International Journal of Educational Research Open 3 (2022) 100124

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

International Journal of Educational Research Open

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ijedro

Building self-efficacy without letting stress knock it down: Stress and

academic self-efficacy of university students
Elizabeth Hitches a, Stuart Woodcock b,∗, John Ehrich c
a
Institute for Social Science Research, University of Queensland, Australia
b
School of Education and Professional Studies, Griffith University, Australia
c
School of Education, Macquarie University, Australia

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Keywords: In recent decades the number of university students who in addition to their education, balance other substantial
Stress commitments has increased, leading to greater stress and pressure to succeed in their studies. Furthermore, when
Self-efficacy students are confident, they can succeed. This study examined the stress and academic self-efficacy levels of
Teacher education
305 Australian Teacher Education students via a self-reported survey. Results suggest that females and younger
University student
students may experience higher levels of stress and lower levels of academic self-efficacy than their peers. For
Higher education
students in higher education, support or intervention to improve their belief in their capabilities regarding aca-
demic tasks need to consider targeting specific groups of students. Implications and recommendations for future
research and practice will be discussed.

Introduction demic self-efficacy levels of TE students and to determine whether dif-

Higher education benefits the individual, as well as the commu-
nity and society to which they contribute (Ma et al., 2016), how-
ever, the educational journey is not without its challenges. Internation-
ally, students report high stress related to their education, which can
have adverse effects upon their health, quality of life and academic
achievement (Pascoe et al., 2020). However, when students are confi-
dent academically, they experience less stress, adjust more successfully
to university, and are considered ‘healthier’ and ‘happier’ individuals
(Chemers et al., 2001, p. 62). Success in higher education encompasses
not only students’ achievement but life satisfaction, which academic
confidence (self-efficacy) and stress may predict, respectively (Krumrei-
Mancuso et al., 2013). As such, examining the latter factors may provide
insight into how best to support university students to reach their full
potential, and which individuals may be in greatest need of such sup-
port.
This study focuses specifically upon Teacher Education (TE) students
(i.e., pre-service/trainee teachers) for the following reasons. For TE stu-
dents, unmanaged stress during university-level study can increase their
‘vulnerability to burnout’ in their future teaching career (Deasy et al.,
2014, p. 85). Furthermore, whilst research has examined TE students’
belief in their capabilities as developing teachers (teacher self-efficacy),
their belief in their academic capabilities as university students (aca-
demic self-efficacy) is significantly under-researched. Adding to this lim-
ited research, this study aims to examine the academic stress and aca-
ferences exist across gender, age, their stage within their degree (begin-
ning, middle, or end), and their teaching specialisation.
Academic stress and academic self-efficacy in higher education
Stress
Individuals face demands or stressors as part of their normal daily
lives, however, according to Lazarus and Folkman (1986) when these
threaten or overwhelm the individual’s resources, or place their well-
being ‘at risk’, the individual often experiences stress. Whilst low lev-
els of stress can aid performance, ongoing or high levels of stress can
be detrimental to an individual’s wellbeing (Varghese et al., 2015). In-
deed, there may be an increased risk of poorer mental and physical
health outcomes, and even premature death, for individuals experienc-
ing high stress who perceive it negatively impacts their health (Keller
et al., 2012).
Students’ experiences of stress in higher education
University students encounter diverse demands, and the stress expe-
rienced in response has implications for their wellbeing and academic
performance (see Hitches, Woodcock, & Ehrich, 2021; Pascoe et al.,
2020). Students’ concerns regarding their achievement, pressure to suc-
ceed, and finances have been correlated with stress, anxiety and depres-
sion (Beiter et al., 2015). Stress related to students’ studies is reported
in high levels by students internationally, and can negatively impact

∗
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: s.woodcock@griffith.edu.au (S. Woodcock).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijedro.2022.100124
Received 1 December 2021; Received in revised form 5 January 2022; Accepted 5 January 2022
2666-3740/© 2022 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)
E. Hitches, S. Woodcock and J. Ehrich
their learning and performance, as well as physical and mental health
(Pascoe et al., 2020; Powell et al., 2018). Stress can also predict stu-
dents’ life satisfaction (Krumrei-Mancuso et al., 2013), and quality of
life (Ribeiro et al., 2018). Furthermore, ongoing stress can be a precur-
sor of poor mental health, which may further the negative effects on
students’ educational experiences (Pascoe et al., 2020).
University students’ reports of stress may vary according to gender,
age, and how far students have progressed in their degree. For exam-
ple, female students have reported higher levels of overall stress than
male students (Brougham et al., 2009). Whilst males may be reluctant
to self-report mental health experiences, such findings may result from
female students’ more frequent use of coping-related behaviors such as
ruminating (see Smith et al., 2018). Limited research has examined the
stress of students identifying as nonbinary, however, the campus climate
and a sense of belonging may play a role in students’ stress experiences
(Budge et al., 2020). Additionally, students who are ‘older’ may be more
resilient to stress than their peers, potentially explained by their life ex-
perience or coping skills (Stallman, 2010). However, undergraduate stu-
dents in the latter stages of their degree reported higher levels of stress
than in earlier stages, perhaps resulting from academic demands in the
final year (Beiter et al., 2015). Beiter et al. (2015) emphasise the need
to investigate stressors related to different stages of study in order for
universities to effectively cater for students’ needs.
Stress and teacher education students
Teacher Education students may experience high stress, particularly
in their first year, with many reporting the difficulty of managing study,
work and family responsibilities, and having a limited understanding of
the teaching profession (Geng & Midford, 2015). Exams and assessments
contribute to stress (Deasy et al., 2016), as do the demands of main-
taining study during professional experience placements (Deasy et al.,
2016; Geng & Midford, 2015). Such stress has been negatively associated
with TE students’ academic performance (Gustems-Carnicer, Calderón,
& Calderón-Garrido, 2019). In regard to gender, female TE students
may experience higher stress than males (Deasy et al., 2016). How-
ever, the effect of stress on TE students appears to decrease as age in-
creases (Gustems-Carnicer, Calderón, & Calderón-Garrido, 2019), and
time management and self-regulation of learning may lower stress and
anxiety (Heikkila, Lonka, Nieminen, & Niemivirta, 2012). For the many
TE students who experience stress, there may be reluctance to seek as-
sistance, and some are unaware of how to access support (Deasy et al.,
2016; Geng & Midford, 2015). This is significant considering stress
which goes unmanaged during students’ TE years can increase their like-
lihood for burnout during their teaching career (Deasy et al., 2014). TE
courses may be beneficial sites for intervention, with implications be-
yond students’ studies (see Deasy et al., 2014), and therefore, further
insight is needed into TE students’ experiences of stress to understand
their needs.
Whilst a holistic view of student success includes life satisfaction, of
which students’ stress can be an important indicator, it also traditionally
includes academic achievement, which may be predicted by students’
academic self-efficacy (Krumrei-Mancuso et al., 2013).
Self-efficacy
When individuals feel confident they can complete a particular
task, they approach it more calmly and with greater thoughtfulness
(Chemers et al., 2001). An individual’s belief in their capabilities ‘to
organize and execute the courses of action required to produce given
attainments’, is termed self-efficacy (Bandura, 1997, p. 3). Self-efficacy
may vary between, and within, ‘activity domains’ (Bandura, 1997,
p. 42), and therefore, within academic domains it has often opera-
tionalised under the term academic self-efficacy (see Honicke & Broad-
bent, 2016), defined as a student’s belief in their capability to ‘success-
fully attain educational goals’ (Elias & McDonald, 2007, p. 2520). It is
typically measured at a task-specific level (Ferla et al., 2009), however,
as Honicke and Broadbent (2016) discuss, there is significant variance
2
International Journal of Educational Research Open 3 (2022) 100124
in the measures utilised, and the internal consistency and construct va-
lidity of academic self-efficacy scales.
Academic self-efficacy in higher education
In higher education, students’ belief in their academic capabilities
has been associated with their academic achievement and function-
ing. For example, students’ academic self-efficacy has been related to
their overall academic performance (Cassidy, 2012), potentially me-
diated by students’ regulation of effort expenditure (see Honicke &
Broadbent, 2016). Additionally, academic self-efficacy has been asso-
ciated with academic resilience, with efficacious students more likely
to achieve when faced with challenging academic experiences (Ayala
& Manzano, 2018; Cassidy, 2015). Studies have also found that with
intervention, students’ self-efficacy levels can improve (see Bartimote-
Aufflick et al., 2016).
As with stress, university students’ academic self-efficacy may vary
across gender, age and how far students have progressed in their course.
For example, a study by Huang (2013) found that male students reported
higher academic self-efficacy than females, except within language arts
domains, and the gap between genders increased with age. Furthermore,
during adolescence and adulthood self-esteem may increase with age
(Orth et al., 2018), suggesting trends in academic self-efficacy be inves-
tigated also. Additionally, students’ academic self-efficacy levels may be
higher in the latter stages of their course, compared with earlier stages,
and their approach to learning also improved (Cassidy, 2012). The cor-
relation between academic self-efficacy and students’ performance may
also be affected by students’ progression through their studies, however,
further research is required (see Honicke & Broadbent, 2016).
Academic self-efficacy and teacher education students
Self-efficacy research has examined TE students’ belief in their ca-
pabilities as developing teachers or their teacher self-efficacy (e.g.,
Kokkinos & Stavropoulos, 2016; Tuchman & Isaacs, 2011), however,
regarding self-efficacy for their studies and for performing as univer-
sity students, research is significantly limited. Turkish studies predomi-
nate the literature, with findings that TE students with higher academic
self-efficacy levels procrastinate less (Malkoc & Mutlu, 2018; Ozer &
Yetkin, 2018), that academic self-efficacy may be impacted by teacher
self-efficacy (Yesilyurt, Ulas, & Akan, 2016), and that early childhood
TE students’ academic self-efficacy was related to their levels of moti-
vation in their studies (Bedel, 2016). Additionally, in Pakistan, TE stu-
dents’ academic self-efficacy levels were associated with their academic
performance (Nasir & Iqbal, 2019). These findings illustrate that studies
should be conducted examining the academic self-efficacy of TE students
in other countries, such as Australia.
The relationship between stress and self-efficacy in academic domains
Stress and self-efficacy are both social cognitive factors situated
within Bandura’s (1978) reciprocal determinism, and within academic
domains, research has illustrated that students’ levels of stress and aca-
demic self-efficacy can impact each other. For example, academic self-
efficacy may predict students’ adaptive coping with stress (Freire et al.,
2019), or moderate the impact of stressors (see Zajacova et al., 2005),
with students who are confident in their academic capabilities likely
perceiving stressors as challenging rather than threatening, lessening
their stress and seeing them more adjusted to university (Chemers et al.,
2001). Students with low self-efficacy, however, may consider tasks to
be more demanding than they are, generating stress and limiting their
problem-solving abilities (Pajares, 1996). Complementing such find-
ings, physiological experiences associated with stress can influence self-
efficacy, providing information on the level of threat of a task and the
individual’s capabilities to meet the demands (see Bandura, 1997). Fur-
thermore, academic self-efficacy and stress have been found to be neg-
atively correlated, such that the more confident the student is in their
E. Hitches, S. Woodcock and J. Ehrich
academic capabilities, the less stressed, and vice versa (Chee et al., 2019;
Zajacova et al., 2005).
Research concurrently investigating university students’
levels of academic self-efficacy and stress is limited, and as
Zajacova et al. (2005) state, prior to their study it appeared these
constructs had been examined in relation to differing tasks, compro-
mising comparisons between academic self-efficacy and stress in higher
education environments. However, in examining both constructs in
relation to identical university-related tasks, such as preparing for
exams, Zajacova et al. (2005) found that academic self-efficacy was a
stronger predictor than stress for academic achievement, whilst stress
was a stronger predictor for students’ continued enrolment in their
studies.
Success in higher education can be indicated by academic perfor-
mance and life satisfaction, which students’ academic self-efficacy and
stress levels may predict, respectively (Krumrei-Mancuso et al., 2013).
Although research has observed differences in the stress and academic
self-efficacy levels of university students across gender, age, and course
progression, there are suggestions that instruments need to be investi-
gated to ensure differences are not the result of measurement invariance
or bias in academic self-efficacy scales (see Nielsen et al., 2018). Further-
more, research involving TE students has tended to focus upon stress and
self-efficacy related to their role as developing teachers, and there has
not been the same consideration given to their role and experiences as
students of higher education, managing various educational challenges
and pressures to succeed. To effectively support them through their stud-
ies, such an understanding is essential. Currently, studies investigating
TE students’ academic self-efficacy are significantly limited and Turk-
ish studies predominate, whilst further investigation is also required to
understand TE students’ study-related stressors. The aim of this study,
therefore, was to examine the stress and academic self-efficacy levels
of TE students, and to determine whether differences exist across gen-
der, age, and their stage of their degree (beginning, middle, or end)
using psychometrically sound measurement instruments. The following
research questions were investigated:
(1) Are the academic stress and academic self-efficacy scales used in this
study psychometrically sound?
(2) Do TE students’ academic stress levels for academic performance,
study skills, and interaction at university, differ across gender, teach-
ing specialisation, and stage of their degree (beginning, middle, or
end)?
(3) Do TE students’ academic self-efficacy levels for academic perfor-
mance, study skills, interaction at university, and navigating univer-
sity, differ across gender, teaching specialisation, and stage of their
degree?
(4) Are TE students’ overall academic stress levels related to age or stage
of their degree?
(5) Are TE students’ overall academic self-efficacy levels related to age
or stage of their degree?
(6) Are TE students’ overall academic stress and academic self-efficacy
levels related?
Method
Participants
Participants included 305 Teacher Education students at a Sydney
metropolitan university in Australia. Of the 305 students, 78.4% identi-
fied as female, 19.7% identified as male, and 1.9% identified as being of
another gender, reflecting the gender ratio of in-service teachers in New
South Wales, Australia (NSW Department of Education, 2018). Further-
more, 23.0% were under the age of 20, 68.2% were aged 20 to 29, 4.6%
were aged 30 to 39, 3.3% were aged 40 to 49, and 0.9% were aged 50
and above. In terms of students’ stage of their degree, 32.1% were in the
beginning of their undergraduate degree, 33.8% in the middle, 34.1% in
3
International Journal of Educational Research Open 3 (2022) 100124
the final stage of their degree. Regarding teaching specialisation, 53.1%
were training in primary (elementary) teaching, 42.0% were training in
secondary teaching, and 4.9% were undertaking study in another field
of education.
Instrument
This study employed the college Academic Self-Efficacy and Stress
scales developed by Zajacova et al. (2005). This instrument has been
employed in a number of studies across various higher education popu-
lations. The academic self-efficacy scale asks students to rate their con-
fidence in their ability to successfully complete 27 tasks related to stu-
dents’ academic performance inside and outside of class, their interac-
tions at college, and managing work, family and college. Scale items in-
clude tasks such as ‘doing well in my toughest class’ and ‘preparing for
exams’. Students rate their confidence on an 11-point Likert-type scale
from ‘not at all confident = 0′ to ‘extremely confident = 10′. The stress
scale includes identical tasks to enable comparison with academic self-
efficacy, with students reporting how stressful the tasks are for them on
an 11-point Likert-type scale from ‘not at all stressful = 0′ to ‘extremely
stressful = 10′. For use in this current study, minor changes were made
to context-specific terminology by the authors (such as using ‘univer-
sity’ in place of ‘college’). The stress and academic self-efficacy subscales
were found to have acceptable to high-reliability indices (i.e., subscales
ranged from 0.72 to 0.90; see Zajacova et al., 2005).
Procedure
After approval was granted from the relevant Ethics Committee and
participating university program directors, students were provided with
information about the study by the researchers during class and invited
to participate. Surveys were distributed in class and students deposited
their survey responses into a locked post-box in the following session
for the researchers to collect. The survey consisted of two parts, the
first containing questions relating to student demographics, and the sec-
ond containing the academic self-efficacy and stress scales developed by
Zajacova et al. (2005).
Data analyses
Principal components analyses (PCA) were run on the Stress and Aca-
demic Self-efficacy scales to determine their factor structures. This was
considered appropriate by the researchers as although a number of stud-
ies have employed these scales, there is little psychometric information
available on them (Shehadeh et al., 2020). The factors (i.e., subscales)
were then tested (and optimized) for their linear measurement qualities
using Rasch analyses, answering research question 1. Analyses of vari-
ances (ANOVAs) were then run to determine significant differences in
stress and self-efficacy levels across person factors (e.g., gender, teach-
ing speciality, and stage of their degree), answering research questions
2 and 3. A series of bivariate correlations were conducted to determine
the relationship between students’ age, stage of their degree, and over-
all academic stress and academic self-efficacy, answering research ques-
tions 4, 5, and 6.
Results
Principal components analysis (PCA)
In order to determine the internal structure of the Stress and Aca-
demic Self-efficacy scales two separate PCAs were conducted. Maximum
likelihood estimation and oblique (direct oblimin) factor rotation was
used in both analyses.
E. Hitches, S. Woodcock and J. Ehrich International Journal of Educational Research Open 3 (2022) 100124

Table 1 Table 2
Principal component loadings for the Stress subscales. Principal component loadings for the Self-efficacy subscales.

# Item Component loadings # Item Component loadings

Component 1 (Academic Performance) Component 1 (Academic Performance)

10 Having more tests in the same week .774 13 Preparing for exams .822
8 Doing well on exams .757 8 Doing well on exams .784
18 Getting the marks I want .703 24 Finding time to study .779
13 Preparing for exams .652 18 Getting the marks I want .769
22 Doing well in my toughest class .649 14 Managing time effectively .752
3 Keeping up with the required readings .592 12 Managing both study and work .752
14 Managing time effectively .498 22 Doing well in my toughest class .716
9 Getting assessments done on time .488 9 Getting assessments done on time .700
5 Writing my assignments .437 10 Having more tests in the same week .646
1 Studying .435 5 Writing my assignments .597
Component 2 (Interaction at University) 19 Having enough money .509
2 Asking questions in class .833 Component 2 (Interaction at University)
26 Participating in class discussions .811 2 Asking questions in class .937
20 Talking to my lecturers .598 26 Participating in class discussions .837
23 Talking to university staff .571 20 Talking to my lecturers .598
21 Getting help and information at university .447 7 Making friends at university .534
Component 3 (Study Skills) Component 3 (Study Skills)
4 Understanding my lecturers -0.642 16 Improving my reading and writing skills .747
16 Improving my reading and writing skills -0.621 17 Researching for my assignments .682
27 Understanding university regulations -0.582 25 Understanding my unit readings .610
25 Understanding my unit readings -0.576 11 Taking good class notes .508
11 Taking good class notes -0.534 3 Keeping up with the required readings .495
17 Researching for my assignments -0.470 1 Studying .430
Component 4 (Managing Time and Money) Component 4 (Navigating University)
12 Managing both study and work .664 21 Getting help and information at university -0.814
19 Having enough money .613 23 Talking to university staff -0.658
24 Finding time to study .499 27 Understanding university regulations -0.586
Component 5 (Family and Friends)
15 Getting along with family members .738
6 My parents’ expectations of my grades .609
7 Making friends at university .439 Rasch analysis

In order to test the Stress and Academic Self-efficacy subscales for

Stress scale
The Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) index (0.919) indicated acceptable
sampling with all values for individual variables above >0.5. Bartlett’s
test of sphericity indicated that item correlations were large enough
for the purposes of PCA, X2 (351) = 3651, p < .001. Five eigenvalues
greater than 1 were identified explaining 61.3% of the variance. The
scree plot and component loadings also indicated a five-component so-
lution. As can be seen in Table 1, the five component solution included
Component 1 (Academic Performance) with items (1, 3, 5, 8, 9, 10, 13,
14, 18, 22); Component 2 (Interaction at University) with items (2, 20,
21, 23, 26); Component 3 (Study Skills) with items (4, 11, 16, 17, 25,
27); Component 4 (Managing Time and Money) with items (12, 19, 24);
and Component 5 (Family and Friends) with items (6, 7, 15). All items
loaded well (standardised component loadings > 0.3). Cronbach alpha
tests indicated marginal to very good reliability (ranging from 0.61 to
0.87).
Academic self-efficacy scale
PCA on the Academic Self-efficacy scale indicated good sampling
(KMO = 0.934) with acceptable values for individual variables (all >
0.5) as noticed in Table 2. Item correlations were sufficiently large for
PCA, X2 (351) = 4748, p < .001. PCA results indicated five eigenval-
ues greater than 1 accounting for 67.3% of the variance. The scree plot
indicated a five component solution. However, one component was dis-
carded due to an insufficient number of loadings (items 6 and 15 only).
Hence, a four component solution was derived. Component 1 (Academic
Performance) with items (5, 8, 9, 10, 12, 13, 14, 18, 19, 22, 24); Compo-
nent 2 (Interaction at University) with items (2, 7, 20, 26); Component
3 (Study Skills) with items (1, 3, 11, 16, 17, 25); and Component 4 (Nav-
igating University) with items (21, 23, 27) (all standardised component
loadings >0.3). All subscales had very good reliability (>0.81).
their linear measurement properties we conducted Rasch analyses (see
Tennant & Conaghan, 2007). The Rasch model (Rasch, 1960) is a prob-
abilistic mathematical model which is used to affirm the measurement
properties of tests, questionnaires, and scales in the social and medical
sciences. The strength of the model is that it adheres to the same mea-
surement principles found in the physical sciences (see Wright, 1997).
In a Rasch analysis, the linearity of a measurement scale is not assumed
a priori. Instead, Likert scale scores (observed data) are matched against
the theoretical expectations of the Rasch model whereby close proximity
(i.e., fit of the observed data to the Rasch model) provides evidence that
the measurement scale is linear with an interval level structure (Tennant
& Conaghan, 2007). Once a functioning interval level scale is affirmed
it is safe to conduct parametric testing (e.g., analysis of variance) on the
data.
Rasch analyses were conducted on each of the Stress and Academic
Self-efficacy subscales (identified by PCA) using the polytomous Rasch
model (PRM) with rating scale parametrization. Rasch Unidimensional
Measurement Modeling (RUMM) 2030 software (Andrich et al., 2010)
was used for all subsequent analyses. Person parameter estimates were
obtained by the Weighted Maximum Likelihood method. All subscales
were tested for (1) model fit, (2) individual item fit, (3) differential item
functioning (DIF), (4) response dependency, and (5) unidimensionality.
Stress scale results
Model fit: Overall model fit is determined by the item-trait inter-
action, given as a chi-square statistic which indicates that the hier-
archical ordering of items does not vary across the trait (Tennant &
Conaghan, 2007). A non-significant (p > .05) value indicates good fit
to the Rasch model. Acceptable model fit was found in the subscales -
Academic Performance, X2 (24) = 32.5, p = .11 (after removal of items
1, 3, 8, and 22); Study Skills, X2 (12) = 14.7, p = .26 (after the removal
of items 16, 25, and 26); and Interaction at University, X2 (16) = 18.6,
p = .29 (after removal of item 20). The subscales Managing Time and

4
E. Hitches, S. Woodcock and J. Ehrich International Journal of Educational Research Open 3 (2022) 100124

Table 3 Table 4
Fit of the Stress and Academic Self-Efficacy subscales to the Rasch model. Rasch fit statistics of the Stress subscales.

Item trait Interaction PSI Unidimensionality Academic Performance

Subscale X2 (df) P Item Number Fit Residual X2 P F P

Stress 1 1.926 26.341 .000 7.318 .000

Academic Performance 32.5 (24) .11 .74 4.33% 3 3.021 10.768 .029 2.164 .073
Interaction at University 18.6 (16) .29 .73 2.33% 5 0.705 1.261 .868 0.155 .960
Study Skills 14.7 (12) .26 .66 1.67% 8 -1.934 18.105 .001 6.555 .000
Managing Time & Money 38.6 (12) .00∗ .52 0.00% 9 0.182 8.235 .083 1.781 .132
Family & Friends 28.5 (12) .00∗ .39 0.00% 10 1.125 12.772 .012 3.042 .017
Academic Self-Efficacy 13 -1.107 5.634 .251 1.813 .126
Academic Performance 37.3 (28) .11 .87 7.53%∗ 14 -0.418 3.338 .502 0.889 .471
Interaction at University 17.2 (12) .14 .63 0.69% 18 -1.377 1.559 .816 0.356 .839
Study Skills 38.3 (20) .10 .80 3.44% 22 -0.709 19.431 .000 6.065 .000
Navigating University 17.8 (12) .12 .70 3.09% Interaction at University
2 1.130 4.035 .401 0.804 .524
Note. Fit statistics were attained after the removal of misfitting items. ∗ ps 20 -2.052 13.969 .007 7.199 .000
< .05 are significant. Unidimensionality results follow Smith’s (2002) t-test 21 0.065 2.651 .618 1.224 .301
method, <5% of cases is considered evidence of a unidimensional structure. 23 -1.846 6.436 .169 2.834 .025
26 -0.384 5.450 .244 2.330 .056
Study Skills
4 -0.288 2.704 .608 0.859 .488
11 -0.194 11.158 .024 5.629 .000
Money and Family and Friends did not fit the model, X2 (12) = 38.6, 16 1.249 21.769 .000 6.685 .000
p < .001 and X2 (12) = 28.5, p < .005, respectively (see Table 3). 17 1.482 0.794 .939 0.157 .959
25 -3.273 19.099 .000 9.726 .000
The Person Separation Index (PSI), which is a measure of scale reli- 27 4.111 4.739 .357 0.946 .437
ability similar to a Cronbach’s alpha, indicated acceptable PSIs (> 0.7) Managing Time and Money
(Tennant & Conaghan, 2007) in Academic Performance (0.74) and In- 12 -1.188 15.232 .004 6.555 .000
teraction at University (0.73); with marginal reliability in Study Skills 19 1.627 18.134 .001 5.846 .000
24 -1.211 5.282 .259 2.130 .077
(0.66). The subscales Managing Time and Money (0.52) and Family and
Family and Friends
Friends subscales (0.39) had very low reliability. 6 0.132 8.332 .080 2.545 .040
Item fit: There are four main approaches to affirming item fit in the 7 -0.870 9.362 .052 3.930 .004
Rasch model. Individual fit residuals which fall within the acceptable 15 0.959 10.868 .028 3.199 .013
ranges (-2.5 and +2.5) are considered to fit the model well. Residu- Note. All misfitting statistics are depicted in bold print. Items with
als constitute the difference between the observed values and the the- fit residuals <-2.5 and > 2.5 are considered misfitting. Bonferroni ad-
oretical Rasch estimates. For each item, chi-square and F-test statistics justed p values are significant at (.05/10 = .005, Academic Perfor-
(ANOVAs) are also given, where an insignificant p value (>.05) indi- mance); (.05/4 = .012, Interaction at University); (.05/6 = .008, Study
cates good fit. Finally, Item Characteristic Curves (ICCs) can determine Skills); (.05/3 = .016, Managing Time and Money); and (.05/3 = .016,
item fit. An ICC consists of a graph which plots the observed values Family and Friends).
against those of the Rasch estimates (i.e., expected values represented
on a sigmoid curve). Hence, distance between the observed values and
the theoretical curve can indicate misfit. Misfitting items were found in stress than secondary specialisation respondents, F = 10.8, p < .002 at
the subscales Academic Performance (items 1, 3, 8, 22) and Interaction Bonferroni adjusted alpha of 0.005 (see Fig. 1).
at University (item 20). In the Study Skills subscale misfit was found in However, uniform DIF was resolved after the item was split. Split-
items 11, 16, 25, and 27. However, item 11 had an acceptable mean fit ting is the process of creating individual items per grouping factor. In
residual, chi-square statistic, and an ICC which indicated good fit hence this case, item 13 was split by teaching speciality into two independent
the item was retained in the subscale. Misfit was found in all items in items consisting of an item with sole primary specialisation responses
the Managing Time and Money subscale (i.e., 12, 19, & 24) while Family and one with sole secondary specialisation responses. The secondary
and Friends had two misfitting items (7 & 15) (see Table 4). specialisation responses are treated as missing data in the item consist-
DIF: Differential item functioning detects item bias, that is, when ing of primary specialisation responses and vice versa. When item 13
groups of respondents (e.g., based on gender, culture, etc.) have the was split the reliability index (PSI) did not change (remained at 0.74).
same level of the latent trait or attribute but respond significantly dif- Hence, retaining item 13 in the subscale was justified. No other DIF was
ferently on specific items. Significant DIF indicates anomalies in the data found.
and misfit to the Rasch model. DIF is detected by two-way ANOVAs run Response dependency: Response dependency occurs when a response
on the standardised residuals for persons and items and can be observed on one item impacts on the response of another or others. Response de-
in two main forms – uniform and non-uniform. Uniform DIF is when pendency can be detected by running a PCA on the standardised resid-
two or more groups of persons with the same levels of the latent trait uals in the RUMM2030 programme and through close inspection of the
respond differently in a consistent manner across class intervals (i.e., residual correlation matrix. Items found to be highly correlated (>0.3) is
levels of the latent trait) whereas non-uniform DIF indicates inconsis- evidence of response dependency. Examination of the residual correla-
tent differences between groups across class intervals. DIF can also be tion matrix found no evidence of response dependency in the Academic
detected by inspection of each item’s ICC graph whereby distance be- Performance, Interaction at University, and Study Skills subscales.
tween comparison groups’ curves (i.e., plotted observed means by class Unidimensionality: A scale should measure only one latent trait or
interval) can indicate misfit to the model. be unidimensional, which is an important measurement requirement
DIF was run on the person factors of gender (male vs female), teach- in Rasch analysis. Unidimensionality assumptions are tested in the
ing speciality (primary vs secondary) and stage of their degree (begin- RUMM2030 programme by conducting a PCA on the person-item resid-
ning vs middle vs end) per subscale. In the Academic Performance sub- uals. In theory, the person-item residuals (the distance between the
scale uniform DIF was found by teaching speciality in item 13 (To what observed data and the theoretically derived Rasch scores) constitute
extent are the following tasks stressful for you?: Preparing for exams), random noise and consequently should behave as such (Tennant &
with primary specialisation respondents indicating higher level of exam Conaghan, 2007). Hence, any detection of a pattern in the residuals can

5
E. Hitches, S. Woodcock and J. Ehrich International Journal of Educational Research Open 3 (2022) 100124

Fig. 1. ICC for question 13 (To what extent are

the following tasks stressful for you?: Preparing for
exams) indicating significant DIF. Primary spe-
cialisation responses are plotted in blue against
secondary specialisation responses in red. As
can be seen from the graph, groups of primary
and secondary specialisation persons with the
same levels of the trait (depicted as logits on
the x axis) respond differently (i.e., have dif-
ferent expected values of responses as depicted
on the y axis). The primary specialisation re-
spondents indicate higher expected values of
affirming this item than secondary specialisa-
tion respondents.

indicate the presence of additional dimensions in the data. Patterns in Table 5

the residuals can be detected by following Smith’s (2002) t-test method. Rasch fit statistics of the Academic Self-Efficacy subscales.
Following this procedure, t-tests are conducted on all cases of person Academic Performance
measures estimated from the positively and negatively loaded items Item Number Fit Residual ChiSq P F P
from the first principal component loading of the PCA (Smith, 2002).
5 1.256 5.509 .239 1.420 .227
A large percentage of cases with significantly different person locations 8 0.263 3.864 .425 0.905 .461
(> 5%) at the 5% level are considered to breach unidimensionality as- 9 0.933 12.505 .014 3.354 .011
sumptions. Post hoc analyses on the subscales of Academic Performance 10 1.179 6.117 .191 1.680 .154
12 0.223 4.268 .371 1.243 .293
(4.33%), Interaction at University (2.33%), and Study Skills (1.67%) in-
13 -5.172 7.325 .119 4.163 .003
dicted evidence of unidimensional structures (all cases <5%). 14 -0.408 2.315 .678 0.713 .584
18 -3.090 3.013 .555 1.106 .399
Academic self-efficacy scale results 19 7.478 14.010 .007 2.295 .059
22 -2.936 6.492 .139 2.833 .025
24 -1.948 2.769 .597 0.859 .489
Overall model fit was found for Academic Performance,
Interaction at University
X2 (28) = 37.3, p = .11, (after the removal of misfitting items 13, 2 -0.194 9.726 .055 3.192 .014
18, 19, and 22); Interaction at University, X2 (12) = 17.2, p = .14, (after 7 0.589 1.119 .891 0.173 .952
the removal of misfitting item, 26); Study Skills, X2 (20) = 38.3, p = .10, 20 -0.852 6.816 .154 2.769 .028
(after the removal of misfitting item 3); and Navigating University, 26 -1.069 23.558 .000 10.818 .000
Study Skills
X2 (12) = 17.8, p = .12. Item misfit was found in the Navigating
1 1.163 8.576 .072 2.203 .069
University subscale in one item (21) (see Table 5). However, the item 3 3.008 6.723 .151 1.845 .120
was retained because the ICC indicated good functioning. 11 1.302 0.944 .918 0.192 .942
PSIs for all subscales ranged from marginal to good (0.63–0.87). All 16 -0.036 8.549 .073 2.606 .036
17 -2.060 8.077 .088 2.892 .022
subscales indicated no evidence of DIF (all ns), nor response dependency
25 -0.274 2.093 .718 0.682 .604
(all ps < .3). Post hoc unidimensionality t-tests indicated an accept- Navigating University
able (small <5%) number of cases with significantly different person 21 -2.753 6.130 .189 3.728 .005
locations for all subscales except for Academic Performance which indi- 23 -0.821 2.317 .677 0.641 .633
cated evidence of violation of unidimensionality assumptions (7.53%) 27 2.470 9.314 .053 1.803 .128

(see Table 3).
In summary, Rasch analyses indicated three well functioning sub-
scales for the Stress subscales - Academic Performance (with items 5,
9, 10, 13, 14, and 18); Interaction at University (with items 2, 21, 23,
and 26); and Study Skills (with items 4, 11, and 17) and four well func-
tioning subscales for the Academic Self-efficacy subscales - Academic
Performance (with items 5, 8, 9, 10, 12, 14, and 24); Interaction at Uni-
versity (with items 2, 7, and 20); Study Skills (with items 1, 11, 16, 17,
and 25); and Navigating University (with items 21, 23, and 27). Now
that these subscales meet the assumption of functioning linear measure-
ment (i.e., function to the specifications of the Rasch model) it is safe to
conduct parametric testing (i.e., ANOVA comparisons).
ANOVA results
One-way ANOVAs were run on the person locations (logits) investi-
gating three between groups factors - gender (male vs female), teaching
speciality (primary vs secondary) and stage of their degree (beginning vs
middle vs end). A logit, (i.e., the log of an odds ratio) is the interval-level
measurement unit derived from probabilistic Rasch analysis on Likert
scale data. Logit units describe the estimated quantity of the latent trait
Note. All misfitting statistics are depicted in bold print. Items
with fit residuals ⟨-2.5 and ⟩ 2.5 are considered misfitting. Bon-
ferroni adjusted p values are significant at (.05/11 = .004, Aca-
demic Performance); (.05/4 = .012, Interaction at University);
(.05/6 = .008, Study Skills); (.05/3 = .016, Navigating Univer-
sity).
in persons and the degree of difficulty (or degree to which the latent
trait can be affirmed) in items. Logits increase in order of magnitude
with a usual range from -4 to +4 (Ludlow & Haley, 1995).
A series of one-way ANOVAs on the person locations (logits) on the
Stress subscales indicated a significant effect of gender, with females
indicating higher levels of stress than males on all three subscales - Aca-
demic Performance, Interaction at University, and Study Skills, (all ps
< .05) (see Table 6). The spread of person locations by gender for these
subscales can be seen in the respective graphs in Figs. 2–4. As partici-
pants in this sample who identified as of a gender other than male or
female were so few, unfortunately it was not possible to include this
subgroup within the statistical tests.

6
E. Hitches, S. Woodcock and J. Ehrich International Journal of Educational Research Open 3 (2022) 100124

Fig. 2. Person-item location graph for the Stress subscale Academic Performance. Male locations represented in blue are overall further to the left of the distribution
than females represented in red indicating less of the trait of stress.

Fig. 3. Person-item location graph for the Stress subscale - Interaction at University. This graph clearly depicts female locations (in red) as further right than male
locations (in blue) indicating higher levels of the trait of stress.

Fig. 4. Person-item location graph for the Stress subscale - Study Skills. This graph shows that female locations (in red) are further to the right than male locations
(in blue) indicating overall higher levels of the trait of stress.

7
E. Hitches, S. Woodcock and J. Ehrich International Journal of Educational Research Open 3 (2022) 100124

Fig. 5. Person-item location graph for the Stress subscale – Study Skills. This graph shows that primary specialisation locations (in blue) are slightly further to the
right than secondary specialisation locations (in red) indicating higher stress levels.

Table 6 Correlational analysis

ANOVA results on mean locations by gender (male vs female).

Male Female df F P A series of bivariate correlations were conducted in order to deter-

M (SD) M (SD) mine the relationship between students’ age, stage of their degree, and
their overall levels of academic stress and academic self-efficacy (see
Stress
Academic Performance 0.35 (0.6) 0.66 (0.7) (1 - 298) 9.829 .001∗ Table 9). A weak inverse relationship between age and stress (r = -0.142,
Interaction at University -0.27(0.5) -0.06(0.7) (1 - 298) 5.148 .024∗ p < .03) and a weak positive relationship between age and academic
Study Skills -0.16(0.6) 0.03 (0.6) (1 - 298) 4.371 .037∗ self-efficacy (r = .184, p < .004) was attained.
Academic Self-Efficacy
These results indicated that as students aged they became more con-
Academic Performance 0.55 (0.8) 0.28 (0.9) (1 - 292) 4.62 .032∗
Interaction at University 0.50 (0.7) 0.34 (0.7) (1 - 293) 2.77 .097
fident and experienced less stress. A very strong inverse relationship was
Study Skills 0.74 (1.0) 0.60 (0.9) (1 - 293) 1.35 .245 attained between academic self-efficacy and stress (r = -0.604, p < .001),
Navigating University 0.60 (0.7) 0.50 (0.9) (1 - 288) 0.51 .475 indicating that the more confidence a student felt the less stress he/she
felt and vice versa.
Note. ∗ ps < .05 are significant.

Discussion
Table 7
ANOVA results on mean locations by Teaching Speciality (primary vs sec- This study examined the stress and academic self-efficacy levels of
ondary).
teacher education students. A particular strength is that the scales used
primary secondary df F P were tested for their linear measurement properties using Rasch analy-
M (SD) M (SD) sis. After the scales were optimized for linear measurement, significant
Stress differences in students’ stress and academic self-efficacy levels were at-
Academic Performance 0.59 (0.7) 0.61 (0.7) (1 - 283) 0.04 .850 tained. As such, conclusions have been drawn with the confidence that
Interaction at University -0.06(0.7) -0.15 (0.7) (1 - 283) 1.34 .248 observed differences between groups of students are not the result of
Study Skills 0.05 (0.6) -0.11 (0.6) (1 - 283) 4.89 .027∗ bias originating from the instruments used, nor potentially confound-
Academic Self-Efficacy
Academic Performance 0.30 (0.8) 0.37 (0.9) (1 - 277) 0.51 .475
ing measurement error, which were concerns raised in the literature
Interaction at University 0.40 (0.6) 0.36 (0.7) (1 - 278) 0.31 .581 (see Nielsen et al., 2018). Therefore, the findings of this study illustrate
Study Skills 0.59 (0.8) 0.70 (0.9) (1 - 278) 1.19 .276 significant differences in relation to Teacher Education students’ levels
Navigating University 0.49 (0.9) 0.57 (0.9) (1 - 273) 0.62 .431 of academic stress and academic self-efficacy across age, gender, and
Note. ∗ ps < .05 are significant. teaching specialisation, adding greatly to this under-researched area. In
addition, students’ academic self-efficacy and stress levels were nega-
tively correlated.
In relation to differences across gender, females reported higher
An effect of Teaching Speciality was found with primary speciali- stress than males regarding academic performance, study skills, and in-
sation students experiencing more stress than secondary specialisation teraction at university. That is, they experienced higher levels of stress
students on the Study Skills subscale (p < .05) (see Table 7). The spread overall in terms of tasks such as achieving the marks desired, participat-
of person locations by teaching speciality is given for this subscale in ing in discussions in class, researching for their assignments, and getting
Fig. 5. assistance and information at university. As very few participants in this
ANOVAs indicated no effects of Stage of their degree (all ns; see study identified as a gender other than male or female, unfortunately,
Table 8). On the Academic Self-efficacy subscales, only a gender effect statistical analysis was unable to be conducted on this subgroup. Other
was found, with males significantly more confident than females on the studies have also observed gender differences in stress (Brougham et al.,
Academic Performance subscale (p < .05) (see Table 6). The spread of 2009; Stallman, 2010). In considering the origins of gender-related dif-
person locations by gender on this subscale is given in Fig. 6. No other ferences, it is possible males were less likely than females to disclose
comparisons were significant (all ns). symptoms related to their mental health, as they may have perceived

8
E. Hitches, S. Woodcock and J. Ehrich International Journal of Educational Research Open 3 (2022) 100124

Table 8
ANOVA results on mean locations by Stage of their Degree (Beginning vs Middle vs End of their course).

Beginning Middle End df F P

M (SD) M (SD) M (SD)

Stress
Academic Performance 0.635 (0.82) 0.502 (0.58) 0.505 (0.71) (3 - 244) 0.649 .585
Interaction at University -0.046 (0.72) -0.065 (0.56) -0.113 (0.72) (3 - 244) 0.130 .942
Study Skills 0.097 (0.60) -0.039 (0.59) 0.014 (0.63) (3 - 244) 0.779 .507
Self-EfficacyAcademic Performance 0.247 (0.79) 0.334 (0.70) 0.334 (0.94) (3 - 239) 0.219 .883
Interaction at University 0.332 (0.69) 0.407 (0.65) 0.358 (0.82) (3 - 239) 0.170 .917
Study Skills 0.520 (0.86) 0.633 (0.83) 0.745 (1.11) (3 - 239) 0.735 .532
Navigating University 0.514 (0.78) 0.438 (0.78) 0.249 (0.93) (3 - 239) 0.872 .456

Note. ∗ ps < .05 are significant.

Fig. 6. Person-item location graph for the Academic Self-Efficacy subscale – Academic Performance. Male locations (in blue) are (overall) more skewed toward the
right of the graph than female locations (in red) indicating higher levels of academic self-efficacy.

Table 9
Correlations between age of students, stage of their degree, total levels of academic
stress, and total levels of academic self-efficacy.

Measure 1 2 3 4
∗∗∗ ∗
1. age – .396 (0.075) -0.142 (0.061) .184∗ ∗ (0.068)
2. stage of their degree – -0.030 (0.071) .042 (0.071)
3. academic stress – -0.604∗ ∗ ∗ (0.058)
4. academic self-efficacy –
∗
p < .05. ∗ ∗ p < .01. ∗ ∗ ∗ p < .001. Standard errors in parentheses.

it to be socially undesirable (see Smith et al., 2018). However, research
has indicated that females may experience greater stress due to more fre-
quent use of coping-related behaviors such as rumination (Smith et al.,
2018). The cause of females’ higher stress warrants further investiga-
tion, as it can have negative implications for their academic performance
(see Pascoe et al., 2020), quality of life (see Ribeiro et al., 2018), and
for those in teacher education courses, increase the likelihood that they
will experience burnout during their career (see Deasy et al., 2014).
Additionally, female students reported lower academic self-efficacy
than males in relation to academic performance, having less confi-
dence overall in their capabilities to successfully complete tasks such
as writing assignments and achieving in exams. Females also expressed
lower academic self-efficacy than males in terms of managing study
and work, finding time to study and meeting assessment deadlines.
Huang’s (2013) meta-analysis illustrated that overall, females typically
had lower self-efficacy than males in education settings, and this cur-
rent study suggests a similar phenomenon may be occurring in the field
of teacher education. As academic self-efficacy is associated with aca-
demic performance (e.g., Cassidy, 2012) and the probability of achiev-
ing when met with challenging academic experiences (Cassidy, 2015),
female students’ lower academic self-efficacy in comparison to males
may negatively impact their academic success.
A weak relationship was observed between stress and age, such that
as students’ age increased, students became less stressed and more con-
fident in their capabilities to successfully complete various university-
related tasks. These results are consistent with findings that ‘older’ uni-
versity students may be more resilient to stress than their peers, po-
tentially explained by life experience and more effective coping strate-
gies (Stallman, 2010). This suggests additional support may be re-
quired to enable younger students the skills to manage their stress, and
buffer against the potential negative effects it can have upon wellbe-
ing and academic performance (see Pascoe et al., 2020, Powell & Gra-
ham, 2017). Regarding academic self-efficacy increasing with age, for
the related construct of self-esteem (Judge et al., 2002), in a meta-
analysis of longitudinal studies, similar effects were observed during
adolescence and adulthood, with this suggested to be ‘normative’ for
these life stages (Orth et al., 2018). Future research may determine
whether the observed trend for academic self-efficacy is also normative.

9
E. Hitches, S. Woodcock and J. Ehrich
Although age-related differences were found, there were no signifi-
cant effects observed for students’ stage of their degree upon their level
of stress or academic self-efficacy, unlike some previous studies (see
Beiter et al., 2015; Cassidy, 2012). It is possible in this current study,
students encountered different, yet relatively equal stressors through-
out their course, as teacher education students undertake professional
experience placements after the beginning stage of their studies, requir-
ing students to simultaneously manage their study and professional de-
velopment. The beginning stage of students’ degrees has been noted by
Geng and Midford (2015), and Ayala and Manzano (2018) as particu-
larly stressful as students manage competing responsibilities and their
limited understanding of the teaching profession they are aiming to en-
ter. Similarly, their academic self-efficacy levels may be similar across
the various stages of their course as they encounter new and different
stressors which must be managed.
Additionally, this study found that those undertaking a primary
teaching specialisation reported higher levels of stress relating to their
study skills than those undertaking a secondary teaching specialisation.
That is, they experienced higher stress overall in relation to tasks such
as understanding lecturers and class readings, conducting research for
their assignments, and improving their skills in reading and writing. This
result may be explained by the higher percentage of female teachers
in the primary education sector compared to the secondary education
sector (see NSW Department of Education, 2018), with females in this
current study experiencing higher stress than males in relation to their
study skills. However, the specific causes of primary teacher education
students’ stress should be further examined.
Furthermore, it was seen that students in this study who had higher
self-efficacy in academic-related tasks, reported lower levels of stress in
relation to these tasks. This aligns with Zajacova et al. (2005) findings,
adding to the limited volume of research concurrently examining stress
and academic self-efficacy in higher education. It is suggested that when
students are confident in their capabilities, they may consider stressors
or demands as challenges, instead of threats, decreasing the stress expe-
rienced in response (Chemers et al., 2001). Complementing this, stu-
dents’ self-efficacy beliefs can be influenced by the physiological ex-
periences which accompany stress, which provide information regard-
ing the threat of a task and their capabilities to meet the demands (see
Bandura, 1997). As such, experiences or interventions which support
improvements in students’ academic self-efficacy beliefs may potentially
improve their feelings of stress, and vice versa.
Implications
Higher education can present students with a number of challenges
as they learn to manage the demands of their course, the pressure to
succeed, and for many, the balancing of their study commitments with
work and family responsibilities (Beiter et al., 2015). Students’ belief
in their ability to meet these academic challenges can see students as
‘healthier’ and ‘happier’ individuals (Chemers et al., 2001), with more
successful academic performance (see Cassidy, 2012). However, when
they experience high levels of stress, their quality of life and academic
achievement may suffer (Pascoe et al., 2020). Regarding university stu-
dents in this current study, the findings indicate that support or inter-
vention to improve students’ belief in their academic capabilities may be
beneficial for young and/or female students. Additionally, students who
are female, a young student or training in primary teaching, may benefit
from additional support with stress management and coping strategies,
and as suggested by Deasy et al. (2014), educational institutions could
include such interventions in teacher education programs. Higher edu-
cation can be a time where individuals develop skills to manage stress
throughout their lives (Brougham et al., 2009), which for teacher ed-
ucation students, may help reduce their likelihood for burnout later in
their career (Deasy et al., 2014).
Further investigation should be conducted to examine why differ-
ences across gender, age and teaching specialisation have occurred.
10
International Journal of Educational Research Open 3 (2022) 100124
Studies employing qualitative methodology may provide additional in-
sights which could enable educational institutions to better understand
and cater for students’ differing needs, and effectively support them in
their studies. In addition, future studies could investigate the reasoning
behind the differing factor configurations of the stress and self-efficacy
scales used in this study.
Limitations
Whilst the findings of this study contribute significantly to our un-
derstanding of Teacher Education students’ stress and academic self-
efficacy, there are limitations which should be considered. As students
were self-reporting their stress and academic self-efficacy, social desir-
ability factors may have contributed to their responses (see Smith et al.,
2018). Qualitative or mixed-methods studies may provide additional in-
formation to understand the reasoning behind students’ responses. As
this current study examined stress and academic self-efficacy within a
single discipline, teacher education, a more comprehensive understand-
ing of the relationship between stress, academic self-efficacy and de-
mographic variables may develop through examining other higher ed-
ucation disciplines, with the potential of informing discipline-specific
stress and self-efficacy interventions. Furthermore, whilst gender ratios
in this sample reflected the teaching workforce in New South Wales, fu-
ture studies may seek to investigate the role of gender with more equal
sample sizes.
Conclusion
Students’ success at university is indicated not only by their aca-
demic achievement, but also by their feelings of life satisfaction, of
which academic self-efficacy and stress have been predictive, respec-
tively (Krumrei-Mancuso et al., 2013). Differences in students’ stress and
academic-self-efficacy levels across gender and age suggest that those
who are female and/or a young student may require additional support
to ensure they have the belief in their capabilities and the stress man-
agement skills, which would aid them to reach their academic goals and
maintain their wellbeing throughout their studies. Higher education can
be both challenging and rewarding, and it is in the best interests of the
student, the education system, and society more broadly, that our uni-
versity students, and in this case, our future teachers, are supported and
enabled to reach their full potential.
Declaration of Competing Interest
We have no known conflict of interest to disclose
References
Andrich, D., Sheridan, B., & Luo, G. (2010). RUMM2030: A windows program for the rasch
unidimensional measurement model. [Computer software]. RUMM Laboratory.
Ayala, J., & Manzano, G. (2018). Academic performance of first-year university students:
The influence of resilience and engagement. Higher Education Research & Development,
37(7), 1321–1335.
Bandura, A. (1978). The self system in reciprocal determinism. American Psychologist,
33(4), 344–358. 10.1037/0003-066X.33.4.344.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. W. H. Freeman and Company.
Bartimote-Aufflick, K., Bridgeman, A., Walker, R., Sharma, M., & Smith, L. (2016). The
study, evaluation, and improvement of university student self-efficacy. Studies in
Higher Education, 41(11), 1918–1942. 10.1080/03075079.2014.999319.
Bedel, E. F. (2016). Exploring academic motivation, academic self-efficacy and attitudes
toward teaching in pre-service early childhood education teachers. Journal of Educa-
tion and Training Studies, 4(1), 142–149.
Beiter, R., Nash, R., McCrady, M., Rhoades, D., Linscomb, M., Clarahan, M., et al. (2015).
The prevalence and correlates of depression, anxiety, and stress in a sample of col-
lege students. Journal of Affective Disorders, 173, 90–96. 10.1016/j.jad.2014.10.054
0165-0327.
Brougham, R. R., Zail, C. M., Mendoza, C. M., & Miller, J. R. (2009). Stress, sex differ-
ences, and coping strategies among college students. Current Psychology, 28, 85–97.
10.1007/s12144-009-9047-0.
Budge, S. L., Dominguez, S., & Goldberg, A. E. (2020). Minority stress in nonbinary stu-
dents in higher education: The role of campus climate and belongingness. Psychology
of Sexual Orientation and Gender Diversity, 7(2), 222–229. 10.1037/sgd0000360.
E. Hitches, S. Woodcock and J. Ehrich
Cassidy, S. (2012). Exploring individual differences as determining factors in student aca-
demic achievement in higher education. Studies in Higher Education, 37(7), 793–810.
10.1080/03075079.2010.545948.
Cassidy, S. (2015). Resilience building in students: The role of academic self-efficacy.
Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 1–14. 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01781.
Chee, C. L., Shorty, G., & Kurpius, S. E. R. (2019). Academic stress of Native American un-
dergraduates: The role of ethnic identity, cultural congruity, and self-beliefs. Journal
of Diversity in Higher Education, 12(1), 65–73. 10.1037/dhe0000094.
Chemers, M. M., Hu, L., & Garcia, B. F. (2001). Academic self-efficacy and first-year college
student performance and adjustment. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93(1), 55–64.
10.1037//0022-0663.93.1.5.
Deasy, C., Coughlan, B., Pironom, J., Jourdan, D., & Mannix-McNamara, P. (2014). Psy-
chological distress and lifestyle of students: Implications for health promotion. Health
Promotion International, 30(1), 77–87. 10.1093/heapro/dau086.
Deasy, C., Coughlan, B., Pironom, J., Jourdan, D., & Mannix-McNamara, P. (2016).
Psychological distress and help seeking amongst higher education students:
Findings from a mixed method study of undergraduate nursing/midwifery and
teacher education students in Ireland. Irish Educational Studies, 35(2), 175–194.
10.1080/03323315.2016.1146157.
Elias, S. M., & MacDonald, S. (2007). Using past performance, proxy efficacy, and aca-
demic self-efficacy to predict college performance. Journal of Applied Social Psychology,
37(11), 2518–2531. 10.1111/j.1559-1816.2007.00268.x.
Ferla, J., Valcke, M., & Cai, Y. (2009). Academic self-efficacy and academic self-concept:
Reconsidering structural relationships. Learning and Individual Differences, 19, 499–
505. 10.1016/j.lindif.2009.05.004.
Freire, C., Ferradás, M. D. M., Núñez, J. C., Valle, A., & Vallejo, G. (2019). Well-being
and coping with stress in university students: The mediating/moderating role of self-
efficacy. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 16(1) Article
48. 10.3390/ijerph16010048.
Geng, G., & Midford, R. (2015). Investigating first year education students’ stress level.
Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 40(6), 1–12. 10.14221/ajte.2015v40n6.1.
Gustems-Carnicer, J., Calderón, C., & Calderón-Garrido, D. (2019). Stress, coping strate-
gies and academic achievement in teacher education students. European Journal of
Teacher Education, 42(3), 375–390.
Heikkila, A., Lonka, K., Nieminen, J., & Niemivirta, M. (2012). Relations between teacher
students’ approaches to learning, cognitive and attributional strategies, well-being,
and study success. Higher Education, 64(4), 455–471.
Hitches, E., Woodcock, S., & Ehrich, J. (2021). Shedding light on students with support
needs: Comparisons of stress, self-efficacy, and disclosure. Journal of Diversity in Higher
Education. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/dhe0000328
Honicke, T., & Broadbent, J. (2016). The influence of academic self-efficacy on aca-
demic performance: A systematic review. Educational Research Review, 17, 63–84.
10.1016/j.edurev.2015.11.002.
Huang, C. (2013). Gender differences in academic self-efficacy: A meta-analysis.
European Journal of Psychology of Education, 21, 1–5. 10.1007/s10212-011-
0097-y.
Judge, T. A., Erez, A., Bono, J. E., & Thoresen, C. J. (2002). Are measures of self-
esteem, neuroticism, locus of control, and generalized self-efficacy indicators of a
common core construct? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83(3), 693–710.
10.1037//0022-3514.83.3.693.
Keller, A., Litzelman, K., Wisk, L. E., Maddox, T., Cheng, E. R., Creswell, P. D.,
& Witt, W. P. (2012). Does the perception that stress affects health matter?
The association with health and mortality. Health psychology, 31(5), 677–684.
10.1037/a0026743.
Kokkinos, C. M., & Stavropoulos, G. (2016). Burning out during the practicum: the case
of teacher trainees. Educational Psychology, 36(3), 548–568.
Krumrei-Mancuso, E. J., Newton, F. B., Kim, E., & Wilcox, D. (2013). Psychosocial factors
predicting first-year college student success. Journal of College Student Development,
54(3), 247–266. 10.1353/csd.2013.0034.
Lazarus, R. S., & Folkman, S. (1986). Cognitive theories of stress and the issue of circular-
ity. In M. H. Appley, & R. Trumbull (Eds.), Dynamics of stress. physiological, psycholog-
ical, and social perspectives (pp. 63–80). Plenum.
Ludlow, L. H., & Haley, S. M. (1995). Rasch model logits: Interpretation, use,
and transformation. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 55(6), 967–975.
10.1177/0013164495055006005.
11
International Journal of Educational Research Open 3 (2022) 100124
Ma, J., Pender, M., & Welch, M. (2016). Education pays 2016: The benefits of higher education
for individuals and society. The College Board.
Malkoc, A., & Mutlu, A. K. (2018). Academic self-efficacy and academic procrastination:
exploring the mediating role of academic motivation in Turkish university students.
Universal Journal of Educational Research, 6(10), 2087–2093.
Nasir, M., & Iqbal, S. (2019). Academic self-efficacy as a predictor of academic achieve-
ment of students in pre service teacher training programs. Bulletin of Education and
Research, 41(1), 33-42
Nielsen, T., Dammeyer, J., Vang, M. L., & Makransky, G. (2018). Gender fair-
ness in self-efficacy? A rasch-based validity study of the general academic self-
efficacy scale (GASE). Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 62(5), 664–681.
10.1080/00313831.2017.1306796.
NSW Department of Education. (2018). Gender analysis of school teach-
ers. New South Wales Department of Education https://data.cese.nsw.
gov.au/data/dataset/c07a2a26-cff7-3b89-93ab-7e852e9a77e0/resource/9fb0a1cf-
e5a4-415b-91e1-00ac06dd0fc0/download/2017 genderanalysisschoolteachers.pdf.
Orth, U., Erol, R. Y., & Luciano, E. C. (2018). Development of self-esteem from age 4
to 94 years: A meta-analysis of longitudinal studies. Psychological Bulletin, 144(10),
1045–1080. 10.1037/bul0000161.
Pascoe, M. C., Hetrick, S. E., & Parker, A. G. (2020). The impact of stress on students in
secondary school and higher education. International Journal of Adolescence and Youth,
25(1), 104–112. 10.1080/02673843.2019.1596823.
Ozer, Z., & Yetkin, R. (2018). Walking through different paths: Academic self-efficacy and
academic procrastination behaviours of pre-service teachers. Journal of Language and
Linguistic Studies, 14(2), 89–99.
Pajares, F. (1996). Self-efficacy beliefs in academic settings. Review of Educational Research,
66(4), 543–578.
Powell, M., & Graham, A. (2017). Wellbeing in schools: Examining the policy–practice
nexus. Australian Educational Researcher, 44, 213–231.
Powell, M., Graham, A., Fitzgerald, R., Thomas, N., & White, N. (2018). Wellbeing in
schools: What do students tell us? Australian Educational Researcher, 45(5), 515–531.
Rasch, G. (1960). Probabilistic models for some intelligence and attainment tests. University
of Chicago.
Ribeiro, I. J. S., Pereira, R., Freire, I. V., de Oliveira, B. G., Casotti, C. A.,
& Boery, E. N. (2018). Stress and quality of life among university stu-
dents: A systematic literature review. Health Professions Education, 4(2), 70–77.
10.1016/j.hpe.2017.03.002.
Shehadeh, J. H., Hamdan-Mansour, A. M., Halasa, S. N., Hani, M. H. B., Nabolsi, M. M.,
Thultheen, I., et al. (2020). Academic stress and self-efficacy as predictors of academic
satisfaction among nursing students. The Open Nursing Journal, 15, 92–99.
Smith, D. T., Mouzon, D. M., & Elliot, M. (2018). Reviewing the assumptions about men’s
mental health: An exploration of the gender binary. American Journal of Men’s Health,
12(1), 78–89. 10.1177/1557988316630953.
Smith, E. (2002). Detecting and evaluating the impact of multidimensionality using item
fit statistics and principal component analysis of residuals. Journal of Applied Measure-
ment, 3, 205–231.
Stallman, H. M. (2010). Psychological distress in university students: A com-
parison with general population data. Australian Psychologist, 45(4), 249–257.
10.1080/00050067.2010.48210.
Tennant, A., & Conaghan, P. G. (2007). The Rasch measurement model in rheumatology:
What is it and why use it? when should it be applied, and what should one look for
in a Rasch paper? Arthritis Care and Research, 57(8), 1358–1362.
Tuchman, E., & Isaacs, J. (2011). The influence of formal and informal formative pre-ser-
vice experiences on teacher self-efficacy. Educational Psychology, 31(4), 413–433.
Varghese, R., Norman, T. S., & Thavaraj, S. (2015). Perceived stress and self-efficacy
among college students: A global review. International Journal of Human Resource Man-
agement and Research, 5(3), 15–24.
Wright, B. W. (1997). A history of social science measurement. Educational Measurement:
Issues and Practice, 16(4), 33–45.
Yesilyurt, E., Ulas, A. H., & Akan, D. (2016). Teacher self-efficacy, academic self-efficacy,
and computer self-efficacy as predictors of attitude toward applying computer-sup-
ported education. Computers in Human Behaviour, 64, 591–601.
Zajacova, A., Lynch, S. M., & Espenshade, T. J. (2005). Self-efficacy, stress, and
academic success in college. Research in Higher Education, 46(6), 677–706.
10.1007/s11162-004-4139-z.