The relationship between perceived psychological distress, behavioral indicators and African American student financial aid attainment difficulty.
Abstract: The relationship between psychological distress and perceived problems receiving student financial aid was assessed from 180 African American students attending a historically black college or university in the fall of 2010. After adjusting for age, grades, and school classification, a series of hierarchical linear regressions indicated that HBCU students' report of difficulty receiving financial aid was a significant predictor of report lower family connectedness and future orientation as well as higher conflicts with their partner in the last month and personal conflicts in the last month. The information gleaned from this research provides strategic guidance in understanding the behavioral and psychosocial effects of those with financial aid difficulties.
Subject: Stress (Psychology) (Research)
African Americans
African American universities and colleges
Student aid
Student assistance programs
Authors: Peters, Ronald J., JR.
Ford, Kentya
Lin, Mi-Ting
Meshack, Angela F.
Johnson, Regina Jones
Essien, E. James
Pub Date: 06/22/2011
Publication: Name: American Journal of Health Studies Publisher: American Journal of Health Studies Audience: Professional Format: Magazine/Journal Subject: Health Copyright: COPYRIGHT 2011 American Journal of Health Studies ISSN: 1090-0500
Issue: Date: Summer, 2011 Source Volume: 26 Source Issue: 3
Topic: Event Code: 310 Science & research
Product: Product Code: 8220090 College & Student Grants NEC NAICS Code: 61131 Colleges, Universities, and Professional Schools
Accession Number: 308741516
Full Text: INTRODUCTION

It is well established that access to financial aid is a vital indicator of African American students' admission and matriculation through colleges and universities (Chen & DeJardins, 2010; Kane & Spizman, 1994; Long & Riley, 2007; Mingle, 1987). According to the U.S. Department of Education (2009), African American undergraduate students overwhelmingly received more financial aid (76.2%) in the form of grants or loans than their White American (63.5%), Hispanic American (69%), and Asian American (53.4%) counterparts. Although the relationship between financial aid access and attrition rates has been clearly explored (Mikolajcyk et al., 2008; Allen, 1992; St. John & Noell, 1989; Cook & Cordova, 2006), meager research has been conducted on the psychological and behavioral effects of perceived low financial aid access among African Americans college students.

Globally, economic insecurity as well as cuts in financial aid has paralleled an increase in college and university student psychological distress and maladjusted behaviors (Tosevski, Milovancevic, & Gajic, 2010; Roberts et al., 2000; Kitzrow, 2003; Catalano, 1991). According to Gallagher (2010) in a national survey of college counseling directors, 91% reported a recent trend of more students on their respective campuses with severe psychological problems. In fact, college counseling directors revealed increases in myriad psychological and behavioral concerns: crisis needing immediate attention, 70.6%; psychiatric medication issues, 68%; alcohol abuse, 45.7%; illicit drug abuse, 45.1%; and self-injury, 39.4%.

Although substance abuse behaviors, psychological effects and financial aid insecurity have been investigated separately and, to date, we are unaware of studies that have investigated the relationship between low perceived financial aid and psychosocial and behavioral indicators including future orientation, self-esteem, partner conflicts, family connectedness, personal conflict resolution, and substance abuse. Further, no research related to these issues has been published among students attending a historically black college or university (HBCU). The present cross-sectional study was conducted among HBCU students in the southwestern region of the United States to investigate if behavioral and psychosocial differences exist among those who self-reported having access to financial aid compared to those reporting difficulties with access to financial aid.

RESEARCH METHODS

STUDY SAMPLE

Data for this cross-sectional study were collected between February 2011 and April 2011 from 180 full-time, undergraduate students attending a HBCU in the southwestern region of the United States. Study participants were recruited from 257 students enrolled in classes within the university's Department of Health and Human Performance (response rate 70%). Faculty trained in research methods provided an overview of the study to interested students. Written informed consent was then obtained after students expressed a willingness to participate. During a time that would accommodate the students' schedules, they were taken to the place where the survey would be administered, that is, the College of Education computer lab. There, students were afforded brief instructions on how to use the computer-based questionnaire and guided practice to increase self-efficacy and skills for answering questions. No incentives were provided. The study was approved by the Institutional Review Board of Prairie View A & M University.

MEASURES

Six scales were included as dependent variables in the survey: future orientation; self-esteem; partner conflicts; family connectedness; personal conflict resolution and substance abuse. The future orientation scale was operationalized by summing responses to the following ten questions: "I think I am doing pretty well right now"; "I can think of many ways to reach my current goals"; "I feel good about my future"; "I believe I will make something of myself someday"; "I feel like I have something to offer the community"; "My future seems dark to me"; "The future seems very uncertain to me"; "I have plans for things I'll be doing a year from now"; "I am doing things now that will help me in the future"; and "I think I can accomplish most of my dreams". Each item was rated on a 4-point scale ranging from "1" (Strongly disagree) to "4" (Strongly agree). Cronbach's alpha for this inventory was 0.88.

The self-esteem scale included five items: "My life lacks purpose and direction"; "I set goals and stick to them"; "Most people like me and enjoy being around me"; "I have a positive outlook on life"; and "I feel good about how I look." Each item was rated on a 4-point Likert scale that ranged from "1" (Strongly disagree) to "4" (Strongly agree). The Cronbach's alpha was 0.78.

The conflict with partner scale included six items to assess current partner conflict, that is, conflict that occurred within the past 30 days. The questions and statements included: "In the past 30 days, did your boyfriend or girlfriend stomp out of the room, the house, or the yard while arguing?"; "In the past 30 days, did your boyfriend or girlfriend throw something at you while arguing?"; "In the past 30 days, did your boyfriend or girlfriend push, grab, or hit you while arguing?"; "In the past 30 days, I stomped out of the room, the house, or the yard while arguing with my boyfriend or girlfriend"; "In the past 30 days, I threw something at my boyfriend or girlfriend while arguing"; and, "In the past 30 days, I have pushed, grabbed, or hit my boyfriend or girlfriend while arguing." Each item was rated on a 5-point scale ranging from "0" (never) to "4" (6-10 times or more). Cronbach's alpha for this scale was 0.96.

The family connectedness scale included 10 items to assess the relationship between participants and their parents. These questions included: "My family members feel very close to each other"; "My parents hardly ever trust me to do something on my own"; "My family members are supportive of each other during difficult times"; "I enjoy spending time with my family"; "At my house, I am more unhappy than happy"; "I prefer being with friends rather than with my family"; "My parents are usually not interested in what I say or do"; "My parents don't try to understand my problems"; "I respect my parents' ideas and opinions about the important things in life"; and "My parents don't like me very much". Each item was rated on a 4-point scale ranging from "1" (Strongly disagree) to "4" (Strongly agree). Cronbach's alpha for this scale was 0.85.

The personal conflict scale included eight items related to situations that had occurred in the past 30 days: pushed, grabbed, or shoved someone; hit or punched someone; kicked someone; was hurt in a fight; hurt someone else in a fight; threatened to hurt someone; threatened someone with a knife or a gun; and used a knife or gun to injure someone.. Each item was rated on a 5-point scale that ranged from "0" (Never) to "4" (Within the past week). Cronbach's alpha score for this scale was 0.85.

Lastly, the substance abuse scale included by "yes or "no" responses to the following 11 drug related questions: "During the past 30 days, did you have at least one drink of alcohol?"; "During the past 30 days, did you use marijuana (also called weed or blunt)?"; "During the past 30 days, did you use a form of codeine or cough syrup (also called lean, drank, or purple stuff)?"; "During the past 30 days, did you use a form of ecstasy (also called X)?"; "During the past 30 days, did you use a form of fry or dip?";"During the past 30 days, did you use a form of cigarettes, chewing tobacco, cigars, and/ or "Black & Milds"?"; "During the past 30 days, did you use a form of Xanax (also called xanies or cheweys)?"; "During the past 30 days, did you use a form of Viagra?";"During the last 30 days, did you drink an anti-energy drink that you bought from a convenience store (e.g., also called Drank, Purple Stuff)?"; and, "During the last 30 days, did you drink an energy drink (e.g., Red Bull, Rockstar, Monster, Full Throttle)?"; and "During the last 30 days, did you take Seroquel or any other medicine to treat mental illness or depression?"

In addition, students were asked a dichotomous question ("yes or "no" response) that defined their financial aid security (independent variable). The question was: "In the last month, have you experienced problems receiving financial aid?" In addition to these measures, the study included gender, age, grades received in classes, and school classification as potential confounding variables.

DATA ANALYSIS AND RESULTS

The study population was characterized by gender, age, student classification, grades, sexual identity, and financial earning (in previous year). Statistical differences in mean of psychosocial and behavior inventories (e.g. future orientation; self-esteem; family connectedness as well as personal conflicts with partner and substance abuse in the last month) by financial aid accessibility status were examined using independent T-test statistics. Hierarchical linear regression series were then conducted to examine the relationships between exposure to psychosocial and behavioral inventories and perceived financial aid accessibility status after adjusting for gender, age, grades, and school classification. Dummy coding was conducted for the following categorical variables: age, grades, and school classification. To allow for comparability among the psychosocial and behavioral inventory scales, adjusted estimates for the final models are based on the same set of covariates.

DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS

As shown in Table 1, the students were primarily female (62.2%) and under 24 years of age (92.1%). Most of the study participants were upper classmen or seniors (42.4%), followed in frequency by sophomores (26.0%), juniors (23.2%), and freshmen (8.5%). Over 79% of students reported that their grades consisted mainly of As or Bs and nearly 90% reported their sexual identity as heterosexual.

Differences in psychosocial and behavioral inventories and financial aid accessibility status were assessed using independent t-tests. Participants who had problems accessing financial aid were significantly more likely to have used drugs in the last month (2.40 vs. 1.67, p < .05), reported more conflict with their partners in the last month (5.81 vs. .96, p < .01), higher personal conflict in the last month (1.82 vs. .67, p < .05), lower self-esteem beliefs (11.61 vs. 12.82, < .01), lower future orientation (31.76 vs. 34.98, p < .01) and lower family connectedness (30.78 vs. 34.31, p < .01).

HIERARCHICAL LINEAR REGRESSION

Hierarchical linear regression analyses indicated that difficulty in receiving financial aid was a significant predictor of behavioral and psychosocial maladjustment after adjusting for age, grades, and school classification. The substance abuse score was predicted from the following variables: age, gender, grade, school classification, and difficulty receiving financial aid. Hierarchical linear regression was performed. Age, gender, grade, and school classification were entered in step 1. Difficulty receiving financial aid was entered in step 2. The overall regression was not significant, F = .63, p > .05, the F for change in R2 was not significant, F = .44, p > .05.

The score on conflicts with partner was predicted from the following variables: age, gender, grade, school classification, and difficulty receiving financial aid. Hierarchical linear regression was performed. Age, gender, grade, and school classification were entered in step 1. Difficulty receiving financial aid was entered in step 2. The overall regression was significant, F = 3.44, p < .01, as was the F for change in R2, F = 19.24, p < .001.

The score on personal conflict was predicted from the following variables: age, gender, grade, school classification, and difficulty receiving financial aid. Hierarchical linear regression was performed. Age, gender, grade, and school classification were entered in step 1 and difficulty receiving financial aid was entered in step 2. The overall regression was significant, F = 2.48, p < .05. The F for change in R2 was also significant, F = 12.19, p < .01.

Similarly, the score on future orientation was predicted from age, gender, grade, school classification, and difficulty receiving financial aid. Age, gender, grade, and school classification were entered in step 1. This was followed by hierarchical linear regression and entering of financial aid in step 2. The overall regression was significant, F = 2.80, p < .01, and the F for change in R2 was also significant, F = 8.67, p < .01.

The score on self-esteem was predicted from age, gender, grade, school classification, and difficulty receiving financial aid. Hierarchical linear regression was performed. Age, gender, grade, and school classification were entered in step 1. Difficulty receiving financial aid was entered in step 2. Although, the overall regression was not significant, F = 1.62, p > .05. The F for change in R2 was significant, F = 5.78, p < .05.

Lastly, the score on family connectedness was predicted from the variables: age, gender, grade, school classification, and difficulty receiving financial aid. Hierarchical linear regression was performed with age, gender, grade, and school classification being entered in step 1 and difficulty receiving financial aid being entered in step 2. The overall regression was significant, F = 3.28, p < .01; the F for change in R2 was significant, F = 10.33, p < .01.

DISCUSSION

The current study investigated behavioral and psychosocial differences that existed among students attending a historically black college or university that reported having access to financial aid compared to those reporting difficulties with access to financial aid. After adjusting for age, grades, and school classification, a series of hierarchical linear regressions indicated that HBCU students' report of difficulty receiving financial aid was a significant predictor of report lower family connectedness and future orientation as well as higher conflicts with their partner in the last month and personal conflicts in the last month.

These results are in keeping with several studies that have shown that financial stress can lead to a myriad of psychological and behavioral issues among African American young adults (Paschall & Hubbard, 1998; Copeland-Linder et al., 2009; Grant et al., 2004; Coley & Lindsay, 2000). It is hypothesized by the authors that because African Americans have cultural stigmas and norms related to seeking care for psychological distress, many of the HBCU students with financial aid difficulties may be conflicted about seeking support for their behavioral and psychological issues (Cooper-Patrick et al., 1999; Snowden, 2001; Thompson, Bazile, & Akbar, 2004) as well as cultural norms (Barksdale & Molock, 2009; Dana, 2002; Whaley, 2001) related to psychological distress.

African Americans are more likely to believe that psychological distress can be managed with "will power" (Amos et al., 2008). In fact, many African Americans college students may view their intimate friends and family members who have psychological and associated behavioral effects as "weak" because they are unable to control themselves on their own (Amos et al., 2008). Because of these cultural stigmas and norms, it is recommended that future qualitative and quantitative studies address the unique counseling services needed for HBCU students with low financial aid attainment. Specifically, these studies must investigate methods for promoting healthy attitudes among HBCU students to increase their abilities to manage psychological distress.

There are three limitations to the current study. Firstly, because the data are cross-sectional in nature, we are unable to establish a causal effect and consequently determine if temporal relationships exist related to financial aid difficulty and psychological/behavioral differences. Secondly, the HBCU students in the current study were taken from one university in Texas. Larger studies conducted among African American students attending randomly selected HBCUs may more accurately estimate the prevalence of financial difficulty and its association with psychological distress and behavioral difficulties. Given the results of this study, national research is needed to comprehend their possible psychological and behavioral factors related to financial aid among HBCU students.

Thirdly, when asked about their financial aid history ("In the last month, have you experienced problems receiving financial aid?"), it is possible that some student study participants may have connected their interpersonal experiences with university financial aid staff who work at their HBCU when responding to the question. To ensure this was not a major problem, post-hoc individual interviews were conducted among 45 participants. The qualitative results indicated that 3 participants connected this question with both staff service conflicts as well as personal difficulties. Consequently, they were still suitable participants for the study. The information gleaned from this research provides strategic guidance in understanding the behavioral and psychosocial effects of those with financial aid difficulties. It is the hope of the researchers that this study will lead to larger cohort studies.

REFERENCES

Allen, W. (1992).The color of success: African-American College Student outcomes at predominantly White and Historical Black Colleges and Universities. Harvard Educational Review, 62, 26-44.

Amos C., Peters R., Williams L., Johnson R.J., Martin Q., & Yacoubian G. (2008). The link between recent sexual abuse among drug use among African American male college students: It's not just a female problem in and around campus. Journal of Psychoactive Drugs, 40(2), 161-166.

Barksdale, C., & Molock, S. (2009). Perceived Norms and Mental Health Help Seeking among African American College Students. The Journal of Behavioral Health Services and Research, 36(3), 285-299.

Catalano, R. (1991). The Health Effects of Economic Insecurity: An Analytic Review. American Journal of Public Health 81, 1148-1152.

Chen R. & DesJardins SL. (2010). Investigating the Impact of Financial Aid on Student Dropout Risks: Racial and Ethnic Differences. The Journal of Higher Education, 81(2), 179-208.

Coley R. & Lindsay P. (2000). Welfare receipt, financial strain, and African-American adolescent functioning. Social Service Review, 74(3), 380-404.

Cook, B. J., & Cordova, D. I. (2006). Minorities in higher education: 22nd annual status report. Washington, DC: American Council on Education.

Cooper-Patrick, L., Gallo, J. J., Powe, N. R., Steinwachs, D. M., Eaton, W. W., & Ford, D. E. (1999).

Mental Health Service Utilization by African Americans and Whites: The Baltimore Epidemiologic Catchment Area Follow-Up. Medical Care, 37(10), 1034-1045.

Copeland-Linder, N., Lambert, S.F., Chen, Y., & Ialongo, N.S. (2010). Contextual stress and health risk behaviors among African American adolescents. Journal of Youth and Adolescence. Published online 3/7/10.

Dana, R. H. (2002). Mental health services for African Americans: A cultural/racial perspective. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 8(1), 3-18.

Gallagher, RP. (2010). National survey of counseling center directors 2010.http://www.iacsinc.org/ NSCCD%202010.pdf. Retrieved July 7, 2011

Grant, K. E., Compas, B. E., Stuhlmacher, A. F., Thurm, A. E., McMahon, S. D., & Halpert, J. A. (2003). Stressors and child and adolescent psychopathology: Moving from markers to mechanisms of risk. Psychological Bulletin, 129(3), 447-466.

Kitzrow, M. A. (2003). The Mental Health Needs of Today's College Students. NASPA Journal, 41(1), 165-179.

Long, B. T., & Riley, E. (2007). Financial Aid: A Broken Bridge to College Access? Harvard Educational Review, 77 (1), 39-63.

Mikolajczyk R, Brzoska P, Maier C, Ottova V, Meier S, Dudziak U, Ilieva S,& El Ansari W. (2008). Factors Associated with Self-Rated Health Status in University Students: A Cross-sectional Study in Three European Countries. BMC Public Health, 8, 215-225.

Mingle, J. R. (1987). Focus on minorities: Trends in higher education participation and success. Denver: Education Commission of the States/SHEEO. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 287 404).

Paschall, M. J. and Hubbard, M. L. (1998). Effects of neighborhood and family stressors on African American male adolescents' self-worth and propensity for violent behavior. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 66(5), 825-831.

Roberts, R., Golding, J., Towell, T. Reid, S., Woodford, S., Vetere, A. & Weinreb, I.(2000). Mental and physical health in students: The role of economic circumstances. British Journal of Health Psychology, 5(3), 289-297.

Snowden, L. R. (2001). Barriers to Effective Mental Health Services for African Americans. Mental Health Services Research, 3(4), 181-187.

St. John, E. P., and Noell, J. (1989). The impact of student aid on access to higher education: An analysis of progress with special consideration of minority enrollment. Research in Higher Education, 30(6), 563-581.

Thompson, V. L. S., Bazile, A., & Akbar, M. (2004). African Americans' Perceptions of Psychotherapy and Psychotherapists. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 35(1), 19-26.

Tosevski, D. L., Milovancevic M. P., &Gajic, S. D. (2010).Personality and psychopathology of university students. Current Opinion in Psychiatry, 23, 48-52.

U.S. Department of Education (2009). 2007-2008 national postsecondary student aid study. http://nces. ed.gov/programs/digest/d09/tables/dt09_338.asp. Retrieved July 2, 2011.

Whaley, A. L. (2001). Culture Mistrust and Mental Health Services for African Americans: A Review and Meta-Analysis. The Counseling Psychologist, 29(4), 513-531.

Ronald J. Peters, JR. Associate Professor of Behavioral Science, The University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, School of Public Health; Kentya Ford, Assistant Professor, Prairie View A & M University, Department of Health and Human Performance; Mi-Ting Lin, Doctoral Student, The University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, School of Public Health; Angela F. Meshack, Assistant Professor, Texas Southern University, Department of Health and Kinesiology; Regina Jones Johnson, Associate Professor of Nursing, University of Texas-Austin, School of Nursing; E. James Essien, Associate Professor, University of Houston College of Pharmacy and Health Sciences
Table 1. Demographic and Descriptive Sample Statistics
(n = 180)

Variable                                n    Percent

Gender
  Male                                 68     37.8%
  Female                               112    62.2%
Age
  18 to 20                             69     38.5%
  21 to 24                             96     53.6%
  25 and above                         14     7.8%
Classification
  Freshman                             15     8.5%
  Sophomore                            46     26.0%
  Junior                               41     23.2%
  Senior                               78     42.4%
Grade
  Mostly A's (90 to 100)               29     16.3%
  Mostly B's (80 to 89)                112    62.9%
  Mostly C's (75 to 79) or below       37     20.7%
High School
  Predominately Black High School      77     43.0%
  Predominately White high school      38     21.2%
  Predominately Hispanic high school    9     5.0%
  Mixed or multicultural high school   55     30.7%
Sexual Orientation
  Heterosexual                         160    89.9%
  Lesbian                              10     5.6%
  Bisexual                              8     4.5%
Make Money (per year)
  0 to 5,000                           116    65.9%
  5,001 to 10,000                      29     16.5%
  10,001 to 10,500                      7     4.0%
  10,501 to 15,000                      9     5.1%
  More than 15,001                     15     8.5%

Table 2. Comparison of mean grade, substance use, future
orientation, conflict with partner, personal conflict
resolution and family connectedness between by perceived
financial aid accessibility

                        Problem getting financial aid

                         Yes     No        t       df

Substance Use           2.40    1.67    -2.38 *    158
Conflict with Partner   5.81    0.96    -3.00 **   143
Future Orientation      31.76   34.98   3.45 **    159
Personal Conflict       1.82    0.67    -2.23 *    158
Self-esteem Beliefs     11.61   12.82   3.01 **    168
Family Connectedness    30.78   34.31   3.16 **    163

Note. * p < .05, ** p < .01.

Table 3. Summary of hierarchical regression models

                Predictor                          Model 1

Outcome (Y)                                  B      SE B    [beta]

Substance use   Gender                       .15    .27      .05
                Age-18 to 20                -.01    .57      .00
                (Dummy variable)
                Age-21 to 24                -.26    .48     -.08
                (Dummy variable)
                Grade-Mostly A's            -.16    .43     -.04
                (Dummy variable)
                Grade-Mostly B's             .14    .34      .04
                (Dummy variable)
                Classification-Freshman      .25    .64      .04
                (Dummy variable)
                Classification-Sophomore    -.02    .45      .00
                (Dummy variable)
                Classification-Junior       -.38    .33     -.11
                (Dummy variable)
                Problem getting
                financial aid
                F for overall model                 .66
                F for change in                          .66
                [R.sup.2]
Conflict with   Gender                      -.75    .82     -.07
partner         Age-18 to 20               -2.33   1.77     -.24
                (Dummy variable)
                Age-21 to 24               -2.90   1.50     -.30
                (Dummy variable)
                Grade-Mostly A's            -.24   1.28     -.02
                (Dummy variable)
                Grade-Mostly B's             .55   1.05      .05
                (Dummy variable)
                Classification-Freshman     -.64   1.86     -.04
                (Dummy variable)
                Classification-Sophomore    2.19   1.37      .18
                (Dummy variable)
                Classification-Junior        .56   1.01      .05
                (Dummy variable)
                Problem getting
                financial aid
                F for overall model                1.31
                F for change in                         1.31
                [R.sup.2]
Personal        Gender                       .18    .29      .05
conflict        Age-18 to 20                 .36    .63      .10
resolution      (Dummy variable)
                Age-21 to 24                 .61    .53      .17
                (Dummy variable)
                Grade-Mostly A's            -.21    .47     -.04
                (Dummy variable)
                Grade-Mostly B's            -.01    .38      .00
                (Dummy variable)
                Classification-Freshman     1.14    .67      .17
                (Dummy variable)
                Classification-Sophomore     .72    .48      .17
                (Dummy variable)
                Classification-Junior        .12    .37      .03
                (Dummy variable)
                Problem getting
                financial aid
                F for overall model                1.19
                F for change in                         1.19
                [R.sup.2]
Future          Gender                     -1.00    .78     -.10
orientation     Age-18 to 20                1.39   1.70      .14
                (Dummy variable)
                Age-21 to 24                 .76   1.44      .08
                (Dummy variable)
                Grade-Mostly A's            3.31   1.24      .26 **
                (Dummy variable)
                Grade-Mostly B's             .50    .99      .05
                (Dummy variable)
                Classification-Freshman    -1.80   1.77     -.10
                (Dummy variable)
                Classification-Sophomore    -.43   1.28     -.04
                (Dummy variable)
                Classification-Junior        .26    .98      .02
                (Dummy variable)
                Problem getting
                financial aid
                F for overall model                1.97
                F for change in                             1.97
                [R.sup.2]
Self-esteem     Gender                      -.05    .35     -.01
belief          Age-18 to 20                1.18    .77      .27
                (Dummy variable)
                Age-21 to 24                 .89    .65      .20
                (Dummy variable)
                Grade-Mostly A's            1.08    .56      .19
                (Dummy variable)
                Grade-Mostly B's             .39    .45      .09
                (Dummy variable)
                Classification-Freshman     -.89    .82     -.11
                (Dummy variable)
                Classification-Sophomore    -.66    .57     -.13
                (Dummy variable)
                Classification-Junior       -.22    .43     -.05
                (Dummy variable)
                Problem getting
                financial aid
                F for overall model                1.07
                F for change in                             1.07
                [R.sup.2]
Family          Gender                      -.04    .81      .00
Connectedness   Age-18 to 20                1.91   1.79      .18
                (Dummy variable)
                Age-21 to 24                1.79   1.48      .17
                (Dummy variable)
                Grade-Mostly A's            3.76   1.34      .28 *
                (Dummy variable)
                Grade-Mostly B's            2.01   1.09      .18
                (Dummy variable)
                Classification-Freshman    -1.99   1.88     -.10
                (Dummy variable)
                Classification-Sophomore   -2.59   1.38     -.21
                (Dummy variable)
                Classification-Junior      -1.85   1.02     -.16
                (Dummy variable)
                Problem getting
                financial aid
                F for overall model                    2.28 *
                F for change in                          2.28 *
                [R.sup.2]

                Predictor                       Model 2

Outcome (Y)                                  B       SE B

Substance use   Gender                       .16     .27
                Age-18 to 20                -.01     .57
                (Dummy variable)
                Age-21 to 24                -.23     .48
                (Dummy variable)
                Grade-Mostly A's            -.11     .43
                (Dummy variable)
                Grade-Mostly B's             .14     .34
                (Dummy variable)
                Classification-Freshman      .26     .64
                (Dummy variable)
                Classification-Sophomore    -.04     .45
                (Dummy variable)
                Classification-Junior       -.38     .33
                (Dummy variable)
                Problem getting              .21     .31
                financial aid
                F for overall model                  .63
                F for change in                          .44
                [R.sup.2]
Conflict with   Gender                      -.61     .77
partner         Age-18 to 20               -2.20    1.67
                (Dummy variable)
                Age-21 to 24               -2.32    1.43
                (Dummy variable)
                Grade-Mostly A's             .35    1.22
                (Dummy variable)
                Grade-Mostly B's             .50     .99
                (Dummy variable)
                Classification-Freshman     -.48    1.76
                (Dummy variable)
                Classification-Sophomore    1.57    1.31
                (Dummy variable)
                Classification-Junior        .55     .95
                (Dummy variable)
                Problem getting             3.97     .91
                financial aid
                F for overall model                    3.44 **
                F for change in                        19.24 ***
                [R.sup.2]
Personal        Gender                       .18     .28
conflict        Age-18 to 20                 .37     .61
resolution      (Dummy variable)
                Age-21 to 24                 .74     .51
                (Dummy variable)
                Grade-Mostly A's            -.06     .46
                (Dummy variable)
                Grade-Mostly B's            -.03     .37
                (Dummy variable)
                Classification-Freshman     1.20     .65
                (Dummy variable)
                Classification-Sophomore     .59     .47
                (Dummy variable)
                Classification-Junior        .09     .35
                (Dummy variable)
                Problem getting             1.15     .33
                financial aid
                F for overall model                    2.48 *
                F for change in                        12.19 **
                [R.sup.2]
Future          Gender                     -1.03     .76
orientation     Age-18 to 20                1.38    1.66
                (Dummy variable)
                Age-21 to 24                 .43    1.41
                (Dummy variable)
                Grade-Mostly A's            2.89    1.22
                (Dummy variable)
                Grade-Mostly B's             .45     .97
                (Dummy variable)
                Classification-Freshman    -2.04    1.73
                (Dummy variable)
                Classification-Sophomore    -.26    1.26
                (Dummy variable)
                Classification-Junior        .25     .96
                (Dummy variable)
                Problem getting            -2.64     .90
                financial aid
                F for overall model                      2.80 **
                F for change in
                [R.sup.2]
Self-esteem     Gender                      -.05     .34
belief          Age-18 to 20                1.18     .76
                (Dummy variable)
                Age-21 to 24                 .77     .65
                (Dummy variable)
                Grade-Mostly A's             .92     .56
                (Dummy variable)
                Grade-Mostly B's             .39     .45
                (Dummy variable)
                Classification-Freshman     -.97     .81
                (Dummy variable)
                Classification-Sophomore    -.57     .57
                (Dummy variable)
                Classification-Junior       -.22     .42
                (Dummy variable)
                Problem getting             -.95     .39
                financial aid
                F for overall model                 1.62
                F for change in
                [R.sup.2]
Family          Gender                      -.09     .79
Connectedness   Age-18 to 20                1.92    1.74
                (Dummy variable)
                Age-21 to 24                1.48    1.45
                (Dummy variable)
                Grade-Mostly A's            3.21    1.32
                (Dummy variable)
                Grade-Mostly B's            1.95    1.06
                (Dummy variable)
                Classification-Freshman    -2.27    1.83
                (Dummy variable)
                Classification-Sophomore   -2.23    1.35
                (Dummy variable)
                Classification-Junior      -1.83     .99
                (Dummy variable)
                Problem getting            -2.93     .91
                financial aid
                F for overall model
                F for change in
                [R.sup.2]

                Predictor                   Model 2

Outcome (Y)                                 [beta]

Substance use   Gender                       .05
                Age-18 to 20                 .00
                (Dummy variable)
                Age-21 to 24                -.07
                (Dummy variable)
                Grade-Mostly A's            -.03
                (Dummy variable)
                Grade-Mostly B's             .04
                (Dummy variable)
                Classification-Freshman      .04
                (Dummy variable)
                Classification-Sophomore    -.01
                (Dummy variable)
                Classification-Junior       -.11
                (Dummy variable)
                Problem getting              .05
                financial aid
                F for overall model
                F for change in
                [R.sup.2]
Conflict with   Gender                      -.06
partner         Age-18 to 20                -.22
                (Dummy variable)
                Age-21 to 24                -.24
                (Dummy variable)
                Grade-Mostly A's             .03
                (Dummy variable)
                Grade-Mostly B's             .05
                (Dummy variable)
                Classification-Freshman     -.03
                (Dummy variable)
                Classification-Sophomore     .13
                (Dummy variable)
                Classification-Junior        .05
                (Dummy variable)
                Problem getting              .34 ***
                financial aid
                F for overall model
                F for change in
                [R.sup.2]
Personal        Gender                       .05
conflict        Age-18 to 20                 .10
resolution      (Dummy variable)
                Age-21 to 24                 .20
                (Dummy variable)
                Grade-Mostly A's            -.01
                (Dummy variable)
                Grade-Mostly B's            -.01
                (Dummy variable)
                Classification-Freshman      .18
                (Dummy variable)
                Classification-Sophomore     .14
                (Dummy variable)
                Classification-Junior        .02
                (Dummy variable)
                Problem getting              .26 **
                financial aid
                F for overall model
                F for change in
                [R.sup.2]
Future          Gender                      -.10
orientation     Age-18 to 20                 .14
                (Dummy variable)
                Age-21 to 24                 .04
                (Dummy variable)
                Grade-Mostly A's             .23*
                (Dummy variable)
                Grade-Mostly B's             .05
                (Dummy variable)
                Classification-Freshman     -.12
                (Dummy variable)
                Classification-Sophomore    -.02
                (Dummy variable)
                Classification-Junior        .02
                (Dummy variable)
                Problem getting             -.22 **
                financial aid
                F for overall model
                F for change in             8.67 **
                [R.sup.2]
Self-esteem     Gender                      -.01
belief          Age-18 to 20                 .27
                (Dummy variable)
                Age-21 to 24                 .18
                (Dummy variable)
                Grade-Mostly A's             .16
                (Dummy variable)
                Grade-Mostly B's             .09
                (Dummy variable)
                Classification-Freshman     -.12
                (Dummy variable)
                Classification-Sophomore    -.11
                (Dummy variable)
                Classification-Junior       -.04
                (Dummy variable)
                Problem getting             -.18 *
                financial aid
                F for overall model
                F for change in             5.78 *
                [R.sup.2]
Family          Gender                      -.01
Connectedness   Age-18 to 20                 .18
                (Dummy variable)
                Age-21 to 24                 .14
                (Dummy variable)
                Grade-Mostly A's             .24 *
                (Dummy variable)
                Grade-Mostly B's             .18
                (Dummy variable)
                Classification-Freshman     -.12
                (Dummy variable)
                Classification-Sophomore    -.18
                (Dummy variable)
                Classification-Junior       -.16
                (Dummy variable)
                Problem getting             -.23 **
                financial aid
                F for overall model         3.28 **
                F for change in            10.33 **
                [R.sup.2]

Note. * p <.05, ** p <.01, *** p <.001.
Gale Copyright: Copyright 2011 Gale, Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.