Student Experiences of Mental Health Issues in Further and Higher Education.
Dublin Core
Title
Student Experiences of Mental Health Issues in Further and Higher Education.
Creator
Rachel Jordan
Date
17/09/2023
Description
Previous research has shown that students are at risk of experiencing mental health difficulties, specifically relating to anxiety, depression, and stress (Andrews, Hejdenberg, & Wilding, 2006; Holland, 2016; Landow, 2006; Lattie, Lipson, & Eisenberg, 2019; Nascante, 2001; Shankar & Park, 2016). This study aimed to understand whether level of education, provisions to aid mental wellbeing within educational establishments, and students’ resilience were related to their mental wellbeing. A total of 94 participants were recruited for this study, however only 47 sets of data were complete enough to be used for the analyses. An online questionnaire using a series of demographic questions and subscales was used to collect data. No significant relationships were found between students’ mental wellbeing and their level of education or the provisions accessible to them in their place of education. However, a significant, negative correlation was found between students’ overall mental health and their resilience scores. Additional analyses were completed to better understand this and the same relationship was found between resilience and anxiety, depression, and stress. It was concluded that due to issues with power, more research with a larger sample is required to investigate these relationships further. It was also concluded that more understanding of resilience and mental health in students is required to be able to create better provisions.
Subject
Mental health, stress, achievement anxiety, depression, students, education, provisions, resilience.
Source
Participants
94 participants (25 males, 43 females) were used for this study, they were a minimum of 18 to over 51 years old and were from educational establishments around the UK. Participants were recruited using the SONA participant recruitment system through Lancaster University and also by advertising on Facebook and Instagram. All participants were treated in accordance with BPS ethical guidelines and Lancaster University Department of Psychology provided ethical approval for the study (Appendix A). Only data from 47 participants was used due to incomplete datasets.
Design
This cross-sectional study used volunteers from the student population as participants as one sample group. This was a questionnaire-based study with four sub-scales using correlational analyses. The factors being analysed are detailed in the procedural section to follow.
Procedure
Adverts were placed on Facebook, and Instagram to help recruit participants to the study. Potential participants were provided with a link to the online survey, administered through Qualtrics. They were then provided with a participant information sheet (Appendix B) and gave informed consent (Appendix C) to participate on that basis. Informed consent was gained by participants selecting all six consent statements on the questionnaire. Following this, participants were presented with demographic questions and four measures (Appendix D). Following this, participants were presented with a debrief sheet (Appendix E) before being asked to close the tab.
Materials
Demographic Questions
The questionnaire started with two demographic questions. These were:
“How old are you in years?” with the options of “18-21/22-25/26-29/30-35/36-40/41-45/46-50/51+/Prefer not to answer” and “What was your assigned sex at birth?” with the options of “Male/Female/Prefer not to answer”.
These items were included in this questionnaire to better understand the sample of participants included in the study.
Level of Education
Participants’ level of education was measured using one multiple choice item. This item was:
“What level of education are you in?”
The options for this multiple-choice item are “A Levels/ Apprenticeship/ Undergraduate Degree/ Postgraduate Degree/ PhD/ Other (please specify)/ Prefer not to answer”. This item was included to help investigate whether the level of participant’s education is related to their mental wellbeing.
Mental Wellbeing
Existing mental wellbeing was measured using two items which both used multiple choice options. These questions were:
“Have you ever been diagnosed with a mental health condition?” This item had options of “Yes/ No/ Prefer not to answer”.
“Please select if any of these diagnostic categories apply to your diagnoses.” This item was only included if the participant answered the previous question with “Yes”. The options for answering this item were “Anxiety Disorder/ Depression/ Eating Disorder/ Stress/ Psychosis/ Personality Disorder/ Other (please specify)/ Prefer not to answer.”
Measures of Support
Two questions were used in this questionnaire to decipher how supported students felt by their educational establishments. These questions were:
“How much support do you feel is available for your mental health at your place of education?” This question used a Likert scale ranging from one (lots) to four (I don’t know) and including an option of ‘prefer not to answer’.
This was followed by the open, qualitative question of “Please tell us about any mental wellbeing support you know is available in your place of education.” This question had an open response box, allowing participants to communicate their understanding of support available for their mental wellbeing in their educational institutions.
Perceived Stress Scale (PSS-10)
The Perceived Stress Scale (Andreou, et al., 2011; Cohen, Kamarck, & Mermelstein, 1983; Cohen, Kamarck, & Mermelstein, 1994; Reis, Hino, & Añez, 2010; Roberti, Harrington, & Storch, 2006) (Appendix F) using a five-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (never) to five (very often). This scale consisting of ten items was used to measure how stressed participants believed they were for this questionnaire. One example of the items used in this scale is:
“In the last month, how often have you felt that you were on top of things?”
The ten-item version of this measure was used in this study because research (Roberti, Harrington, & Storch, 2006) generally commented that the ten-item scale was a reliable and valid measure of perceived stress when compared to the original, longer Perceived Stress Scale (Cohen, Kamarck, & Mermelstein, 1983). Therefore, the PSS-10 was chosen for this questionnaire to reduce time demands on participants without compromising the reliability and validity of the measure.
Adult Resilience Measure Revised (ARM-R)
The Adult Resilience Measure Revised (Resilience Research Centre, 2018; Jefferies, McGarrigle & Ungar, 2018) (Appendix G) was used within the questionnaire to assess participants’ resilience skills. This sixteen-item measure was a five-point Likert scale ranging from one (not at all) to five (a lot) with an option of ‘prefer not to answer’ and consisting of seventeen items to measure resilience. An example of an item on this scale is:
“My friends stand by me during difficult times.”
Centre for Epidemiological Studies Depression Scale Revised (CESD-R)
The Centre for Epidemiological Studies Depression Scale Revised (Eaton, et al., 2004; Van Dam, & Earleywine, 2011) (Appendix I) was used as a measure in this study to assess how depressed the participants felt. This measure used a four-point Likert scale with the first being rarely or none of the time to most or all of the time and an option of ‘prefer not to answer’ include. There were 20 items included in this scale in order to measure this factor, one such example of this is:
“I felt everything I did was an effort.”
Achievement Anxiety Test (AAT)
The Achievement Anxiety Test (Alpert & Haber, 1960) (Appendix I) was used in this questionnaire to measure how anxious participants were about their ability to achieve. This measure used a five-point Likert scale with one meaning always and five meaning never, this scale consisted of nineteen items. An option of prefer not to answer was also provided. One example of an item on the scale is:
“I work most effectively under pressure, as when a task is very important.”
All measures in this questionnaire had an additional option of ‘prefer not to answer’ added to them for the purpose of this study to allow for forced choices to be selected for the questionnaire answers without removing the participants’ right to withdraw or withhold information.
Ethics
This study was conducted after ethical approval was received from the ethics committee of the Lancaster University psychology department on 12th June 2023.
One ethical issue that could come up in this study is that participants could believe that there is some diagnostic weight to the questionnaire.
Analyses
Descriptive statistics were taken for all variables and demographic data, specifically in regard to their mean and standard deviation.
Following this correlational analyses were then completed to determine whether there were relationships between mental wellbeing scores taken as a combination of the AAT, PSS-10 and the CESD-R subscales included in the questionnaires, resilience, preexisting mental health, provisions being accessed, and educational level.
If significant relationships are identified through the correlational analyses, regressions will be conducted to further investigate these relationships to identify whether they were causational.
94 participants (25 males, 43 females) were used for this study, they were a minimum of 18 to over 51 years old and were from educational establishments around the UK. Participants were recruited using the SONA participant recruitment system through Lancaster University and also by advertising on Facebook and Instagram. All participants were treated in accordance with BPS ethical guidelines and Lancaster University Department of Psychology provided ethical approval for the study (Appendix A). Only data from 47 participants was used due to incomplete datasets.
Design
This cross-sectional study used volunteers from the student population as participants as one sample group. This was a questionnaire-based study with four sub-scales using correlational analyses. The factors being analysed are detailed in the procedural section to follow.
Procedure
Adverts were placed on Facebook, and Instagram to help recruit participants to the study. Potential participants were provided with a link to the online survey, administered through Qualtrics. They were then provided with a participant information sheet (Appendix B) and gave informed consent (Appendix C) to participate on that basis. Informed consent was gained by participants selecting all six consent statements on the questionnaire. Following this, participants were presented with demographic questions and four measures (Appendix D). Following this, participants were presented with a debrief sheet (Appendix E) before being asked to close the tab.
Materials
Demographic Questions
The questionnaire started with two demographic questions. These were:
“How old are you in years?” with the options of “18-21/22-25/26-29/30-35/36-40/41-45/46-50/51+/Prefer not to answer” and “What was your assigned sex at birth?” with the options of “Male/Female/Prefer not to answer”.
These items were included in this questionnaire to better understand the sample of participants included in the study.
Level of Education
Participants’ level of education was measured using one multiple choice item. This item was:
“What level of education are you in?”
The options for this multiple-choice item are “A Levels/ Apprenticeship/ Undergraduate Degree/ Postgraduate Degree/ PhD/ Other (please specify)/ Prefer not to answer”. This item was included to help investigate whether the level of participant’s education is related to their mental wellbeing.
Mental Wellbeing
Existing mental wellbeing was measured using two items which both used multiple choice options. These questions were:
“Have you ever been diagnosed with a mental health condition?” This item had options of “Yes/ No/ Prefer not to answer”.
“Please select if any of these diagnostic categories apply to your diagnoses.” This item was only included if the participant answered the previous question with “Yes”. The options for answering this item were “Anxiety Disorder/ Depression/ Eating Disorder/ Stress/ Psychosis/ Personality Disorder/ Other (please specify)/ Prefer not to answer.”
Measures of Support
Two questions were used in this questionnaire to decipher how supported students felt by their educational establishments. These questions were:
“How much support do you feel is available for your mental health at your place of education?” This question used a Likert scale ranging from one (lots) to four (I don’t know) and including an option of ‘prefer not to answer’.
This was followed by the open, qualitative question of “Please tell us about any mental wellbeing support you know is available in your place of education.” This question had an open response box, allowing participants to communicate their understanding of support available for their mental wellbeing in their educational institutions.
Perceived Stress Scale (PSS-10)
The Perceived Stress Scale (Andreou, et al., 2011; Cohen, Kamarck, & Mermelstein, 1983; Cohen, Kamarck, & Mermelstein, 1994; Reis, Hino, & Añez, 2010; Roberti, Harrington, & Storch, 2006) (Appendix F) using a five-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (never) to five (very often). This scale consisting of ten items was used to measure how stressed participants believed they were for this questionnaire. One example of the items used in this scale is:
“In the last month, how often have you felt that you were on top of things?”
The ten-item version of this measure was used in this study because research (Roberti, Harrington, & Storch, 2006) generally commented that the ten-item scale was a reliable and valid measure of perceived stress when compared to the original, longer Perceived Stress Scale (Cohen, Kamarck, & Mermelstein, 1983). Therefore, the PSS-10 was chosen for this questionnaire to reduce time demands on participants without compromising the reliability and validity of the measure.
Adult Resilience Measure Revised (ARM-R)
The Adult Resilience Measure Revised (Resilience Research Centre, 2018; Jefferies, McGarrigle & Ungar, 2018) (Appendix G) was used within the questionnaire to assess participants’ resilience skills. This sixteen-item measure was a five-point Likert scale ranging from one (not at all) to five (a lot) with an option of ‘prefer not to answer’ and consisting of seventeen items to measure resilience. An example of an item on this scale is:
“My friends stand by me during difficult times.”
Centre for Epidemiological Studies Depression Scale Revised (CESD-R)
The Centre for Epidemiological Studies Depression Scale Revised (Eaton, et al., 2004; Van Dam, & Earleywine, 2011) (Appendix I) was used as a measure in this study to assess how depressed the participants felt. This measure used a four-point Likert scale with the first being rarely or none of the time to most or all of the time and an option of ‘prefer not to answer’ include. There were 20 items included in this scale in order to measure this factor, one such example of this is:
“I felt everything I did was an effort.”
Achievement Anxiety Test (AAT)
The Achievement Anxiety Test (Alpert & Haber, 1960) (Appendix I) was used in this questionnaire to measure how anxious participants were about their ability to achieve. This measure used a five-point Likert scale with one meaning always and five meaning never, this scale consisted of nineteen items. An option of prefer not to answer was also provided. One example of an item on the scale is:
“I work most effectively under pressure, as when a task is very important.”
All measures in this questionnaire had an additional option of ‘prefer not to answer’ added to them for the purpose of this study to allow for forced choices to be selected for the questionnaire answers without removing the participants’ right to withdraw or withhold information.
Ethics
This study was conducted after ethical approval was received from the ethics committee of the Lancaster University psychology department on 12th June 2023.
One ethical issue that could come up in this study is that participants could believe that there is some diagnostic weight to the questionnaire.
Analyses
Descriptive statistics were taken for all variables and demographic data, specifically in regard to their mean and standard deviation.
Following this correlational analyses were then completed to determine whether there were relationships between mental wellbeing scores taken as a combination of the AAT, PSS-10 and the CESD-R subscales included in the questionnaires, resilience, preexisting mental health, provisions being accessed, and educational level.
If significant relationships are identified through the correlational analyses, regressions will be conducted to further investigate these relationships to identify whether they were causational.
Publisher
Lancaster University
Format
Data/excel.csv
Identifier
Jordan2023
Contributor
Megan Grace Liddell
Rights
Open
Relation
None
Language
English
Type
Data
Coverage
LA1 4YF
LUSTRE
Supervisor
Dr. Chris Walton
Project Level
MSc
Topic
Clinical
Sample Size
94
Statistical Analysis Type
ANOVA, Correlation
Files
Collection
Citation
Rachel Jordan , “Student Experiences of Mental Health Issues in Further and Higher Education. ,” LUSTRE, accessed May 5, 2024, https://www.johnntowse.com/LUSTRE/items/show/203.