Journal of American College Health

ISSN: 0744-8481 (Print) 1940-3208 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/vach20

Understanding stress as an impediment to

academic performance

Patricia Frazier, Abigail Gabriel, Addie Merians & Katherine Lust

To cite this article: Patricia Frazier, Abigail Gabriel, Addie Merians & Katherine Lust (2018):
Understanding stress as an impediment to academic performance, Journal of American College
Health, DOI: 10.1080/07448481.2018.1499649

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/07448481.2018.1499649

Published online: 04 Oct 2018.

Submit your article to this journal

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=vach20
JOURNAL OF AMERICAN COLLEGE HEALTH
https://doi.org/10.1080/07448481.2018.1499649

MAJOR ARTICLE

Understanding stress as an impediment to academic performance

Patricia Frazier, BSa, Abigail Gabriel, PhDa, Addie Merians, BSa, and Katherine Lust, PhDb
a
Department of Psychology, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA; bBoynton Health Services, University of Minnesota,
Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

Objectives: Stress is the most commonly reported impediment to academic performance Received 7 November 2017
among college students. The objectives of this study were to examine the accuracy of these per- Revised 30 May 2018
ceptions, identify demographic and psychosocial factors that distinguished among students Accepted 9 July 2018
who differed in perceptions of how stress affected their performance, and assess the relations
between these factors and grade point average (GPA). Participants: Undergraduate students
(N ¼ 8,997) from 20 Midwestern schools. Methods: Participants completed online surveys dur-
KEYWORDS
ing February–March 2015 that assessed perceived impediments to academic performance,
Academic performance;
cumulative GPA, demographic information, and psychosocial factors. Results: Students who college students;
reported that stress affected their performance had lower GPAs, and reported more stress and resilience; stress
lower coping self-efficacy, resilience, and social support. Male, heterosexual, and ethnic-minority
students were less likely to report having stress (but did not have higher GPAs). Conclusion:
Stress reduction interventions should target psychosocial factors related to perceiving stress as
an impediment and to poorer performance.

Understanding stress as an impediment
to academic performance
Recent data highlight the growing necessity of a college
degree for professional and economic success. For
example, the U.S. Department of Education (2015) esti-
mated that, by 2020, most employees will need a postse-
condary education. Currently, individuals who graduate
with a bachelor’s degree have 66% higher salaries and a
lower risk of unemployment than high school gradu-
ates.1 These data underscore the importance of studying
factors that affect academic performance in college.
The American College Health Association (ACHA)
annually releases the National College Health Assessment
(NCHA), a nationally representative survey that asks stu-
dents what factors affect their academic performance.2 For
each of 31 factors, students reported whether they
experienced each factor and, if so, whether it affected their
performance (eg, received lower grade, received an incom-
plete) within the past 12 months. From 2011 to 2016,
undergraduate students most often reported that stress
(30%–34%) negatively affected their academic perform-
ance, outranking other health-related factors such as sleep
difficulties (21%–24%) and poor mental health
(20%–23%).2 However, many students reported that stress
did not affect their performance. For example, in the Fall
2016 NCHA survey,3 the percentage of students who
reported that stress did not affect their performance was
slightly larger (37%) than the percentage of students who
reported that stress did affect their performance (34%).
To our knowledge, no studies have examined
whether students who reported that stress affected
their performance actually had lower GPAs than other
students. If institutions are going to make policy deci-
sions based on these data (eg, decisions about funding
stress management interventions), it would be useful
to have more information on the accuracy of these
perceptions. In a meta-analysis of eight studies, the
relation between measures of stress and GPA was
small (eg, r ¼ .13),4 underscoring the importance of
examining the accuracy of students’ perceptions that
stress is negatively affecting their performance.
Another question that has received little attention
is what distinguishes students who reported that their
academic performance was versus was not negatively
affected by stress. One study assessed whether the
relation between the academic consequences of stress
and depression was mediated by students’ perceived
ability to manage their stress.5 Relevant findings
included that students who said they had no stress
reported more stress management self-efficacy (ie, bet-
ter coping) and fewer depressive symptoms than other

CONTACT Patricia Frazier pfraz@umn.edu Department of Psychology, 75 E. River Road, N218 Elliott Hall, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN
55455, USA.
ß 2018 Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
2 P. FRAZIER ET AL.
students. With regard to demographic factors, two
studies compared students with differing sexual orien-
tations in terms of perceived academic impediments
using NCHA data.6,7 Both studies found that hetero-
sexual students were less likely to report that stress
negatively affected their performance than were gay,
lesbian, or bisexual students. Although these studies
shed light on factors that may be related to percep-
tions of stress as an academic impediment, they gen-
erally did not directly compare students who said
stress did versus did not affect their performance.
More information is needed on demographic and psy-
chosocial factors that distinguish between those who
perceive that their performance is or is not negatively
affected by stress. This information would allow insti-
tutions to target certain groups or certain factors in
interventions.
Present study
The purpose of this study was to contribute to our
understanding of factors associated with academic
performance, with a specific focus on stress given that
it is the health-related factor most often identified by
students as impeding their performance. First, using
data collected using a Student Health Survey com-
pleted by undergraduate students at 2 year and 4 year
colleges in Minnesota, we sought to replicate findings
from the NCHA data that stress was the factor most
often endorsed as negatively affecting academic per-
formance. Second, to assess the accuracy of these per-
ceptions, we compared cumulative GPAs across
groups. If these students’ perceptions are accurate, we
would expect the highest GPAs among those who
reported no stress, followed by those who said stress
did not affect their performance, followed by those
who said stress did negatively affect their perform-
ance. We also assessed the relation between a separate
question assessing perceived stress and cumulative
GPA, expecting a small relation.4
Another major purpose of our study was to identify
factors that differentiated among students who reported
no stress, stress that did not affect performance, and
stress that did negatively affect performance. We identi-
fied various psychosocial factors in the Student Health
Survey that might differentiate among the three groups.
The first factor was the level of stress the student was
experiencing - students who reported that stress was
affecting their performance may simply have had more
stress than other students. This hypothesis was based on
the finding that students who said that depression nega-
tively affected their performance had more depressive
symptoms than other students.8 Second, as mentioned,
students who said they had no stress reported more
stress management self-efficacy than those who said
that stress did not affect their performance, or that stress
did affect their performance.5 Although the authors did
not directly compare students who said stress did versus
did not affect their performance, we hypothesized that
students who reported that stress affected their per-
formance would report lower coping self-efficacy and
resilience (the variables closest to stress management
self-efficacy in our data) than other students. Finally, we
hypothesized that students who reported that stress
affected their performance would report less social sup-
port than other students, given that social support is a
key resource for coping with stress.9
We also identified five sociodemographic factors
that, based on previous research, might differentiate
among these three groups (ie, no stress, stress did not
affect performance, stress affected performance).
Specifically, we expected that heterosexual students
would be less likely to report stress or negative effects of
stress than would sexual minority students.6,7 There is
also evidence from NCHA data that community college
students have more mental health problems and fewer
campus mental health resources than students at 4-year
schools10; thus, we expected that students at 2-year
community colleges would be more likely to report
being negatively affected by stress than would students
at 4-year schools. We also anticipated that female stu-
dents would be more likely to report negative effects of
stress on academic performance, as found in the Fall
2016 NCHA survey.3 With regard to race, we expected
that racial minority students would be more likely to
report that stress was an impediment to their academic
performance than would White students. According to
the race-based disparities in stress and sleep in context
model, repeated exposure to perceived discrimination
and other unique stressors experienced by racial minor-
ities may lead to psychological and biological stress
responses that can impair academic performance.9
Finally, we examined whether students who were first-
generation college students would report being more
negatively affected by stress. In one study, first-gener-
ation college students reported more concern about
their transition to college than did continuing gener-
ation students, and this concern increased over time.11
However, another study found no relation between
first-generation status and stress, mental health, or aca-
demic/social integration.12
Finally, we examined the relations between these
psychosocial and demographic factors and GPA to
assess whether factors associated with stress being per-
ceived as an impediment were also associated with
GPA. Arguably, it is more important that a factor be

related to actual GPA than to perceptions of stress
affecting GPA. With regard to the psychosocial factors
available in our data set, meta-analytic findings indi-
cate a small but significant relation between social
support and GPA and a strong relation between per-
formance self-efficacy and GPA,4 consistent with
Bandura’s theory.13 Although the one study that spe-
cifically examined coping self-efficacy found that it
was unrelated to GPA,14 given that only one study has
examined this relation, and that a similar construct
(stress-management self-efficacy) was related to per-
ceived academic impediments,5 we examined coping
self-efficacy as a possible correlate of GPA. Similarly,
although research on the relation between self-
reported resilience and GPA has been mixed,15,16 we
examined resilience (defined as the ability to bounce
back from stress) as a correlate, given our focus on
stress.4 With regard to demographic characteristics,
theoretically, students who are more likely to report
that stress is negatively affecting their performance (ie,
sexual minority, female, racial minority, 2-year college,
and first generation college students) should also have
lower GPAs. However, students who perceive that
stress is affecting their performance may not actually
have lower GPAs. For example, although female stu-
dents were more likely to report that stress was nega-
tively affecting their performance in the Fall 2016
NCHA data,3 other research shows that female stu-
dents have higher GPAs than male students.4
In summary, our goals were (1) to replicate the
finding that stress was the factor most often endorsed
as negatively affecting academic performance; (2) to
assess the accuracy of these perceptions by comparing
cumulative GPAs across groups who reported no
stress and stress that did vs. did not affect perform-
ance; (3) to assess the relation between a separate
measure of perceived stress and GPA, (4) to identify
psychosocial and demographic variables that distin-
guished between these three groups who differed in
terms of perceptions of stress affecting performance;
and (5) to examine the relations between these factors
and GPA.
Methods
Participants
Participants (N ¼ 8,997) were undergraduate students at
20 2- and 4-year college and university campuses in
Minnesota who completed the 2015 College Student
Health Survey.17 Data were collected online between
February 16, 2015 and March 27, 2015. Most (68%) par-
ticipants were female. Participants identified as White
JOURNAL OF AMERICAN COLLEGE HEALTH 3
(81.6%), Asian (8.6%), Black or African American
(6.1%), American Indian or Alaska Native (2.1%),
Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander (0.4%), other
races (1.9%), and prefer not to answer (2.9%).
Percentages did not add to 100% because respondents
could indicate more than one race. The median age of
the sample was 21 years old (range ¼18–74). Most
(73%) of the sample was enrolled in 4-year colleges and
universities. Almost half (47%) were first-generation
college students (ie, neither parent had a 4-year college
degree). The sample included participants who identi-
fied as heterosexual (89%), bisexual (4%), gay or lesbian
(2%), or other (4%). The study was approved by the
institutional review board (IRB) of the university that
sent the survey (Study # 0012S75881). Other schools
signed an agreement with that university or sought
approval from their own IRB. All study procedures were
carried out in accordance with the latest version of the
Declaration of Helsinki. Students provided consent on
the online survey.
Measures
Factors perceived to affect academic performance
Factors that were perceived to affect college academic
performance were assessed by a measure that pre-
sented students with a list of 20 factors, including
stress.17 Students rated each factor in terms of
whether they had experienced it and, if so, whether or
not it had affected their academic performance during
the past 12 months (1 ¼ I do not have this issue/not
applicable; 2 ¼ I have this issue, my academics have
not been affected; 3 ¼ I have this issue, my academics
have been affected). The similar question on the
NCHA survey assessed how academics were affected
(eg, scored lower on a test or project) in separate
responses, graded for severity of the academic impair-
ment, whereas this survey had a single response
option for academics being affected by the factor.
Stress
Stress was measured on a 10-point scale on which stu-
dents rated their average level of stress over the past
30 days (1 ¼ Not stressed at all to 10 ¼ Very stressed).
The construct validity of scores on this measure was
supported by the finding that students who scored
higher on this measure also reported more days with
poor mental health (including stress, depression,
and problems with emotions) in the past month
(r ¼ .49, p < .001).
4 P. FRAZIER ET AL.

Table 1. Top 10 perceived academic impediments.

I have this issue – my academics I have this issue – my academics I do not have this
have been affected have not been affected issue/not applicable
1.
Stress 32.4% 40.1% 27.5%
2.
Sleep difficulties 22.4% 23.4% 54.2%
3.
Any mental health issues 17.3% 16.6% 66.1%
4.
Excessive computer/internet use 16.7% 27.6% 55.7%
5.
Upper respiratory infection 11.5% 20.9% 67.6%
6.
Financial difficulties 11.4% 30.9% 57.7%
7.
Concern for friend/family member 10.4% 26.1% 63.5%
experiencing problems
8. Relationship issues involving someone 7.9% 15.5% 76.7%
other than roommate/housemate
9. Any disability 6.8% 5.5% 87.7%
10. Relationship issues involving 5.4% 14.2% 80.4%
roommate/housemate
Note. Ns ¼ 8,907 to 8,936 due to missing data.

Coping self-efficacy Results

Coping self-efficacy was measured on a 10-point scale
on which students rated their ability to manage their
stress over the past 30 days (1 ¼ Ineffective to
10 ¼ Very effective). The construct validity of scores
on this measure was supported by a negative correl-
ation between coping self-efficacy and stress
(r ¼ .47, p < .001).
Resilience
The Brief Resilience Scale (BRS)18 is a 6-item measure
of resilience, defined as the ability to “bounce back or
recover from stress” (p. 194). Students rated each item
(eg, “It does not take me a long time to recover from
a stressful event”) on a 5-point scale (1 ¼ Strongly
Disagree to 5 ¼ Strongly Agree). Higher scores indicate
greater resilience. Smith et al reported a test-retest
reliability coefficient of .69 in a sample of undergradu-
ate students over a one-month period and Cronbach’s
alphas ranging from .84 to .87. In the current sample,
a was .88.
Social support
Students rated the supportiveness of their family,
friends, college/university faculty, and college/univer-
sity staff on four separate items. Each item was rated
on a 10-point scale (1 ¼ Very unsupportive to 10 ¼
Very supportive). To create an overall measure of
social support, scores on these four items were aver-
aged (a ¼ .84).
Academic performance
Participants reported their cumulative grade point
average (GPA) to two decimal places (M ¼ 3.35,
SD ¼ 0.49). The correlation between self-reported col-
lege GPA and data from student records was r ¼ .90
in a meta-analysis.19
Perceived academic impediments
Table 1 provides data on the top 10 most frequently
reported factors perceived to affect academic perform-
ance. Consistent with NCHA surveys,2 stress was the
most frequently endorsed factor. The majority (72%)
of the sample reported experiencing stress and stress
was also most likely to be perceived as affecting aca-
demic performance (32% of sample) out of the 20 fac-
tors assessed. However, 40% of the sample said they
experienced stress but that it did not affect their per-
formance. Other common factors perceived to affect
academic performance were sleep difficulties (22%)
and mental health issues (17%).
Stress as an academic impediment and GPA
A One-way Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) assessed
whether students who reported that stress affected
their academics had lower GPAs than the other two
groups (see Table 2). Students who said stress nega-
tively affected their academic performance had signifi-
cantly lower cumulative GPAs than those who said
that stress did not affect their performance (d ¼ 0.39)
and those who said they did not experience stress
(d ¼ 0.24; see Table 3). Students who had stress but
said it did not affect their performance actually had
significantly higher cumulative GPAs than those who
said they did not experience stress (d ¼ 0.15). Thus,
students who said they had stress but that it did not
affect their performance had the highest GPAs.
Another way to assess the accuracy of students’
perceptions is to assess the relation between perceived
stress and cumulative GPA. As predicted, this relation
was negative and small, albeit significant, in our large
sample (r ¼ .02, p < .05; see Table 5). Because of the
pattern of relations identified in the previous analysis
 JOURNAL OF AMERICAN COLLEGE HEALTH 5

Table 2. Differences between groups reporting different levels of stress as an academic impediment.
Do not have stress Stress does not affect Stress affects
(n ¼ 2,454)a performance (n ¼ 3,575) performance (n ¼ 2,894)
ANOVAs Mean (SD)c Mean (SD) Mean (SD) F (df)
GPAb 3.36 (0.48) 3.43 (0.46) 3.24 (0.52) 127.67(2,8748)
Perceived stress 3.96 (1.86) 5.66 (1.82) 7.04 (1.75) 1,914.54 (2,8898)
Coping self-efficacy 7.79 (1.95) 7.06 (1.81) 5.61 (1.92) 948.53 (2,8902)
Resilience 3.80 (0.67) 3.57 (0.68) 3.04 (0.77) 850.66 (2,8912)
Social support 8.10 (1.87) 7.95 (1.75) 7.43 (1.82) 106.38 (2,8865)
Chi-square tests % % % X2 (df), Cramer’s V
Male 40 35 25 349.38 (2), 0.20
Female 22 43 36
White 26 41 32 24.84 (2), 0.05
Ethnic minority 32 36 32
First generation college student 28 41 32 1.15 (2), 0.01
Continuing generation student 27 40 33
Attends 2 year school 29 41 30 8.52 (2), 0.03
Attends 4 year school 27 40 33
Heterosexual 29 41 31 100.23 (2), 0.11
LGBd 18 36 46
a
Note. Samples sizes for each variable vary slightly due to missing data.
b
GPA ¼ grade point average
c
SD ¼ standard deviation.
d
LGB¼lesbian, gay, bisexual.
p < .05, p < .01, p < .001. For ANOVAs asterisks indicate significant differences between groups within rows; for chi-squares, asterisks indicate sig-
nificant differences between groups within columns for each demographic variable.

Table 3. Effect sizes for differences between groups reporting different levels of stress as an academic impediment.
Stress affects academic Stress affects academic Stress does not affect academic
performance vs. does not performance vs. performance vs.
affect academic performance does not have stress does not have stress
Cohen’s d (95% CI) Cohen’s d (95% CI) Cohen’s d (95% CI)
GPA 0.39 (0.041 to 0.37) 0.24 (0.22 to 0.26) 0.15 (0.13 to 0.17)
Stress 0.77 (0.83 to 0.71) 1.71 (1.78 to 1.65) 0.93 (1.00 to 0.87)
Coping self-efficacy 0.78 (0.71 to 0.85) 1.13 (1.05 to 1.20) 0.39 (0.31 to 0.45)
Resilience 0.74 (0.72 to 0.77) 1.06 (1.03 to 1.09) 0.35 (0.32 to 0.37)
Social Support 0.29 (0.23 to 0.36) 0.37 (0.29 to 0.43) 0.09 (0.01 to 0.14)
Note. CI ¼ confidence interval; GPA ¼ grade point average.

(ie, those who said their stress did not affect their per-
formance having higher GPAs than those without
stress), a curvilinear relation between stress and GPA
also was examined using curvilinear regression with
linear and quadratic terms. In this analysis, there was
a significant positive linear relation between stress and
GPA (b ¼ .10) and a significant negative quadratic
relation (b ¼ .13), both ps < .05. The negative quad-
ratic relation suggested that, for lower values of stress,
the relation with GPA was positive, but for higher val-
ues of stress the relation with GPA was negative.
Factors that differentiate whether stress was
perceived to affect performance
The goal of the next set of analyses was to identify
differences between students who said they did not
experience stress, those who said that stress did not
affect their performance, and those who said stress
did affect their performance. ANOVAs were used to
compare these three groups on the continuous
variables of stress severity and the three protective fac-
tors (coping self-efficacy, resilience, and social sup-
port). Chi-square tests were used to compare the three
groups in terms of the five demographic factors (eg,
gender, race).
All four ANOVAs were significant, as were all fol-
low-up between-group comparisons using Tukey’s test
(see Table 2). There was a similar pattern across out-
comes. Students who said stress affected their per-
formance reported more stress, less coping self-
efficacy, less resilience, and less social support than
those who said stress did not affect their performance
(ds ¼ j0.29 to 0.78j) and those who said they did not
experience stress (ds ¼ j0.37 to 1.71j; see Table 3).
Similarly, students who said that they had stress but
that it did not affect their performance reported more
stress, less coping self-efficacy, lower resilience, and
less social support than those who said they did not
experience stress (ds ¼ j0.09 to 0.93j). The largest dif-
ferences (ds > 1.00) were between students who said
that stress affected their performance and students
6 P. FRAZIER ET AL.
Table 4. Multinomial logistic regression with different perceptions of stress as an academic impediment as outcomes.
have stress that affects performance
Perceived stress
Coping self-efficacy
Resilience
Social support
Male sex
White race
Continuing generation college student
Attends 4 year school
LGB studenta
Note. CI ¼ confidence interval; a LGB ¼ lesbian, gay, bisexual.
p < .05, p < .01, p < .001.
Table 5. Correlations between psychosocial and demographic
factors and GPA.
Cumulative GPA
Stress
Coping self-efficacy
Resilience
Social support
Sexa
Raceb
First generation college studentc
2 year versus 4 year schoold
Sexual orientatione
Note. Ns ¼ 8,398 to 8,823 due to missing data.
a
0 ¼ male, 1 ¼ female;
b
0 ¼ White, 1 ¼ ethnic minority;
c
0 ¼ not first generation, 1 ¼ first generation student;
d
0 ¼ 2-year school, 1 ¼ 4-year school;
e
0 ¼ heterosexual, 1 ¼ lesbian/gay/bisexual, GPA ¼ grade point average.
p < .05, p < .001.
reporting no stress in terms of stress, coping self-effi-
cacy, and resilience.
With regard to demographic characteristics, there
were significant differences between the three groups
as a function of gender, sexual orientation, race, and
attending a 2 year vs. 4 year school (see Table 2).
With regard to gender, male students were more likely
to report not having stress than were female students,
and female students were more likely to report that
they had stress that both did and did not affect their
performance. Heterosexual students also were more
likely to report not having stress and having stress
that did not affect their performance than were sexual
minority students; the latter were more likely to
report that stress negatively affected their performance
than were heterosexual students. Interestingly, ethnic
minority students were more likely to report not hav-
ing stress than were White students and were less
likely to report that they had stress that did not affect
their performance. The only significant difference
between students at 2-year and 4-year colleges was
that the latter were slightly more likely to report that
stress affected their performance. Finally, first-
Don’t have stress vs. Have stress that doesn’t affect performance vs.
have stress that does affect performance
Odds ratios (95% CI) Odds ratios (95% CI)
0.48 (0.46–0.50) 0.74 (0.72–0.77)
1.25 (1.19–1.30) 1.22 (1.18–1.27)
2.09 (1.86–2.35) 1.77 (1.62–1.93)
1.07 (1.03–1.12) 1.05 (1.02–1.09)
1.98 (1.69–2.31) 1.01 (0.88–1.15)
0.86 (0.71–1.04) 1.09 (0.93–1.28)
1.01 (0.87–1.17) 0.95 (0.84–1.07)
0.99 (0.84–1.17) 0.86 (0.75,0.99)
0.64 (0.50–0.83) 0.86 (0.72–1.03)
generation college students did not differ from con-
tinuing-generation college students in terms of per-
ceptions regarding whether stress affected
.02
.12 performance.
.11 A multinomial logistic regression also was per-
.09
.11
formed in which the three-category academic impedi-
.12 ment question was the outcome and the predictors
.07 were the continuous measure of stress, the three pro-
.02
.02 tective factors, and the five demographic factors (see
Table 4). These analyses considered the joint contribu-
tions of the psychosocial and demographic variables
in terms of classifying students into groups who dif-
fered in terms of perceptions of stress as an academic
impediment, with the reference group being those
who said stress negatively affected their performance.
As in the bivariate analyses, stress, coping, resilience,
and social support all distinguished among the three
groups. Specifically, students with more stress, less
coping self-efficacy, lower self-reported resilience, and
less social support had greater odds of being in the
group that said that stress affected their performance
than in either the no-stress group or the group who
had stress that did not affect their performance. Of
the demographic variables, male and heterosexual stu-
dents had higher odds of being in the no-stress group
than in the group who said stress was negatively
affecting performance. The only demographic factor
that differentiated between those who had stress but
said it did versus did not affect performance was that
students from 4-year schools were more likely to say
that stress affected their performance. Race and first-
generation status were not significant predictors of
group membership in the regression analyses.
Psychosocial and demographic correlates of GPA
The psychosocial protective factors - coping self-effi-
cacy, resilience, and social support - were all positively
related to GPA (see Table 5). With regard to

demographic variables, male, ethnic minority students,
and first-generation college students all had lower
GPAs. The relation between sexual orientation and
GPA was not significant, and students from 2-year
and 4-year schools did not differ in GPAs.
Comment
The purpose of this study was to understand further
the relation between stress and academic performance
using data from a large sample of undergraduate stu-
dents at several 2- and 4-year schools in a Midwestern
state. Below we discuss our key findings in the context
of previous research, followed by a discussion of limi-
tations and future directions.
Consistent with NCHA data,2,3 the factor students
most often endorsed as affecting their academic per-
formance was stress, followed by sleep difficulties and
mental health issues. However, many students said
they experienced stress but that it did not affect their
performance, a finding that often appears to be over-
looked in previous research. With regard to the accur-
acy of these perceptions, students who reported that
stress was affecting their performance did have lower
GPAs than other students, with small to moderate
effect sizes. However, students who said their stress
did not affect their performance had the highest
GPAs, higher than those who reported no stress. To
our knowledge, this is the first study to compare
students’ perceptions of the effects of stress on their
academic performance to their actual GPAs.
In our data, the bivariate correlation between a
measure of perceived stress and GPA was small and
negative, similar to but lower than the relation in a
recent meta-analysis.4 However, the pattern of results
just described suggests that the relation may not be
linear. Analyses that included quadratic effects sug-
gested that, at lower levels of stress, stress was posi-
tively related to performance whereas, at higher levels,
the relation between stress and GPA became negative.
This is consistent with the inverted-U theory of stress
in which stress is motivating and increases perform-
ance up to a certain point and then begins to impair
performance.20 These findings also are consistent with
theory and research on stress mindsets, which indi-
cates that the effects of stress depend on whether
stress is perceived as enhancing or debilitating.21
Students who perceive that stress is negatively affect-
ing their performance may be more likely to hold a
stress-is-debilitating mindset.
Comparisons between students who said stress did
versus did not affect their academic performance
JOURNAL OF AMERICAN COLLEGE HEALTH 7
revealed several differences between these groups in
terms of psychosocial characteristics. For example,
students who said that their academics were negatively
affected by stress reported higher levels of stress (con-
sistent with the curvilinear relation between stress and
GPA), lower coping self-efficacy, lower self-reported
resilience, and less social support from family, friends,
staff, and faculty than students who said that their
stress did not affect their performance or students
who said they did not have stress. Higher levels of
stress among students who said their performance was
negatively affected by stress is consistent with research
showing that students who said that depression nega-
tively affected their performance reported more
depressive symptoms than other students.8 However,
the between-group differences in the other variables
(ie, coping self-efficacy, resilience, social support)
remained significant in multivariate models that
included perceived stress. In other words, students
who were more affected by stress not only had more
stress but also perceived themselves as having fewer
intrapersonal and interpersonal resources to manage
stress, consistent with other research.5 Social support
was positively associated with GPA, consistent with
meta-analytic findings,4 as were both coping self-effi-
cacy and self-reported resilience. The relation between
coping self-efficacy and GPA was not significant in
one prior study14 and research on the relations
between resilience and GPA has been mixed.15,16
These relations between all of the psychosocial varia-
bles and GPA were small and reached significance in
our study owing to our large sample size.
With regard to demographic characteristics, we
focus here on differences that replicated across the
bivariate and multivariate analyses. Gender differences
had the largest effect size, with men less likely to
report that they had experienced stress, consistent
with NCHA data.2,3 Male students were the only
group for whom the modal response in the bivariate
analyses was that they did not have stress, consistent
with gender differences in stress appraisal.22 In con-
trast, sexual minority students were the only group
for whom the modal response was having stress that
negatively affected their performance, consistent with
other research indicating perceived negative effects of
stress among sexual minority students.6,7 Controlling
for other factors, the only demographic variable that
distinguished between students who said stress did
versus did not affect their performance was that stu-
dents at 4-year schools had greater odds of being in
the group who said that stress affected their perform-
ance. However, they were not more likely to report
8 P. FRAZIER ET AL.
stress. In general, these results were inconsistent with
research suggesting that students from 2-year commu-
nity colleges have more mental health problems.10
Ethnic group differences (showing that ethnic minor-
ity students had less stress) did not replicate in multi-
variate analyses once all factors were controlled.
Finally, there were no differences in perceptions of
stress as an impediment to performance as a function
of whether or not students were first generation col-
lege students, consistent with another study that
found no relation between first-generation status
and stress.12
It is important to note, however, that the demo-
graphic factors had different relations with GPA than
with perceptions of stress as an impediment to per-
formance. That is, the factors associated with report-
ing that stress was negatively affecting academic
performance were not associated with GPA and vice
versa. For example, although women were more likely
to say that stress negatively affected their grades, they
had higher GPAs than men.4 Similarly, sexual minor-
ity students and students at 4-year colleges were more
likely to say that stress negatively affected their per-
formance but did not have lower GPAs. Finally, first
generation college students and ethnic minority stu-
dents had lower GPAs but were not more likely to
report that stress negatively affected their perform-
ance. This suggests that it is important not to overin-
terpret data suggesting that certain groups believe that
stress is negatively affecting their performance because
they may actually be doing as well - or better - aca-
demically than other students. These students may
benefit from interventions to change their
stress mindsets.21
Limitations
The conclusions that can be drawn from this research
are affected by various limitations of the data and
research design. One of the primary limitations is the
use of a cumulative measure of GPA. Although this is
a common practice, use of a cumulative measure may
limit the relation between stress and GPA because, for
example, higher levels of recent stress may not have
much impact on GPA accumulated over several
semesters. The cross-sectional design of our study also
precludes drawing any conclusions about the direction
of the relation between stress, other psychosocial fac-
tors, and GPA. This is important because poor aca-
demic performance can create stress and low coping
self-efficacy, for example, and stress and low coping
self-efficacy can create poor academic performance.
Prospective, longitudinal studies that can assess the
direction of these relations and more complex theoret-
ical models is an important next step. Another limita-
tion is the use of one-item measures of some key
constructs, such as stress and coping self-efficacy.
Future research should employ multi-item measures
that might better assess these constructs. Finally, there
was no option in the survey to report that stress posi-
tively affected performance, consistent with a stress-is-
enhancing mindset.21 This seems important to include
given the curvilinear relations between stress and per-
formance found in this study.
Conclusion
Stress is the factor students are most likely to say
negatively affects their academic performance.
Students who say stress negatively affects their per-
formance do have lower cumulative GPAs but there
also appears to be a curvilinear relation between stress
and GPA such that lower levels of stress are positively
related to GPA and higher levels are negatively related
to GPA. Students who say that stress is negatively
affecting their performance also report more stress,
less effective coping, less resilience in the face of stress
and, to a lesser extent, less social support. Coping
self-efficacy, resilience, and social support also are
related to higher GPAs; thus, intervening to improve
self-efficacy, resilience, and social support may reduce
the perception that stress is affecting performance and
improve performance. On the other hand, demo-
graphic characteristics tend to have different relations
with perceptions of the effects of stress on perform-
ance and actual performance in the form of cumula-
tive GPAs. Thus, it is important to assess both
relations before concluding that certain groups (eg,
women, sexual minorities) are at higher risk of poorer
performance.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by
the authors.
References
1. Fact Sheet: Focusing Higher Education on Student
Success j U.S. Department of Education. Available at:
https://www.ed.gov/news/press-releases/fact-sheet-
focusing-higher-education-student-success. Published
July 27, 2015. Accessed November 3, 2017.
2. Publications and Reports. American College Health
Association National College Health Assessment.

Available at: http://www.acha-ncha.org/pubs_rpts.
html. Published 2014. Accessed November 3, 2017.
3. American College Health Association National College
Health Assessment Fall 2016 Reference Group Data Report.
American College Health Association National College
Health Assessment. Available at: http://www.acha-ncha.org/
docs/NCHA-II_FALL_2016_UNDERGRADUATE_REFE
RENCE_GROUP_DATA_REPORT.pdf. Published April
27, 2017. Accessed November 3, 2017.
4. Richardson M, Abraham C, Bond R. Psychological
correlates of university students’ academic perform-
ance: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Psychol
Bull. 2012;138(2):353–387. doi:10.1037/a0026838
5. Sawatzky RG, Ratner PA, Richardson CG, Washburn
C, Sudmant W, Mirwaldt P. Stress and depression in
students: The mediating role of stress management
self-efficacy. Nurs Res. 2012;61(1):13–21. doi:10.1097/
NNR.0b013e31823b1440
6. Oswalt SB, Wyatt TJ. Sexual orientation and differen-
ces in mental health, stress, and academic perform-
ance in a National sample of U.S. College students. J
Homosexual. 2011;58(9):1255–1280. doi:10.1080/
00918369.2011.605738
7. Klein NA, Dudley MG. Impediments to academic
performance of bisexual college students. J Am Coll
Health. 2014;62(6):399–406. doi:10.1080/07448481.
2014.917653
8. Lindsey BJ, Fabiano P, Stark C. The prevalence and
correlates of depression among college students. Coll
Stud J. 2009;4(PtA):999–1014.
9. Levy DJ, Heissel JA, Richeson JA, Adam EK.
Psychological and biological responses to race-based
social stress as pathways to disparities in educational
outcomes. Am Psychol. 2016;71(6):455–473.
doi:10.1037/a0040322
10. Katz D. Community college student mental health: a
comparative analysis. Sage J. 2014;42(4):307–326.
11. Birne-Lefcovitch S. Student perceptions of the transi-
tion from high school to university: implications for
preventative programming. J First-Year Exp Stud
Trans. 2000;12:61–88.
12. Adams DR, Meyers SA, Beidas RS. The relationship
between financial strain, perceived stress, psychological
symptoms, and academic and social integration in
JOURNAL OF AMERICAN COLLEGE HEALTH 9
undergraduate students. J Am Coll Health. 2016;
64(5):362–370. doi:10.1080/07448481.2016.1154559
13. Bandura A. Self-efficacy: toward a unifying theory of
behavioral change. Psychol Rev. 1977;84(2):191–215.
doi:10.1037/0033-295X.84.2.191
14. Rice KG, Lopez FG, Richardson CME, Stinson JM.
Perfectionism moderates stereotype threat effects on
STEM majors’ academic performance. J Counsel
Psychol. 2013;60(2):287–293. doi:10.1037/a0032052
15. Johnson ML, Taasoobshirazi G, Kestler JL, Cordova JR.
Models and messengers of resilience: a theoretical
model of college students’ resilience, regulatory strategy
use, and academic achievement. Educ Psychol.
2015;35(7):869–885. doi:10.1080/01443410.2014.893560
16. Swanson J, Valiente C, Lemery-Chalfant K, O’Brien
TC. Predicting early adolescents’ academic achieve-
ment, social competence, and physical health from
parenting, ego resilience, and engagement coping. J
Early Adolesc. 2011;31(4):548–576. doi:10.1177/
0272431610366249
17. College Student Health Survey (2015). Boynton
Health. 2015. Available at: https://boynton.umn.edu/
sites/boynton.umn.edu/files/2017-09/UofMTwinCities_
CSHSReport_2015_0.pdf. Published April 27, 2017.
Accessed November 3, 2017.
18. Smith BW, Dalen J, Wiggins K, Tooley E,
Christopher P, Bernard J. The Brief Resilience Scale:
assessing the ability to bounce back. Int J Behav Med.
2008;15(3):194–200. doi:10.1080/10705500802222972
19. Kuncel NR, Crede M, Thomas LL. The validity of
self-reported grade point averages, class ranks, and
test scores: a meta-analysis and review of the litera-
ture. Rev Educ Res. 2005;75(1):63–82. doi:10.3102/
00346543075001063
20. Muse LA, Harris SG, Feild HS. Has the inverted-U
theory of stress and job performance had a fair test?
Hum Perform. 2003;16(4):349–364. doi:10.1207/
S15327043HUP1604_2
21. Crum AJ, Salovey P, Achor S. Rethinking stress: the
role of mindsets in determining the stress response. J
Personal Social Psychol. 2013;104(4):716–733.
doi:10.1037/a0031201
22. Mayor E. Gender roles and traits in stress and health.
Front Psychol. 2015;6:779. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.
00779