only those factor loadings with an absolute value greater than 0.40, as these explain approximately 16% of the variable’s variance. Items with factor loadings below 0.40 were eliminated from the analysis; these are listed in Table A2.

Convergent and discriminant validity testing

A detailed analysis of convergent and discriminant validity was conducted by calculating the average variance extracted (AVE) for each factor. The results confirmed that the AVE value for each factor was ≥ 0.50, in accordance with the Fornell-Larcker criterion. Table A3 shows that the square root of the AVE for each factor is greater than the correlations between factors.

Total variance explained

The total variance explained was also calculated. The results indicate that six factors account for 65.78% of the total data variance, as shown in Table 8. Specifically, Factor 1 explains 31.99% of the variance; Factor 2, 10.17%; Factor 3, 7.70%; Factor 4, 6.19%; Factor 5, 5.33%; and Factor 6, 4.37%.

By obtaining the rotated matrix of this analysis using the Varimax method (Table 9), the composition of the six factors is revealed, along with the variables that comprise each factor and are found to be significant.

It is important to note that the instrument initially consisted of 170 questions, based on the literature review and further enriched through contributions from experts at the National Center for Small Business Support, FCA, UNAM, who have extensive experience working with university students and entrepreneurs. An exploratory factor analysis was conducted, resulting in 23 variables consistent with the proposed framework and corresponding to the identified thematic areas. These variables were then subjected to a second factor analysis to examine the underlying grouping of variables within the identified factors, as presented in Table10.

Based on the results obtained, it was deemed necessary to regroup the factors that describe the entrepreneurial intention of university students, including only those items with loadings equal to or greater than 0.40, in order to develop a clearer profile of entrepreneurial characteristics. The results, presented in Table 10, provide a characterization of the entrepreneurial intention of the university students in the sample.

The first factor, labeled Entrepreneurial Capacity and Business Skills, highlights the importance of possessing business, mathematical, and verbal skills; goal-oriented attitudes; entrepreneurial knowledge; and an understanding of market opportunities for offering goods or services resulting from entrepreneurial activity.

The second factor, Entrepreneurial Drive, underscores the critical role of knowledge about the business environment and access to financing in fostering entrepreneurial intention among students. In addition, it highlights the important contribution of university-provided entrepreneurial support services and tools in encouraging entrepreneurship.

The third factor, labeled Entrepreneurial Vocation, reveals that a negative personal attitude toward entrepreneurship does not foster entrepreneurial intention. However, when entrepreneurship is perceived as an attractive professional path—one that appeals to nearly all students, who often prefer self-employment over working for others (Al-Mamary et al., 2020)—entrepreneurial intention is strengthened. Furthermore, being immersed in a culture of entrepreneurship can positively reinforce students’ entrepreneurial intention.

The fourth factor, Resources for Entrepreneurship, identifies the importance of having well-prepared human capital—both in terms of the entrepreneur’s own capabilities and the ability to collaborate effectively with others. The role of the university is also crucial in fostering an entrepreneurial culture and providing entrepreneurship training to university students.

The fifth factor, Attitudes Toward Entrepreneurship, emphasizes the influence of close social evaluation (from family, colleagues, and friends), which reinforces entrepreneurial intention through subjective norms (the attitudes of family, friends, and colleagues toward entrepreneurship) and perceived behavioral control (students’ perception of their ability to successfully launch a business). These factors play an important role in motivating students to pursue entrepreneurship.

The sixth factor, Ability to Navigate the Environment, identifies the influence of three key variables: risk-taking (tolerance for failure), the legal and political framework, and macroeconomic conditions. These aspects significantly affect the entrepreneurial intention of university students.

5. Discussion of results

The analysis identified six main factors that drive entrepreneurial intention among university students. The first factor—entrepreneurial capacity and business knowledge, particularly market knowledge—was found to promote entrepreneurial behavior. Previous literature and empirical studies support this finding (Ahumada Méndez, 2014; Akinleke, 2024; Alanya Reque, 2012; Amponsah et al., 2025; Barrera González et al., 2024; Calanchez Urribarri et al., 2023; Echeverría Samanes & Martínez Clares, 2018; Entrialgo & Iglesias, 2016; GEM, 2014; Guerrero et al., 2016; Hoang et al., 2020; Hofstede, 2011; Jiatong et al., 2021; Karyaningsih et al., 2020; Liao et al., 2022; Liñán et al., 2020; Mauri Estevez, 2013; Nogaibayeva et al., 2024; Piperopoulos, 2012; Potishuk & Kratzer, 2017; Sodha et al., 2024). This finding suggests that entrepreneurship education can foster students’ entrepreneurial intention, potentially encouraging them to start businesses after graduation.

However, some authors report contrasting results, with no observed relationship between entrepreneurial knowledge and entrepreneurial intention (Duong, 2022; Laachach et al., 2024; Mykolenko et al., 2022). Likewise, Arruda et al. (2023) and Leiva et al. (2021) found a negative relationship between entrepreneurship courses and entrepreneurial intention. In their studies, learning tools such as the Business Model Canvas helped students better understand the complexities and uncontrollable factors that could hinder their success as entrepreneurs—leading some students to adopt a more cautious or less enthusiastic view of entrepreneurship.

Regarding the factor labeled entrepreneurial drive, the findings are consistent with the literature, which highlights that knowledge of the business environment (Liñán et al., 2020), access to financing (Arango Vásquez & Durango Gutiérrez, 2014; IMCO, 2014), and the availability of entrepreneurial support services and tools (Amponsah et al., 2025; ANFECA, 2021; Briseño-Aguirre et al., 2024; Calanchez Urribarri et al., 2023; CENAPyME, 2021; Çera et al., 2021; InnovaUNAM, 2021; NOBIU, 2020) are all fundamental in enabling young people to launch entrepreneurial ventures.

Çera et al. (2021) argue that from an educational perspective, higher education institutions should identify and cultivate students’ entrepreneurial traits and enhance their entrepreneurial competencies. In this way, universities can promote students’ entrepreneurial intention. The influence of universities on students’ intentions is also linked to a supportive campus environment, which provides various mechanisms to foster entrepreneurship—such as technology transfer and business incubation. In general, these support mechanisms contribute to a favorable entrepreneurial ecosystem and motivate students to develop business ideas that may lead to successful ventures.

However, these findings contrast with those of Nguyen and Phan (2024), who reported no significant relationship between perceived entrepreneurial support and entrepreneurial intention. This suggests that environmental support alone may not be sufficient to foster entrepreneurship; other factors must also be addressed to stimulate entrepreneurial activity.

The analysis of entrepreneurial vocation revealed negative values—indicating that a negative personal attitude toward entrepreneurship diminishes entrepreneurial intention. However, the literature shows that when students hold positive attitudes toward entrepreneurship (Ahumada Méndez, 2014; Alanya Reque, 2012; GEM, 2014), they are more likely to view it as a viable career option (Jiatong et al., 2021; Liñán et al., 2020; Liñán & Chen, 2009), which in turn fosters entrepreneurial intention. Further research is needed to better understand why the university students in this study exhibited low entrepreneurial vocation and to identify interventions that could reverse this outcome.

At universities, students not only acquire the theoretical and practical business knowledge needed to undertake entrepreneurial activity under the best possible conditions and increase their likelihood of success, but they can also discover their entrepreneurial vocation. Universities can provide the necessary resources for entrepreneurship—beginning with human capital (Balakrishnan & Vijayalakshmi, 2014; Camarena & Saavedra, 2016), by fostering an entrepreneurial culture within the university context (Çera et al., 2021; GEM, 2020; González Sánchez et al., 2017), and by offering the training required to pursue this activity (Akinleke, 2024; CENAPyME, 2021; Contreras-Velásquez et al., 2017). This is consistent with Porkodi et al. (2023), who found that higher education institutions play an important role in promoting entrepreneurship by fostering passion and innovation. Similarly, Leiva et al. (2021) found that the university context influences entrepreneurial intention, and Murad et al. (2021) confirmed that university support for entrepreneurship strengthens entrepreneurial intention. In addition, there is a growing need to provide students with digital skills, as Sansone et al. (2024) found a positive correlation between these skills and entrepreneurial intention among university students.

In addition to students’ own attitudes toward entrepreneurship, subjective norms—namely, the opinions of family, friends, and colleagues—play a vital role, as does perceived behavioral control, which reflects whether students believe they are capable of succeeding in entrepreneurial activity (Ajzen, 1991; Liñán et al., 2020). Another key factor is close social evaluation, which relates to the cultural context of the region or environment regarding entrepreneurship and entrepreneurs (Liñán et al., 2020). University students who receive consistent support from family, colleagues, and other significant people are more likely to start a business. This is especially relevant in Mexican culture, where young people often depend on their immediate social environment and value family approval highly when making professional decisions.

All of these factors help equip students with the foundations to foster entrepreneurship and develop the ability to navigate their environment. This enables them to take risks (Al-Mamary et al., 2020; Calanchez Urribarri et al., 2023; Laachach et al., 2024; Liñán et al., 2020; Liñán & Chen, 2009), manage the legal and political framework (IMCO, 2014; Secretaría de Economía, 2012a), and respond to macroeconomic conditions (Çera et al., 2021; IMCO, 2014; Vizueta Tomalá, 2020), allowing them to make informed decisions that leverage market, technological, legal, and economic conditions in favor of their entrepreneurial ventures.

However, regarding the influence of subjective norms on entrepreneurship, these findings contrast with those of Al-Mamary et al. (2020), Amponsah et al. (2025) and Duong (2022), who found that subjective norms did not influence entrepreneurial intention among university students. In contrast, with respect to perceived behavioral control, Duong (2022) did find a positive relationship between this variable and students’ entrepreneurial intention—suggesting that students with high perceived behavioral control have a positive sense of their capacity to manage unexpected challenges that may arise when launching their entrepreneurial ventures.

6. Conclusions

Academic implications

The objective of this study—to propose and validate a measurement instrument to assess entrepreneurial intention among university students—was successfully achieved. The instrument was administered to a sample of 1,141 students, yielding a reliability level of 0.955. In addition, factor analysis allowed for the calculation of the total variance explained, with six factors accounting for 65.78% of entrepreneurial intention. The rotated matrix obtained through the Varimax method revealed the composition of six significant factors: entrepreneurial capacity and business knowledge, entrepreneurial drive, entrepreneurial vocation, resources for entrepreneurship, attitudes toward entrepreneurship, and ability to navigate the environment. These factors exert the greatest influence on shaping entrepreneurial intention among young people in the Mexican context and make an important contribution to the literature on the factors that foster entrepreneurial intention among university students.

Practical implications

The results underscore the need to promote entrepreneurship within university classrooms by equipping students with the capacities, knowledge, and skills needed to engage in entrepreneurial activity. This can be achieved by teaching them about the business environment, methods of obtaining financing, and the provision of entrepreneurial support services through business incubators and practical tools. In short, it is necessary to foster an entrepreneurial culture throughout the university experience and to promote entrepreneurship as a professional path. This includes providing training and guidance on legal frameworks, macroeconomic and market conditions that either enable or constrain entrepreneurship, and business model development, among other aspects.

It is also critically important to design differentiated public policies to promote entrepreneurship among young people, thereby helping to reduce unemployment in this segment of the population. Such policies should include government contributions of seed capital to support new ventures, as well as reinforcement of the entrepreneurial ecosystem to foster an entrepreneurial culture and provide logistical, technical, and financial support for new entrepreneurs, starting at the university level. Greater collaboration between universities and the business sector is also needed so that students can undertake internships in companies and acquire valuable practical knowledge.

Study limitations

It is important to acknowledge several limitations of this study. Methodologically, the data collection was not based on a probabilistic sample, which limits the generalizability of the findings. In addition, the study focused on only one higher education institution. Another limitation stems from the use of a self-administered Google Forms questionnaire, which may have introduced bias—particularly regarding respondents’ comprehension of certain questions, which could have been clarified in a face-to-face setting.

Contextual limitations include the difficulty of accounting for the effects of labor, economic, and family uncertainty, which may have influenced students’ propensity toward entrepreneurial activity during the pandemic period. This is consistent with the findings of Laachach et al. (2024), who reported a significant negative effect of the COVID-19 pandemic on the entrepreneurial intentions of tourism students in Morocco.

Future research directions

Future research should focus on how universities can actively cultivate an entrepreneurial culture—moving from dissemination to action—by creating true incubators of university entrepreneurs who can enter the business world equipped with the necessary tools to build successful ventures. Future studies should also aim to include a greater number of higher education institutions and employ random sampling techniques. In addition, longitudinal studies should be prioritized to deepen understanding of how entrepreneurial intention develops over time.

Acknowledgments

This research was supported by Dirección General de Asuntos del Personal Académico, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México (Funder Identifier: https://doi.org/10.13039/501100006087) Grant number: PAPIME PE 300120

Data Availability Statement

Due to privacy or ethical restrictions, the research data for this study are not available for sharing

References

Appendix