ABSTRACT
SOURCES OF STRESS AND PERCEIVED STRESS LEVELS OF
SOCIAL WORK STUDENTS AT CALIFORNIA STATE
UNIVERSITY, FRESNO SPECIALIZING IN
PUBLIC CHILD WELFARE
The purpose of this study was to identify the sources of stress and
perceptions of stress of Social Work students at California State University,
Fresno specializing in Public Child Welfare. This study utilized Pearson Chi
Square with Yates Correction Factor to test for significance among the following
independent variables: gender, race/ethnicity, and year-in-school. Stress scores
were measured using the Inventory of College Students’ Recent Life Events and
the Perceived Stress Scale. There were 61 participants, aged 21 to 58 years old.
Overall, students reported moderate perceived stress levels and were moderately
exposed to stressors; time pressure was most the most frequently reported source
of stress. The study did not find any differences in sources of stress among gender
and race/ethnicity or perceived stress levels among gender and year-in-school.
However, the study did find a difference among year-in-school and sources of
stress and differences among race/ethnicity and perceived stress.
Kristin Carraway
August 2016
SOURCES OF STRESS AND PERCEIVED STRESS LEVELS OF
SOCIAL WORK STUDENTS AT CALIFORNIA STATE
UNIVERSITY, FRESNO SPECIALIZING IN
PUBLIC CHILD WELFARE
by
Kristin Carraway
A thesis
submitted in partial
fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
Master of Public Health
in the College of Health and Human Services
California State University, Fresno
August 2016
APPROVED
For the Department of Public Health:
We, the undersigned, certify that the thesis of the following student
meets the required standards of scholarship, format, and style of the
university and the student’s graduate degree program for the
awarding of the master’s degree.
Kristin Carraway
Thesis Author
Vickie Krenz (Chair)
Public Health
Kara Zografos
Public Health
Betty Garcia
Social Work Education
For the University Graduate Committee:
Dean, Division of Graduate Studies
AUTHORIZATION FOR REPRODUCTION
OF MASTER’S THESIS
X
I grant permission for the reproduction of this thesis in part or in
its entirety without further authorization from me, on the
condition that the person or agency requesting reproduction
absorbs the cost and provides proper acknowledgment of
authorship.
Permission to reproduce this thesis in part or in its entirety must
be obtained from me.
Signature of thesis author:
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
First and foremost, I want to thank God for allowing me to finish this step
in my career path. Without Him, this would not have been possible. I would like to
recognize my parents, Stanford and Janice Carraway, for their continued love and
advice throughout the program; your support has been immeasurable. Thank you!
I would also like to thank my committee members, Dr. Krenz, Dr.
Zografos, and Dr. Garcia for their efforts on my behalf to complete this thesis. I
would also like to thank Dr. Middleton for her guidance, and support during this
process.
Thank you, Team VASK, for your laughter, friendship and support
throughout the program and the constant reminder that “You is Kind. You is
Smart. You is Important,” and that “We got this.” A special thank you the Title
IV-E Family for their assistance, support, and encouragement to “get this done.”
To all my friends and family who have contributed to this effort through their
love, kindness, words of encouragement, prayers, and understanding, I THANK
YOU tremendously.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
LIST OF TABLES ................................................................................................ viii
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION ............................................................................ 1
Background ....................................................................................................... 2
The Problem Statement ..................................................................................... 4
Research Questions ........................................................................................... 6
Delimitations ..................................................................................................... 7
Theoretical Framework ..................................................................................... 8
Definition of Terms ........................................................................................... 9
Summary ......................................................................................................... 10
CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW ............................................................... 12
Historical Review of Stress ............................................................................. 12
Physiological Responses to Stress .................................................................. 13
Psychological Responses to Stress .................................................................. 16
Definition of Stress Related to Perceived Stress and Sources of Stress ......... 17
Sources of Stress and Perceived Stress Related to Gender ............................. 19
Perceived Stress and Sources of Stress Related to Ethnicity .......................... 20
Stress and College Students ............................................................................ 22
Stress and Social Work Students .................................................................... 24
Summary ......................................................................................................... 26
CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY.......................................................................... 27
Research Questions ......................................................................................... 27
Research Design and Instrumentation............................................................. 27
Instruments ...................................................................................................... 28
vi
Page
Data Collection and Population ...................................................................... 29
Data Analysis .................................................................................................. 29
Summary ......................................................................................................... 30
CHAPTER 4: RESULTS ....................................................................................... 31
Demographics ................................................................................................. 31
Research Questions ......................................................................................... 34
Summary ......................................................................................................... 43
CHAPTER 5: DISCUSSION, CONCLUSIONS, AND
RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................................ 44
Demographics ................................................................................................. 44
Research Questions ......................................................................................... 48
Implications for Public Health ........................................................................ 57
Conclusions and Recommendations ............................................................... 58
Summary ......................................................................................................... 59
REFERENCES ....................................................................................................... 61
APPENDICES ........................................................................................................ 77
APPENDIX A: INVENTORY OF COLLEGE STUDENTS’ RECENT LIFE
EVENTS ...................................................................................................... 78
APPENDIX B: PERCEIVED STRESS SCALE ................................................... 81
APPENDIX C: INVENTORY OF COLLEGE STUDENTS’ RECENT LIFE
EVENTS RESPONSES .............................................................................. 83
APPENDIX D: RACE/ETHNICITY AND SOURCES OF STRESS ................... 87
APPENDIX E: RACE/ETHNICITY AND STRESS EXPOSURE ....................... 89
APPENDIX F: RACE/ETHNICITY AND PERCEIVED STRESS ...................... 91
APPENDIX G: YEAR-IN-SCHOOL AND SOURCES OF STRESS .................. 93
APPENDIX H: YEAR-IN-SCHOOL AND STRESS EXPOSURE ...................... 95
vii
Page
APPENDIX I: YEAR-IN-SCHOOL AND PERCEIVED STRESS ...................... 97
APPENDIX J: IMPLIED CONSENT .................................................................... 99
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1 Demographics .......................................................................................... 32
Table 2 Perceived Stress ....................................................................................... 35
Table 3 Exposure to Stressors ............................................................................... 36
Table 4 Sources of Stress....................................................................................... 37
Table 5 Perceived Stress Scores ............................................................................ 37
Table 6 Gender and Sources of Stress................................................................... 38
Table 7 Gender and Sources of Stress................................................................... 38
Table 8 Gender and Perceived Stress ................................................................... 39
Table 9 Comparison of Age of Title IV-E Sample, Title IV-E Students, and
Fresno State Students.............................................................................. 45
Table 10 Ethnicity from Title IV-E Sample, Title IV-E Data, and Fresno State
Data......................................................................................................... 46
Table 11 Comparison of Year-in-School from Title IV-E Sample, Title IV-E
Data, and University Data ...................................................................... 47
Table 12 Gender of Title IV-E Sample, Title IV-E Data, and University Data .... 48
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
The American Institute of Stress (AIS, 2008) reported that 80% of college
students say they frequently or sometimes experience daily stress. Students in the
helping professions, such as social work, experience greater levels of stress than
most of their counterparts in other academic majors. The purpose of this study was
to measure the sources of stress and levels of perceived stress experienced by
social work students specializing in Public Child Welfare (PCW) at California
State University, Fresno (Fresno State) and to determine its differences across
gender, race/ethnicity, and year-in-school.
The World Health Organization (WHO) has identified stress as a known
contributor to the development of physiological and psychological disorders
(WHO, 2012). Stress is a subjective experience, dependent upon a person’s
perception of it. In the First Annual Report on Stress, Hans Selye (1951) stated,
“stress, in addition to being itself, [is] also the cause of itself, and the result of
itself” (p. 12). Stress is a result of the relationship between stressors experienced
and the perception of how an individual copes with them.
Because of the complex and subjective nature of stress, most Americans
will report experiencing some stress in their lifetime. The AIS (2016) reported that
one in five Americans experienced extreme levels of stress. In recent years,
Americans have reported increased feelings of stress, 44% of Americans feel more
stressed when compared to their stress levels five years prior (AIS, 2016).
Stress is a commonly experienced among the general adult populations.
However, specific populations experience stress in unique ways and are faced with
stressors that are different from those of the general population. College students
make up a unique subsection of the population that faces stressors not commonly
2
experienced by the general population, such as grades, work, and relationships.
The frequency and perception of these stressors can cause high levels of stress and
lead to poor health outcomes and academic performance (Hamaideh, 2011).
According to the National College Health Assessment (NCHA, 2014), 37.7% of
male college students and 46.9% of female college students reported more than
average stress within a 12-month period. The high level of stress in the college
population is of growing concern (Bland, Melton, Welle, & Bigham, 2012; Healy,
2010).
Specific stressors are mediate the college student stress experience.
However, some students may experience stress in different ways than general
college population. Students in the helping professions, such as social work,
experience greater levels of stress than most of their counterparts in other
academic majors (Collins, Coffey, & Morris, 2010). The additional specialization
in child welfare may contribute to stress levels of student social workers more than
social work students in other specialties. This study will serve as a mechanism to
identify the level of exposure to factors that contribute to stress experienced by
students specializing in Public Child Welfare and how these students perceive
stress in their lives.
Background
Stress is commonly recognized as a normal, expected aspect of life that can
be experienced in multiple forms and can lead to different health responses (Johns,
2006). Selye (1976c) defined stress as “the nonspecific response of the body to
any demand placed upon it” (p. 1), which can occur as a physiological change
caused by physical and psychological influences.
3
Stress can have positive effects on the body at moderate levels. Moderate
stress leads to increased heart rate, and it promotes high mental alertness, which is
useful for promoting optimal performance and survival mechanisms (National
Institutes of Health [NIH], 2007). Positive stress can lead to excitement, a sense of
fulfillment, victory, enthusiasm, and creativity (Canda & Furman, 2010; Selye,
1975).
The adverse effects of stress occur when stress lingers or becomes
excessive, and the body has difficulty adapting or coping with it, both physically
and psychologically. In these instances, stress contributes to the development of a
number of health conditions such as hypertension, heart disease, ulcers, cancer, a
compromised immune system, headaches, insomnia, skin disorders, digestive
disorders, sexual dysfunction, and pain. Psychological effects of stress include
irritability, anger, feeling nervous, and lack of energy (AIS, 2014; NIH, 2007,
2012a, 2012b, 2012c).
Stress presents concerns for individuals that are prone to mental health
conditions. The United States Department of Health and Human Services (2012)
found that one of the most common health care concerns was the psychological
effect of stress. Individuals dealing with high levels of stress may experience high
anxiety, depression, and thoughts of suicide (WHO, 2012).
The economic impact of uncontrolled stress on society is high; estimations
of its cost in the United States exceed $300 billion per year (AIS, 2012). The
American Heart Association (2012) reported that chronic disease caused by stress
leads to a reduction in individual productivity. On average, 25 days per year of
work are missed due to stress and other related disorders (American Psychological
Association [APA], 2010). Healthcare expenditures are approximately 50% higher
4
for workers that experience high levels of stress (Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention [CDC], 2011).
With the high healthcare services utilization reported as a result of stress,
53% of Americans reported personal health concerns as a source of stress (APA,
2011). The presence of disease due to uncontrolled stress can lead to a decrease in
life expectancy (NIH, 2012a). The health problems and negative societal impacts
caused by stress can leave an individual unable to contribute fully to his or her
community. Due to these detrimental effects, American workers have identified
stress as the top health issue they want to be addressed (Healthy People 2020,
2011).
The Problem Statement
The inability to recognize sources of stress has been shown to lead to
harmful physical and psychological disorders. The central nervous, cardiovascular,
and immune systems can be negatively affected by uncontrolled stress.
Additionally, stress can lead to psychological disorders such as anxiety, mood, and
substance abuse disorders (Johns, 2006; WHO 2012).
The APA’s annual measures of stress revealed that stress levels in America
remain high. From 2007 to 2011, Americans consistently reported extreme stress
levels that exceed what was deemed healthy. According to the APA, in 2011, 39%
of adults reported an increased stress over the last year, and 44% reported an
increase over the last 5 years. Between the years 2008 and 2009, 43% of adults
experienced an increase of stress, and 75% experienced moderate to high levels of
stress within the past month (APA, 2012). In the Stress in America Campaign,
surveys revealed that 54% of Americans were concerned with the level of stress in
their everyday lives (APA, 2012).
5
With Americans being excessively stressed, there is concern regarding the
stress levels experienced during the college years. Research indicates that college
students are faced with more stressful situations during their college years than
other years of their lives (Bland et al., 2012; Hales, 2009). In support of these
findings, the APA (2012) reported 44% of college-aged adults experienced
excessive levels of stress. Higher college enrollment rates and stress in this
population are of growing concern (Bland et al., 2012; Healy, 2010).
Americans identified a number of sources of stress in their lives: 73% were
worried about money; 62% were concerned with work; and 70% were concerned
with health problems affecting their families (APA, 2008). Nationally, college
students also reported high levels of stress. Within the last 12 months, 42.8% of
American college students reported experiencing more than average levels of
stress and 30% reported stress as negatively impacting their academic performance
(NCHA, 2015).
Nationally, stress is experienced in excessive amounts of by adults and
college students. The California Health Interview Survey (CHIS) revealed that
7.8% of adults in California experienced serious psychological distress during the
last year, and 5.3% experienced serious psychological distress during the last
month (CHIS, 2005, 2009). The CHIS revealed that, within California’s Central
Valley, 6.9% of college-aged adults reported having experienced serious
psychological distress during the past year, and 3% of college-aged adults reported
experiencing psychological distress during the past month (CHIS, 2005, 2009).
California state data indicate that stress is of concern for students statewide
and within the California Central Valley. Similarly to national and state data,
40.3% of students at Fresno State experienced more than average stress within the
last 12 months, and 30.9% of Fresno State students reported stress as their primary
6
negative academic impact (NCHA, 2013). To reduce adverse outcomes of stress,
the stressors that college students face must be identified. In addition to
identifying sources of stress, it is necessary to understand how students perceive
their stress, and how these stressors affect their lives.
Students preparing to enter into the helping professions may experience
increased levels of stress when compared to their counterparts. Students enrolled
in programs that include a clinical human service component, such as social work,
report more stress than students in a purely academic field (Dziegielsewski,
Turnage, & Roest-Marti, 2004). Contributing factors include high caseloads,
organizational struggles, busy schedules, and irregular social and family lives
(Johns, 2006; Lawton & Magarelli, 1980). Since social work students experience a
unique combination of stressors and stress, it is important to understand what the
sources of stress are, and how social work students perceive them.
Excessive uncontrolled stress can lead to harmful physical and
psychological outcomes. College students are at risk for increased levels of stress,
and social work students may be at high risk due to the clinical human service
components of their major. However, there is a dearth of data on the sources or
stress and perception of stress among social work students at Fresno State.
Research Questions
The following research questions were investigated in this study:
1. What do students specializing in public child welfare at California
State University, Fresno identify as major sources of stress?
2. What are the perceived levels of stress for students specializing in
public child welfare at California State University, Fresno?
7
3. What are the differences in sources of stress across gender for
students specializing in public child welfare at California State
University, Fresno?
4. What are the differences in perceived stress in across gender for
students specializing in public child welfare at California State
University, Fresno?
5. What are the differences in sources of stress across race/ethnicity for
students specializing in public child welfare at California State
University, Fresno?
6. What are the differences in perceived stress across ethnicity for
students specializing in public child welfare at California State
University, Fresno?
7. What are the differences in sources of stress across year-in-school
for students specializing in public child welfare at California State
University, Fresno?
8. What are the differences in perceived stress across year-in-school for
students specializing in public child welfare at California State
University, Fresno?
Delimitations
The following factors are considered before generalizations can be made
from this study.
1. The scope of this study was limited to social work students
specializing in public child welfare at Fresno State.
2. Analysis of individual levels of perceived stress was limited to the
responses measured by the PSS.
8
3. Analysis of individual sources of stress was limited to the responses
measured by the ICSRLE.
Theoretical Framework
This study assumed that stress is a subjective experience; the stress
experience depends on identification of a stressor and the perception of that
stressor. The Transactional Model of Stress and Coping (TMSC) interprets
stressful experiences as a series of person-environment transactions in diverse
populations (Lazarus & Cohen, 1977). This model evaluated the process of coping
with stressful events. It proposed that stress is a result of a series of transactions
amongst life events, how an event is appraised, and how a person appraises his or
her ability to cope with the event. After a series of appraisals, stress is experienced
if the individual places meaning on the event and perceives that he or she does not
have sufficient skill to handle the situation (Lazarus, 1966; Lazarus & Folkman,
1984; Lehman, 1972).
The TMSC builds from research that determined that the sole use of
psychological, biological, or socio-cultural explanations for variation in behavior
were inconsistent and inconclusive (Hunt, 1959). Findings suggested that
individual and environmental factors equally and simultaneously influence
behavior through constant dynamic interactions. The transactional model asserts
that the behavioral responses of an individual are a result of the dynamic
relationship between demands placed on the individual and the individual’s
appraisal of the situation (Lehman, 1972).
According to this model, the stress experience does not only involve the
characteristics of the individual or of a situation, but also the relationship between
them. As a result, stress is caused by an imbalance between environmental
9
demands and personal response capability (McGrath, 1970). In this model, stress
is a response to a threat that an individual perceives as too much to cope with
effectively. McGrath defined stress as a particular kind of reaction that an
organism has to environmental events.
A study by Quine and Pahl (1991) examined what factors contribute to
buffering the stress effect in mothers that care for children with severe learning
difficulties utilized TMSC. The study determined that the most common stress
buffer was having few financial worries. Other buffering agents included a
mother’s appraisal of her child’s recent illness and acceptance and adjustment to
her child’s difficulties. The mother’s cognitive appraisal supported the model in
that lower stress scores were reported if she experienced positive thinking toward
her situation.
The TMSC identifies conditions under which psychological stress may
occur, and can provide a basis from which to develop testable hypotheses
(Lehman, 1972). The model serves as a framework to explore the study of
behavior from diverse perspectives (McGrath, 1970). Due to the various life
events that college student face, this model has been used to address student stress
throughout the college career (Anders, Fraizer, & Shallcross, 2012; Rodgers &
Tennison, 2008). The subjective nature of the model addresses specific stressors
for diverse populations of students (Banks, 2010). This study focused on the
portion of the model that appraises the individual significance of the stressors, and
the individual response to the stressor prior to utilizing a coping mechanism.
Definition of Terms
Distress
Stress that is a result of difficulty adapting to stressors (Selye, 1976b).
10
Equilibrium
Physiological or psychological homeostasis that is re-established by various
physiological and behavioral adaptive responses to maintain stable
conditions (Chrousos, 2009).
Eustress
Beneficial stress; a positive response to stress that is healthy, or that gives
one a feeling of fulfillment (Lazarus, 1966; Selye, 1976b).
Perceived stress
The measure of the degree a person assesses their life as uncontrollable and
unpredictable (Cohen & Williamson, 1988).
Source of stress; stressor
A perceived demand from the environment that causes a physiological or
psychological imbalance (Lazarus & Cohen 1977; Lazarus & Folkman,
1984).
Summary
Due to the subjective nature of stress, no single experience is the same for
all individuals. Stress is the relationship between stressors and the perceived threat
of a stressor. Statistics indicate that stress is a leading cause of adverse health
outcomes amongst college-aged individuals.
Individuals in helping professions experience high levels of occupational
stress. When the stress of the job is combined with the stress of training for a
profession, stress effects are compounded. College students entering a helping
profession, specifically those training for social work in PCW, face a unique
subset of demands that can negatively contribute to their stress experience.
11
This study addressed the perceived levels of stress and sources of stress
among social work students specializing in PCW at Fresno State. The data
collected from students were used to determine participants’ identified sources of
stress and perceived stress levels as well as determine their differences across
gender, race/ethnicity, and year-in-school. This study was warranted, as it
provided crucial information for addressing stress with students that are preparing
to enter social work with PCW specialization.
CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW
This chapter presents a review of the literature surrounding perceptions of
stress and sources of stress. This study indicates the need for a review of the
literature on the definition of stress relating to stress perception and sources of
stress. Literature is reviewed in the context of gender, race/ethnicity, and year-inschool. Research specific to the stress experience of social work student
specializing in public child welfare is lacking, and this study aims to address this
gap in research by measuring the extent to which students are exposed to sources
of stress, and their levels of perceived stress.
Stress is one of the most common human experiences. Many Americans
face challenges caused by stress. It can be understood as a temporary state, a
cause, or a result. In addition to its different definitions, various factors can affect
an individual’s stress experience based on how they experience events and
perceive stress. Due to its many conceptualizations, it is hard to provide a concrete
definition of stress.
Since college students represent a singular, unique subsection of the general
population, their perceptions of and sources of stress are explored in depth. That
is, they have stress experiences that are different from other populations.
Additionally, students entering helping professions and students training for social
work careers have a distinct stress experience, in that they experience the typical
stressors associated with college life as well as stress related to their specialized
field.
Historical Review of Stress
The scientific concept of stress is difficult to formulate, the concept is
widely known, but poorly understood. It is difficult to define because stress is an
13
abstraction with no independent existence. It can be defined as a non-specific
response to any demand placed on the body, as stimulus from the environment or
stressor, a physiological response, or the result of the response (Selye, 1974;
1976b). Stress was described in terms of the physiological fight, flight or freeze
response, where significant biological changes occur when an individual responds
to an external stimulus (Cannon, 1932; Elster, 1998). The fight or flight response
to an environmental stimulus elicits an increased heart rate and activity in the
body. A freeze response leads to minimal motion and a decreased heart rate
(Roelofs, Hagenaars, & Stins, 2010).
Various responses to stress can be understood with the concepts of positive
and negative stress. Positive stress was referred to as eustress; it is characterized
by increased mental alertness, a sense of purpose, and the potential to promote
personal growth. Harmful stress was referred to as distress; it is characterized by
having difficulty adapting to stressors (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984; Selye, 1976b).
Both forms of stress can elicit both physiological and psychological response in
the body.
Physiological Responses to Stress
Stress affects three main systems of the body: the autonomic nervous
system, the hormonal system, and the immune system (Milsum, 1985). Stress’
effects were first explored by Cannon (1911, 1914) when he described the
physiological response to stress as the fight or flight response. Through this
response, the body is prepared to react to a threat or perceived danger. This
reaction occurs when an individual is faced with an environmental threat.
Selye (1950) elaborated on the fight or flight concept with the development
of the general adaptation syndrome (GAS). The processes of this syndrome aim to
14
maximize the body’s ability to resist or adapt to stressors (Chopra, 1987; Goliszek,
1987; Pelletier, 1992; Selye, 1976a). Three phases characterize GAS: alarm
reaction, resistance, and exhaustion (Selye, 1950). The alarm phase is the body’s
immediate response to stress. Many psychological changes occur to enable the
body to combat stress. During this stage, the immune system is depressed, and
normal immune resistance is lowered, leaving the individual susceptible to
infection and disease (Khansari, Murgo, & Faith, 1990). If stress is not prolonged,
GAS does not move past this phase. If stress continues, the body enters the
resistance phase. During this phase, the body prepares to adapt to long-term stress.
Coping becomes the body’s primary goal. The body’s resources are diverted
toward resisting the stress placed upon it because its immune resistance is
lowered. The third stage of the response is exhaustion. During this stage, the body
loses its ability to keep up with the demands that stress places on it. Organ systems
and their processes begin to malfunction, leading to disease (Rice, 2012; Selye,
1950).
In an investigation of laboratory rats’ responses to harmful stimuli, Tache
and Selye (1985) found that unpleasant situations lead to a consistent group of
physiological responses. There are specific organ groups that are affected by the
physical reaction to stress. Rapid heartbeat, perspiration, a rise in blood pressure,
dilated pupils, digestive tract problems, and chest tightness can all lead to disease
in related organ groups (Humphrey, 1986). Humans undergo similar physiological
responses when experiencing stressful situations. The physiological responses to
stress were critical for survival when stressors were short term and were followed
by periods of rest. The two primary systems in the body that are involved in the
physiological stress response are the autonomic nervous system and the endocrine
system.
15
The autonomic nervous system controls basic life functions that do not
require conscious control for their function; these include breathing, heartbeat,
reproduction, digestion, and blood pressure (Asterita, 1985; McEwen, 1998). The
autonomic nervous system is divided into two subsystems: the sympathetic and
parasympathetic nervous systems. These systems work to maintain homeostasis or
allostasis (McEwen, 2007). The sympathetic system is linked to the fight or flight
response to stress, when stress is perceived blood flow increases to enhance
arousal by dilating eyes, constricting blood vessels, and activating the endocrine
system. The parasympathetic system has an opposite reaction to the sympathetic
nervous system. It promotes general relaxation and repair in the body. This system
is engaged when the stressful threat is removed (Asterita, 1985; Justice, 1987;
Pelletier, 1992).
The endocrine system is involved in the stress response through the
secretion of hormones. When the body undergoes the stress response the adrenals,
pancreas, parathyroid, the pineal gland, pituitary, thyroid, and thymus respond
through the secretion of hormones designed to promote fighting or fleeing (Locke
& Colligan, 1986).
The groups of hormones involved in this process are catecholamines and
corticosteroids. Catecholamines, epinephrine, and norepinephrine increase heart
rate, constrict blood vessels, increase muscle tension, accelerates the respiratory
system, and thickens blood. These actions lead to increased blood pressure, rapid
breathing, cessation of hunger, and hyperalertness. The corticosteroids include
cortisone and cortisol. Cortisone raises blood sugar levels and controls the body’s
immune responses. Cortisol increases available energy from the glucose and fatty
acids stores in the blood stream (Chopra, 1993; Justice, 1987; Locke, 1982;
Pelletier, 1992; Schafer, 1992; Taylor et al., 2010).
16
During a stress response, a series of signals between the hypothalamus,
pituitary gland, and thyroid gland lead to the release of hormones such as
thyrotropic hormone, thyroxin, glucocorticoids, and adrenocorticotropic hormone.
These hormones promote metabolic activity in the body’s cells, increase
production of blood sugar and release fats into the bloodstream for energy, and
increase blood pressure (Chopra, 1993; Justice, 1987; Locke & Colligan, 1986;
Pelletier, 1992; Schafer, 1992).
These systems are not equipped for long-term stressful situations. In current
society chronic perceived stress is experienced, limiting the amount of time for the
parasympathetic system to restore balance, leading to chronic health conditions
(Kabat-Zinn, 1990; McEwen, 1998).
Psychological Responses to Stress
The physiological effects of the stress response have psychological
implications. Psychologically, stress is anything that alters the psychological
homeostatic process. Ranges of psychological disorders may occur when a person
experiences chronic stress (Hassan et al., 2006; Knoll & Carlezon, 2010).
During the stress response, brain network functions are altered, inhibiting
certain brain activity. The enhancing or detrimental effects of these changes are
determined by the extent to which stress is experienced. Continued exposure to
stress hormones can lead to neuron loss or damage, a reduction in the brain’s
ability to create new neural connections, and inhibit cognitive processes. Under
these conditions, higher-order cognitive functions of the prefrontal cortex, the
hippocampus, and amygdala are compromised. This leads to impairment of
emotional regulation, memory recognition, working memory; the ability to plan,
concentrate, learn quickly, think ahead, and act decisively (Arnsten, 2009;
17
Hermans et al., 2011; Humphrey, 1986; McEwen & Sapolsky, 1995; Qin et al.,
2012; Sweis et al. 2013). These neurobiological changes can lead to psychological
disorders such as obsessive-compulsive disorder, depression, anxiety, panic
attacks, dysphoria, and anhedonia (Berrios & Porter, 1995; Klonoff, Landrine &
Ullman, 1999; Starcevic, 2007).
Historically, stress has been difficult to define as there are both
physiological and psychological factors that influence the stress experience. Body
systems adapt to maintain physiological and psychological homeostasis during
stress. Prolonged exposure to stress can cause adverse physiological and
psychological responses.
Definition of Stress Related to Perceived Stress and
Sources of Stress
Stress is difficult to define because it has both physiological and
psychological effects on the body; it is subjective in nature and holds different
meanings for different people. Koolhaas et al. (2011) viewed stress as a cognitive
perception of uncontrollable or unpredictable stimulus that is expressed in a
physiological or psychological output (Levine, 2005; Levine & Ursin, 1991).
To expand Selye’s definition of stress, Lazarus (1966) emphasized the
importance of understanding individual perceptions of the environment and how
they influence stress reactions. The threat appraisal includes a calculation of the
ratio of the threat to the means for meeting the threat. If the perceived threat is
outside the individual’s ability to meet the threat, stress occurs. The psychological
response that occurs is based on an individual’s assessment of the seriousness of
an event. If an event is perceived as a threat and poorly handled, it can elicit a
negative stress response, where the individual may experience physiological or
psychological symptoms (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984).
18
Studies by Aziz (2004), Crampton et al. (1995), and Humphrey (1986) have
revealed that there are a number of common environmental stressors that are
appraised in the stress response including time spent with family, school stress,
death of a family member; marital status changes; imprisonment; personal injury
or illness; change in health; and money problems. Work related causes of stress
were: being fired or laid off; hour worked; receiving poor performance appraisal;
job design, heavy workload; problems with coworkers; challenging work
conditions; high demand; and having a boring and routine job. Despite the
number of common stressors, each is perceived differently and leads to a different
response.
Whether there is a stress response to a particular stimulus is dependent on
the individual’s reaction to the stimulus. A perceived source of stress may not be
identified as a stressor for one individual, but perceived as a threat by another.
Perception plays a significant role in the physiological stress response. If an
individual does not perceive a situation as stressful, a physiological response will
not occur. If a situation is perceived as stressful, tension or anxiety and a
physiological response ensues (Humphrey, 1986; Mason, 2013; Mintzer et al.,
2005; Quas, 2011; Salvador, 2005).
Despite different definitions, sources, and perceptions of stress, there are
common signs and symptoms that are universally recognized as results of a stress
experience. One or more of these symptoms may be seen in an individual who is
undergoing a stress response: physical illness, attitude changes, anger, aggression,
low performance, low attendance rates, insomnia, hyperarousal, changes in
appearance, depression, social withdrawal, and psychosomatic illness, alcoholism,
domestic violence, and suicide (Crampton et al., 1995; Waters, & Ussery, 2007;
Zerach & Solomon, 2013).
19
Research has shown that the definition of stress is complex and based on a
combination of physiological, psychological, and perceptual reactions to specific
stimuli. Despite a number of commonly accepted stressors and symptoms, stress
does not occur outside of a cognitive process of the potential danger of the
stimulus.
Sources of Stress and Perceived Stress Related to
Gender
Gender has been shown to affect how stressors are perceived and
experienced (Barnett, Biener, & Barcuch, 1987). Research indicates that men and
women are exposed to a similar number of potentially stressful life events.
However, females perceive events as more stressful than males (Crampton et al.,
1995; Jones, 1993; Kessler, 1979; Matud, 2004). As a result, women are also more
likely to report physiological and psychological symptoms related to extreme
distress (Bouchard & Shih, 2013; Kessler, 1979; Matud, 2004; Narayanan, Menon,
& Spector, 1999).
Men and women face a similar number of stressful life events; however
there are slight differences in specific stressors experienced. Both male and
females report some form of interpersonal stressors (Hampel & Petermann, 2006;
Sontag & Graber, 2010), but men are more likely to report stressors related to
work, finances, romantic relationships and relationships with friends. Women
report stressors related to family demands and health problems experienced by
others. Despite similar exposures, women are more likely to report experiencing
chronic stress and daily stressors more frequently than men; this indicates that
overall perceptions of stress are greater in women (Griffin, 2006; Hampel &
Petermann, 2006; Matud, 2004).
20
In the workplace, both men and women are faced with a combination of
work and personal stressors. Males and females report equal perceptions of work
demands as stressful. However, females in the workplace report experiencing
more stress-related to change in work responsibilities, time management, budget
cuts, and family obligations (Eagan & Garvey, 2015; Narayanan, Menon, &
Spector, 1999). Women are more likely to exhibit the effects of stress such as
exhaustion or fatigue due to their increased perceived stress to managing their
family, home and caregiving responsibilities with their work responsibilities (Choi
& Chen, 2006; Gaugler et al., 2008; Matud, 2004).
Gender influences the stress experience for college students. Gender
comparisons revealed that female college students experienced more self-imposed
stress and physiological reactions than their male counterparts (Misra & McKean,
2013). Female students express feeling stressed more often than male students
(Hudd et al., 2000). Females report academic pressure, financial problems, and
relationship issues as common sources of stress (Frazier & Schauben, 1994).
Gender differences in work, personal, and school stressors and perceptions
of stress have been documented. Research has shown that stress experience is
affected by gender. However, there remains a shortage of data on gender
differences for social work students specializing in public child welfare.
Perceived Stress and Sources of Stress Related to
Ethnicity
Kessler (1979) argued that greater psychological distress of disadvantaged
persons is due to increased exposure to distress-provoking environmental
experiences or stressors. Life situations are not stressful until they are interpreted
as stressful in the context of an individual’s life. How individuals in particular
21
racial groups respond to particular life situations can be dependent upon their
social environment (Lipsky, Kernic, Qiu, & Hasin, 2015; Tran & Dhooper, 1997).
Research on ethnic or racial groups is confounding. Despite sharing similar
sources of stress, studies revealed that nonminority and minority groups have
different perceptions of stress. In some cases, it is found that nonwhites are more
likely to report extreme distress than whites (Kessler, 1979, Kim, Fredriksen, &
Goldsen, 2016). In contrast, some studies reveal that whites are more likely to
report more distress as a result of specific life events than their black counterparts,
who experienced more stressors. Despite the evidence that some whites may be
more responsive to stress. Broman (1989) reported that if blacks were as
responsive to their stressful life events they would show significantly higher
distress scores.
Previous studies have shown that whites and minority groups have similar
numbers of stressful life events; however, the types of stressors and responses can
vary by racial groups (Lipsky et al., 2015). Black women were exposed to
stressful events related to crime, residential changes, family obligations, budget
cuts while white women report higher stress related to employment, health, or
relationships (Eagan & Garvey, 2015; Vines, Ta, Esserman, & Baird, 2009;
Wadsworth et al., 2007).
Specific types of stressors alter the stress experience for specific racial
groups. The presence of daily discrimination is a stressor reported that impact
minority groups in unique ways that are not seen in non-minority groups,
discrimination contributes to an increased stress response (Meyer, 1995; Pieterse
& Carter, 2007; Thompson, 2002). Members of Asian American, Black, and
Native American racial or ethnic groups reported higher high levels of stressor
exposure and high perceived stress due to the presence of daily racism in their
22
lives (Assari & Lankarani, 2016; Chen et al., 2006; Kaholokula et al., 2012;
Thomas, Witherspoon, Speight, & Nagayama, 2008).
Research indicates that sources of stress and perceptions of stress were
influenced by racial or ethnic groups. However, there is a lack of studies on the
impact of race or ethnicity on stressors and perceptions among social work
students in Public Child Welfare.
Stress and College Students
Studies on perceptions of stress vary across gender and racial groups.
College students present a unique subsection of the general population. In a survey
of college students, the NCHA (2014) found that 30.3 % of students identified
stress as the primary factor that negatively impacted their academic performance
within the last 12 months. Other factors included, that negatively impacted
academic performance, were anxiety (21.8%), time management with work (13.8),
family members (10.9%), time management with other activities (10.5%),
relationship difficulties (9.5%), and finances (6.2%).The college years are one of
the most stressful periods in an individual’s life; as a result, college students are
more susceptible to experience higher levels of stress (Hales, 2009).
In support of these findings, the 2010 annual UCLA survey of entering
college students reported a 3.4% decline in emotional health when compared with
2009 statistics (Pryor, Hurtado, DeAngelo, Palucki, & Tran, 2010). Pryor stated
that college faculty, staff, and administrators should expect to see more effects of
stress students. Factors that increase stress levels during college years include: the
transitional nature of college; inadequate support systems; housing; interpersonal
relationships; intrapersonal influences, pressure to do well academically and to
meet parental expectation, changes in living conditions, daily life hassles, major
23
and career choices, class assignments, and lack of sleep (Bland et al., 2012; Grant,
2002; Lent et al., 2002; Ross, Niebling, & Heckert, 1999; Shah, Hasan, Malik,
Sreeramareddy, & Chandrashekhar; Tucker, Jones, Mandy, & Gupta, 2006).
When analyzing specific stressors for different years in school, it becomes
apparent that third-year students experienced more stress in intrapersonal factors
than first-year students. Second-, third-, and fourth-year students felt more
academic stress than first-year students. Third-Year students experienced more
stress than second-year students when dealing with interpersonal factors (Jacob et
al., 2012; Kai-Wen, 2009).
While stress levels are high for college students, their perceptions of stress
are varied based on their year in school. When compared across year-in-school, it
was found that freshmen and sophomore students experienced higher reactions to
stress than juniors and seniors. (Misra & McKean, 2000).
Race can influence the college students’ stress experience. Similar to
studies on racial difference in stressors and stress perceptions, minority college
students experienced discrimination and racism as psychological and sociocultural
stressors. These sources of stress are distinctly experienced by minority groups
and negatively influenced their academic and social outcomes (Cabrera, Nora,
Terenzini, Pascarella, & Hagedorn, 1990; Nora & Cabrera 1996). When
compared across racial groups, it was found that Asian American female college
students identified more stressors and a higher level of stress than European and
American female college students. (Frazier & Schauben, 1994).
Numerous studies have supported that college students experience multiple
stressors. To date, there remains a dearth of studies that focus on major-specific
stressors among college students. These stressors may be further exacerbated
24
among Public Child Welfare students. However, there is a lack of studies on the
impact of stress on Public Child Welfare students.
Stress and Social Work Students
Research specifically relating to stress levels associated with social work
students has been limited (Collins et al., 2010). Studies that focus solely on the
student stress experience are rarely mentioned in the literature. Dziegielsewski,
Turnage, and Roset-Marti (2004) suggested that there are five categories of
research related to social work stress. These categories include theoretical
perspectives; working with specific client groups; burnout; empirical studies; and
coping or stress management. These categories leave a gap when examining the
stress experience for social work students,
Studies have suggested that college students preparing to enter a helping
profession experience a unique combination of factors that influence their stress
experience. In addition to the common stressors among college students, students
in the helping profession face stressors related to their clinical training (Dorff,
1997; Heaman 1995; Johansson, 1991). Research indicates that programs with
professional education and training such as teaching, nursing, or social work
combine academic and professional requirements that can induce more stress than
other undergraduate or graduate programs (Dziegielsewski et al., 2004; Polson &
Nida, 1998).
Social work students showed higher levels of psychological distress when
compared to students in other majors. Social work students must take on the
responsibilities of students and those of a career social worker working with
clients. These students identify their training period as more stressful than their
25
subsequent social work career (Dziegielsewski et al., 2004; Pottage & Huxley,
1996; Tobin & Carson, 1994).
Undergraduate social work students reported moderate levels of academic
stress that negatively influenced social support and resilience or ability to cope.
The top areas of demand were practice learning and demands from course
structure. Other areas that social work students reported as having moderate to
high or high levels of demands were class success, academic essays, financial
responsibilities, health and wellness, and practice teachers. Areas of low or low to
moderate demand were demands from traveling and family responsibilities
(Babcock, Burpee, & Stewart, 2001; Collins et al., 2010; Munson, 1984; Wilks &
Spivey, 2010).
When comparing social work students across year-in-school, it was found
that undergraduate social work students identified limited time, grade
maintenance, role juggling, and finances as primary sources of stress (Maidment,
2003; Ting, Morris, McFeaters, & Eustice, 2006). Findings showed that a majority
of third- and fourth-year social work students experienced field work related
stress. Students indicated that their negative experiences in placement included
verbal abuse by clients, traveling long distances, finances, and work related stress.
It was found that students dealt with practical and emotional difficulties when in
field placement (Maidment, 2003).
Social work students face a number of unique stressors as compared to the
general college student population. These stressors may be more reflective of the
helping profession, regardless of student demographic variables. However, there
remains a lack of data on the students in Public Child Welfare.
26
Summary
The review of the literature provided an understanding of the subjective
nature of stress definitions and experiences. Studies reveal that stress is a personal
experience that is dependent on an individual’s response to a stressor. As prior
research indicates, there are many factors that influence the stress experience. The
way an individual perceives stress dictates the level of stress experienced. Cultural
and ethnic background can alter the stress experience. Stress perceptions are
developed from life situations that vary across racial and gender groups.
Research supports the assumption that college students are faced with a set
of circumstances that can produce a stress experience. There are many of stressors
associated with social worker stress. When these are combined with the stressors
related to academic life, social work students have unique stress experiences that
can lead to adverse physiological and psychological effects.
While the literature on social work stress is extensive, literature discussing
stress related to social work students specializing in public child welfare is limited.
This study aimed to identify stressors and perceptions of stress among social work
students specializing in public child welfare at California State University, Fresno.
CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY
The focus of this study was to identify the primary sources and levels of
perceived stress experienced by social work students at California State
University, Fresno. To address these research areas two surveys were
implemented to measure the degree to which social work students specializing in
PCW at Fresno State appraise their life events to be stressful. The surveys also
identified which events social work students at Fresno State found to be the most
stressful. This chapter describes the research methodology of this study, explains
the sample selection and target population, describes the instruments used for data
collection, and provides statistical procedures and limitations of the data collected.
The aim of this study is to expand the existing body of knowledge related to PCW
social work student stress.
Research Questions
This study aimed to identify PCW social work student appraisal and
perception of stressful life events. This study determined if race or ethnicity are
factors that influence the sources of stress experienced or the perceptions of stress.
This study sought to determine if gender influences sources of stress and
perceptions of stress experienced. Finally, this study sought to determine whether
PCW social work students’ stressors experienced and perceptions were influenced
by their year-in-school.
Research Design and Instrumentation
A cross-sectional, observational study design was used in this study.
Participants performed self-assessments using the Inventory of College Students’
Recent Life Experiences Scale and the Perceived Stress Scale. The surveys were
28
administered to social work students specializing in Public Child Welfare at
Fresno State during the Title IV-E Child Welfare Program Integrative Seminars.
Instruments
Inventory of College Students’ Recent
Life Experiences (ICSRLE)
The Inventory of College Students’ Recent Life Experiences (Appendix A)
measured an individual’s exposure to recent stressful life events (Kohn,
Lafreniere, & Gurevich, 1990). The 49 questions on the ICSRLE identified the
sources of stress and the extent to which they were experienced. The five
categories for the scale include academic, time pressure, interpersonal,
intrapersonal, and financial issues. Using a 4-point Likert scale, respondents
identified whether a life event was from 1=“not at all part of your life over the past
month to 4=“very much part of your life over the last month.”
Items on the scale were specifically developed to address college students
and the unique university environment (Burks & Martin, 1983; Sarasan, Johnson,
& Siegal, 1978). The ICSRLE has a reliability of 0.88 and correlates with the PSS
at 0.59 (p < .0005) (Kohn et al., 1990).
Perceived Stress Scale (PSS)
The Perceived Stress Scale (Appendix B) measured the degree to which life
events were reported as stressful (Cohen & Willis, 1985; Cohen & Williamson,
1988). The PSS scale included ten questions that addressed feelings and attitudes
during the last month. Using a 5-point Likert scale, respondents identified whether
thoughts or feelings occurred 0=“never” to 4=“very often” over the last month.
Questions were divided into six negative thoughts and feelings and four positive
thoughts and feelings. Perceived stress scores were calculated by taking the sum of
29
the negative items and adding the reverse scores for the positive items. A response
of zero was calculated as 4; a response of 1 was calculated as 3; 2 was calculated
as 2; 3 was calculated as 1; 4 was calculated as zero. The PSS has a reliability of
0.78 (Cohen & Williams, 1988).
Data Collection and Population
The method of data collection was self-reported responses to the PSS and
ICSRLE. The data were collected from a census sample of social work students
specializing in PCW at Fresno State. The surveys were administered to students at
Title IV-E Child Welfare Program Integrative seminars, where students were
enrolled in the Title IV-E Child Welfare Master of Social Work program or the
Title IV-E Child Welfare Bachelor of Social Work program.
The age range of students was 21 years to 58 years. Their level in college
ranged from sophomore standing to fourth-year graduate student. Both males and
females were surveyed, and racial/ethnic backgrounds were recorded. Sixty-six
students responded; five surveys were deemed invalid, as students identified
themselves as social work students who did not specialize in PCW or were
students of a different major.
Data Analysis
The data were analyzed using Pearson Chi Square test with Yates
Correction Factor for significance. The Pearson Chi Square analyzed categorical
data and provided a p-value, which tested the research questions to determine
whether there was a significant difference between the variables identified in this
study. The analysis also provided frequencies for the variables that were studied.
30
Summary
This chapter outlines the methods used in the collection and analysis of the
data in the present study. A cross-sectional, observational research design was
used on a census sample of PWC students enrolled in the Title IV-E Child Welfare
Program at Fresno State. Primary data were analyzed using s Pearson Chi Square
test with Yates Correction Factor to determine significance based on the
developed research questions. All human subject protections were recognized to
ensure that no student was identified through the use of these data.
CHAPTER 4: RESULTS
The purpose of this study was to determine differences between sources of
stress and perceptions of stress with regard to gender, race/ethnicity, and year-inschool. This chapter provides results for data on perceived stress and sources of
stress in the lives of social work students specializing in public child welfare
(PCW) at California State University, Fresno. Demographic data, the Perceived
Stress Scale (PSS), and the College Inventory of College Students’ Recent Life
Experiences Scale (ISCRLE) responses were collected from the Title IV-E Child
Welfare Program Student Population. The surveys were administered to students
at Title IV-E Child Welfare Program Integrative seminars.
Demographics
A total of 66 surveys were completed; five were deemed invalid because
students identified themselves as social work students who did not specialize in
PCW, or were students of a different major. There was return rate of 92.4%. Table
1 shows the demographic data collected, which include age, gender, race/ethnicity,
and year-in-school. Respondents’ age ranged from 21 to 58 years with a mean of
33.68. Forty-two (68.9%) females and 18 (29.5%) males participated in the
survey. Respondents included 7 (11.5%) African American/Black, 5 (8.2%) Asian,
11 (18.0%) White/Caucasian, 30 (49.2%) Hispanic/Latino, 2 (3.3%) Native
American, and 1 (1.6%) who identified as Other. Freshmen are not eligible to
enroll in the Title IV-E Public Child Welfare program and were not included in
this survey. One (1.6%) sophomore, 1 (1.6%) junior, 12 (18.0%) seniors, 19
(31.1%) 1st-year graduate students, 16 (26.2%) 2nd-year graduate students, 9
(14.8%) 3rd-year graduate students, and 2 (4.9%) 4th-year graduate students
participated. One (1.6%) student did not identify his or her year in school.
32
Table 1
Demographics
Demographic Variable
n
%
Age
Lowest to 29
26 42.6
30-39
18 29.5
40-49
12 19.7
50 to Highest
4
6.6
Missing
1
1.6
Total
61 100
Gender
Male
18 29.5
Female
42 68.9
Missing
1
1.6
Total
61 100
Year-in-School
Freshmen*
--Sophomore
1
1.6
Junior
1
1.6
Senior
12 18.0
st
1 Year Grad
19 31.1
2nd Year Grad
16 26.2
rd
3 Year Grad
9
14.8
th
4 Year Grad
2
4.9
Missing
1
1.6
Total
61 100
Race/Ethnicity
African American/Black
7
11.5
Asian
5
8.2
Caucasian/White
11 18.0
Hispanic/Latino
30 49.2
Native American
2
3.3
Multiracial
5
8.2
Other
1
1.6
Total
61 100
*Freshmen are not enrolled in the program
33
Appendix C provides detailed responses on ISCRLE to address this
question. For questions related to academics, students reported not experiencing or
only slightly experiencing stressors related academics. The largest reported
percentage for occurring Twenty-three percent of students reported having
difficulty getting ahead in academics as occurring very much within the last
month. On questions concerning time pressure students reported having a lot of
responsibility (68.9%), lack of sleep (54.1%), lack of leisure time (59.0%),
difficulty meeting obligations (36.1%), and having too many things to do at once
(78.7%) as being part of their life very much over the last month.
On most questions pertaining to interpersonal stressors, the majority of
students reported having experienced them “not at all” or “only slightly” part of
their life over the last month. On interpersonal questions that were not Twentyfour (39.3%) of respondents “only slightly” felt that they were “being taken for
granted.” Twenty-six (42.6%) respondents reported “only slightly” experiencing
“conflicts with intimate partner’s family.” Thirty-five (57.4%) respondents
reported “only slightly” feeling as though their “contributions [were] being
overlooked.” Social rejection was “not at all” experienced by 41 (67.2%)
respondents.
On questions related to intrapersonal stressors, 34 (55.7%) respondents
reported that “dissatisfaction with their athletic skills” was “not at all”
experienced. Questions on “dissatisfaction with physical appearance” was “only
slightly” experienced by 32 (52.5%) respondents. Concern with “decisions about
their future career” were reported as both “only slightly” by 18 (29.5%)
respondents and “distinctly” experienced by 19 (32.8%) respondents. The majority
of respondents said that feelings of loneliness 31 (50.8%) and social isolation 32
(52.5%) were not at all experienced. Financial burdens were experienced very
34
much over the last month by 23 (37.7%) students, but there was little conflict with
family members on financial matters (26) 42.6% of students reporting as not at all
experienced.
Table 2 provides detailed responses to the PSS. The PSS revealed that 26
(44.8%) of the participants were sometimes upset because of something that
happened expectantly. About one-fourth of students 14 (24.1%) of the participants
sometimes felt like they were unable to control important things in their life and
21 (36.2%) of students sometimes felt as though difficulties were piling so high
they would not overcome them and 27 (46.6%) of students reported that they
sometimes felt that they could not cope with all the things they had to do.
In response to feeling nervous and stressed out, 30 (51.7%) students
reported these feeling “very often” over the course of the last month, but 30
(51.7%) felt “fairly often” that were confident in their ability to handle personal
problems. Twenty-six (44.8%) respondents sometimes felt as though they were on
top of things. Twenty-six (44.8%) respondents reported that they sometimes felt
they could control the irritations in their life yet, 27 (46.6%) students reported that
they sometimes felt angered because of things outside of their control.
Research Questions
Eight research questions were posed in this study. The first set of questions
aimed to identify the major sources of stress and perceived levels of stress for
social work students specializing in public child welfare. The second set of
questions addressed sources and perceived levels of stress across gender, ethnicity,
and year-in-school. The results of the analysis for these questions are detailed
below. Descriptive statistics were used to analyze sources of stress and perceived
Table 2
Perceived Stress
Never
n (%)
Almost
Never
n (%)
Sometimes
n (%)
Fairly
Often
n (%)
Very
Often
n (%)
x
3 (5.2)
8 (13.8)
26 (44.8)
18 (31.0)
3 (5.2)
2.17
1 (1.7)
12 (20.7)
14 (24.1)
14 (24.1)
7 (12.1)
2.24
Nervous and “stressed”?
--
2 (3.4)
9 (15.5)
17 (29.3)
30 (51.7)
3.29
Confident about your ability to handle
your personal problems?
--
1 (1.7)
19 (32.8)
30 (51.7)
8 (13.8)
2.78
That things were going your way?
1 (1.7)
7 (12.1)
32 (55.2)
13 (22.4)
5 (8.6)
2.24
Could not cope with all the things that
you had to do?
6 (10.3)
7 (12.1)
27 (46.6)
9 (15.5)
9 (15.5)
2.14
Able to control irritations in your life?
1 (1.7)
8 (13.8)
26 (44.8)
19 (32.8)
4 (6.9)
2.29
That you were on top of things?
2 (3.4)
9 (15.5)
26 (44.8)
17 (29.3)
4 (6.6)
2.21
Angered because of things that were
outside your control?
3 (5.2)
10 (17.2)
27 (46.6)
11 (18.0)
7 (11.5)
2.16
Difficulties were piling up so high that
you could not overcome them?
2 (93.4)
10 (17.2)
21 (36.2)
13 (21.3)
12 (19.7)
2.40
In the last month, how often have you
felt
Upset because of something that
happened unexpectedly?
That you were unable to control the
important things in your life?
35
36
stress levels. Pearson’s Chi Square test with Yates Correction Factor was used to
test for significance of the three independent variables of gender, ethnicity/race
and year-in-school with the dependent variables sources of stress and perceived
stress levels.
Research Question 1
What do California State University, Fresno social work students
specializing in public child welfare identify to be major sources of stress?
Table 3 shows the extent students were exposed to stressors. Scores for
exposure to stressors were calculated by taking the sum of item response numbers.
No student reported stressor exposure scores that were in the low range of zero-49;
60 (98.4%) respondents reported a moderate exposure to stressors score of 50-147;
one (1.6%) experienced high exposure to stressors with a score of 147 or higher.
Table 3
Exposure to Stressors
ISCRLE Scores
Low Stressor Exposure (0-49)
Moderate Stressor Exposure (50-147)
High Stressor Exposure (147+)
n
0
60
1
%
0
98.4
1.6
As noted in Table 4, the participants identified a number of sources to
stress. The highest exposure factor mean for sources of stress was time pressure,
with a mean of 2.7, experiencing these sources “distinctly” over the last month.
The second highest exposure factor was financial, with a mean of 2.1,
experiencing these sources “only slightly” over the last month. Academic sources
came in third with a mean of 1.9, students experiencing them “only slightly” over
the last month. Intrapersonal sources were experienced “only slightly” over the
37
last month with a mean of 1.8. Interpersonal sources were experienced “only
slightly” over the last month with a mean of 1.7.
Table 4
Sources of Stress
ISCRLE Category
Academic
Financial
Interpersonal
Intrapersonal
Time Pressure
Mean
1.9
2.1
1.7
1.8
2.7
SD
.5
.6
.5
.5
.5
Students identified having being exposed moderately to stressors; 98.4% of
respondents reported a moderate exposure to stressors score of 50-147. The
ISCRLE can be divided into five categories. The survey responses revealed that
students distinctly experience Time Pressure as a source of stress.
Research Question 2
What are the perceived levels of stress for social work students specializing
in public child welfare at California State University, Fresno?
Of the respondents, nine (14.8%) students reported low perceived stress
with a score between zero and 13; 43 (70.5%) students reported moderate
perceived stress scores of 14-26; nine (14.8%) reported scores in the high
perceived stress in the range of 27-40 (Table 5). Responses indicated that the
majority of students (70.5%) reported moderate perceived stress scores in the
range of 14-26.
Table 5
Perceived Stress Scores
PSS Scores
Low Perceived Stress (0-13)
Moderate Perceived Stress (14-26)
High Perceived Stress (27-40)
n
9
43
9
%
14.8
70.5
14.8
38
Research Question 3
What are the differences in sources of stress across gender for students
specializing in public child welfare at California State University, Fresno?
Table 6 shows the males reported time pressure as “distinctly” experienced
with a mean of 2.5; all other categories were reported as “only slightly”
experienced. Similarly, females reported time pressure as “distinctly” experienced
with a mean of 2.9; all other categories were reported as “only slightly”
experienced.
Table 6
Gender and Sources of Stress
Types of Stressors
Academic
Financial
Interpersonal
Intrapersonal
Time Pressure
Male
Mean
1.7
1.9
1.6
1.7
2.7
SD
0.3
0.6
0.3
0.4
0.5
Female
Mean
SD
1.9
.6
1.8
.5
1.8
.6
1.9
.5
2.9
.5
The differences between sources of stress across gender are addressed in
Table 7. Neither gender expressed low stressor exposure; 18 (100%) males
expressed moderate stressor exposure; no males expressed high or low stressor
exposure. Forty-one (97.6%) females expressed moderate stressor exposure, and
one (2.4%) female expressed a high stressor exposure.
Table 7
Gender and Sources of Stress
Stressor Exposure
Low
Moderate
High
Male
n
0
18
0
Female
%
0
100
0
N
0
41
1
%
-97.6
2.4
39
A Pearson’s Chi-square test with Yates Correction Factors was performed
to examine the differences between sources of stress and gender. The difference
between theses variable was not significant: X2 (1, N=60)=0.436, p=.509. There
was no significant difference in sources of stress between males and females.
Research Question 4
What are the differences in perceived stress in across gender for students
specializing in public child welfare at California State University, Fresno?
As displayed in Table 8, three (16.7%) males reported low perceived stress
scores compared to six (14.3%) females reporting low perceived stress scores.
Fourteen (77.8%) males and 28 (66.7%) females reported moderate perceived
stress. One (5.6%) male and eight (18.0%) females reported high perceived stress
scores.
Table 8
Gender and Perceived Stress
Male
Perceived Stress
n
%
Low
3
16.7
Moderate
14
77.8
High
1
5.6
Female
n
6
28
8
%
14.3
66.7
18.0
The Pearson’s Chi-square test with Yates Correction Factors was
performed to examine the differences between perceived stress and gender. There
was no significant difference in perceived stress levels between males and females
X2 (2, N=60)=1.799, p=0.407.
40
Research Question 5
What are the differences in sources of stress across race/ethnicity for
students specializing in public child welfare at California State University,
Fresno?
Appendix D shows that the source of stress by race/ethnicity. Multiracial,
Asian, African American, Hispanic/Latino, and Caucasian/White students reported
“distinctly” experiencing time pressure sources. Native American students “only
slightly” experienced time pressure stressors over the last month. Academic
sources were “only slightly” experienced by all racial/ethnic groups over the last
month. Financial stressors were “distinctly” experienced over the last month by
multiracial groups, but were “only slightly” experienced over the last month by all
other racial/ethnic groups. Interpersonal and intrapersonal stressors were “only
slightly” or “not at all” experienced over the last month by all racial/ethnic groups.
Appendix E addresses the difference in sources of stress across
race/ethnicity. No racial group reported low stressor exposure. Seven (100%)
African Americans, 5 (100%) Asians, 11 (100%) White, 29 (96.75%)
Hispanic/Latino, 2 (100%) Native Americans, 5 (100%) Multiracial, and 1 (100%)
Other reported moderate stressor exposure. Only 1 (3.3%) Hispanic/Latino
reported high stressor exposure.
A Pearson’s Chi-square test with Yates Correction Factors was performed
to examine the differences between sources of stress and race/ethnicity. The
differences between these were not significant (X2 (6, N=61)=1.051, p=0.984.
Research Question 6
What are the differences in perceived stress across ethnicity for students
specializing in public child welfare at California State University, Fresno?
41
Appendix F depicts differences in perceived stress scores for racial/ethnic
groups. Two (26.6%) African American, one (9.1%) White, four (13.3%)
Hispanic/Latino, one (20%) Multiracial, one (100%) Other reported low perceived
stress scores. Three (42.9%) African Americans, three (60%) Asians, nine (81.1%)
White, 25 (83.3%) Hispanic/Latino, two (100%) Native Americans, and one
(20%) Multiracial student reported moderate perceived stress scores. Two (28,6%)
African Americans, two (40%) Asians, one (9.1%) White, one (3.1%)
Hispanic/Latino, and three (60%) Multiracial students reported high perceived
stress scores. A Pearson’s Chi-square test with Yates Correction Factors was
performed to examine the differences between perceived stress and race/ethnicity.
X2(12, N=61)=25.073, p=0.014. There were differences in perceived stress
between race/ethnicity.
Research Question 7
What are the differences in sources of stress across year-in-school for
students specializing in public child welfare at California State University,
Fresno?
Appendix G shows the sources of stress across year-in-school. Sophomores
and Juniors experienced all sources of stress “very much”. Time pressure was
experienced “very much” for all year-in-school levels. Seniors, First-year
Graduate students, Second-year Graduate students, Third-year Graduate students
and Fourth-year Graduate students “only slightly” experienced academic,
financial, interpersonal, and intrapersonal stressors.
Appendix H addresses the differences in sources of stress across year-inschool. It was found that no year-in-school category reported low stressor
exposure scores. One (100%) Sophomore, 11 (100%) Seniors, 19 (100%) First-
42
year Gradates Students, 16 (100%) Second-year Graduate students, nine (100%)
Third-year Graduate students, and three (100%) Fourth-year Graduate students
reported moderate stress exposure. One (100%) Junior reported high stressor
exposure.
A Pearson’s Chi-square test with Yates Correction Factors was performed
to examine the differences between sources of stress and year-in-school. The ChiSquare revealed a statically significant difference: X2 (6, N=60)=60, p<.001).
Research Question 8
What are the differences in perceived stress across year-in-school for
students specializing in public child welfare at California State University,
Fresno?
Appendix I addresses research question eight which shows that low
perceived stress scores were reported for one (100) Junior, three (27.3) Seniors,
four (21.1%) First-year Graduate students and one (11.1%) Third-year Graduate
student. Moderate perceived stress scores were reported for one (100%)
Sophomore, five (45.5%) Seniors, 14 (73.7%) First-year Graduate students, 13
(81.3%) Second-year Graduate students, seven (77.87%) Third-year Graduate
students, and two (66.7%) Fourth-year graduate students. High perceived stress
scores were reported for three (27.3%) Seniors, one (5.3%) First-year Graduate
student, three (18.8%) Second-year Graduate students, one (11.1%) Third-year
Graduate student, and one (33.3%) Fourth-year graduate student.
A Pearson’s Chi-square test with Yates Correction Factors was performed
to examine the differences between perceived stress and year-in-school. The
differences between these variables were not significant: X2(12, N=60)=60,
p=0.232.
43
Summary
Detailed analyses of Title IV-E Child Welfare Program students’ responses
to the Inventory of College Students Recent Life Events Scale and Perceived
Stress Scale were reported in table formats. SPSS version 22 was used to perform
a Pearson Chi-Square with Yates Correction factor to analyze the data collected.
The tables depicted demographic data, revealed gender, racial/ethnic group and
year-in-school differences regarding sources of stress and perceptions of stress.
The analyses determined that there were significant differences with regard to
race/ethnicity and perceived stress levels. It was also determined that there was a
statistically significant difference for sources of stress across year-in-school.
CHAPTER 5: DISCUSSION, CONCLUSIONS, AND
RECOMMENDATIONS
The purpose of this study was to determine the sources of stress and
perceived stress levels of California State University, Fresno students specializing
in public child welfare. Data were collected through a survey administered during
the Title IV-E Child Welfare Program Integrative Seminars and analyzed using
SPSS Pearson’s Chi Square Test with Yates Correction Factor to test for
significance. The variables that were tested were race/ethnicity, gender, and yearin-school. The reviewed literature indicated that students’ race/ethnicity, gender,
and year-in-school were factors that influenced sources of stress and perceived
stress levels of students. The following presents a discussion of the Fresno State
social work students specializing public child welfare’s sources of stress and
perceived stress levels. It also presents conclusions drawn from this study,
limitations, and recommendations for future research.
Demographics
Demographic information for the Fresno State student body was obtained
from the university’s Office of Institutional Effectiveness (OIE, 2015) and the
California State University Statistical Reports (2015). California Social Work
Education Center Student Information System (CSIS, 2011) provided figures for
Fresno State’s Title IV-E Program. The data are compared in Tables 9 through 12.
Table 9 depicts age comparisons of the Fresno State of the Title IV-E Study
Sample, the Title IV-E CISIS data, and the Fresno State student body. The number
of students surveyed represents 82.2% of the entire Title IV-E Program at Fresno
State. No study participants were 17 years and under and none were over 59 years
of age. The mean age of the survey participants was 34 years, the mean age of the
Title IV-E program was 33.1 years, and the mean age of the university’s total
45
population is 23.0 years. Freshmen are not eligible for the Title IV-E program and
were not included in the Title IV-E Sample or Title IV-E Data. The majority of the
Title IV-E Sample and the Title IV-E Data are graduate level students. Graduate
level students are on average older than undergraduate students; this contributes to
an older mean age of the Title IV-E sample population and the Title IV-E CISIS
data. The average age of graduate students in the United States is 33 years, the
present study’s findings were consistent with this (Office of Graduate Studies,
2016).
Thus, the study sample was reflective of the entire Title IV-E Program;
however, neither the study sample nor the Title IV-E Program CISIS data were
reflective of the university. Findings related to age may be generalized the Title
IV-E population, but not to the University student body.
Table 9
Comparison of Age of Title IV-E Sample, Title IV-E Students, and Fresno State
Students
Title IV-E
Title IV-E
University
Age
Sample
Data
%
%
%
n
N
N
17 and under
----348
1.5
18-19
----5,632
24.3
20-24
6
9.8
5
6.8
12,147
52.4
25-29
20
32.8
25
33.8
2,921
12.6
30-34
13
21.3
20
27.0
959
4.1
35-59
22
36.1
24
32.4
1,132
4.9
Over 59
----40
0.2
Missing
------Total
61
100.00
74
100.0
23,179
100.0
Race/Ethnicity
Table 10 depicts the racial/ethnic breakdown of the Title IV-E Sample, the
Title IV-E CSIS Data, and the University data. By race, the Title IV-E Sample was
46
reflective of the Title IV-E CSIS data, but it was not reflective of the university
student body. Percent of Hispanic/Latin, Caucasian/White, and
Other/Unknown/Multiracial sample were moderately reflective of the University
student body. All racial/ethnic groups were reflective of the Title IV-E data. Thus,
findings about ethnic/racial groups may be generalized to the Title IV-E CSIS
population.
Table 10
Ethnicity from Title IV-E Sample, Title IV-E Data, and Fresno State Data
Title IV-E
Sample
Title IV-E Data
University
Race/Ethnicity
%
%
n
N
N
%
African American
7
11.5
8
10.8
822
3.5
American Indian
2
3.3
1
1.4
82
0.4
Asian or Pacific Islander
5
8.2
6
8.1
3,478
15
Caucasian/White
11
18.0
11
14.9
5,645
24.4
Hispanic/Latino
30
49.2
41
55.4 10,049 43.4
Non-Resident Alien
----1,143
4.9
Other/Unknown/Multiracial
6
9.8
7
9.5
1,960
8.5
Total
61
100.0
74
100.0 23,179 100.0
Year-in-School
Table 11 shows the comparison of the Title IV-E Sample, the Title IV-E
CSIS data, and the university student body. The Title IV-E Sample was reflective
of the Title IV-E CSIS data, but it was not reflective of the university student
body. No freshmen were included in the study; the University student body
consists of 19.1% freshmen and 7.2% sophomore.
The ratio of Graduate students in the University student body is at a lower
rate than the Title IV-E Sample and Title IV-E CSIS data. The Title IV-E
Bachelor Program is a smaller program of 15 undergraduate students primarily in
their senior year of college. The Title IV-E Master Program consisted of 59
47
graduate students. The data collected may be skewed towards the experience of
the graduate student in social work due to the larger percentage of student
respondents in one of those four graduate-level classifications.
Table 11
Comparison of Year-in-School from Title IV-E Sample, Title IV-E Data, and
University Data
Title IV-E
Title IV-E
Sample
Data
University
Year-in-School
n
%
%
N
%
N
Undergraduate
13
21.2
15
20.3
20,490
88.4
Graduate
47
77.2
59
79.7
2,162
9.3
Post-baccalaureate
----527
2.3
Missing
1
1.6
----Total
61
100
74
100
23,179
100
Table 12 depicts gender comparisons of the University, the Title IV-E CSIS
data, and the study sample. In the Title IV-E study sample, there were 18 males,
comprising 21.2% of the sample, and 42 females or 77.2% of the sample. These
figures are similar to the 18 males and 56 female in the Title IV-E CSIS data, but
are not reflective of the University data; 41.8% were male, and 58.2% were
female. The data sample and the CSIS data are reflective of the national ratio of
female child welfare social workers; research indicates that 81% of child welfare
social workers are female (National Child Welfare Workforce Institute, 2011;
Whitaker & Arrington, 2008). This percentage carries over to those who are
studying to become child welfare social workers; this study revealed
approximately 69% of students specializing in public child welfare were female.
The higher rate of female social workers may contribute to this difference.
48
Table 12
Gender of Title IV-E Sample, Title IV-E Data, and University Data
Title IV-E Sample
Title IV-E Data
University
Gender
%
%
%
n
N
N
Males
18
29.5
18
24.3
9,699
41.8
Females
42
68.9
56
75.7
13,480
58.2
Transgender
------Missing
1
1.6
----Total
61
100.0
74
100.0
23,179
100.0
Selection bias may have contributed to the results, as data were only
collected from students who participated in the Title IV-E Child Welfare
Integrative Seminars. Students who specialize in public child welfare, but did not
attend the seminars are not included in this study. While the studied population did
represent the Title IV-E population at Fresno State, these results cannot be
generalized to all Title IV-E students throughout California, in that students at
Fresno State do not represent all students throughout the state.
Research Questions
The findings regarding the research questions were marginally consistent
with conclusions reached in prior studies.
Questions 1 and 2
These questions queried what the most common sources and perceived
levels of stress were for social work students specializing in PCW. The study
found that almost all students reported moderate exposure to stressors within the
last month, whereas a small number of students reported high exposure to stressors
within the last month.
The ICSRLE did not examine each source of stress with equal numbers of
questions. The uneven distribution of stressors questions resulted in time pressure
49
stressors being reported as “distinctly” being part of respondents’ life over the last
month. This finding is similar to the NCHA (2014) findings that time
management was reported by students as negatively impacting academic
performance.
The findings of this study were not consistent with the results of Crampton
et al. (1995), in that the most common stressors were related to personal stress and
work-related stressors. This can be in part due to the difference in populations
surveyed. Crampton et al. studied a population that was solely in the workplace.
Fresno State is unique to other college campuses in that it is primarily a
Hispanic-serving, Commuter College, serving a vast geographical region. The
finding that students report time pressure as a primary source of stress may have
been influenced by the amount of time it takes to drive to and from campus and
how it takes away time from employment, internship, or class work.
When analyzing perceived stress levels, this study was not consistent with
previous studies. The study revealed that students were moderately stressed based
on the Perceived Stress Scale. Despite studies that indicate college students
experience more stress than other groups (Bland et al., 2012; Healy, 2010), this
study did not indicate high levels of perceived stress as were expected for students
in the helping professions (Collins et al., 2010).
Internal validity may have been affected by characteristics unique to social
workers and of the self-awareness and self-care training received during their
education (De las Palma-Garcia & Hombrados-Mendieta, 2014). Social workers
and social work students are inclined to positive emotionality, personal
competence, social support, and resiliency. Training and practice in social work
leads to the development of positive emotionality and increase the ability to face
adverse or stressful situations encountered.
50
According to the Transactional Model of Stress and Coping (TMSC), stress
is experienced if the individual places meaning on an event and perceives that they
do not have sufficient skill to handle the situation (Lazarus, 1966; Lazarus &
Folkman, 1984; Lehman, 1972). Social work students make up a unique
subsection of the college student population. Personality characteristics inherent to
social work students along with their training may lead to different perceptions of
stressors experienced. This may account for the moderate perceived stress levels
reported by participants in this study because they believe they have sufficient
skills to handle their situations.
The current study may have been influenced by selection bias in that it
surveyed a combined population of individuals who continued to work in their
employment while they performed internship responsibilities and students who
were not employed as social workers, but were students in the field. Experience in
the field may have altered the stress response (Collins et al., 2010); Recall bias
may also contribute to the findings of this study. Both surveys required
participants to recall information from within the last month. Thus, recall bias may
have affected the accuracy of responses to the surveys.
Questions 3 and 4
The third and fourth questions queried what the sources of stress and
perceived levels of stress were for students specializing in public child welfare
across gender. This study found no differences between males and females in
sources of stress and perceived stress. The present study only marginally
supported the findings of Matud (2004) in that male and female students did not
have a significant difference in their exposure to stressful life events. The present
study did not support previous findings concerning the perception of stress. Matud
51
found that although there was no significant difference in sources of stress; women
were more likely to perceive the same events as stressful. In studies performed by
Kessler (1979) and Jones (1993), it was found that women were more likely to
report stress increased exposure to life experiences and perceive events as more
stressful.
Frazier and Schauben (1994) found that test pressures, financial problems,
relationship issues, and failing a test were the most commonly reported. Frazier
and Schauben’s study differed from the present study in that it was an all-female
sample and compared only two ethnic/racial groups. According to males report
that males reported stress and identified finances, gender roles, home
responsibilities, work responsibilities, the pursuit of personal interests as common
stressors (Chung, Meldrum, Jones, Brown, & Jones, 2014; Griffith, Ellis & Allen,
2013; Senatra, 1988). The instruments used did not address these areas extensively
and did not show in the findings of this study to give more insight into the
exposure to stressors that males encountered.
The lack of statistical differences in the present study may have been
affected by the majority of respondents were female. The small sample size of
male participants in this study may not represent the male social work student in
public child welfare’s experience. However, the male experience cannot be
discounted, and its influences may be seen in the results. This study’s findings
were inconsistent with previous studies; research indicates that males report stress
experiences less frequently than females, even though they may experience the
same level of stress as females (Wu, 2000). The current study found that male and
females reported the same degree of exposure to stressors, they also expressed
similar reports of perceived stress. Further studies on male-only social workers
52
may provide insight as to what their primary sources of stress were and how they
are perceived.
Additional factors that may contribute to the lack of difference in this study
may be because students in this field are taught more self-awareness and self-care
that may lead to more honest responses in the present study than other studies of
male college students (Hepworth, Rooney, Rooney, Strom-Gottfried, & Larsen,
2010). This may account for the almost identical sources of stress exposure across
all stressor types.
Questions 5 and 6
The fourth and fifth questions sought to determine if there is a difference
between the sources of stress and race/ethnicity; and if there were differences
between perceived stress and race/ethnicity. There was no statistical difference
when comparing stressors across racial/ethnic groups. There was a statistical
difference regarding racial/ethnic group perceptions of their stressors. It was found
that Hispanic/Latino and White students reported being moderately stressed more
frequently than other ethnic groups.
It is hard to compare these findings with previous studies in that the
proportion of racial/ethnic groups in this study were highly different from those in
previous studies. Broman (1989) and Vines et al. (2009) both studied the
difference between African Americans and White Americans, who found
differences in types of stressors and perceived stress levels. Additionally,
Kessler’s (1979) study compared Whites to non-whites, not distinguishing
different non-white groups. Both studies found that minorities did not experience
different exposures to stressors, but perceptions of distress were greater for whites
than their minority counterparts. These findings are consistent with the overall
53
results of the present study in that Hispanic/Latino populations held greater
perceived stress than other groups. This finding may be due to the large percentage
of the Hispanic/Latino population in the study sample.
Despite similar responses to sources of stress, where most students reported
moderate exposure to stressors, racial/ethnic variations in perceived stress may
account for the way stress is expressed in individual groups. The way ethnic
groups display emotional response may have influenced the respondents’
perceptions of stress. Studies indicate that low socioeconomic status African
Americans/Blacks report more sources of stress and a stronger reaction to stress
when compared to whites. Similarly, Koreans and Asian Indians reported lower
levels of response to stress when compared to whites (Bulatao, Anderson, &
National Research Council, 2014). These findings may have been missed due to
the small population of African Americans and Asians in the current study.
The present study did not address racial sources of stress that may have
revealed other stress outcomes in minority populations, specifically regarding
intrapersonal, interpersonal and academic sources of stress. In previous studies,
racism was a source of stress that interacted with other factors such as age, marital
status, socioeconomic status in unique ways (Griffith, Ellis, & Allen, 2013). These
factors were not addressed in the present study.
The study by Berger, Cook, DelCampo, Herrera, & Weigel (1994) provides
insight into the present’s study’s findings in light of Fresno State’s large
Hispanic/Latino population. When Mexican-American women were compared to
White women both groups perceived higher stress levels than men, however, the
sources of their stress were based on the amount of control they felt over their
stressors, in this case, their family. Respondents in this reported moderate or highstress exposure to stressors, with the most common stressors identified as time
54
pressure and finances. The present study supports these findings in that there are
no differences in sources of stress, but cannot be compared to perceptions.
Again selection bias may have influenced these results; almost half of
respondents were Hispanic/Latino and nearly one-fifth were White/Caucasian. The
larger proportion of respondents in these specific racial/ethnic groups may have
resulted in different findings than if the surveyed populations were
racially/ethnically equal.
The TMSC may not fully explain the racial/ethnic results of this study. The
model is based on an individual’s response to stress. The model does not fully
incorporate aspects of racially or ethnically learned perceptions of stress and
coping styles when faced with discrimination as a stressor (Berjot & Gillet, 2011;
Hobfoll, 2001).
Questions 7 and 8
The seventh and eighth questions sought to determine if there is a
difference between the sources of stress across year-in-school and if there is a
difference between perceived stress and year-in-school. The present study found
that there was a difference in sources of stress for Title IV-E students across yearin-school, but no difference in perceived stress levels. Previous studies have only
compared undergraduate levels for stress or master levels for stress; therefore, it is
difficult to compare the present study to previous findings, where they found that
First-, Third-, and Fourth-year undergraduate students experience more stress than
Second-year undergraduate students and that First-year graduate students
experience more stress than Second-year graduate students (Coffey, Samuel, &
Collins, 2014; Misra & McKean, 2000; Munson, 1984; Wilks & Spivey, 2010).
55
The findings of this study may have been affected by factors that are
inherent to the difference found between graduate and undergraduate students.
Graduate students are older than undergraduate students they are more likely to
balance more responsibilities such as marriage or life partners, dependents, and
prior work experience. This may account for more students in the graduate
program reporting more exposure to stressors (Office of Graduate Studies, 2016).
The present study failed to distinguish between part-time and full-time
students in the population. The experience of part-time students is vastly different
from that of a full-time. Part-time students in their second, third or fourth year of
their master’s program or undergraduate degree program transition into a full-time
workload in addition to their full-time employment. Students who work while in
school report lower satisfaction with school (Moro-Egido & Panades, 2010).
Similar types of stressors may have been evaluated as more stressful for part-time
students than full-time students because they are balancing full-time employment
and school (Kramer, Matthews, & Endias, 1987).
The findings revealed that finances were more of a concern for
undergraduate students than for graduate level students. This may be because
undergraduate students receive a smaller stipend than graduate students in the
Title IV-E Program. Furthermore, the large part-time student population in the
graduate program may have skewed the results of financial sources of stress as
studies indicate full-time students report more financial stress than part-time
students (Kramer et al., 1987).
The target population of this study was limited to social work students
specializing in public child welfare at Fresno State who attend Title IV-E
Integrative Seminars. All surveys distributed were completed. Even though results
of the analysis indicated there were limited differences in the stress experiences
56
for social work students specializing in PCW, there are public health implications
for college student health. Underlying biases may have been present in this study
that influenced the research outcomes. Fresno State social work students in the
Title IV-E Program were the only populations surveyed. There are commonalities,
such as self-care methods, assessment skills, and personality traits, within students
that specialize in public child welfare that may have contributed to a lack of
significance.
A lack of significance in six of the research questions may have also been
caused by the Hawthorne effect and familiarity of the study participants with the
researcher. Measures were taken to ensure no identifying information was
included in the surveys. However, participants may have been less likely to report
sources of stress honestly or perceived stress levels in front of the researcher.
This study did not support all findings of previous studies regarding sources
of stress and perceptions of stress. It was found that social work students
specializing in public child welfare were not excessively exposed to stressors or
experienced high levels of perceived stress. Gender did not significantly affect
sources of stress and stress perceptions of this sample. This study revealed that
sources of stress were not significantly affected by gender or racial/ethnic groups;
neither were perceived stress levels affected by gender or year-in-school. Overall,
these findings were not consistent with findings in other studies where differences
for these variables were found. Comparisons of the current study to research in the
field of stress for social work students is difficult in that there are limited studies
specific to social work student specializing in PCW. Prior studies have indicated
the increased pressure that child welfare workers experience (Lawton & Magarelli,
1980). Chronic levels of stress influence student success due to continued
emotional and psychological strain (Torres & Solberg, 2000).
57
Sources of stress and perceptions of stress affect the physiological response
of an individual and are determinants of health behavior and health status
(Griffith, Ellis, & Allen, 2013). Despite this study’s findings, it is important to
educate students to recognize stressors, enlist appropriate coping mechanisms, and
connect with social supports to improve stress perceptions and reduce adverse
physiological and psychological impacts of the stress (Nissly, Mor Barak, &
Levin, 2008; Wu, 2000).
Implications for Public Health
Due to the variations in the results, there are public health implications for
sources of stress and perceived stress levels for social work students specializing
in public child welfare at Fresno State. The results of this study were not entirely
consistent with findings in previous studies on sources and perceptions of stress.
The present study determined that students in this field are moderately exposed to
stressful situations and have moderate perceived stress levels. Sources of stress are
affected by year-in-school and perceptions of stress are affected by racial/ethnic
groups. Variations in findings may be caused by the unique nature of students at
Fresno State, random variation, or selection bias.
Despite the research on stress and college students, there is limited research
on the stress experience for social work students who specialize in public child
welfare. This study revealed that students in this specialized field are moderately
stressed across all variable groups. This can indicate that there is a need for a
generalized stress awareness and stress management programs to address the
needs of these students. Because time pressure was identified as the most
distinctly experienced stressor, social work students in public child welfare may
require additional resources to assist with time management. Time management
58
training and skills can help students have better control of their time and lower
stress experienced by college students (Macan & Schmitt, 1994; Macan, Shahani,
Dipboye, & Phillips, 1990).
In addition to addressing time pressure, it is important to educate students
to recognize additional stressors in their lives. They can enlist appropriate coping
mechanisms and connect with social supports to improve stress perceptions to
reduce adverse physiological and psychological impacts of stress (Nissly et al.,
2008; Wu, 2000). Social work programs in conjunction with college health clinics
should promote and utilize peer support groups to prevent or alleviate the effects
of the stress response (Bond, 1986; Nelson-Gardell & Harris, 2003). Supports will
assist students identifying stressors and understand their perceptions of their
stressors. The supports can reduce the negative perceptions of certain stressors
experienced, expose students to positive coping mechanisms, and initiate their use.
Conclusions and Recommendations
Stress has been identified as the number one negative impact on academics
for college students (NCHA, 2014). Studies indicate that social work students
experience additional stressors due to their field experience during their education
(Dziegielsewski et al., 2004; Polson & Nida, 1998). Students are balancing
academic responsibilities along with responsibilities similar to working in their
particular field. For these reasons, poor stress management among college
students in social work is of concern. Identifying stressors and understanding
student perceptions are necessary for developing supports for students in the field.
Despite only reporting moderate stress exposure and moderate stress perceptions.
The present study found that managing time was a significant stressor for social
work students specializing in public child welfare at Fresno State. While these
59
findings cannot be generalized to other student populations within Fresno State or
at other college campuses in California, these results provide insight into what
students specializing in public child welfare at Fresno State are facing in regards
to stress.
Based on these findings and anecdotal feedback several approaches can be
taken to further the study of social work students specializing in PCW. An
analysis of age, spiritual or religious affiliations, or marital or relationship status
may affect the stress response. Students with employment experience versus
students without work experience; and comparing the different status of part-time
students versus full-time student may lend itself to different responses to stress
(Nissly et al., 2008). A comparative study of students specializing in public child
welfare to students in social work specializing in a field other than PCW or
without specialization would provide additional understanding into the stress
differences between these groups.
To expand the present study the researcher also recommends that data
collection occur at different times during the school year, as doing so may yield
results other than those were found in this study. Research on coping styles and
strategies would provide insight on how stress perceptions may be altered based
on an individual’s ability to cope with stressors. The current study did not equally
examine the categories of sources of stress; a survey that equally examines each
category may provide different results.
Summary
This study was conducted to determine the sources of stress and perceived
stress for social work students specializing in public child welfare at California
State University, Fresno. The survey data were collected in the spring of 2015 and
60
analyzed using the Pearson Chi Square test with Yates Correction Factor for
significance. Students were moderately exposed to stressors with time pressure
identified as the most distinctly experienced stressor. In this sample, perceived
stress levels were moderate. Significant differences were found across year-inschool for sources of stress and stress perception levels among racial/ethnic
groups. The findings for other research questions were not statistically significant.
The recognition of stressors and perceptions of stress have implications for public
health education on recognizing stressors in an individual’s life.
Recommendations for future studies include using other demographic variables
such as work experience, part-time vs full-time student populations, and coping
styles which could influence the way stress is experienced.
REFERENCES
REFERENCES
American Heart Association. (2012). What is stress management? Retrieved from
http://www.heart.org/HEARTORG/GettingHealthy/StressManagement/Fight
StressWithHealthyHabits/What-Is-Stress-Management_UCM_321076_
Article.jsp
American Institute of Stress. (2008). College students. Retrieved from
http://www.stress.org/college-students/
American Institute of Stress. (2012). Workplace stress. Retrieved from
http://www.stress.org/workplace-stress/
American Institute of Stress. (2014). 2014 Stress statistics. Retrieved from
http://www.stress.org/daily-life/
American Institute of Stress. (2016). Stress is killing you. Retrieved from
http://www.stress.org/stress-is-killing-you/
American Psychological Association. (2008). Stress in America. Retrieved from
https://www.apa.org/news/press/releases/2008/10/stress-in-america.pdf
American Psychological Association. (2010). Fact sheet by the numbers.
Retrieved from http://www.apa.org/practice/programs/workplace/phwp-factsheet.pdf
American Psychological Association. (2011). The impact of stress. Retrieved from
http://www.apa.org/news/press/releases/stress/2011/impact.aspx
American Psychological Association. (2012). Stress in America. Retrieved from
http://www.apa.org/news/press/releases/stress/index.aspx
Anders, S. L., Frazier, P. A., & Shallcross, S. L. (2012). Prevalence and effects of
life event exposure among undergraduate and community college students.
Journal of Counseling Psychology, 59(3), 449-457.
Arnsten, A. F. (2009). Stress signaling pathways that impair prefrontal cortex
structure and function. Nature Reviews. Neuroscience, 10(6), 410-422.
Assari, S., & Lankarani, M. (2016). Stressful life events and risk of depression 25
years later: Race and gender differences. Frontiers in Public Health, 4, 4959.
63
Asterita, M. F. (1985). The physiology of stress: With special reference to the
neuroendocrine system. New York, NY: Human Sciences Press.
Aziz, A. (2004). Sources of perceived stress among American medical doctors: A
cross-cultural perspective. Cross Cultural Management: An International
Journal, 11(4), 28-39.
Babcock, M. D., Burpee, M. R., & Stewart, T. G. (2001) Sources of stress and
coping strategies of full-time MSW students. Arete, 25(2), 87-95.
Banks, K. H. (2010). African American College Students Experience of Racial
Discrimination and the Role of College Hassles. Journal of College Student
Development, 51(1) 23-34.
Barnett, R. C., Biener, L., & Baruch, G. K. (Eds.). (1987). Gender and stress. New
York, NY: The Free Press.
Bland, H. W., Melton, B. F., Welle, P., & Bigham, L. (2012). Stress tolerance:
new challenges for millennial college students. College Student Journal,
46(2), 362-375.
Berjot, S., & Gillet, N. (2011). Stress and coping with discrimination and
stigmatization. Frontiers in Psychology, 2(33), 1-13.
Berger, P. S., Cook, A. S., DelCampo, R. L., Herrera, R. S., & Weigel, R. R.
(1994). Family/work roles’ relation to perceived stress: Do gender and
ethnicity matter? Journal of Family and Economic Issues, 15(3), 223-242.
Berrios, G. E., & Porter, R. (1995). A history of clinical psychiatry: The origin and
history of psychiatric disorders. New York:, NY: University Press.
Bond, M. (1986). Stress and self-awareness: A guide for nurses. London, UK:
Williams Heinemann Medical Books.
Bouchard, L. C., & Shih, J. H. (2013). Gender Differences in Stress Generation:
Examination of Interpersonal Predictors. Journal of Social and Clinical
Psychology, 32(4), 424.
Broman, C. (1989). Race and responsiveness to life stress. National Journal of
Sociology, 3(1), 49-64.
Bulatao, R. A., Anderson, N. B., & National Research Council (U.S.). (2004).
Understanding racial and ethnic differences in health in late life: A research
agenda. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
64
Burks, N., & Martin, B. (1983). Everyday problems and life-change events:
Ongoing versus acute sources of stress. Journal of Human Stress, 11, 27-35.
Cabrera, A. F., Nora, A., Terenzini, P. T., Pascarella, E., & Hagedorn, L. S.
(1990). Campus Racial Climate and the Adjustment of Students to College.
The Journal of Higher Education. 70(2), 134-160.
California Health Interview Survey. (2005). Home. Retrieved from
http://www.chis.ucla.edu/
California Health Interview Survey. (2009). Home. Retrieved from
http://www.chis.ucla.edu/
California Social Work Education Center (2011). The 2011 California Public
Child Welfare Workforce Study. Retrieved from http://calswec.berkeley.edu/
files/uploads/population__education_brief_final-1.pdf
Canda, E. R., & Furman, L. D. (2010). Spiritual diversity in social work practice:
The heart of helping. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Cannon, W. B. (1911). Emotional stimulation of adrenal gland secretion.
American Journal of Physiology, 28, 64-70.
Cannon, W. B. (1914). The emergency function of the adrenal medulla in pain and
in the major emotion. American Journal of Physiology, 33, 356-372.
Cannon, W. B. (1932). The wisdom of the body. New York, NY: Norton
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2011). Work organization and stressrelated disorders. Retrieved from http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/programs/
workorg/risks.html
Chen, G. A., Chen, LePhuoc, P., Guzmán, M. R., Rude, S., & Dodd, B. G. (2006).
Exploring Asian American racial identity. Cultural diversity & ethnic
minority psychology, 12(3), 461-476.
Choi, J. P., & Chen, C. C. (2006). Gender differences in perceived work demands,
family demands, and life stress among married Chinese employees.
Management and Organization Review, 2(2), 209–229.
Chopra, D. (1987). Creating health: Beyond prevention, toward perfection.
Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Company.
Chopra, D. (1993). Ageless body, timeless mind. New York, NY: Harmony Books.
65
Chrousos, G. P. (2009). Stress and disorders of the stress system. Nature reviews.
Endocrinology, 5(7), 374-381.
Chung, B., Meldrum, M., Jones, F., Brown, A., & Jones, L. (2014). Perceived
sources of stress and resilience in men in an African American community.
Progress in Community Health Partnerships-research Education and Action,
8(4), 441-451.
Coffey, M., Samuel, U., Collins, S., & Morris, L. (2014). A comparative study of
social work students in India and the UK: stress, support and well-being.
British Journal of social work, 44(1), 163-180.
Cohen, S., & Williamson, G. M. (1988). Perceived stress in a probability sample
of the United States. In S. Spacapan & S. Oskamp (Eds.), The Social
Psychology of Health (pp. 31-67). Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
Cohen, S., & Wills, T. A. (1985). Stress, social support, and the buffering
hypothesis. Psychological Bulletin, 98(2), 310-357.
Collins, S., Coffey, M., & Morris, L. (2010). Social work students: Stress, support
and well-being. British Journal of Social Work, 40(3), 963-982.
Crampton, S. M., Hodge, J.W., Mishra, J. M., & Price, S. (1995). Stress and Stress
Management. S.A.M. Advanced Management Journal, 60(3), 10-18.
De las Palma-Garcia, M. & Hombrados-Mendieta, I. (2014). Resilience and
personality in social work students and social workers. International Social
Work. 1-13. doi: 10.1177/0020872814537856
Dorff, T. A. (1997). A needs assessment of the stressors and coping resources of
graduate students in clinical psychology (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved
from Proquest Dissertations and Theses Full Text. (Order No. 9815234)
Dziegielsewski, S. F., Turnage, B., & Roset-Marti, S. (2004). Addressing stress
with social work students: A controlled evaluation. Journal of Social Work
Education. 40(1), 105-119.
Eagan, M. K., & Garvey, J. C. (2015). Stressing out: Connecting race, gender, and
stress with faculty productivity. The Journal of Higher Education, 86(6),
923.
Elster, J. (1998). A plea for mechanisms. In P. Hedstrom, & R. Swedberg, (Eds.),
Social mechanisms: An analytical approach to social theory (pp. 45-73).
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
66
Frazier, P. A., & Schauben, L. J. (1994). Stressful life events and psychological
adjustment among female college students. Measurement and Evaluation in
Counseling and Development, 27(1), 280-292.
Gaugler, J. E., Given, W. C., Linder, J., Kataria, R., Tucker, G., Regine, W. F.
(2008). Work, gender, and stress in family cancer caregiving. Supportive
Care in Cancer, 16(4), 347-357.
Grant, A. (2002). Identifying students’ concerns: Taking a whole institutional
approach. In N. Stanley, J. Manthorpe, & J. Kingsley (Eds.), Students
Mental Health Needs (pp. 83-105), London, UK: Jessica Kingsley Publisher.
Goliszek, A. (1987). Breaking the stress habit: A modern guide to one-minute
stress management. Winston-Salem, NC: Carolina Press.
Griffin, M. (2006). Gender and stress: A comparative assessment of sources of
stress among correctional officers. Journal of Contemporary Criminal
Justice, 22(1), 5-25.
Griffith, D., Ellis, K., & Allen, J. (2013). An intersectional approach to social
determinants of stress for African American men: Men’s and women’s
perspectives. American Journal of Men’s Health, 7(4), 19-30.
Hales, D. (2009). An invitation to health (13th ed.). Belmont, CA:
Wadsworth/Cengage Learning.
Hamaideh, S. H. (2011). Stressors and reactions to stressors among university
students. International Journal of Social Psychiatry, 57(1), 69-80.
Hampel, P., & Petermann, F. (2006). Perceived stress, coping, and adjustment in
adolescents. The Journal of Adolescent Health: Official Publication of the
Society for Adolescent Medicine, 38(4), 409-15.
Hassan, I., Weyers, P., Maschuw, K., Dick, B., Gerdes, B., Rothmund, M., &
Zielke, A. (2006). Negative stress‐coping strategies among novices in
surgery correlate with poor virtual laparoscopic performance. British Journal
of Surgery, 93(12), 1554-1559.
Healthy People 2020 (2012). MAP-IT in action – In the workplace: Employees
organize to improve workplace wellness. Retrieved from
http://www.healthypeople.gov/2020/implementing/workplaceWellness.aspx
67
Heaman, D. (1995). The Quieting Response (QR): A modality for reduction of
psychophysiological stress in nursing students. Journal of Nursing
Education, 34(1), 5-10.
Healy, G. (2010). More students need support for mental health issues. The
Australian. Retrieved from http://www.theaustralian.com.au/highereducation/more-students-need-support-for-mental-health-issues/storye6frgcjx-1225880086459
Hepworth, D., Rooney, R., Rooney, G. D., Strom-Gottfried, K., & Larsen, J.
(2010). Direct social work practice: Theory and skills. (8th ed.). Boston:
Brooks/Cole.
Hermans E. J., van Marle H. J., Ossewaarde L., Henckens M. J., Qin, S., van
Kesteren, M.T., Schoots V.C.,… Fernández, G. (2011). Stress-related
noradrenergic activity prompts large-scale neural network reconfiguration.
Science, 334, 1151-1153.
Hobfoll, S. E. (2001). The influence of culture, community and the nested self in
the stress process: Advancing conservations of resources theory. Applied
Psychology: An International Review, 50, 337-370.
Hudd, S. S., Dumlao, J., Erdmann-Sager, D., Murray, D., Phan, E., Soukas, N., &
Yokozuka, N. (2000).Stress at college: Effects on health habits, health status
and self-esteem. College Student Journal, 34(2), 217-227.
Humphrey, J. H. (1986). Profiles in stress. New York, NY: AMS Press.
Hunt, R. (1959). Socio‐cultural factors in mental disorder. Behavioral Science,
4(2), 96-106.
Johansson, N. (1991). Effectiveness of a stress management program in reducing
anxiety and depression in nursing students. Journal of American College
Health, 40(3), 125-129.
Jacob, T., Gummesson, C., Nordmark, E., El-Ansary, D., Remedios, L., & Webb,
G. (2012). Perceived stress and sources of stress among physiotherapy
students from 3 countries. Journal of Physical Therapy Education, 26(3), 57.
Johns, D. (2006). Stress and its impact on society. New York, NY: Nova Science.
Jones, R. W. (1993). Gender specific differences in the perceived antecedents of
academic stress. Psychological Reports, 72, 739-743.
68
Justice, B. (1987). Who gets sick: How beliefs, moods, and thought affect your
health. Houston, TX: Peak Press.
Kabat-Zinn, J. (1990). Full catastrophe living: Using the wisdom of your body and
mind to face stress, pain, and illness. New York, NY: Dell.
Kaholokula, J. K., Grandinetti, A., Keller, S., Nacapoy, A. H., Kingi, T. K., &
Mau, M. K. (2012). Association between perceived racism and physiological
stress indices in Native Hawaiians. Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 35(1),
27-37.
Kai-Wen, C. (2009). A study of stress sources among college students in Taiwan.
Journal of Academic and Business Ethics, 2, 1-8.
Kessler, R. C., (1979). Stress, social status and psychological distress. Journal of
Health and Social Behavior, 20(3), 259-272.
Khansari, D. N., Murgo, A. J., & Faith, R. E. (1990). Effects of stress on the
immune system. Immunology Today, 11(5), 170-175.
Kim, H., Fredriksen Goldsen, K. I. (2015). Disparities in mental health quality of
life between Hispanic and non-Hispanic White LGB midlife and older adults
and the influence of lifetime discrimination, social connectedness,
socioeconomic status, and perceived stress. Research on Aging. doi:
10.1177/0164027516650003
Klonoff, E. A., Landrine, H., & Ullman, J. B. (1999). Racial discrimination and
psychiatric symptoms among blacks. Cultural Diversity & Ethnic Minority
Psychology, 5(4), 329-339.
Kohn, P. M., Lafreniere, K., & Gurevich, M. (1990). The inventory of college
students’ recent life experiences: A decontaminated hassles scale for a
special population. Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 13(6), 619-630.
Koolhaas, J. M., Bartolomucci, A., Buwalda, B., de Boer, S. F., Flugge, G., Korte,
S. M.,…Fuchs, E. (2011). Stress revisited: A critical evaluation of the stress
concept. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 35(5), 1291-1301.
Knoll, A., & Carlezon, W. (2010). Dynorphin, stress, and depression. Brain
Research, 1314, 56-73.
Kramer, H., Mathews, G., & Endias, R. (1987). Comparative stress levels in parttime and full-time social work programs. Journal of Social Work Education,
23(3), 74-80.
69
Lawton, H. W., & Magarelli, A. (1980). Stress among public child welfare
workers. Catalyst, 2(3), 57-65
Lazarus, R. S. (1966). Psychological stress and the coping process. New York,
NY: McGraw-Hill.
Lazarus, R. S., & Cohen, J. B. (1977). Environmental stress. Human behavior and
the environment: Current theory and research. New York, NY: Plenum.
Lazarus, R. S., & Folkman, S. (1984). Stress, appraisal, and coping. New York,
NY: Springer.
Lehman, E. C. (1972). An empirical note on the transactional model of
psychological stress. The Sociological Quarterly, 13, 484-495.
Lent, R. W., Brown, S. D., Talleyrand, R., McPartland, E. B., Davis, T., Chopra,
S. B., Alexander, M. S., ... Chai, C. M. (2002). Career Choice Barriers,
Supports, and Coping Strategies: College Students' Experiences. Journal of
Vocational Behavior, 60(1), 61-72
Levine, S. (2005). Developmental determinants of sensitivity and resistance to
stress. Psychoneuroendocrinology, 30, 939-994
Levine, S., & Ursin, H. (1991). What is stress? In M. R. Brown, G. F. Koob, & C.
Rivier (Eds.), Stress: Neurobiology and Neuroendocrinology, (pp. 3–21)
New York: Marcel Dekker, Inc.
Lipsky, S., Kernic, M. A., Qiu, Q., & Hasin, D. S. (2015). Traumatic events
associated with posttraumatic stress disorder: The role of race/ethnicity and
depression. Violence Against Women, 1-20. doi: 1077801215617553
Locke, S. E. (1982). Stress, adaption, and immunity: Studies in humans. General
Hospital Psychiatry, 4, 49-58.
Locke, S. E. & Colligan, D. (1986). Stressed for success. New Age Journal, 12,
30-64.
Macan, T., & Schmitt, N. (1994). Time management: Test of a process model.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 79(3), 381-391.
Macan, T. M., Shahani, C., Dipboye, R. L., & Phillips, A. P. (1990). College
students’ time management: Correlations with academic performance and
stress. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 760-768.
70
Maidment J., (2003). Problems experienced by students on field placement: Using
research findings to inform curriculum design and content. Australian Social
Work, 56(1), 50-60.
Mason, A. (2013). Perceptions of psychological and physiological stress
responses: process, accuracy, and measurement convergence (Doctoral
dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations Publishing. (Accession
No. 3588790)
Matud, M. (2004). Gender differences in stress and coping styles. Personality and
Individual Differences, 37(7), 1401-1415.
McEwen, B. S. (1998). Stress, adaptation, and disease: Allostasis and allostatic
load. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 840, 33-44.
McEwen, B. (2007). Physiology and neurobiology of stress and adaptation:
Central role of the brain. Physiological Reviews, 87(3), 873-904.
McEwen, B. S., & Sapolsky, R. M. (1995). Stress and cognitive function. Current
Opinion in Neurobiology, 5(2), 205-216.
McGrath, J.E. (1970). A conceptual formulation for research on stress. In J.E.
McGrath (Ed.). Social and psychological factors in stress (pp. 1-13). New
York, NY: Rinehart & Winston.
Meyer, I. (1995). Minority stress and mental health in gay men. Journal of Health
and Social Behavior, 36(1), 38-56.
Milsum, J. H. (1985). A model of the eustress system for health/illness.
Behavioral Science, 30(4), 179-186.
Mintzer, L. L., Stuber, M. L., Seacord, D., Castaneda, M., Mesrkhani, V., &
Glover, D. (2005). Traumatic stress symptoms in adolescent organ transplant
recipients. Pediatrics, 115(6), 1640-4.
Misra, R., & McKean, M. (2000). College students’ academic stress and its
relation to their anxiety, time management and leisure satisfaction. American
Journal of Health Studies, 16(1), 41.
Moro-Egido, A., & Panades, J. (2010). An analysis of student satisfaction: Fulltime vs. part-time students. Social Indicators Research, 96(2), 363-378.
Munson, C. E. (1984). Stress Among Graduate Social Work Students: An
Empirical Study. Journal of Education for Social Work, 20(3), 20-29.
71
Narayanan, L., Menon, S., & Spector, P. (1999). Stress in the workplace: A
comparison of gender and occupations. Journal of Organizational Behavior,
20(1), 63-73.
National Child Welfare Workforce Institute (2011). Child Welfare Workforce
Demographics (2000-2010). Retrieved from https://www.ncwwi.org/
files/Workforce_Demographic_Trends_May2011.pdf
National College Health Assessment. (2013). Home. Retrieved from
http://www.achancha.org/
National College Health Assessment. (2014). Publications and reports: ACHANCHA II. Retrieved from http://www.acha-ncha.org/reports_ACHANCHAII.html
National College Health Assessment. (2015). Spring 2015 reference group
executive summary. Retrieved from http://www.acha-ncha.org/docs/NCHAII_WEB_SPRING_2015_REFERENCE_GROUP_EXECUTIVE_
SUMMARY.pdf
National Institutes of Health. (2007). Stress affects both body and mind. Retrieved
from http://newsinhealth.nih.gov/2007/January/docs/01features_01.htm
National Institutes of Health. (2012a). Chronic stress tied to worse heart attack
prognosis. Retrieved from http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/
news/fullstory_130005.html
National Institutes of Health. (2012b). Feeling stressed out tied to heart disease
risk. Retrieved from http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/news/
fullstory_129727.html
National Institutes of Health. (2012c). Stress, a ‘Type A’ personality may boost
stroke risk. Retrieved from http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/
news/fullstory_128789.html
Nelson-Gardell, D. & Harris, D. (2003). Childhood abuse history, secondary
traumatic stress, and child welfare workers. Child Welfare, 82(1), 5-26.
Nissly, J. A., Mor Barak, M. E., & Levin, A. (2008). Stress, social support, and
workers’ intention to leave their jobs in public child welfare. Administration
in Social Work, 29(1), 79-100.
72
Nora, A., & Cabrera, A. F. (1996). The role of perceptions of prejudice and
discrimination on the adjustment of minority student to college. Journal of
Higher Education, 67, 119-148.
Office of Graduate Studies. (2016). Who graduate students are. Retrieved from
http://www.unl.edu/mentoring/who-graduate-students-are
Office of Institutional Effectiveness. (2016). Fall 2015. Retrieved from
http://www.fresnostate.edu/academics/oie/quickfacts/index.html
Pelletier, K. R. (1992). Mind as healer, mind as slayer. New York, NY: Dell.
Pieterse, A. L., & Carter, R. T. (2007). An examination of the relationship
between general life stress, racism-related stress, and psychological health
among black men. Journal of counseling psychology, 54(1), 101-109.
Polson, M., & Nida, R. (1998). Program and trainee lifestyle stress: A survey of
AAMFT student members. Journal of Marriage and Family Therapy, 24(1),
95-112.
Pottage, D., & Huxley, P. (1996). Stress and mental health social work: A
developmental perspective. International Journal of Social Psychiatry, 42(2),
124-131.
Pryor, J.H., Hurtado, S., DeAngelo, L., Palucki B., L., & Tran, S. (2010). The
American freshman: National norms fall 2010. The Higher Education
Research Institute. Retrieved from http://heri.ucla.edu/prdisplay.php?prQry=55
Qin, S., Cousijn, H., Rijpkema, M. Luo, J., Franke, B., Hermans, E. J., &
Fernández, G. (2012). The effect of moderate acute psychological stress on
working memory-related neural activity is modulated by a genetic variation
in catecholaminergic function in humans. Frontiers in Integrative
Neuroscience, 6, 16-5145.
Quas, J. A. (2011). Measuring physiological stress responses in children: Lessons
from a novice. Journal of Cognition & Development, 12(3), 261-274.
Quine, L., & Pahl, J. (1991). Stress and coping in mothers caring for a child with
severe learning difficulties: A test of Lazarus’ transactional model of coping.
Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology, 1(1), 57-70.
73
Rice, V. H. (2012). Theories of stress and its relationship to health. In V. H. Rice
(Ed.), Handbook of stress, coping, and health: implications for nursing
research, theory, and practice (pp. 22-42). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Rodgers, L. S., & Tennison, L. R. (2009). A preliminary assessment of adjustment
disorder among first-year college students. Archives of Psychiatric Nursing,
23(3), 220-230.
Roelofs, K., Hagenaars, M., & Stins, J. (2010). Facing freeze: Social threat
induces bodily freeze in humans. Psychological Science, 21(11), 1575-1581.
Ross, S. E., Niebling, B. C., & Heckert, T. M. (1999). Sources of stress among
college students. College Student Journal, 33(2), 312-317.
Salvador, A. (2005) Coping with competitive situations in humans. Neurosceince
and Behavioral Reviews, 29, 195-205.
Sarasan, I. G., Johnson, J. H., & Siegel, J. M. (1978). Assessing the impact of life
changes: Development of the Life Experiences Survey. Journal of Consulting
and Clinical Psychology, 46, 932-946.
Schafer T. (1992) CPN Stress and organizational change: A study. Community
Psychiatric Nursing Journal 1, 16–24.
Selye, H. (1950). Stress and the General Adaptation Syndrome. British Medical
Journal, 1(4667), 1383-1392.
Selye, H. (1951). First annual report on stress. Montreal, Quebec: Acta.
Selye, H. (1974). Stress without distress. Philadelphia, PA: J.B. Lippincott Co
Selye, H. (1975). Stress and distress. Comprehensive Therapy, 1(7), 9-13.
Selye, H. (1976a). Forty years of stress research: Principal remaining problems
and misconceptions. Canadian Medical Association Journal, 115(1), 53-56.
Selye H. (1976b). Further thoughts on “stress without distress.” Medical Times
104(11), 124-132.
Selye, H. (1976c). The stress of life. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Senatra, P. (1988). What are the sources and consequences of stress? Do men and
women differ in their perceptions? The Woman CPA 50(3), 13.
74
Shah, M., Hasan, S., Malik, S., Sreeramareddy, C., & Chandrashekhar, T. (2010).
Perceived stress, sources and severity of stress among medical
undergraduates in a Pakistani medical school. Biomedical Central Medical
Education, 10, 2-9.
Sontag, L. M., & Graber, J. A. (2010). Coping with perceived peer stress: Genderspecific and common pathways to symptoms of psychopathology.
Developmental Psychology, 46(6), 1605-1620.
Starcevic, V. (2007). Dysphoric about dysphoria: Towards a greater conceptual
clarity of the term. Australasian Psychiatry, 5(1), 9-13.
Sweis, B., Veverka, K., Dhillon, E., Urban, J., & Lucas, L. (2013). Individual
differences in the effects of chronic stress on memory: Behavioral and
neurochemical correlates of resiliency. Neuroscience, 246, 142-159.
Tache, J., and Selye, H. (1985). On stress and coping mechanisms. Issues in
Mental Health Nursing, 7, 3-24. doi: 10.3109/01612848509009447
Taylor, S. E., Seeman, T. E., Eisenberger, N. I., Kozanian, T. A., Moore, A. N., &
Moons, W. G. (2010). Effects of a supportive or an unsupportive audience on
biological and psychological responses to stress. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 98(1), 47-56.
The California State University Statistical Reports. (2015). Statistical Reports.
Retrieved from http://www.calstate.edu/AS/stat_reports/20142015/index.shtml
Thomas, A., Witherspoon, K., Speight, S., & Nagayama, H. G. (2008). Gendered
racism, psychological distress, and coping styles of African American
women. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 14(4), 307-314.
Thompson, V. (2002). Racism: Perceptions of distress among African Americans.
Community Mental Health Journal, 38(2), 111-118.
Ting, L., Morris, K. J., McFeaters, S. J. & Eustice, L., (2006). Multiple roles,
stressors, and needs among baccalaureate social work students: an
exploratory study. Journal of Baccalaureate Social Work, 12, 39 – 55.
Tobin, P. J., & Carson, J. (1994). Stress and the student social worker. Social
Work & Social Sciences Review, 5(3), 246-255.
75
Torres, J. B., & Solberg, V. S. (2000). Role of self-efficacy, stress, social
integration, and family support in Latino College Student Persistence and
Health. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 59, 53-63.
Tucker, B., Jones, S., Mandy, A., & Gupta, R. (2006). Physiotherapy students’
sources of stress, perceived course difficulty, and paid employment:
Comparison between Western Australia and United Kingdom. Physiotherapy
Theory & Practice, 22(6), 317-328.
Tran, T. V., & Dhooper, S. (1997). Poverty, chronic stress, ethnicity and
psychological distress among elderly Hispanics. Journal of Gerontological
Social Work, 27(4), 3-19.
United States Department of Health and Human Services. (2012). Home.
Retrieved from http://www.hhs.gov/
Vines, A. I., Ta, M., Esserman, D., & Baird, D. D. (2009). A comparison of the
occurrence and perceived stress of major life events in black and white
women. Women and Health, 49(5), 368-380.
Wadsworth, E., Dhillon, K., Shaw, C., Bhui, K., Stansfeld, S., & Smith, A. (2007).
Racial discrimination, ethnicity and work stress. Occupational Medicineoxford, 57(1), 18-24.
Waters, J., & Ussery, W. (2007). Police stress: History, contributing factors,
symptoms, and interventions. Policing: An International Journal of Police
Strategies & Management, 30(2), 169-188.
Whitaker, T., & Arrington, P. (2008). Social workers at work NASW membership
Workforce Study. Retrieved from http://workforce.socialworkers.org/
Wilks, S., & Spivey, C. (2010). Resilience in Undergraduate Social Work
Students: Social Support and Adjustment to Academic Stress. Social Work
Education, 29(3), 276-288.
World Health Organization. (2012). Psychological health. Retrieved from
http://www.who.int/ith/other_health_risks/psychological_health/en/
Wu, J. (2000). Rising stress levels alarm health educators. Retrieved from
http://www.stress.org/college-students/
76
Zerach, G., & Solomon, Z. (2013). The relations between posttraumatic stress
disorder symptoms and disorder of extreme stress (not otherwise specified)
symptoms following war captivity. Israel Journal of Psychiatry and Related
Sciences, 50(3), 148-155.
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A: INVENTORY OF COLLEGE STUDENTS’
RECENT LIFE EVENTS
79
SELF-ASSESSMENT: INVENTORY OF COLLEGE STUDENTS’
RECENT LIFE EXPERIENCES (ICSRLE)2
Everyday “hassles” can have a major impact on an individual’s mental and
physical health. The Inventory of College Students’ Recent Life Experiences
(ICSRLE) will help you determine the degree to which you experience hassles
in your life. Your score on this self-assessment will provide an indication of
how likely you are, as a result of your day-to-day hassles, to experience
negative feelings that can lead to adverse health effects.
Instructions
Using one of the response choices listed, indicate for each experience how
much it has been a part of your life over the past month.
Response choices:
1 = Not at all part of your life over the past month
2 = Only slightly part of your life over the past month
3 = Distinctly part of your life over the past month
4 = Very much part of your life over the past month
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
Conflicts with boyfriend’s/girlfriend’s/spouse’s family
Being let down or disappointed by friends
Conflict with professor(s)/instructor(s)
Social rejections
Too many things to do at once
Being taken for granted
Financial conflicts with family members
Having your trust betrayed by a friend
Separation from people you care about
Having your contributions overlooked
Struggling to meet your own academic standards
Being taken advantage of
Not enough leisure time
80
14. Struggling to meet the academic standards of others
15. A lot of responsibilities
16. Dissatisfaction with school
17. Decisions about intimate relationship(s)
18. Not enough time to meet your obligations
19. Dissatisfaction with your mathematical ability
20. Important decisions about your future career
21. Financial burdens
22. Dissatisfaction with your reading ability
23. Important decisions about your education
24. Loneliness
25. Lower grades than you hoped for
26. Conflict with teaching assistant(s)
27. Not enough time for sleep
28. Conflicts with your family
29. Heavy demands from extracurricular activities
30. Finding courses too demanding
31. Conflicts with friends
32. Hard effort to get ahead
33. Poor health of a friend
34. Disliking your studies
35. Getting “ripped off” or cheated in the purchase of services
36. Social conflicts over smoking
37. Difficulties with transportation
38. Disliking fellow student(s)
39. Conflicts with boyfriend/girlfriend/spouse
40. Dissatisfaction with your ability at written expression
41. Interruptions of your school work
42. Social isolation
43. Long waits to get service (e.g., at banks or stores)
44. Being ignored
45. Dissatisfaction with your physical appearance
46. Finding course(s) uninteresting
47. Gossip concerning someone you care about
48. Failing to get expected job
49. Dissatisfaction with your athletic skills
ICSRLE Score:
APPENDIX B: PERCEIVED STRESS SCALE
82
APPENDIX C: INVENTORY OF COLLEGE STUDENTS’
RECENT LIFE EVENTS RESPONSES
Inventory of College Students’ Recent Life Events Responses
Life Experiences
Academic
Conflict with professor(s)/instructor(s)
Conflict with teaching assistant(s)
Disliking fellow student(s)
Disliking your studies
Dissatisfaction with school
Dissatisfaction with your ability at written
expression
Dissatisfaction with your mathematical ability
Dissatisfaction with your reading ability
Failing to get expected job
Finding course(s) uninteresting
Finding courses too demanding
Hard effort to get ahead
Important decisions about your education
Interruptions of your school work
Lower grades than you hoped for
Struggling to meet the academic standards of
others
Struggling to meet your own academic standards
Time Pressure
Not at all
n (%)
Only
Slightly
n (%)
Distinctly
n (%)
Very Much
n (%)
Mean
42 (68.9)
52 (85.2)
43 (70.5)
42 (68.9)
23 (37.7)
30 (49.2)
15 (24.6)
5 (8.2)
16 (26.2)
12 (19.7)
25 (41.0)
14 (23.0)
3 (4.9)
2 (3.3)
1 (1.6)
6 (9.8)
8 (13.1)
12 (19.7)
1 (1.6)
2 (3.3)
1 (1.6)
1 (1.6)
5 (8.2)
5 (8.2)
1.39
1.25
1.34
1.44
3.62
1.87
33 (54.1)
36 (59.0)
42 (68.9)
29 (47.5)
18 (29.5)
17 (27.9)
16 (26.2)
13 (21.3)
40 (65.6)
17 (27.9)
15 (24.6)
16.0 (26.2)
14 (23.0)
22 (36.1)
20 (32.8)
19 (31.1)
22 (36.1)
22 (36.1)
11 (18.0)
20 (32.8)
6 (9.5)
7 (11.5)
4 (6.6)
9 (14.8)
14 (23.0)
11 (18.0)
10 (16.4)
16 (26.2)
5 (8.2)
16 (26.2)
7 (11.5)
2 (3.3)
1 (1.6)
1 (1.6)
9 (14.8)
14 (23.0)
13 (21.3)
10 (16.4)
5 (8.2)
8 (31.1)
1.79
1.59
1.41
1.7
2.23
2.36
2.33
2.38
1.59
2.25
10 (21.3)
35 (57.4)
10 (16.4)
3 (4.9)
2.62
84
A lot of responsibilities
Difficulties with transportation
Heavy demands from extracurricular activities
Long waits to get service (e.g., at banks or stores)
Not enough leisure time
Not enough time for sleep
Not enough time to meet your obligations
Too many things to do at once
Interpersonal
Being ignored
Being let down or disappointed by friends
Being taken advantage of
Being taken for granted
Conflicts with boyfriend/girlfriend/spouse
Conflicts with boyfriend’s/girlfriend’s/spouse’s
family
Conflicts with friends
Conflicts with your family
Decisions about intimate relationship(s)
Financial conflicts with family members
Having your contributions overlooked
Having your trust betrayed by a friend
Poor health of a friend
Separation from people you care about
Social rejections
Intrapersonal
Dissatisfaction with your athletic skills
2 (3.3)
45 (73.8)
17 (27.9)
40 (65.6)
3 (4.9)
7 (11.5)
7 (11.5)
1 (1.6)
2 (3.3)
10 (16.4)
25 (41.0)
14 (23.0)
6 (9.8)
13 (21.3)
11 (18.0)
2 (3.3)
14 (23.0)
5 (8.2)
8 (13.1)
3 (4.9)
16 (26.2)
8 (13.1)
21 (34.4)
10 (16.4)
42 (68.)
1 (1.6)
11 (18.0)
4 (6.6)
36 (59.0)
33 (54.1)
22 (36.1)
48 (78.7)
3.62
1.38
2.21
1.52
3.39
3.10
2.95
3.72
41 (67.2)
37 (60.7)
39 (63.9)
16 (26.2)
26 (42.6)
20 (32.8)
14 (23.0)
17 (27.9)
11 (18.0)
24 (39.3)
23 (37.7)
26 (42.6)
5 (8.2)
6 (9.8)
5 (8.2)
13 (21.3)
8 (13.1)
12 (19.7)
1 (1.6)
1 (1.6)
6 (9.8)
8 (13.1)
4 (6.6)
3 (4.9)
1.44
1.52
1.64
2.21
1.84
1.97
43 (70.5)
29 (47.5)
26 (42.6)
26 (42.6)
13 (21.3)
51 (83.6)
38 (62.3)
24 (39.3)
41 (67.2)
10 (16.4)
18 (29.5)
22 (36.1)
16 (26.2)
35 (57.4)
5 (8.2)
13 (21.3)
19 (31.1)
15 (24.6)
5 (8.2)
10 (16.4)
8 (13.1)
10 (16.4)
10 (16.4)
3 (4.9)
8 (13.1)
10 (16.4)
4 (6.6)
3 (4.9)
4 (6.6)
5 (8.2)
9 (14.8)
3 (4.9)
2 (3.3)
2 (3.3)
8 (13.1)
1 (1.6)
1.48
1.82
1.87
2.03
2.05
1.28
1.57
2.03
1.43
34 (55.7
17 (27.9)
7 (11.5)
3 (4.9)
1.66
85
Dissatisfaction with your physical appearance
Gossip concerning someone you care about
Important decisions about your future career
Loneliness
Social conflicts over smoking
Social isolation
Financial
Financial burdens
Financial conflicts with family members
Getting “ripped off” or cheated in the purchase of
services
8 (13.1)
46 (75.4)
12 (19.7)
31 (50.8)
54 (88.5)
32 (52.5)
32 (52.5)
9 (14.8)
18 (29.5)
15 (24.6)
2 (3.3)
20 (32.8)
133 (21.3)
4 (6.6)
20 (32.8)
10 (16.4)
3 (4.9)
5 (8.2)
8 (13.1)
2 (3.3)
11 (18.0)
5 (8.2)
2 (3.3)
4 (6.6)
2.34
1.38
2.49
1.82
1.23
1.69
10 (16.4)
26 (42.6)
45 (73.8)
17 (27.9)
16 (26.2)
9 (14.8)
11 (18.0)
10 (16.4)
5 (8.2)
23 (37.7)
9 (14.8)
2 (3.3)
2.77
2.03
1.41
86
APPENDIX D: RACE/ETHNICITY AND SOURCES OF STRESS
Race/Ethnicity and Sources of Stress
African
Type of
American
Asian
Stressor
Mean SD Mean SD
Academic
2.0
0.4
2.0
0.5
Financial
2.4
0.4
2.0
0.6
Interpersonal
2.1
0.6
1.5
0.4
Intrapersonal
1.9
0.6
1.9
.1
Time Pressure
2.9
0.7
3.0
0.1
White
Mean SD
1.6
0.4
1.9
0.5
1.6
0.2
1.7
.04
2.5
0.7
Hispanic/
Latino
Mean SD
1.8
0.6
2.1
0.7
1.7
0.5
1.8
.05
2.8
0.5
Native
American
Mean SD
1.5
.2
1.2
0.2
1.4
0.2
1.6
0.1
2.0
0.5
Multiracial
Mean SD
2.2
0.6
2.5
0.9
2.2
0.7
2.0
0.3
3.0
0.3
Other
Mean SD
1.3
-1.3
-1.1
-1.6
-2.4
--
88
APPENDIX E: RACE/ETHNICITY AND STRESS EXPOSURE
Race/Ethnicity and Stress Exposure
African
Stress
American
Asian
Exposure
n
%
n
%
Low
0
0
0
0
Moderate
7
100
5
100
High
0
0
0
0
White
n
%
0
0
11
100
0
0
Hispanic/
Latino
n
%
0
0
29
96.7
1
3.3
Native
American
n
%
0
0
2
100
0
0
Multiracial
n
%
0
0
5
100
0
0
Other
n
%
0
0
1
100
0
0
90
APPENDIX F: RACE/ETHNICITY AND PERCEIVED STRESS
Race/Ethnicity and Perceived Stress
African
Perceived
American
Asian
Stress
n
%
n
%
Low
2
28.6
0
0
Moderate
3
42.9
3
60
High
2
28.6
2
40
White
n
%
1
9.1
9
81.8
1
9.1
Hispanic/
Latino
n
%
4
13.3
25
83.3
1
3.1
Native
American
n
%
0
0
2
100
0
0
Multiracial
n
%
1
20
1
20
3
60
Other
n
%
1
100
0
0
0
0
92
APPENDIX G: YEAR-IN-SCHOOL AND SOURCES OF STRESS
Year-in-School and Sources of Stress
Type of
Stressor
Sophomore
Mean SD
Academic
2.9
-Financial
3.0
-Interpersonal 2.5
-Intrapersonal 2.9
-Time
3.3
-Pressure
Junior
Mean
SD
2.8
-3.0
-2.7
-2.9
-3.1
--
Senior
Mean SD
1.8
0.5
2.2
0.8
1.7
0.6
1.8
0.2
2.5
0.7
1st Year
Graduate
Mean SD
1.8
0.4
2.0
0.6
1.8
0.5
1.8
0.5
2.9
0.5
2nd Year
Graduate
Mean SD
1.9
0.6
2.1
0.6
1.7
0.4
1.8
0.5
2.7
0.5
3rd Year
Graduate
Mean SD
1.6
0.4
1.8
0.5
1.6
0.4
1.6
0.3
2.5
0.6
4th Year
Graduate
Mean SD
1.9
0.4
2.0
1.0
1.8
0.5
1.8
0.3
2.8
0.4
94
APPENDIX H: YEAR-IN-SCHOOL AND STRESS EXPOSURE
Year-in-School and Stress Exposure
Stressor
Exposure
Low
Moderate
High
Sophomore
n
%
0
0
1
100
0
0
Junior
n
%
0
0
0
0
1
100
Senior
n
%
0
0
11
100
0
0
1st Year
Graduate
n
%
0
0
19
100
0
0
2nd Year
Graduate
n
%
0
0
16
100
0
0
3rd Year
Graduate
n
%
0
0
9
100
0
0
4th Year
Graduate
n
%
0
0
3
100
0
0
96
APPENDIX I: YEAR-IN-SCHOOL AND PERCEIVED STRESS
Year-in-School and Perceived Stress
Perceived
Stress
Low
Moderate
High
Sophomore
n
%
0
0
1
100
---
Junior
n
%
1
100
0
0
---
Senior
n
%
3
27.3
5
45.5
3
27.3
1st Year
Graduate
n
%
4
21.1
14
73.7
1
5.3
2nd Year
Graduate
n
%
0
0
13
81.3
3
18.8
3rd Year
Graduate
n
%
1
11.1
7
77.8
1
11.1
4th Year
Graduate
n
%
0
0
2
66.7
1
33.3
98
APPENDIX J: IMPLIED CONSENT
100
APPENDIX J: IMPLIED CONSENT
Fresno State
Non-Exclusive Distribution License
(to archive your thesis/dissertation electronically via the library’s eCollections database)
By submitting this license, you (the author or copyright holder) grant to Fresno State Digital
Scholar the non-exclusive right to reproduce, translate (as defined in the next paragraph), and/or
distribute your submission (including the abstract) worldwide in print and electronic format and
in any medium, including but not limited to audio or video.
You agree that Fresno State may, without changing the content, translate the submission to any
medium or format for the purpose of preservation.
You also agree that the submission is your original work, and that you have the right to grant the
rights contained in this license. You also represent that your submission does not, to the best of
your knowledge, infringe upon anyone’s copyright.
If the submission reproduces material for which you do not hold copyright and that would not be
considered fair use outside the copyright law, you represent that you have obtained the
unrestricted permission of the copyright owner to grant Fresno State the rights required by this
license, and that such third-party material is clearly identified and acknowledged within the text
or content of the submission.
If the submission is based upon work that has been sponsored or supported by an agency or
organization other than Fresno State, you represent that you have fulfilled any right of review or
other obligations required by such contract or agreement.
Fresno State will clearly identify your name as the author or owner of the submission and will not
make any alteration, other than as allowed by this license, to your submission. By typing your
name and date in the fields below, you indicate your agreement to the terms of this
distribution license.
Embargo options (fill box with an X).
X
Make my thesis or dissertation available to eCollections immediately upon
submission.
Embargo my thesis or dissertation for a period of 2 years from date of graduation.
Embargo my thesis or dissertation for a period of 5 years from date of graduation.
Kristin Carraway
Type full name as it appears on submission
July 7, 2016
Date