Abstract
Our aim was to see if depressive symptoms were more predisposed to students or non-students. We predicted that students would be more prone to these symptoms than non-students after completing the CESD-r questionnaire that measures them. We found no significant difference in these scores between both subjects t (279) = -1.11, p = 0.27). Even though the results did not support previous research, it provides information about methodology and what type of sampling should be used in future research.
Over time, more awareness for mental health has been raised in this current society. Differences regarding depression within particular groups of individuals have and are currently being researched such as university students. A patient health questionnaire was carried out by a random sample at a University assessing prevalence rates of depression and anxiety. It was discovered that prevalence rates for any anxiety and depressive disorders were 15.6% and 13.0% in undergraduates and postgraduates respectively. Additionally, students that stated they were having financial difficulties were reported being at higher risk for poor mental health. (Eisenberg et. al, 2010)
Furthermore, previous research conducted has looked into the different scales used to measure depression and suggested that a poor family environment may be a factor in students with depression, low self-esteem and self-efficacy. Undergraduate students were assessed using different scales such as the self-efficacy scale, the family environment scale and the Beck inventory. It was concluded that participants who had been shown little affection but excessive control by their parents showed 13% variance rates in depression, self-efficacy and self-esteem. (Oliver & Paull, 1995)
Moreover, the accuracy of using certain scales to measure rates of depression has been studied. The psychometric attributes for the CESD-r scale were assessed using a large sample from a community (N= 7389) and a smaller sample of students (N=245). They found that the CESD-r had psychometric properties that consisted of “high internal consistency, strong factor loadings, and theoretically consistent convergent and divergent validity…” (Van Dam & Earleywine, 2011) indicating that the CESD-r scale is an efficient and accurate way of measuring depression in the wider population.
In this current study, our aim is to see if students are more susceptible to symptoms of depression than non-students. We will use the CESD-r scale to measure depression scores in both subjects. Our alternative hypothesis is that there will be an increased difference in CESD-r scores in students than non-students.
Method
Participants
A total sample of 301 participants were recruited for this study. There were 201 undergraduate Psychology students from Brunel University that participated. They were recruited by a lab class through Blackboard Learn. Their mean age was 19.1 (SD = 2.29). The sample of non-students that took part was 95 and were recruited through an advertisement on prolific.ac. (Damer and Bradley, 2014) These non-students were reimbursed with 50p and their mean age was 23.1 (SD=1.7, range 18-22). Only 5 ages were
excluded for the anonymity of the participants.
Materials
Student and Non- student participants were provided a link to CEDS-R to complete the questionnaire which would measure their depression scores. For the students, the scores were calculated using psytoolkit (De Barra, 2018) and the non-students’ scores were calculated using prolific.ac software. (Damer and Bradley, 2014)
Design and procedure
A between-subjects design was used for this study and a self-report measure in the form of a questionnaire was used. The independent variable was the type of participants taking part to which there were two levels; either a student or non-student. The dependent variable was measuring depression in the participants using CESD-R. The students came into the lab for a seminar, asked to read the information sheet provided and sign a consent form electronically. The participants were told that they could withdraw at any time. Moreover, participants were made aware that non-students were taking part in this study as well. The researcher explained that “Ethical approval was granted by Brunel Ethics committee, approval code 12385-MHR-Oct/2018-14507-3”. (“Academic skills I: How to write a lab report", 2018)
The participants were asked to fill out the questionnaire which consisted of 19 statements that characterised symptoms of depression. Participants had to choose one of six options saying how often they experience them with the lowest option being “Not at all or less than one day last week” and highest option being “nearly every day for two weeks”. There was also a “prefer not to answer” option included. (De Barra, 2018) The participants were debriefed after completing the questionnaire and explained that counselling would be available to them if the study caused them psychological harm.
Results
Group descriptives Group N Mean Median SD SE
CESD-r total Student 192 15.7 12 11.4 0.82
Non-student 88 17.5 14 14.8 1.58
An independent samples t-test was used to investigate the CESD-r scores in each participant for both groups. As explained in figure 1, the mean CESD-r total for students (M=15.7, SD= 11.4) were lower compared to non-students (M= 17.5, SD= 14.8). There are some outliers in the total CESD-r scores in students that is shown in figure 2. As well as this, the independent samples t-test revealed that this difference was not statistically significant: t (279) = -1.11, p = 0.27) and that the effect size was small (Cohen’s d = 0.14).
Discussion
We discovered that there is no difference in the scores for depression in both groups, contradicting research from previous studies such as Eisenberg et. al (2010). We may have obtained these results due to poor internal validity. The student participants were able to see other participant’s answers in the lab which may have influenced their answers to seem less depressed than they may be. In future research, conducting these studies in smaller labs individually may be more effective. However, this can be time consuming if using a large sample of students.
On the other hand, one strength of this study is that a volunteer sample was used to recruit non-students. This indicates that the participants are more likely to provide honest responses and may have produced more reliable results that are representative of the population. In future research, students should be recruited using this sample or random sampling, so the results can be generalised to the student population as only undergraduate psychology students were selected to participate in this study.
To conclude, despite the results not being statistically significant, we compared rates of depression in non-students which other studies have not previously done before. In addition, we can infer from this research that actions should be put in place to improve the depressive symptoms in individuals in this society. For instance, lecturers and personal tutors should be trained to recognise depressive symptoms in students so effective treatment can be provided to help identify possible risk factors and help improve their emotional wellbeing. Also, for non-students, affordable or government-funded therapy services for those over 18 should be made available to help with the issues they may face in their everyday lives.