James Amirkhan

Freshman attrition is a major concern for universities, prompting research to identify red flags for academic failure.  Stress might be one such signal, but universities have not incorporated it into predictive algorithms.  It was hypothesized that “stress overload”, the destructive form of stress described in theories, would (1) predict grades and attrition as well as traditional algorithm variables, and (2) explain minority disparities in grades and attrition. The Stress Overload Scale (SOS) was tested for the first time as a predictor in two studies using different samples from the same cohort of freshmen entering a large public university.  The first study (n=569), conducted during the first semester, showed stress overload to predict term GPA better than most traditional predictors.  Also, because SOS means differed and the SOS-GPA correlation was invariant across minority and white students, stress overload partially accounted for grade disparities.  A second study (n=584) in the second semester showed stress overload to remain among the best predictors of term GPA.  However, no variable except GPA predicted attrition.  Moreover, SOS means were now comparable for minority and white students, and because its association with GPA remained invariant, the SOS could no longer explain grade disparities.  Together, results indicated that stress overload is a red flag for poor grades for all freshmen (minority and white) across their first year, but by the second semester, those grades become more proximal predictors of attrition.  Possible reasons for these findings, and their implications for using the SOS in predictive algorithms, are discussed.

Studies of stress and coping effects on college performance have yielded
inconsistent results, which might be clarified by stricter adherence to stress
theories. Here, university students (n = 1212) were surveyed during their
first year, said to be the most stressful. They completed measures of
stress overload (the pathogenic state identified by theory) and coping
preferences (the strategies most reported in the literature), and granted
access to their official grade and enrollment records. Regression analyses
showed stress overload to relate to poorer performance, and avoidance
coping to relate to greater stress overload. SEM models indicated a
theory-consistent causal sequence fit the data better than the reverse.
However, after model modifications, only avoidance showed an effect
on performance mediated by stress overload, as predicted, while other
strategies showed direct effects. Study limitations in regard to causal
inferences and generalizability, and larger problems in applying medical
stress theories to academia, are discussed.

Objective: To determine if, following threats to DACA policies, Dreamer college students experi-enced greater stress overload, more symptoms, and worse grades than their classmates. Participants: Students (n ¼ 424) from a large public university, including Dreamers (n ¼ 64), partici-pated between March 2017 and June 2018. Methods: Students completed an anonymous online survey containing self-report measures of stress overload, symptoms, grades, and background characteristics. Results: Dreamers reported significantly higher levels of stress overload than did other students, including minorities and immigrants. Dreamers reported more somatic symptoms but not lower grades than other students-outcomes mediated, wholly or partially, by stress over-load. Conclusion: Findings document the health toll of current politics on Dreamers, and indicate disproportionate stress overload as a reason. They also attest to Dreamer “grit” in maintaining grades nevertheless. Implications include the need for proactive support by universities and broader social policy change to restore well-being to these students.

Studies find trauma to both sensitize and steel its victims to subsequent stress, but results are specific to certain populations, traumas, or indices of stress and coping.  Here, a general population sample (n = 255) completed comprehensive measures of trauma, stress and coping to suggest a general model of their relationships.  Regressions showed childhood--but not lifetime—trauma linked to avoidant coping and greater stress, indicating a partial mediation model.  SEM verified that childhood trauma predicted adult stress both directly and through avoidance.  Limitations of present methods, and suggestions for continuing the development of a general trauma-coping-stress model, are discussed.

Validating stress scales poses problems beyond those of other psychological measures. Here, 3 studies were conducted to address those problems and assess the criterion validity of scores from a new theory-derived measure, the Stress Overload Scale (SOS; Amirkhan, 2012). In Study 1, the SOS was tested for its ability to predict postsemester illness in a sample of college students (n = 127). Even with precautions to minimize criterion contamination, scores were found to predict health problems in the month following a final exam on all of 5 different criteria. In Study 2, a community sample (n = 231) was used to test the SOS' ability to differentiate people in stressful circumstances from those in more relaxed contexts. SOS scores demonstrated excellent sensitivity (96%) and specificity (100%) in this general population application. In Study 3, the SOS was tested for its ability to differentiate salivary cortisol responses to a laboratory stressor in a group of pregnant women (n = 40). High scores were found to be associated with a blunted cortisol response, which is indicative of HPA-axis overload and typical of persons suffering chronic stress and stress-related pathology. Across all 3 studies, despite variations in the stressor, criterion, population, and methods, SOS scores emerged as valid indicators of stress. However, each study also introduced new problems that beg additional corrective steps in future stress-scale validity tests. These strategies, and the SOS' utility as a research and diagnostic tool in varied applications and populations, are discussed. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2015 APA, all rights reserved).

Developmental theories presume dramatic differences in the coping of the young and old, but with little empirical support. In this study, five demographically matched groups: Pre-Teens (9–12 years, n = 153), Early Teens (13–15, n = 141), Late Teens (16–18, n = 151), Younger Adults (20–29, n = 133), and Older Adults (30–70, n = 133) completed child-friendly Coping Strategy Indicators, in reference to personal problems. Exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses showed all age groups use the same types of coping. However, groups differed in their preferences among these types, exhibiting general increases in Problem Solving and declines in Avoidance with age. This pattern held within problem-type, suggesting that it cannot be explained by differences in the stressors experienced. Implications for future research and assessment are discussed.