Journal of Youth and Adolescence

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-018-0822-9

EMPIRICAL RESEARCH

The Rise and Fall of Depressive Symptoms and Academic Stress in

Two Samples of University Students
Erin T. Barker1 Andrea L. Howard2 Rosanne Villemaire-Krajden1 Nancy L. Galambos3
● ● ●

Received: 19 October 2017 / Accepted: 1 February 2018

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Abstract
Self-reported depressive experiences are common among university students. However, most studies assessing depression in
university students are cross-sectional, limiting our understanding of when in the academic year risk for depression is
greatest and when interventions may be most needed. We examined within-person change in depressive symptoms from
September to April. Study 1 (N = 198; 57% female; 72% white; Mage = 18.4): Depressive symptoms rose from September,
peaked in December, and fell across the second semester. The rise in depressive symptoms was associated with higher
perceived stress in December. Study 2 (N = 267; 78.7% female; 67.87% white; Mage = 21.25): Depressive symptoms
1234567890();,:

peaked in December and covaried within persons with perceived stress and academic demands. The results have implications
for understanding when and for whom there is increased risk for depressive experiences among university students.
Keywords Depressive symptoms Academic stress University students Longitudinal
● ● ●

Introduction college students rose substantially from the 1930s through

On average, psychological well-being improves across the
transition to adulthood (Schulenberg and Zarrett 2006) and
depressive symptoms in particular decline from age 18 to 25
(Galambos et al. 2006). At the same time, prevalence rates
for major depression peak during this transition (Pearson
et al. 2013; Rohde et al. 2012) and many university students
in particular screen above clinical cut-off scores for major
depression (Eisenberg et al. 2007). A recent review of
prevalence rates of depression among university students
from around the world showed that, on average, 30% of
undergraduate students experience depression (Ibrahim
et al. 2013). Moreover, a recent birth cohort analysis in the
United States showed that rates of major depression among
* Erin T. Barker
erin.barker@concordia.ca
1
Department of Psychology, Concordia University, Montreal, QC,
Canada
2
Department of Psychology, Carleton University, Ottawa, ON,
Canada
3
Department of Psychology, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AL,
Canada
2010 (Twenge et al. 2010).
With greater proportions of the young adult population
pursuing post-secondary education (Bureau of Labor Sta-
tistics U.S. Department of Labor 2014; Galarneau et al.
2013), high rates of depression in this population likely
reflect, at least in part, the fact that more people vulnerable
to depression are attending university (e.g., Rohde et al.
2012). That said, experiences specific to the university
context may also contribute to depressive experiences.
Given that depressive symptoms vary across the academic
year (e.g., Cooke Bewick et al. 2006) and that both objec-
tive and subjective experiences of academic stress are
associated with depressive symptoms (e.g., Chambel and
Curral 2005), it is likely that stress inherent in the university
context contributes to variation in university students’
depressive experiences.
Although many studies have measured depressive
experiences in university students, most have done so cross-
sectionally. Results from cross-sectional studies tell us only
who is at greater risk—that some students are more or less
at risk than others—but do not speak to when students are at
greatest risk. In the current study, we examined within-
person patterns of change in depressive symptoms in two
samples of Canadian university students, each of which was
followed across one academic year. We aimed to determine
when risk for depression may be highest by assessing

whether increases in depressive symptoms coincided with
expected periods of high academic stress (e.g., the end of
semester when final papers and exams are due) and whether
within-person patterns of change in depressive symptoms
were related to academic demands (i.e., workload) and
perceived stress.
Depression in University Students
University students around the world experience elevated
depressive symptoms and many are at risk for clinical
depression (for a review, see Ibrahim et al. 2013). In a study
of U.S. students, 53% indicated that they had experienced
what they considered depression since starting college (Furr
et al. 2001), with similar percentages found in countries as
diverse as France (Bouteyre et al. 2006), Malaysia (Sham-
suddin et al. 2013), and Kenya (Othieno et al. 2014). Of the
few longitudinal studies that assessed change in depressive
experiences in university samples, symptom levels tended
to increase over time. For example, depressive symptoms
rose between orientation and seven months later in first-year
students in the eastern U. S. (Alfred-Liro and Sigelman
1998). Similar increases were found in three longitudinal
studies conducted in the United Kingdom. In the first, stu-
dents assessed before entering and six weeks after starting
university showed significant increases in depressive
symptoms (Fisher and Hood 1987). In the second study,
depressive symptoms were higher during students’ second
year of university compared to the month before starting
university (Andrews and Wilding 2004). In the third
study, incoming students were surveyed before starting
university and three times across the first year; depressive
symptoms were highest at the end of first semester (Cooke
et al. 2006). Thus, it appears that the university context
increases risk for depression, and that symptoms may
fluctuate over time.
Stress in University
University students are confronted with multiple stressors,
including academic demands (Montgomery and Côté 2003),
and show high levels of subjective distress associated with
these demands. Recent results from the American College
Health Association National College Health Assessment
(American College Health Association 2016) survey
showed that 42.3% of Canadian university student partici-
pants reported overwhelming levels of anxiety during the
previous year. More (58.1%) found their academic work
very difficult to handle. In a large sample of first-year
university students in Germany, Poland, and Bulgaria,
course work was rated as the greatest burden compared to
relationships or concerns about the future (Mikolajczyk
et al. 2008).
Journal of Youth and Adolescence
Depressive symptoms and perceived stress have been
shown to correlate with academic demands in several uni-
versity samples from different parts of the world (e.g., in
Europe, Haldorsen et al. 2014; Mikolajczyk et al. 2008; and
in China, Sha and Xia 2004). In a recent cross-sectional
study of 900 Canadian university students (Newcomb-Anjo
et al. 2017), perceived stress associated with academic
demands was related to elevated depressive symptoms after
controlling for the effects of 13 established risk factors for
depression (e.g., demographic characteristics, history of
abuse, cognitive style and personality, recent stressful life
events, social support). Others have shown that students
who report many demands and who also appraise them as
stressful report the most depressive symptoms (Chambel
and Curral 2005; Haldorsen et al. 2014).
These associations could be explained by models of
stress and coping that emphasize the role of appraisal in the
stress response (Lazarus and Folkman 1984), including
Pancer and colleagues’ university adjustment model (Pancer
et al. 2004). Appraisal involves evaluating demands in the
environment against the availability of resources, such as
effective coping styles and social support. According to
these models, if a demand is deemed threatening and
resources considered insufficient, perceived stress and
associated negative affect will be elevated, possibly leading
to adjustment difficulties such as mental health problems.
Drawing on general appraisal models, Pancer et al. (2004)
developed their model to explain positive and negative
adjustment outcomes for students coping with university
challenges. According to Pancer et al., students appraise the
stressors they face during their transition to university, and
deem them manageable if resources are adequate. Con-
versely, if a mismatch between stressors and resources is
perceived, risk of experiencing negative outcomes such as
depression increases. Stressors and resources in the aca-
demic domain pertain to workloads, aptitude, and study and
time management skills.
Current Study
Studies examining the association between depressive
symptoms and academic stress in university students at a
single point during the academic year do not capture within-
person change in symptoms and stress. Cross-sectional
studies might provide information about which students are
more at risk, but cannot impart knowledge about when
students are at greater risk. Furthermore, results from cross-
sectional studies cannot determine whether risk is occurring
between individuals or within individuals as a function of
the oscillating demands inherent in the university context.
Separating between and within-person effects is important
for understanding whether risk is a function of the
Journal of Youth and Adolescence
individual or the context, or both (Curran et al. 2012;
Hoffman and Stawski 2009). If depressive symptoms rise
and fall in conjunction with fluctuating demands, the aca-
demic context is likely partly accountable for changes in
students’ mood. Determining whether depressive symptoms
ebb and flow with academic demands will clarify when and
for whom risk for depression is highest.
In the current study, depressive symptoms were assessed
multiple times across one academic year in two separate
samples of Canadian university students. In both samples,
waves of measurement coincided with periods of relatively
low (start-of-semester) and relatively high (end-of-semester)
academic workloads. In Study 1, global academic workload
and global perceived stress were assessed at the end of the
first semester. In Study 2, global academic workload and
perceived stress specific to academic demands were mea-
sured multiple times across the academic year during both
low and high stress periods.
Given that depressive symptoms in university students
may represent, at least in part, a response to stress asso-
ciated with academic demands, we hypothesized that
depressive symptoms would rise toward the end of the
semester, and that their peak would be associated with
periods of increased academic workload as measured by the
number of recent academic demands. Given the role of
appraisal in the stress process, we further hypothesized that
depressive symptoms would be higher for students who
appraise their academic demands as unmanageable.
Study 1: Method
Participants
Participants were 198 full-time first-year students at a large
Canadian university taking part in Making the Transition II,
a web-based study of health-related behaviors, well-being,
and academic performance. Sixty percent of students iden-
tified as female (n = 113), and students’ ages ranged from
17.5 to 19.8 years (M = 18.4, SD = .44). Self-reports
showed that the racial/ethnic distribution was 72% white,
16% Asian or South Asian, 5% mixed ethnicity, and 5%
another visible minority (two students declined to report).
About half of students lived at home with parents (53%).
Most students’ mothers (73%) and fathers (75%) had
completed two-year college or four-year university degrees.
Given these characteristics, this sample is similar to student
populations at other large 4-year Canadian universities.
Procedures
In Fall 2005, participants were recruited from compulsory
first-year classes across campus. Research assistants
described the study to students who were present on the day
of their recruitment visit, and students interested in parti-
cipating provided contact information. Students were then
contacted by email and invited to complete an initial paper-
and-pencil questionnaire in groups at the beginning of the
semester. A total of 198 students attended initial sessions in
September or October (baseline), where they completed
demographic questions and measures of depressive symp-
toms. Participants were then invited to complete web-based
questionnaires each month across their first year (through
April). Depressive symptoms measures were assessed at the
baseline, December and April waves of measurement.
Measures of academic demands and perceived stress were
included in the November and December assessments. At
all waves of measurement, informed consent was obtained
from participants who completed that wave. The study was
approved by the university research ethics review commit-
tee in accordance with the Government of Canada’s Tri-
Council Policy Statement: Ethical Conduct for Research
Involving Humans.
All 198 participants had complete data on the outcome
measure (depressive symptoms) at baseline; four partici-
pants were missing demographic variables used as covari-
ates in the analysis, reducing the sample to 194. Of these
participants, 171 (88%) completed end-of-semester assess-
ments in November or December and 152 (78%) completed
the end-of-semester assessment in April. Participants who
completed all waves (n = 144, 74%) were compared on all
study variables to participants who only completed baseline.
The groups differed on one variable: participants who only
completed baseline had higher baseline depressive symp-
toms scores than participants who completed all three waves
(t = 2.40, p < .05).
Measures
Depressive symptoms
The 10-item version (CESD-10; Andresen et al. 1994) of
the Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale
(CES-D; Radloff 1991) measured depressive symptoms.
Participants completed the scale in September or early
October (baseline/start-of-semester 1), in December (end-
of-semester 1), and in April (end-of-semester 2) of their first
year of university. Participants were asked how often in the
past week they had experienced each of 10 depressive
symptoms (e.g., felt depressed, felt fearful, felt lonely).
Responses ranged from 0 [rarely or none of the time (less
than 1 day)] to 3 [most or all of the time (5-7 days)]. The
CESD-10 was developed and found to be reliable and valid
in samples of older adults, and it compared well with the
full 20-item version (Andresen et al. 1994). Total scores
were calculated for descriptive purposes to assess clinically

significant levels of symptomatology (scores of 10 or
greater; Andresen et al. 1994). Mean scores were used in
our main analyses, with higher scores indicating more
symptoms in the past week. Cronbach’s alphas for the three
waves were .80, .82, and .83, respectively.
End-of-semester academic workload
In November and December students were asked to indicate
the number of grades that had been returned to them (e.g.,
on tests, assignments) in the past 14 days. Some students
were missing values for either November (n = 23) or
December (n = 30). To maximize the available n, reports
for these two months were averaged and used as an indi-
cator of end-of-semester workload or academic demands.
End-of-semester perceived stress
The 4-item version of the Perceived Stress Scale (PSS;
Cohen et al. 1983) was administered in November and
December. Participants were asked to indicate how often
over the past 2 weeks they felt 1) unable to control the
important things in their lives; 2) confident about their
ability to handle personal problems (reverse scored); 3) that
things were going their way (reverse scored); and 4) that
difficulties were piling up so high that they could not
overcome them. Items were rated on a 5-point scale ranging
from 0 (never) to 4 (very often). Reports for both months
were averaged and used as a measure of perceived stress at
the end of the semester. Higher scores indicated greater
perceived stress. Cronbach’s alpha for the combined
November and December scale was .85.
Control variables
Main analyses controlled for demographic variables that
could be related to depressive symptoms. These included
mother’s education (a proxy for family socioeconomic
status/SES), race/ethnicity, and sex. Living situation (whe-
ther the student lived with parents or not) was also
controlled.
Data Analysis Plan
Multilevel linear models were estimated using HLM version
7.01 (Raudenbush et al. 2011), using restricted maximum
likelihood estimation to account for missing data. This
procedure computes an individual likelihood function for
each participant based on available data, provided that
complete predictor data are present for each wave of
available outcome data. Importantly, cases contributing
partial outcome data are retained and leveraged to improve
the accuracy of the model estimates. The Level 1 within-
Journal of Youth and Adolescence
person model included a random intercept to estimate
baseline levels of depressive symptoms, and linear and
quadratic effects of time to assess the pattern of change in
depressive symptoms across the academic year. Eq. 1 shows
the Level 1 model predicting depressive symptoms
(DEPRESS) at each wave t for each person i, from the linear
combination of a random intercept (β0i), effects of linear
time (β1iLINEAR) and quadratic time trends (β2iQUAD), and
residual deviations of depressive symptom scores at each
wave t for each person i from the average trajectory (rti):
DEPRESSti ¼β0i þβ1i LINEARþβ2i QUAD þ rti ð1Þ
The Level 2 between-persons model included the effects of
demographic covariates, perceived stress and academic
workload on the intercept and the effects of perceived
stress, academic workload, and their interaction on the
linear and quadratic effects of time. Eq. 2 shows a
simplified Level 2 model containing stress and academic
workload covariates:
β0i ¼ γ 00 þ γ 01 STRESSi þ γ 02 WORKLOADi þ u0i
β1i ¼ γ 10 þ γ 11 STRESSi þ γ 12 WORKLOADi ð2Þ
β2i ¼ γ 20 þ γ 21 STRESSi þ γ 22 WORKLOADi
Estimates include average levels of depressive symptoms
at baseline (γ00), the instantaneous rate of change in
symptoms (γ10; “linear” growth), average acceleration/
deceleration in the rate of change in symptoms (γ20;
“quadratic” growth), associations between perceived stress
and academic workload at the end of semester 1 and
baseline depressive symptoms (γ01 and γ02, respectively),
and estimates of stress and workload differences in the
rates of change in depressive symptoms (γ11 and γ21 for
perceived stress; γ12 and γ22 for academic workload).
Deviations of individual mean scores from the conditional
mean level of depressive symptoms are captured in
the error term u0i. The linear and quadratic time trends were
treated as fixed (nonrandomly varying), because pre-
liminary model testing showed that these effects did not
vary significantly across participants. Thus, any deviations
of individual trajectories from the mean rates of change,
conditional on stress and workload, are captured by residual
error at Level 1. Additional effects not shown in Eq. 2
(intercept covariates; interaction terms for stress and
workload) are entered in Eq. 2, as we have shown for stress
and workload.
Models were tested in two steps, beginning with
unconditional growth models to establish an optimal func-
tional form of growth in depressive symptoms. Perceived
stress, academic workload, their interaction, and all cov-
ariates were added simultaneously in a second step.
Journal of Youth and Adolescence

Study 1: Results

Academic Workload
End of Semester 1
Descriptive statistics and intercorrelations are presented in
Table 1. A score of 10 or above on the 10-item version of

4.41 (2.40)
the CES-D represents clinically significant symptom levels
and is comparable to a score of 16 or above on the 20-item

.05
.00
−.03
.09
version of the CES-D (Andresen et al. 1994). Total scores
for depressive symptoms at all three waves were around the

Perceived Stress End

clinically significant level, on average. Furthermore, 38.8%,
50.3%, and 41.8% of students had depressive symptoms

of Semester 1
scores equal to or greater than 10 at baseline, December,

1.77 (.72)
and April, respectively. The average perceived stress score

.59***
.76***
.57***
was low, falling between the Likert-scale anchors of
“almost never” and “sometimes.” Students reported having
had on average between 4 and 5 academic demands in the
past 14 days in November/December. Scores on the CES-D

Depressive Symptoms
were highly intercorrelated across waves and with end-of-

End of Semester 2
semester perceived stress. End-of-semester 1 academic

10.37 (5.84)
demands was not correlated with CES-D scores from any
wave nor with end-of-semester 1 perceived stress.

.50***
.56***
Multilevel models of within-person change in CES-D
scores (Table 2) showed significant linear and quadratic
effects of time for depressive symptoms (controlling for the
effects of covariates on initial status), with symptoms
Depressive Symptoms

peaking in December (Fig. 1). In these models, linear time

End of Semester 1

was coded 0, 1, 2, corresponding to each wave of mea-

11.01 (5.74)
surement. Symptoms initially increased at a steeper rate for
students with higher end-of-semester levels of perceived
.60***

stress, but switched direction and were declining by the end

Table 1 Sample 1 Descriptive Statistics and Intercorrelations among Study Variables

of the academic year. At the December peak, estimated

depressive symptoms for students with higher stress were
Depressive Symptoms

82% of a standard deviation above average, falling slightly

Start of Semester 1

to 72% of a standard deviation above average by the end of

April. End-of-semester 1 academic demands and the inter-
9.88 (5.29)

action between perceived stress and academic demands

were not related to depressive symptom trajectories. None
of the control variables were significant predictors of
depressive symptom levels.

Study 2: Method
Depressive Symptoms Start of Semester 1
Depressive Symptoms End of Semester 1
Depressive Symptoms End of Semester 2

Study 2 replicates and extends Study 1 with a different

Perceived Stress End of Semester 1

sample of Canadian university students. Study 2 collected

*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001

four waves of data from students enrolled in any year of

study (across the 2013–2014 academic year). Depressive
symptoms, perceived stress, and academic workload were
measured at all waves. This afforded the opportunity to 1)
test the hypothesis that academic workload and stress
associated with those demands would rise toward the end of
Mean (SD)

the semester; 2) examine within-person associations of

perceived stress and academic workload with depressive
symptoms; and 3) to test whether the pattern of change in
 Journal of Youth and Adolescence

Table 2 Sample 1 Multilevel Model of Between-Person Effects of 2.4

End-of-Semester 1 Perceived Stress and Academic Workload on Level
(intercept) and Change in Depressive Symptoms Across One Year
2.0
Fixed Effects Coefficient SE

Depressive Symptoms
Intercept (random), π0 1.6

Intercept (initial status September) 1.081*** .105

Mother’s Education −.042 .030 1.2
Race/Ethnicity (white = 0; another = 1) −.073 .056
Sex (male = 0; female = 1) .026 .044
0.8
Living Situation (with parents = 1; other = 0) .076 .046
Perceived Stress (end-of-semester 1 average) .435*** .044
0.4
Academic Workload (end-of-semester 1 average) −.003 .012
Linear time slope (fixed), π1
0.0
Intercept .253*** .066
September December April
Perceived Stress (end-of-semester 1 average) .339*** .088
Wave of Assessment
Academic Workload (end-of-semester 1 average) −.019 .022
Perceived Stress X Academic Workload −.026 .032 High Stress Low Stress

Quadratic time slope (fixed), π2

Intercept −.106**
Perceived Stress (end-of-semester 1 average) −.158***
Academic Workload (end-of-semester 1 average) .003
Perceived Stress X Academic Workload .012
Random Effects Estimate
Intercept .047***
*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < = .001
depressive symptoms and associations with perceived stress
and academic workload were the same across years of
study.
Participants
Participants in Study 2 were 267 (78.7% identified as
female) full-time undergraduate students between the ages
of 18 and 25 years (M = 21.25, SD = 1.67) enrolled in their
first university degree at a large urban university located in a
different Canadian province than that of the Study 1 sample.
Participants in Study 2 were relatively evenly spread over
the first (26.0%), second (32.0%), third (29.0%), and fourth
(13.0%) years of university study or beyond (maximum 6th
year). Over two-thirds of participants (67.8%) self-identified
as white and not belonging to a visible racial or ethnic
minority group, 7.8% identified as Black, 10.5% as Asian,
3.3% as Native North American, 6.7% as Hispanic, and
4.5% as Arab. A further 13.9% identified as both white and
belonging to a visible racial or ethnic minority group.
Similar to the Study 1 sample, about half (51.3%) of Study
2 participants reported living at home with their parents and
75.1% percent of participants’ mothers and 76.1% of par-
ticipants’ fathers had completed two-year (college), four-
year (university), or higher education degrees.
Fig. 1 Study 1: Trajectories of depressive symptoms across the aca-
.033 demic year for students with high perceived stress levels at the end of
.043 semester 1 (+1 SD above the mean) and low perceived stress levels at
.012 the end of semester 1 (−1 SD below the mean). Dashed lines represent
95% confidence intervals
.019
SE
.216 Procedures
Potential participants were recruited at student events held
at the start of an academic year and by flyers posted on
campus. Those who agreed to participate were sent an email
that described the study and provided a link to an online
survey. Similar to Study 1, the survey assessed many con-
structs relevant to the well-being of university students.
These procedures likely contributed to the greater propor-
tion of female participants in Study 2. It has been shown
that more women than men participate in this type of stu-
dent survey research (Gosling et al. 2004).
Data collection for the study proceeded over four waves
spanning one academic year: Wave 1 = start-of-semester 1
(September/early October); Wave 2 = end-of-semester 1
(late November/early December); Wave 3 = start-of-seme-
ster 2 (late January); Wave 4 = end-of-semester 2 (late
March/early April). At each wave, participants who had at
least partially completed one or more previous online sur-
vey(s) were contacted via email and invited to complete a
new survey. For each survey, participants were required to
give their free and informed consent, and indicate that they
were between the ages of 18 and 25 years and enrolled in
their first university degree program. Participants who
completed surveys at each wave were sent an electronic gift
card of their choice. The study was approved by the uni-
versity research ethics review committee in accordance with
the Government of Canada’s Tri-Council Policy Statement:
Ethical Conduct for Research Involving Humans.
Journal of Youth and Adolescence
Of the 267 full-time students who completed the Wave
1 survey, 256 (96%) had complete data on the outcome
measure (depressive symptoms) at Wave 1. Across the
study variables, 23 participants were missing information
on demographic variables used as covariates or predictor
variables in the main analysis. Of the 244 participants with
complete Wave 1 data, 198 (74.2%) completed Wave 2
assessments, 165 (61.8%) completed Wave 3 assessments,
and 146 (54.7%) completed Wave 4 assessments. Partici-
pants who completed all waves (n = 127; 47.6%) were
compared on all study variables to participants who com-
pleted only Wave 1. The groups differed on only two
variables. First, men were more likely to drop out of the
study. Of participants who did not complete all waves, 30%
were men, and only 13.4% of students who completed all
waves were men (χ2 = 9.92, p < .05). Second, students who
completed all waves reported having more academic
demands (6.75 tests or assignments) at Wave 1 compared to
students who did not complete all waves (6.0 tests or
assignments; t = 2.31, p < .05). The same patterns emerged
when an ANOVA was conducted to compare participants
based on the total number of waves completed. In total 57
participants (21%) completed only Wave 1, 39 (15%)
completed Wave 1 plus one other wave, and 44 (16%)
completed Wave 1 plus two other waves.
Measures
Depressive symptoms
In Study 2, the complete 20-item Center for Epidemiologic
Studies Depression Scale (CES-D) was administered at all
four waves (Radloff 1977). Total scores were calculated for
descriptive purposes to assess clinically significant levels of
symptomatology (scores of 16 or greater). Mean scores
were calculated for main analyses. Higher scores reflected
elevated frequency of depressive symptoms experienced in
the previous week. Cronbach’s alphas ranged from .88 to
.92 across waves.
Current academic workload
At all four waves, participants reported the number of
quizzes, exams, papers, presentations, labs, readings, pro-
blem sets, and other course work they completed in the past
two weeks and how many of these assessments they would
have to complete in the upcoming two weeks. Reports for
both two-week periods were totaled to create an index of
academic workload. Frequencies for each type of academic
demand at each wave of measurement showed that more
students had labs, readings, problem sets, and quizzes ear-
lier in the semester and more exams, papers, and pre-
sentations later in the semester. For example, at the start of
semester 1, 42% of students had a quiz in the past two
weeks and 61% expected another quiz in the next 2 weeks.
At the end of semester 1, 63% had a quiz in the past
2 weeks and 24% expected a quiz in the next two weeks. In
contrast, at the start of semester 1, 16% of students had an
exam in the previous 2 weeks and 56% reported an
upcoming exam in the next two weeks. At the end of
semester 1, 66% of students had an exam in the previous
2 weeks and 89% expected an exam within two weeks.
Perceived stress associated with current academic
workload
As in Study 1, the 4-item version of the Perceived Stress
Scale (PSS; Cohen et al. 1983) measured perceived stress.
The items were the same as the PSS 4-item scale described
in Study 1, but were posed after participants completed their
reports of recent academic workload and were framed
around these demands rather than life in general (e.g., “How
often have you felt that difficulties in your academic work
were piling up so high that you could not overcome them”;
“How often did you feel confident about your ability to
handle your academic work”). Mean scores were calculated
with higher scores indicating higher perceived academic
stress. Cronbach’s alphas ranged from .76 to .81 across
waves.
Control variables
Main analyses controlled for demographic variables:
mother’s education (to assess SES), race/ethnicity, and sex.
Living situation (whether the student lived with parents or
not) was also controlled, as was year of university study.
Data Analysis Plan
Multilevel linear models were estimated using Mplus soft-
ware (Version 7.0). Multiple imputation for clustered data
was used to retain all 267 participants in our analyses (joint
modeling using an unstructured within-cluster covariance
matrix; Asparouhov and Muthén 2010; Enders et al. 2016).
Results pool over estimates from 50 imputed datasets.
Within-person (time-varying) estimates of academic
demands and perceived stress were respectively calculated
by subtracting, for each person, the mean of his/her own set
of repeated measures from their score at each wave of
assessment (person mean centering, e.g., Curran and Bauer
2011; Howard 2015). Between-person (average) estimates
were the means for each person across their own set of
repeated measures of academic demands and perceived
stress, respectively. These averages were included in the
model to examine individual differences in depressive
symptoms explained by students carrying higher average

Table 3 Sample 2 Descriptive
Start of Semester
Statistics, by Wave of
1 1
Measurement
Variable M (SD)
Depressive Symptoms 14.90 (9.39)
(Total Scores)
Perceived Stress 1.62 (1.68)
Academic Workload 6.40 (2.49)
academic loads and students reporting higher levels of stress
on average. Separate estimates of the time-varying and
average components allow us to test unique hypotheses
about effects of within-person variation and between-person
differences in academic demands and stress on depression
over time. Tests of within-person effects are orthogonal to
their between-person counterparts, allowing us to triangu-
late on specific sources of influence on students’ depressive
symptoms.
As in Study 1, our Level 1 model included linear and
quadratic time trends, with the addition of terms capturing
time-varying effects of perceived stress and academic
workload, as follows:
DEPRESSti ¼ β0i þ β1i LINEAR þ β2i QUAD
ð3Þ
þβ3i STRESSti þ β4i WORKLOADti þ rti
Our Level 2 equations were similar to those shown in Study
1, except that we had sufficient variability to estimate
random effects for each of the time trends (u1i and u2i added
to Eq. 2 for the linear and quadratic time trends,
respectively), capturing systematic individual differences
in rates of change in depressive symptoms. We treated our
time-varying estimates of stress and academic workload as
fixed effects at Level 2, as follows:
β3i ¼ γ 30
ð4Þ
β4i ¼ γ 40
Model testing proceeded as in Study 1, beginning with
unconditional growth models to establish an optimal
functional form of growth in depressive symptoms. Perceived
stress, academic workload, and all covariates were included
simultaneously. We also included several exploratory inter-
actions between stress (time-varying and person mean),
workload (time-varying and person mean), and linear time.
None were found to be statistically significant and we
trimmed these terms from our model one at a time, from
largest to smallest p-values (Aiken and West 1991).
Study 2: Results
Descriptive statistics for depressive symptoms, perceived
stress, and academic workload are reported in Table 3. At
Journal of Youth and Adolescence
End of Semester Start of Semester End of Semester
2 2
M (SD) M (SD) M (SD)
17.72 (11.64) 15.51 (10.48) 15.78 (9.55)
1.81 (.78) 1.51 (.76) 1.65 (.77)
6.67 (2.49) 6.03 (2.63) 6.33 (2.84)
each wave of measurement, average total scores for
depressive symptoms were around the clinically significant
score of 16 (Radloff 1977). Across the academic year, at
Waves 1 through 4 respectively, 38.2%, 46.0%, 39.3%, and
41.2% of students scored equal to or greater than 16. Means
for perceived stress were low, falling between the Likert
scale anchors of “almost never” to “sometimes” across the
year. Students reported having between six and seven aca-
demic demands, on average, at each wave.
Intercorrelations between depressive symptoms with
perceived stress and counts of academic workload for each
wave of measurement are presented in Table 4. Within and
across waves, depressive symptoms and perceived stress
were consistently moderately correlated. Depressive symp-
toms and counts of academic workload were uncorrelated at
most waves. Additionally, three correlations between per-
ceived stress scores and academic workload were sig-
nificant: Wave 2 workload (end-of-semester 1) with both
Wave 1 perceived stress (r = .16, p < .05) and Wave 2
perceived stress (r = .20, p < .05); Wave 3 perceived stress
with Wave 3 workload (r = .17, p < .05). Autocorrelations
for CES-D scores across waves were all significant (p < .05)
and ranged from r = .43 to r = .70, as were autocorrelations
for perceived stress (r = .48 to r = .71) and academic
workload (r = .34 to r = .52).
To test the hypothesis that academic workload and per-
ceived stress associated with those demands rise toward the
end of the semester, we ran unconditional growth models
for both academic workload and perceived stress. Linear
time was coded 0, 1, 2, 3, corresponding to each wave of
measurement. Results showed non-significant linear change
(coefficient = .086, SE = .056, p = .12), but a significant
quadratic effect for perceived stress (coefficient = -.036, SE
= .018, p = .04), with stress levels rising from September
and peaking in December. For academic workload, the
linear (coefficient = -.090, SE = .188, p = .63) and quad-
ratic rates of change (coefficient = .005, SE = .062, p = .94)
were not significantly different from zero.
Next, our multilevel model tested the associations of
academic workload and perceived stress with depressive
symptoms. Similar to results for Study 1, the multilevel
model for Study 2 (Table 5) showed significant linear and
quadratic rates of change in depressive symptoms
Journal of Youth and Adolescence

Table 4 Sample 2 Correlations

Depressive Symptoms
Between Depressive Symptoms
with Perceived Stress and Start of Semester 1 End of Semester 1 Start of Semester 2 End of Semester 2
Academic Workload by Wave of
Measurement Perceived Stress
Start of Semester 1 .52** .46** .42** .33**
End of Semester 1 .46** .60** .55** .42**
Start of Semester 2 .42** .45** .46** .40**
End of Semester 2 .49** .48** .54** .51**
Academic Workload
Start of Semester 1 .08 .12 .01 −.08
End of Semester 1 .07 .16* .08 .10
Start of Semester 2 .21** .12 .14 .09
End of Semester 2 −.01 −.02 .09 .09
*p < .05. **p < .01

Table 5 Sample 2 Multilevel

Coefficient SE
Model of Between-Person
Effects of Average Perceived Fixed Effects
Stress and Academic Workload
on Level (intercept) and Change Intercept (initial status September) 0.719*** .068
in Depressive Symptoms and Mother’s Education .026 .017
Within-Person Effects of Race/Ethnicity (white = 0; visible minority = 1) −.008 .043
Perceived Stress and Academic
Sex (male = 0; female = 1) .019 .048
Workload on Change in
Depressive Symptoms Across Living Situation (with parents = 1; other = 0) −.041 .041
One Year Year of Study (1, 2, 3, 4) −.009 .021
Average Perceived Stress (mean across waves) .450*** .042
Average Academic Workload (mean across waves) .011 .017
Linear time slope
Rate of change in depressive symptoms .124*** .036
Average Perceived Stress (mean across waves) .102 .057
Average Academic Workload (mean across waves) .001 .023
Quadratic time slope
Deceleration in rate of change in depressive symptoms −.039*** .012
Average Perceived Stress (mean across waves) −.041* .019
Average Academic Workload (mean across waves) −.001 .007
Time-varying effect of perceived stress (person-centered) .151*** .031
Time-varying effect of academic workload (person-centered) .019* .007
Random effects
Residual (σ2) .097*** .012
Covariance matrix of L2 random effects u0 u1 u2
Random intercept (u0) .057** (.018) . .
Linear time slope (u1) .017 (.020) .021 (.035) .
Quadratic time slope (u2) −.007 (.006) −.006 (.011) .002 (.003)
*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001

(controlling for the effects of covariates on initial status),
with symptoms peaking in December. An effect of average
perceived stress on the intercept showed that students with
higher average levels of perceived stress started semester 1
with higher depressive symptoms, a difference in level that
was maintained until the December peak. After that, there
was a deceleration in depressive symptoms among students
with higher average levels of perceived stress (shown by the
significant negative effect for average perceived stress on
the quadratic time slope). As shown in Fig. 2, at the end-of-
semester 1 peak, predicted depressive symptoms for stu-
dents with higher average perceived stress were nearly two

2.4
2.0
Depressive Symptoms
1.6
1.2
0.8
0.4
0.0
Start S1 End S1 Start S2
Wave of Assessment
High Stress Low Stress
Fig. 2 Study 2: Trajectories of depressive symptoms across the aca-
demic year for students with high average perceived stress levels (+1
SD above the mean) and low average perceived stress levels (−1 SD
below the mean). Dashed lines represent 95% confidence intervals
thirds of a standard deviation (62%) above average, falling
to just under half a standard deviation (47%) above average
by the end of semester 2. Average levels of current aca-
demic workload were not related to level or rate of change
in depressive symptoms across the academic year. Within
individuals, depressive symptoms were highest in months
when students reported greater within-person perceived
stress and more academic demands than usual (time-varying
effects in Table 5). However, these effects were small: when
students felt higher-than-usual stress (+1 SD above their
own mean stress level), depressive symptoms were 11% of
a standard deviation higher than usual. At times when stu-
dents reported higher-than-usual academic workload (+1
SD above their own mean number of demands), depressive
symptoms were 4.5% of a standard deviation higher than
usual. None of the control variables was a significant pre-
dictor of the intercept. The interaction between time-varying
perceived stress and academic workload was not significant
and thus was not presented in the final model.
Discussion
Given concerns about the prevalence of poor mental health
on university campuses (e.g., Canadian Association of
College and University Student Services and the Canadian
Mental Health Association 2013), it is critical to examine
patterns of change in depressive symptoms across the aca-
demic year to identify when, in the typical academic cycle,
risk for depression may be highest. Knowledge about
Journal of Youth and Adolescence
fluctuations in depressive symptoms and how they relate to
students’ challenges is essential for designing strategies
aimed at promoting mental health and academic success.
Surprisingly, few studies of university students have mon-
itored change in depressive symptoms. To address this gap,
we examined within-person patterns of change in depressive
symptoms across one academic year in two samples of
Canadian university students. We hypothesized that
depressive symptoms would rise toward the end of the
semester, peaking when academic workloads and perceived
stress are likely highest (i.e., final exam period and major
project deadlines). Multilevel models for both samples
showed significant increases in depressive symptoms over
time, with symptoms peaking in December, at the end of
End S2 semester 1.
After determining peak timing of students’ depressive
symptoms in the academic cycle, we examined whether that
pattern was related to students’ objective and subjective
experiences of academic stress. We examined both
between-person and within-person associations of academic
workload (i.e., counts of academic demands) and ratings of
perceived stress with depressive symptoms. In Study 1, we
found that students with higher levels of global perceived
stress at the end of semester 1, when depressive symptoms
peaked, experienced more depressive symptoms at that time
compared to students whose perceived stress was lower.
Number of end-of-semester academic demands, however,
was not related to depressive symptoms in Study 1.
In Study 2, we improved upon Study 1 by assessing
academic workload, level of perceived stress associated
with these academic demands, and depressive symptoms at
four times across the academic year. Study 2 assessed both
between- and within-person associations of depressive
symptoms with counts of academic demands and ratings of
perceived stress. Between-persons results showed that stu-
dents whose levels of perceived stress were higher on
average across the academic year started off with higher
depressive symptoms, which increased at a steeper rate
toward peak symptoms around the end of semester 1, but
moved slightly toward average symptom levels by the end
of semester 2. Within persons, depressive symptoms rose to
greater levels on occasions when perceived stress was
higher than usual for a given person. Importantly, this
association is over and above the effect of average per-
ceived stress shown in Fig. 2. Even among students
reporting high average perceived stress, occasions marked
by unusually high levels of perceived stress were associated
with additional increases in depressive symptoms.
In addition to assessing the number of academic demands
along with depressive symptoms at each wave of the study,
Study 2 also improved the measurement of academic
workload relative to Study 1. In Study 2 participants were
asked to indicate the number of assessments they had to
Journal of Youth and Adolescence
complete in the previous and upcoming weeks, rather than
the number of grades returned to them. Results showed that
average academic workload levels (the mean number of
academic demands across the year) was not related to
depressive symptoms, but depressive symptoms were
higher on occasions when counts of academic demands
were also slightly higher than one’s typical levels (the time-
varying effect). That is, when students reported having more
academic work to complete than usual, they reported more
depressive symptoms. The within-person effect of academic
workload in the absence of a between-person effect rules
out the possibility that students who were enrolled in more
demanding programs (e.g., disciplines with more frequent
assignments and supplemental lab courses) experienced
more depressive symptoms in general. Instead, it only
appears to matter whether academic workload at a particular
time exceeded what is typical for a given person.
Both Study 1 and Study 2 results replicate the robust
finding that students who experience greater perceived
stress associated with academic demands also report more
depressive symptoms (e.g., Newcomb-Anjo et al. 2017).
Additionally, the current study contributes two novel find-
ings to the literature on depressive experiences in university
students, both of which arise from the repeated measure-
ment of depressive symptoms across the academic year.
First, the results of Studies 1 and 2 revealed when in the
academic year risk for depression may be highest. Depres-
sive symptoms fluctuated within-individuals across the
academic year as expected, rising from the beginning of the
first semester and peaking at the end of the first semester,
when final assessments typically occur. These results have
implications for the accurate assessment of depression in
university students. It has been suggested that two of the
most commonly used screening measures for depression,
the Beck Depression Inventory (BDI-II; Beck et al. 1996)
and the Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale
(CES-D; Radloff 1991) overestimate rates of depression in
university samples (Santor et al. 1995). Our results showed
that average levels of depressive symptoms exceeded what
is considered clinically significant symptomatology in
December, at the end of semester 1, and that more students
fell into the “at-risk” group at that time relative to other
points in the academic year. Thus, at least a portion of the
discrepancy between rates of clinically significant levels of
depressive symptoms obtained through self-report screening
measures in university students (around 50%) and
population-level prevalence rates obtained via diagnostic
interviews (10% to 25%; Pearson et al. 2013; Rohde et al.
2012) may be accounted for by the timing of assessment.
Given that most research on depression in university sam-
ples to date has been cross-sectional, levels of clinically
significant symptoms may be somewhat inflated or deflated
if time of year is not taken into account.
The second contribution of this research comes from
Study 2, wherein we showed that on occasions when stu-
dents experienced greater academic workloads and more
perceived stress than their own average levels, they also
reported increases in depressive symptoms. Although the
sizes of these effects were small, these findings are impor-
tant: they suggest that risk for depression increases when
students are challenged to manage more academic demands
than is typical for them. These results correspond with
models of stress and coping suggesting that perceived stress
will increase when demands in the environment are per-
ceived as exceeding one’s individual resources (Lazarus and
Folkman 1984; Pancer et al. 2004). Importantly, we were
able to rule out the possibility that students with heavier
academic demands in general were also the most depressed.
Average workload was unrelated to depressive symptoms.
In general models of depression, stress is a central con-
tributing component to the onset of depression (e.g.,
diathesis-stress models, Hammen 2005; allostatic load
models, McEwen 2003; developmental models, Compas
2004). And, in models of student burnout (Salmela-Aro
et al. 2008), burnout has been observed in students who
were initially immersed in their studies, but later came to
develop a chronic stress response after exposure to repeated
achievement pressures (Maroco and Campos 2012). Thus, if
depressive symptoms arise from students appraising their
academic demands as exceeding what they typically can
manage, risk for major depression and burnout increase.
Limitations and Future Research
Several limitations of the current studies point to further
directions for research on the role of academic demands in
university students’ depressive experiences. First, future
studies should explore the temporal ordering of demands,
perceived stress, and depressive symptoms to better
understand the progression from stress response to depres-
sion in university students. In the university context where
demands, perceived stress, and depressive symptoms rise
and fall together, pathways to depression may not be linear.
Thus, it would be important to conduct path models to map
out the temporal ordering of risk for depression in this
context.
Future research should also identify the factors that dis-
tinguish students for whom elevated depressive symptoms
represent compromised mental health from those for whom
short-lived increases in depressive symptoms associated
with academic stress serve an adaptive motivational func-
tion. Although negative affect reflected in clinical depres-
sion and student burnout is considered maladaptive,
negative affect in other contexts can serve adaptive self-
regulatory functions by motivating cognitive and behavioral

responses to challenges, including academic ones (Harmon-
Jones et al. 2013; for an example with adolescents see
Wrosch and Miller 2009). For example, daily diary results
showed that university students who experienced occasional
periods of negative affect across one semester achieved the
greatest academic success (Oishi et al. 2007). In another
study spanning four years of university, students who were
generally happy across all years achieved the greatest levels
of academic success in semesters during which they
experienced increases in negative affect. In fact, these stu-
dents benefited only when within-person negative affect was
high (Barker et al. 2016). Thus, for some students, increases
in depressive symptoms may reflect productive investment
in academic pursuits motivated by negative affect. In the
current studies, emotion and self-regulatory strategies stu-
dents may employ to adaptively manage demands and
perceived stress and direct them toward academic success
were not assessed, however.
A third limitation of the current research was the
assessment of academic workload. In Studies 1 and 2,
counts were not weighted by the effort students invested in
the workload, or by the type of work or assignment they
completed and which might have differed in its impact on
final grades (e.g., quiz vs. assignment vs. final exam).
Moreover, perceived stress associated with demands was
not assessed at the exact time they were experienced. Daily
diary, experience sampling, and stress interviews are
methods that would more precisely identify which academic
demands are particularly stressful for students and better
capture the temporal relationship between type of demand
and associated perceived stress.
Finally, future research should examine factors that may
exacerbate or ameliorate perceived stress associated with
academic demands and its association with depressive
experiences. Although academic stress has been shown to
be independently associated with depressive symptoms,
over and above the effects of established risk and protective
factors (Newcomb-Anjo et al. 2017), moderators of the
effects of perceived stress on trajectories of depressive
symptoms should be examined. In the Pancer et al. model
(2004), stressors and resources are not only described in the
academic domain, but in the personal and social domains as
well. These additional domains include, for example,
finances, individual personality characteristics, expectations
for university life, and social environments and levels of
social support. Certainly, the university experience can be
characterized as a context in which socialization occurs
broadly and wherein many developmental challenges are
encountered en route to adulthood (Montgomery and Côté
2003). In the current study, the fact that depressive symp-
toms peaked in December and did not rise to the same levels
in April, when, theoretically, demands should be similarly
high, suggests that additional stressors and resources should
Journal of Youth and Adolescence
be assessed in future research. On the one hand, it is pos-
sible that December is particularly challenging due to other
factors associated with time of year, such as seasonal
effects, financial burdens associated with holiday travel, and
a briefer break before resuming studies. On the other hand,
resources such as coping behaviors, personality traits and
social support may, for some students, buffer the effects of
stress on depressive experiences across the academic year.
More generally, future research aimed at replicating and
extending these findings may benefit from the use of
recruitment strategies other than convenience sampling.
This could improve representativeness in terms of demo-
graphic variables, possible range in depressive experiences,
and factors other than academics that may contribute to or
protect against these experiences for university students.
Conclusion
In recent years, media outlets have drawn attention to a
possible mental health crisis on Canadian university cam-
puses (e.g., Goffin 2017; Lunau 2012) and campus com-
munities have responded by paying closer attention to the
emotional needs of students. For example, in 2013, the
Canadian Association of College and University Student
Services and the Canadian Mental Health Association
jointly published Post-Secondary Student Mental Health:
Guide to a Systemic Approach in which they outline dif-
ferent ways in which universities can organize to support
student well-being. Our results showed that symptom levels
peak (i.e., that risk is highest) at the end of the first seme-
ster, constituting a first important step toward clarifying
when the risk for depression may be highest in university
samples. The second important finding from the current
research is that symptoms were higher when students
appraised their academic demands as exceeding what they
typically could manage. This implies that enhancing indi-
vidual psychological resources that involve stress appraisal
may be a prime target for programs aimed at supporting
student well-being and mental health. Together, the key
findings from the current research have implications for the
assessment, prevention, and treatment of depression in the
university student population. Effective intervention at this
stage of development is important, given that experiencing
one major depressive episode increases the likelihood of
experiencing another episode in the future (Kendler et al.
2001) and of experiencing poor educational and future
economic outcomes (Fergusson et al. 2007). More gen-
erally, well-being and success across the transition to
adulthood accumulate and predict future well-being in adult
occupational and social roles (e.g., Howard et al. 2010).
Considering that promoting university students’ self-
management and coping skills is one avenue of support
Journal of Youth and Adolescence
identified by the Canadian Association of College and
University Student Services and the Canadian Mental
Health Association, evidence from the current study may be
used in efforts to reduce the incidence of depression and to
enhance the concurrent and future well-being of university
students.
Authors’ Contributions All authors contributed to the development of
the study concept. Study 1 design and data collection were the
responsibility of N.L.G., A.L.H., and E.T.B. Study 2 design and data
collection were the responsibility of E.T.B., A.L.H., and R.V.K. E.T.
B. and A.L.H. performed the data analyses and drafted the Methods
and Results sections. E.T.B. wrote the Introduction and Discussion
sections. All co-authors provided critical revisions and approved the
final version of the manuscript.
Funding Study 1 was supported by a Social Sciences and Humanities
Research Council of Canada operating grant awarded to N.L.G. and J.
L.M. Study 2 was supported by a Social Sciences and Humanities
Research Council of Canada Insight Development Grant awarded to E.
T.B. and A.L.H.
Data Sharing Declaration The datasets generated and/or analyzed
during the current study are not publicly available but are available
from the corresponding author on reasonable request.
Compliance with Ethical Standards These studies were conducted in
compliance with ethical standards outlined by the Government of
Canada’s Tri-Council Policy Statement: Ethical Conduct for Research
Involving Humans.
Conflict of interest The authors declare that they have no conflict of
interest.
Ethical Approval Both studies were approved by their respective
university research ethics review committees in accordance with the
Government of Canada’s Tri-Council Policy Statement: Ethical Con-
duct for Research Involving Humans.
Informed Consent Informed consent was received from all partici-
pants who participated at each wave of measurement as per the
Government of Canada’s Tri-Council Policy Statement: Ethical Con-
duct for Research Involving Humans.
References
Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and
interpreting interactions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Alfred-Liro, C., & Sigelman, C. K. (1998). Sex differences in self-
concept and symptoms of depression during the transition to
college. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 27, 219–244. https://
doi.org/10.1023/A:1021667813858.
American College Health Association. (2016). American College
Health Association-National College Health Assessment II:
Canadian Reference Group Executive Summary. Hanover, MD:
American College Health Association.
Andresen, E. M., Malmgren, J. A., Carter, W. B., & Patrick, D. L.
(1994). Screening for depression in well older adults: Evaluation
of a short form of the CES-D. American Journal of Preventive
Medicine, 10, 77–84.
Andrews, B., & Wilding, J. M. (2004). The relation of depression and
anxiety to life-stress and achievement in students. British Journal
of Psychology, 95, 509–521. https://doi.org/10.1348/000712604
2369802.
Asparouhov, T., & Muthén, B. (2010). Weighted least squares esti-
mation with missing data. Mplus Technical Appendix, 2010,
1–10.
Barker, E. T., Howard, A. L., Galambos, N. L., & Wrosch, C. (2016).
Tracking affect and academic success across university: Happy
students benefit from bouts of negative mood. Developmental
Psychology, 52, 2022–2030. https://doi.org/10.1037/dev0000231.
Beck, A. T., Steer, R. A., & Brown, G. K. (1996). Manual for the Beck
Depression Inventory-II. San Antonio, TX: Psychological
Corporation.
Bouteyre, E., Maurel, M., & Bernaud, J.-L. (2006). Daily hassles and
depressive symptoms among first year psychology students in
France: The role of coping and social support. Stress and Health,
23, 93–99. https://doi.org/10.1002/smi.1125.
Bureau of Labor Statistics U.S. Department of Labor (2014). College
Enrollment and Work Activity of2013 High School Graduates.
Economic News Release. http://www.bls.gov/news.release/hsgec.
nr0.htm.
Canadian Association of College & University Student Services and
the Canadian Mental Health Association. (2013). Post-Secondary
Student Mental Health: Guide to a Systemic Approach. Van-
couver, BC: Author.
Chambel, M. J., & Curral, L. (2005). Stress in academic life: Work
characteristics as predictors of student well-being and perfor-
mance. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 54,
135–147. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-0597.2005.00200.x.
Cohen, S., Kamark, T., & Mermelstein, R. (1983). A global measure
of perceived stress. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 24,
385–396. https://doi.org/10.2307/2136404.
Compas, B. E. (2004). Processes of risk and resilience during ado-
lescence: Linking context and individuals. In R. M. Lerner, & L.
Steinberg (Eds.), Handbook of adolescence (2nd ed., pp.
263–296). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Cooke, R., Bewick, B. M., Barkham, M., Bradley, M., & Audin, K.
(2006). Measuring, monitoring and managing the psychological
well-being of first year university students. British Journal of
Guidance and Counselling, 34, 505–517. https://doi.org/10.1080/
03069880600942624.
Curran, P. J., & Bauer, D. J. (2011). The disaggregation of within-
person and between-person effects in longitudinal models of
change. Annual Review of Psychology, 62, 583–619.
Curran, P. J., Lee, T., Howard, A. L., Lane, S., & MacCallum, R.
(2012). Disaggregating within-person and between-person effects
in multilevel and structural equation growth models. In J. R.
Harring, & G. R. Hancock (Eds.), CILVR series on latent variable
methodology. Advances in longitudinal methods in the social and
behavioral sciences (pp. 217–253). Charlotte, NC: IAP Infor-
mation Age Publishing.
Eisenberg, D., Gollust, S. E., Golberstein, E., & Hefner, J. L. (2007).
Prevalence and correlates of depression, anxiety, and suicidality
among university students. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry,
77, 534–542. https://doi.org/10.1037/0002-9432.77.4.534.
Enders, C. K., Mistler, S. A., & Keller, B. T. (2016). Multilevel
multiple imputation: A review and evaluation of joint modeling
and chained equations imputation. Psychological Methods, 21,
222–240. https://doi.org/10.1037/met0000063.
Fisher, S., & Hood, B. (1987). The stress of the transition to university:
A longitudinal study of psychological disturbance and vulner-
ability to homesickness. British Journal of Psychology, 78,
425–441. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8295.1987.tb02260.x.
Fergusson, D. M., Boden, J. M., & Horwood, L. J. (2007). Recurrence
of major depression in adolescence and early adulthood, and later
mental health, educational and economic outcomes. British
Journal of Psychiatry, 191, 335–342. https://doi.org/10.1192/bjp.
bp.107.036079.

Furr, S. R., Westefeld, J. S., McConnell, G. N., & Jenkins, J. M.
(2001). Suicide and depression among college students: A decade
later. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 32,
97–100. https://doi.org/10.1037/0735-7028.32.1.97.
Galambos, N. L., Barker, E. T., & Krahn, H. J. (2006). Depression,
self-esteem, and anger in emerging adulthood: Seven-year tra-
jectories. Developmental Psychology, 42, 350–365. https://doi.
org/10.1037/0012-1649.42.2.350.
Galarneau, D., Marissette, R., & Usalcas, J. (2013). What has changed
for young people in Canada? In Statistics Canada. http://www.sta
tcan.gc.ca/pub/75-006-x/2013001/article/11847-eng.htm.
Goffin, P. (2017). ‘We’re not a treatment facility’: The struggle for
campuses to provide students mental health care. The Toronto
Star. https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2017/08/13/were-not-a-
treatment-facility-the-struggle-for-campuses-to-provide-students-
mental-health-care.html.
Gosling, S. D., Vazire, S., Srivastava, S., & John, O. P. (2004).
Should we trust web-based studies? A comparative analysis of six
pre-conceptions about internet questionnaires. American Psy-
chologist, 59, 93–104. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.
59.2.93.
Haldorsen, H., Bak, N. H., Dissing, A., & Petersson, B. (2014). Stress
and symptoms of depression among medical students at the
University of Copenhagen. Scandinavian Journal of Public
Health, 42, 89–95. https://doi.org/10.1177/1403494813503055.
Hammen, C. (2005). Stress and depression. Annual Review of Clinical
Psychology, 1, 293–319.
Harmon-Jones, E., Gable, P. A., & Price, T. F. (2013). Does negative
affect always narrow and positive affect always broaden the
mind? Considering the influence of motivational intensity on
cognitive scope. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 22,
301–307. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721413481353.
Hoffman, L., & Stawski, R. S. (2009). Persons as contexts: Evaluating
between-person and within-person effects in longitudinal analy-
sis. Research in Human Development, 6, 97–120. https://doi.org/
10.1080/15427600902911189.
Howard, A. L. (2015). Leveraging time-varying covariates to test
within- and between-person effects and interactions in the mul-
tilevel linear model. Emerging Adulthood, 3, 400–412. https://
doi.org/10.1177/2167696815592726.
Howard, A. L., Galambos, N. L., & Krahn, H. J. (2010). Paths to
success in young adulthood from mental health and life transi-
tions in emerging adulthood. International Journal of Behavioral
Development, 34, 538–546. https://doi.org/10.1177/
0165025410365803.
Ibrahim, A. K., Kelly, S. J., Adams, C. E., & Glazebrook, C. (2013). A
systematic review of studies of depression prevalence in uni-
versity students. Journal of Psychiatric Research, 47, 391–400.
https://doi.org/10.1037/t06165-000.
Kendler, K. S., Thornton, L. M., & Gardner, C. O. (2001). Genetic
risk, number of previous depressive episodes, and stressful life
events in predicting onset of major depression. American Journal
of Psychiatry, 158, 582–586. https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.ajp.
158.4.582.
Lazarus, R. S., & Folkman, S. (1984). Stress, appraisal, and coping.
New York, NY: Springer.
Lunau, K. (2012). Campus crisis: the broken generation. Why so many
of our best and brightest students report feeling hopeless,
depressed, even suicidal. McLean’s Magazine. http://www.ma
cleans.ca/news/canada/the-broken-generation/.
Maroco, J., & Campos, J. A. D. B. (2012). Defining the student
burnout construct: A structural analysis from three burnout
inventories. Psychological Reports, 111, 814–830. https://doi.
org/10.2466/14.10.20.PR0.111.6.814-830.
McEwen, B. S. (2003). Mood disorders and allostatic load. Biological
Psychiatry, 54, 200–207.
Journal of Youth and Adolescence
Mikolajczyk, R.T., Maxwell, A.E., Naydenova, V., Meier, S., & El
Ansari, W. (2008). Depressive symptoms and perceived burdens
related to being a student: Survey in three European countries.
Clinical Practice and Epidemiology in Mental Health, 4. https://
doi.org/10.1186/1745-0179-4-19.
Montgomery, M. J., & Côté, J. E. (2003). College as a transition to
adulthood. In G. R. Adams & M. D. Berzonsky (Eds.), Blackwell
handbook of adolescence (pp. 149–172). Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
Newcomb-Anjo, S., Villemaire-Krajden, R., Takefman, K., & Barker,
E. T. (2017). The unique associations of university experiences
with depressive symptoms in emerging adulthood. Emerging
Adulthood, 5, 75–80. https://doi.org/10.1177/216769681665
7233.
Oishi, S., Diener, E., & Lucas, R. E. (2007). The optimum level of
well-being: Can people be too happy. Perspectives on Psycho-
logical Science, 2, 346–360. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-6916.
2007.00048.x.
Othieno, C. J., Okoth, R. O., Peltzer, K., Pengpid, S., & Malla, L. O.
(2014). Depression among university students in Kenya: Pre-
valence and sociodemographic correlates. Journal of Affective
Disorders, 165, 120–125. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2014.04.
070.
Pancer, S. M., Pratt, M., Hunsberger, B., & Alisat, S. (2004). Bridging
troubled waters: Helping students make the transition from high
school to university. Guidance and Counselling, 9, 184–190.
Pearson, C., Janz, T., & Ali, J. (2013). Mental and substance use
disorders in Canada. In Health at a Glance, Statistics Canada.
http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/82-624-x/2013001/article/11855-
eng.htm.
Radloff, L. S. (1977). The CES-D scale: A self-report depression scale
or research in the general population. Applied Psychological
Measurement, 1, 385–401.
Radloff, L. S. (1991). The use of the Center for Epidemiologic Studies
Depression Scale in adolescents and young adults. Journal of
Youth and Adolescence, 20, 149–166. https://doi.org/10.1007/
BF01537606.
Raudenbush, S. W., Bryk, A. S., Cheong, Y. F., Congdon, R. T., & Du
Toit, M. (2011). HLM 7. Lincolnwood, IL: Scientific Software
International Inc.
Rohde, P., Lewinsohn, P. M., Klein, D. N., Seeley, J. R., & Gau, J. M.
(2012). Key characteristics of major depressive disorder occur-
ring in childhood, adolescence, emerging adulthood, and adult-
hood. Clinical Psychological Science, 1, 41–53. https://doi.org/
10.1177/2167702612457599.
Salmela-Aro, K., Kiuru, N., Pietikäinen, M., & Jokela, J. (2008). Does
school matter? The role of school context in adolescents’ school-
related burnout. European Psychologist, 13, 12–23. https://doi.
org/10.1027/1016-9040.13.1.12.
Santor, D. A., Zuroff, D. C., Ramsay, J. O., Cervantes, P., & Palacios,
J. (1995). Examining scale discriminability in the BDI and CES-
D as a function of depressive severity. Psychological Assessment,
7, 131–139. https://doi.org/10.1037/1040-3590.7.2.131.
Sha, T., & Xia, L. (2004). Mediation effect of cognitive appraisal
orientation on the relationship between stress and negative feel-
ings in university students. Chinese Mental Health Journal, 18,
107–110.
Shamsuddin, K., Fadzil, F., Wan Ismail, W. S., Shah, S. A., Omar, K.,
Muhammad, N. A., Jaffar, A., Ismail, A., & Mahadevan, R.
(2013). Correlates of depression, anxiety and stress among
Malaysian university students. Asian Journal of Psychiatry, 6,
318–323. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajp.2013.01.014.
Schulenberg, J. E., & Zarrett, N. R. (2006). Mental health during
emerging adulthood: Continuity and discontinuity in courses,
causes, and functions. In J. J. Arnett & J. Tanner (Eds.), Emer-
ging Adults in America: Coming of Age in the 21st Century (pp.
135–72). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Journal of Youth and Adolescence
Twenge, J. M., Gentile, B., DeWall, C. N., Ma, D., Lacefield, K., &
Schurtz, D. R. (2010). Birth cohort increases in psychopathology
among young Americans, 1938–2007: A cross-temporal meta-
analysis of the MMPI. Clinical Psychology Review, 30, 145–154.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2009.10.005.
Wrosch, C., & Miller, G. E. (2009). Depressive symptoms can be
useful: Self-regulatory and emotional benefits of dysphoric mood
in adolescence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
96, 1181–1190. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0015172.
Erin T. Barker is Associate Professor in the Department of
Psychology at Concordia University. She received her doctorate
from the University of Alberta. Her major research interests include
stress, coping, mental health and wellbeing during the transition to
adulthood.
Andrea L. Howard is Assistant Professor in the Department of
Psychology at Carleton University. She received her doctorate from
the University of Alberta. Her research focuses on mental health and
substance use in adolescence and the transition to adulthood, with an
emphasis on quantitative methods for developmental data analysis.
Rosanne Villemaire-Krajden received her BA Honours degree in
Psychology from Concordia University and MSc in Psychiatry from
McGill University. Her research focuses on depression and cognitive
behaviour therapy.
Nancy L. Galambos is Professor in the Department of Psychology at
the University of Alberta. She received her doctorate from the
Pennsylvania State University. Her research examines psychosocial
development and well-being across adolescence, the transition to
adulthood, and into midlife.