Mental Well-Being and Changes in Peer Ability From High School to College

Abstract

While transitions to college can be stressful, links between distinct types of college transitions and changing student well-being remain unclear. For instance, peer ability often shifts from high school to college, though students differ markedly in how much peer ability change they experience. Here, we draw on national longitudinal data (National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent to Adult Health [Add Health]; Waves 1 and 3; N = 1,453) to demonstrate how peer ability transitions from high school to college relate to changes in depressive symptoms and self-esteem, net of student personal background and school-average levels of peer ability. We find that depressive symptoms increase by 27% for students experiencing lowered peer ability across their college transition, relative to no substantial change in peer ability. Meanwhile, heightened peer ability in college links to neither diminished nor enhanced student well-being across the transition. Overall, student well-being relates more closely to collegiate than high-school peer ability.

Keywords

college transition depression self-esteem

Transitioning to college is a stressful experience for many youth (e.g., Chung et al., 2014; Conley, Durlak, & Kirsch, 2015; Conley, Kirsch, Dickson, & Bryant, 2014; Wagner, Ludtke, Jonkmann, & Trautwein, 2013). Schulenberg, Sameroff, and Cicchetti (2004) have even suggested that college may “permanently alter” life-course trajectories of well-being (p. 802). However, it remains unclear what makes some college transitions stressful and others relatively smooth. Differing social and academic climates between high school and college, and among colleges and high schools, seem to matter fundamentally to student adjustment, though precise magnitudes and natures of these ecological effects remain debated (e.g., Deutschlander, 2017; Fletcher & Frisvold, 2011; Kurlaender & Grodsky, 2013).

Average student ability and other related school-level measures including teacher support, safety, classmate turnover, and socioeconomic and racial composition have been shown to predict student health and well-being (e.g., Bifulco, Fletcher, & Ross, 2011; Dufner, Reitz, & Zander, 2015; Fletcher & Frisvold, 2011; Marsh, Trautwein, Ludtke, Koller, & Baumert, 2006; Smokowski et al., 2014; Wang & Dishion, 2012), suggesting that ecological processes matter, but it remains unclear how changes in school ecologies—rather than schools taken alone—might factor into student well-being changes across the transition to college. School transitions are important to well-being in their own right, as they involve changes in ecological factors, such as changes in networks of social relationships, institutional or teacher resources, and peer characteristics, and these changes are experienced and interpreted by individuals with regard to both their former school contexts and their current ones (Armstrong & Hamilton, 2013; Conley et al., 2015; Conley et al., 2014; Gasper, DeLuca, & Estacion, 2010, 2012; South & Haynie, 2004).

In this study, we draw on national longitudinal data to relate ecological changes at the school level to changes in personal mental well-being from high school to college. To provide a meaningful demonstration of how changing ecologies might matter to student adjustment across the college transition, we draw on a well-established tradition of research focused on how school-average peer academic ability matters to individual student outcomes (e.g., Bifulco et al., 2011; Dufner et al., 2015; Fletcher & Frisvold, 2011; Marsh et al., 2006; Smokowski et al., 2014; Wang & Dishion, 2012; Wouters, Germeijs, Colpin, & Verschueren, 2011). By borrowing an innovative modeling strategy anchored into social mobility estimation techniques (Sobel, 1981, 1985), we analyze how changes in peer academic ability contexts may matter to changes in student depression and self-esteem from high school to college.

Background

There is a long research tradition in personality psychology and sociology of health examining how major stressors, life events, or life transitions shape changes in youth well-being (Lucas, 2007; Luhmann, Hofmann, Eid, & Lucas, 2012; Pearlin & Bierman, 2013). A dedicated subprogram of longitudinal research, nascent in recent decades, considers how student well-being changes across the college experience, from arrival on campus until graduation or beyond (e.g., Chung et al., 2014; Conley et al., 2015; Conley et al., 2014; Wagner et al., 2013; Wang, Wu, Song, Wu, & Cai, 2017). Wagner and colleagues (2013) examined changes in self-esteem across 4 years in a sample of young adults. After taking normative trajectories into account, they found marginal positive associations between self-esteem and being a university student. However, student experiences within universities vary widely in ways indicated to some extent by academic success. Helping to remedy this gap, Chung and colleagues (2014) followed a university cohort, finding that normative drops in self-esteem occurred during the first semester in college but rebounded somewhat by the end of the first year with slight increases for the remainder of the university career, especially for those who had high academic performance. Although this study usefully reveals associations between academic performances and self-esteem, it nonetheless leaves unclear whether self-esteem trajectories are tied to ecological processes that differentiate colleges or universities from one another.

Indeed, even in a recent study of self-esteem trajectories across collegiate careers, Wang and colleagues (2017) concluded that a limitation of their work was their inability to determine whether downward trajectories evidenced in their sample may have been due to recruiting study participants from a top university. For instance, student self-evaluations tend to suffer in more rigorous academic environments, a well-established phenomenon known as the big-fish-little-pond-effect (BFLPE). Researched programmatically by Herbert Marsh and colleagues (e.g., Marsh et al., 2008; Marsh et al., 2006), the BFLPE has been demonstrated in a variety of countries and academic subjects and contexts, suggesting that it is a widespread or even universal phenomenon influencing student evaluations or well-being. The BFLPE research program carries the distinct strength of focusing on the relevance of ecological levels of student ability to individual-level student adjustment, where adjustment is measured in terms of perceived or self-rated intelligence as well as academic self-concepts (Marsh et al., 2008; Marsh et al., 2006).

Extant work on student well-being across the college transition, while quite nuanced, has overlooked particular combinations of high school and college environments that by definition form the college transition. That is, studies of college adjustment focus on student adjustment at college irrespective of high school origins, or they use individual factors such as baseline mental well-being or adjustment, or family socioeconomic background, attempting to proxy high school preparation (e.g., Brissette, Scheier, & Carver, 2002; Conley et al., 2015; Conley et al., 2014; Srivastava, Tamir, McGonigal, John, & Gross, 2009). As a result, we know little about the effects of changes or stabilities in qualities of academic environments on mental health across the college transition (Dai & Rinn, 2008). Ignoring either the college or high school environment is likely an important shortcoming, given how mental well-being typically changes in proportion to the degree of ecological or social change that individuals experience (Houle, 2011; Lucas, 2007; Luhmann et al., 2012; Pearlin & Bierman, 2013).

Relating Changes in School-Average Peer Academic Ability to Changes in Personal Well-Being

Relevant ecological research into student adjustment and well-being suggests that school-average peer academic ability usefully indexes learning, socialization, peer networks, expectations, and resources that characterize an academic environment. Average peer academic ability indicates normative rigor of class curricula and difficulty of teacher expectations, with higher levels of measured student aptitude usually being consistent with more academically demanding coursework and teachers (Jennings, Deming, Jencks, Lopuch, & Schueler, 2015; Schneider & Keesler, 2007). Next, school-average peer academic ability indicates peer standards for high achievement, with higher average student ability generally increasing the tendency to view one’s own abilities as inadequate, controlling for personal cognitive ability or academic performance (Marsh et al., 2008; Marsh, Trautwein, Ludtke, Koller, & Baumert, 2007; Wouters et al., 2011). Third, school-average peer academic ability indexes the average level of importance or salience of academic success to overall student well-being, as schools with higher ability students tend to place a greater normative emphasis on academic success (Attewell, 2001; Espenshade, Hale, & Chung, 2005). Existing studies have documented associations between measures of school-average academic ability and diverse personal student outcomes, including academic performance, specific and general self-esteem, and overall well-being or behavioral problems (Bifulco et al., 2011; Dufner et al., 2015; Fletcher & Frisvold, 2011; Marsh et al., 2006; Smokowski et al., 2014; Wang & Dishion, 2012; Wouters et al., 2011).

It remains, however, unclear how transitions in their own right, net of the high school and college academic environments defining them, matter for personal well-being during early adulthood. Changes in student well-being may reflect diverse and perhaps countervailing social mechanisms operating across school transitions. Below, we overview several possible mechanisms or processes relating changes in school-average peer ability to changes in mental well-being.

Decreased School-Average Peer Academic Ability From High School to College

Matriculating at a college where average peer academic ability is lower relative to one’s high school may enhance student well-being due to higher probability of academic success, more encouraging social comparisons with peers, and increased chances of meaningful social ties with faculty. Specifically, because students evaluate their own academic abilities with respect to peers who also attend their school, the “pond” of social comparison could become more favorable from high school to college, consistent with increased well-being (Marsh, 1987; Marsh et al., 2008). Meanwhile, academic or cultural skills gained in more rigorous high schools could translate more easily to attention, engagement, or positive regard from teachers in less rigorous academic environments (Andersen & Jaeger, 2015; Armstrong & Hamilton, 2013; Bourdieu, 1990; Lareau & Weininger, 2008). Mentorship or other meaningful social ties with faculty can boost school attachment and enhance well-being (Umbach & Wawrzynski, 2005; Webber, Laird, & BrckaLorenz, 2013).

Oppositely, decreased peer academic ability from high school to college may diminish student well-being if this kind of transition is experienced as a personal failure. High-school environments are ecologically inhabited by teachers, counselors, and peers who instill college aspirations in students consistent with the prospects of past school graduates, independent of the personal or family backgrounds of specific students (Bourdieu, 1990; Lareau & Weininger, 2008; Nora, 2004). In turn, higher ability high schools tend to produce expectations for attending more selective colleges (Espenshade et al., 2005). An ecologically inculcated sense of what type of college education one ought to achieve could possibly set educational expectations that, if unmet, may trigger losses in mental well-being due to the obstruction of personal goals (Hardie, 2014; Pearlin & Bierman, 2013; Reynolds & Baird, 2010). Because higher education is a pivotal stage in emergent adulthood, feeling a sense of failure or inadequacy across the college transition may influence overall mental well-being.

Increased School-Average Peer Academic Ability From High School to College

Attending a college where average peer academic ability is higher relative to what was experienced in high school may diminish a student’s sense of worth through decreased academic performance or less favorable social comparisons. In addition, students may struggle to receive academic attention or mentorship relative to high school due to heightened competition for instructor time or expertise relative to high school (Andersen & Jaeger, 2015). Oppositely, gains in peer academic ability across the transition may translate into increased mental well-being, as these gains represent higher social prestige of one’s peers or an opportunity to bask in their glory (i.e., “reflected-glory effect”; Marsh, Kong, & Hau, 2000). That is, as the prestige of one’s social affiliations increases, individuals may find it more rewarding to identify with their peers—rather than strive for distinction against them through direct academic competition (Brewer, Manzi, & Shaw, 1993; McFarland & Buehler, 1995). In general, membership in high-status social groups is linked to higher levels of mental and physical well-being across the life span (Demakakos, Nazroo, Breeze, &, Marmot, 2008; Quon & McGrath, 2014).

Overview of the Present Study

We implement a longitudinal analysis of self-esteem and depressive symptomatology, examining how changes in these well-being outcomes from adolescence to early adulthood relate to changes in student ecologies from high school to college. Our analysis features longitudinal diagonal social mobility models (Houle, 2011; Houle & Martin, 2011; Sobel, 1981, 1985), which enable the identification and estimation of social mobility effects net of ecological characteristics of particular social environments composing transitions. Therefore, our use of diagonal mobility models (DMMs) allows us to obtain estimates of transition effects as distinguished from school effects, offering unique promise in understanding how college transitions in their own right relate to changes in student mental well-being.

Method

Data

In the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent to Adult Health (Add Health; Harris, 2009), 20,747 adolescents enrolled in Grades 7 to 12 (ages 12-20) from a nationally representative sample of schools completed the Wave 1 in-home questionnaire in 1995. This baseline questionnaire assessed cognitive ability, family background, and mental well-being during high school. In 2001-2002, 15,170 students were reinterviewed (Wave 3; ages 18-26). Wave 3 interviews collected information about mental well-being during college and early adulthood as well as information on the postsecondary institutions attended. Our final analytic sample contains individuals who attended high school in Wave 1, did not change high schools from Wave 1 to 2, and are enrolled as undergraduates in a 4-year college in Wave 3 (N = 1,453). We focus on 4-year colleges, where residence at school and frequent academic and informal social interactions typify campus life (Strauss & Volkwein, 2004). Additional analyses addressing sample selection using regional college availability as an instrument did not alter the main conclusions presented here (available on request).

Measures

Dependent variables: Mental well-being (depression and self-esteem)

In a nine-item version of the Center for Epidemiologic Studies–Depression Scale (CES-D; Radloff, 1977), respondents are asked how often (0 = never/rarely; 3 = most/all of the time) each of the following was true during the past week: “bothered by things that usually don’t bother you,” “had the blues,” “felt that you were just as good as other people” (reverse coded [RC]), “had trouble keeping your mind on what you were doing,” “felt depressed,” “felt too tired to do things,” “enjoyed life” (RC), “felt sad,” and “felt that people disliked you” (range = 0-27; $α = . 80$ ). A summed score was transformed using a started logarithm, ln(CES-D) + k, where k is an empirical constant maximizing normality, then standardized (to M = 0, SD = 1; Houle, 2011).

In Rosenberg’s Self-Esteem scale (Rosenberg, 1965), respondents are asked how much they agree (1 = strongly disagree; 5 = strongly agree) with the following statements: “You have many good qualities,” “You have a lot to be proud of,” “You like yourself just the way you are,” and “You are doing things just about right” (range = 4-20; $α = . 78 - . 80$ ). As for the depression measure, self-esteem was started-log transformed, then standardized. Differing transformations or calculations of these outcome variables did not influence the general results.

Independent variable: Change in school-average academic ability

High-school-average ability is assessed using school-average Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test (PPVT) scores. Although focused on verbal aptitude, the PPVT provides a reasonable estimate of general scholastic ability (Bifulco et al., 2011; Dunn & Dunn, 1981). PPVT scores are unavailable at the college level in Add Health. Therefore, we implement the available alternative measure, the college’s national SAT ranking (i.e., an institutional rank corresponding to the median SAT score of matriculating students). PPVT scores correlate strongly with other standardized test scores, including the SAT (Smith, Smith, & Dobbs, 1991). The peer academic ability transition ( $T_{i}$ ) from high school to college is defined as

T_{i} = {Ability}_{i, C} - {Ability}_{i, H S},

where ${Ability}_{i, H S}$ and ${Ability}_{i, C}$ refer to the mean academic ability of individual i’s high school (HS) or college (C) peers, respectively (Dai & Rinn, 2008; Marsh et al., 2007). To minimize any scaling effects, we use ability quintiles (ranging from 1-5, whereby higher quintiles indicate higher mean ability) for both high school and college. The variable $T_{i}$ , the ability change, ranges from −4 to +4, and is dichotomized to reflect any increase or decrease. Results from models using finer specifications of change (i.e., distinguishing between larger and smaller ability changes) revealed no significant differences in key conclusions, importantly suggesting that differing ability scaling or scale commensuration of the PPVT and SAT does not substantially bias our college transition parameter estimates.

Importantly, an alternate form of Equation 1a based on matches between individuals and schools is presented:

T_{i} = ({Ability}_{i, C} - {Ability}_{i}) - ({Ability}_{i, H S} - {Ability}_{i}),

in which the change in school-average ability is expressed in terms of a change in the difference between school-average ability and personal ability, reduces mathematically to Equation 1a. That is, ${Ability}_{i}$ differences out across the college transition, under the assumption that qualitative or basic level of personal academic ability is invariant from high school through the beginning of college (e.g., Arum & Roksa, 2010). Therefore, DMM estimates of how transitions $T_{i}$ shape personal mental well-being can be interpreted either in terms of school-average ability transitions (Equation 1a), or in terms of changes in differences between personal ability and school-average ability (Equation 1b).

School-level control variables (high school)

To adjust for socioeconomic differences at the school level independent of academic characteristics (Marsh et al., 2007), we control for high-school type (private or public) and school socioeconomic standing (SES). School SES is a composite of two common measures of socioeconomic advantage: parental education (percentage of students who have a parent with a college degree) and the proportion of students not receiving free or reduced-price lunch (e.g., Day et al., 2016; Nicholson, Slater, Chriqui, & Chaloupka, 2014). Principal components analysis yielded a school SES index (values: −2.008 to 2.496).

Personal or student-level control variables

We control for individual cognitive ability during high school via the student’s own PPVT score. To address well-being prior to college entry, baseline mental well-being is controlled (either depression or self-esteem) as is self-reported physical health. Moreover, we control for baseline attachment to school, assessed by three items: “You feel close to people at your school,” “You feel like you are a part of your school,” and “You are happy to be at your school” (1 = strongly disagree and 5 = strongly agree; summed to form a composite index of school attachment). Finally, expectations for college graduation are controlled (0 = no chance to 8 = it will happen).

Sociodemographic control variables include gender, age, self-reported race and ethnicity (non-Hispanic White [reference], non-Hispanic Black, other race/ethnicity), highest parental educational attainment, family household income, any receipt of public assistance (0 = no, 1 = yes), and residence with both biological parents during high school (0 = no, 1 = yes).

Table 1 shows descriptive statistics. About 74% of the sample experienced either an increase or decrease in peer academic ability across the college transition, with decreases (51%) more than twice as common as increases (23%). Most (73%) of the students who experienced a peer ability decrease came from a high-ability secondary school (i.e., a high school in the Top 2 quintiles), which is consistent with the recent findings on the ubiquity of academic undermatch in recent college cohorts (Deutschlander, 2017).

Table 1.

Descriptive Statistics (Add Health).

Variable	M	SD
Mental well-being
Self-esteem in high school	16.622	2.429
Self-esteem in college	17.081	2.091
Wave 1 CES-D depressive symptoms^a	4.92	3.944
Wave 3 CES-D depressive symptoms^b	3.798	3.389
College transition: Change in school-average peer academic ability
No change	0.263
Decrease from high school to college (≥1 quintile)	0.507
Increase from high school to college (≥1 quintile)	0.231
Controls (measured in high school)
Race/ethnicity: Non-Hispanic White	0.571
Race/ethnicity: Non-Hispanic Black	0.176
Race/ethnicity: Other	0.253
Parental education: No HS degree	0.046
Parental education: High-school degree	0.399
Parental education: College degree	0.265
Parental education: Graduate degree	0.290
Parental/household income (US$1,000s)	61.160	64.171
Lived with biological parents	0.663
Female	0.548
Age^c	15.400	1.533
Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test score^d	107.423	12.856
Either parent on public income assistance	0.041
Self-reported physical health^e	4.095	0.821
School attachment	11.732	2.332
Expect to graduate college	7.128	1.754
Attended private high school	0.118
High school SES^f	0.264	0.873

Note. N = 1,453. CES-D = Center for Epidemiologic Studies–Depression scale; HS = high school; SES = socioeconomic standing; Add Health = National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent to Adult Health.

Minimum: 0, maximum: 24.

Minimum: 0, maximum: 21.

Minimum: 12, maximum: 20.

Minimum: 17, maximum: 138.

Minimum: 1, maximum: 5.

Minimum: −2.008, maximum: 2.496.

Analytic Approach: DMMs of Mental Well-Being

A linear regression that fits mental well-being as a function of average peer academic ability transitions from high school to college fails to control for differing origins (variation in high school average peer ability) and differing destinations (variation in college average peer ability), as transition is defined arithmetically as a difference between a destination and an origin. To solve this underidentification problem that severely biases ordinary regression estimates of transition effects (see Hendrickx, De Graaf, Lammers, & Ultee, 1993, for a detailed discussion), we use a DMM to obtain estimates of associations between ecological transitions and mental well-being (Sobel, 1981, 1985). A DMM achieves identification of transition effects by using nonmobile students who originate from or end up in schools of similar ability quintiles as the reference group for students who experience changes (i.e., mobility) in average peer academic ability from high school to college. That is, nonmobile students occupy the same peer ability standing across the college transition, and thus may be considered the best representatives of that rank or standing (Houle, 2011; Sorokin, 1959). The DMM accounts for a student’s high school average peer academic ability by adjusting for the average mental well-being of students who attend schools of that rank in both high school and college. Likewise, a student’s college average peer academic ability level is taken into account for the average mental well-being of students who attend colleges of that ability level and who also originate from similarly ranked high schools. For example, the DMM accounts for the high school origins and college destinations of students graduating from high schools in Quintile 1 and attending colleges in Quintile 3 by separately controlling for the average mental well-being of students who come from high schools and end up in colleges with quintile ranks of 1, and of students who come from high schools and end up in colleges with quintile ranks of 3.

The DMM is specified as follows:

Y_{i j} = q μ_{j} + (1 - q) μ_{k} + β_{1} {Inc}_{i} + β_{2} {Dec}_{i} + γ X_{i k} + σ Y_{i k} + ε_{i j k},

q + (1 - q) = 1,

where $Y_{i j}$ is mental well-being for individual i of college quintile rank j (Wave 3; depression or self-esteem), µj is the mean outcome for nonmobile members of individual i’s college quintile rank j, and µk is the mean outcome for nonmobile members of individual i’s high school quintile rank k. ${Inc}_{i}$ and ${Dec}_{i}$ are mobility indicators capturing students who experienced an increase or decrease, respectively, in peer academic ability from high school to college, where no quintile change in ability serves as the reference group. The $X_{i k}$ is a vector of precollege covariates, and $Y_{i k}$ is a measure of mental well-being during high school.

Because we control for the precollege value of Y, we interpret the βs as changes in mental well-being from high school to college linked to experiencing mobility (increase or decrease) in peer academic ability. Because we control for individual PPVT score, we interpret the βs as the effects of mobility independent not only of origin and destination effects but also of individual cognitive ability. Estimates for q, known as the destination weight, range from 0 to 1, where values near 1 indicate that mobile individuals’ mental well-being resembles that of nonmobile individuals in the same college quintile rank (as opposed to high school).

For each well-being outcome, we estimate two DMMs using the Diagonal Reference (DREF) command from the general nonlinear models (GNMs) package in R (Turner & Firth, 2007): First, we estimate a model without the transition indicators to determine the degree to which mobile individuals resemble nonmobile individuals in their high school (origin) or college (destination) quintile ability rank with regard to the outcome. In a second model, we enter the mobility indicators to estimate the well-being effects of changes in peer academic ability. Here, multiple imputation on 10 datasets is used to replace missing data on any of the covariates, though results do not differ without imputation or when more limited sets of covariates are used. Household income (22%) and expectations for college graduation (29%) have the largest rates of nonresponse. We use unweighted estimation, which yields consistent and efficient estimates after controlling for the characteristics used in the sampling design (Winship & Radbill, 1994). Additional models revealed similar effects of transitions on mental well-being once time spent in college is controlled, and also revealed no statistical interactions of number of years in college with transition indicator variables (available on request).

Results

Descriptive Results: Cross-Tabulations of Well-Being by School-Average Peer Ability Quintiles

Table 2 shows mean standardized depression by high school and college peer academic ability quintile. Nonmobile students (on the shaded diagonal) report levels of depression near or below average (standardized depression score of 0). Meanwhile, students exposed to higher ability colleges relative to their high school (above the diagonal) report lower levels of depression (mean depression = 0.005) compared with students transitioning into lower ability colleges (below diagonal; mean depression = 0.095). Table 3 similarly gives a descriptive overview of self-esteem scores. Students exposed to increases in peer academic ability (above diagonal) report greater self-esteem (M = 0.027) than students exposed to lesser peer ability relative to high school (M = −0.040), though here the raw difference is smaller (0.067).

Table 2.

Depressive Symptoms (CES-D) in College (Add Health Wave 3), by Changes in School-Average Peer Academic Ability.

High school ability quintile	College ability quintile					Row means
High school ability quintile	1 (low)	2	3	4	5 (high)	Row means
1 (low)	−0.094	−0.243	−0.157	−0.047	0.418	−0.031
1 (low)	(25)	(21)	(9)	(28)	(17)	(100)
2	−0.023	0.130	−0.133	−0.033	0.177	0.032
2	(73)	(71)	(43)	(15)	(35)	(237)
3	0.120	0.100	−0.354	−0.077	−0.109	−0.057
3	(43)	(82)	(52)	(64)	(72)	(313)
4	0.302	0.246	−0.072	−0.127	0.254	0.094
4	(33)	(28)	(50)	(35)	(31)	(177)
5 (high)	0.043	0.062	−0.148	0.155	−0.076	−0.005
5 (high)	(39)	(133)	(124)	(131)	(199)	(626)
Column means	0.060	0.082	−0.171	0.034	−0.005	1,453
Column means	(213)	(335)	(278)	(273)	(354)	1,453

Note. Depression scores are logged, then standardized (M = 0, SD = 1). Numbers in parentheses indicate number of respondents in each cell of the mobility table. Shaded cells (on diagonal) indicate mean for nonmobile students. CES-D = Center for Epidemiologic Studies–Depression scale; Add Health = National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent to Adult Health.

Table 3.

Self-Esteem in College (Add Health Wave 3), by Changes in School-Average Peer Academic Ability.

High school ability quintile	College ability quintile					Row means
High school ability quintile	1 (low)	2	3	4	5 (high)	Row means
1 (low)	0.294	0.301	0.322	0.012	−0.261	0.125
1 (low)	(25)	(21)	(9)	(28)	(17)	(100)
2	0.167	−0.055	−0.015	0.042	0.188	0.063
2	(73)	(71)	(43)	(15)	(35)	(237)
3	−0.166	0.039	0.091	0.020	0.005	0.008
3	(43)	(82)	(52)	(64)	(72)	(313)
4	−0.312	−0.003	−0.017	−0.229	−0.344	−0.169
4	(33)	(28)	(50)	(35)	(31)	(177)
5 (high)	−0.128	−0.035	0.117	−0.035	0.000	0.000
5 (high)	(39)	(133)	(124)	(131)	(199)	(626)
Column means	−0.014	0.002	0.074	−0.038	−0.023	1,453
Column means	(213)	(335)	(278)	(273)	(354)	1,453

Note. Self-esteem scores are logged, then standardized (M = 0, SD = 1). Numbers in parentheses indicate number of respondents in each cell of the mobility table. Shaded cells (on diagonal) indicate mean for nonmobile students. Add Health = National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent to Adult Health.

DMMs of Mental Well-Being

Depressive symptoms (CES-D)

Table 4 summarizes results from lagged DMMs of depression during college. Model 1 shows results for the baseline DMM, which includes only the origin (high school) and destination (college) weights, and the precollege control variables. Here, the estimated college weight (q = 0.759) is close to 1, and it significantly differs from a weight of 0.5 (p < .05), revealing that mental well-being is more closely predicted by college peer academic ability than by high school peer academic ability.

Table 4.

Lagged Diagonal Mobility Models of Mental Well-Being During College (Add Health Wave 3).

	Depressive symptoms (CES-D)		Self-esteem
	Model 1	Model 2	Model 1	Model 2
High school: Peer academic ability weight (1 − q)	0.241	0.158	0.289	0.260
High school: Peer academic ability weight (1 − q)	(0.159)	(0.170)	(0.304)	(0.316)
College: Peer academic ability weight (q)	0.759***	0.842***	0.711*	0.740*
College: Peer academic ability weight (q)	(0.159)	(0.170)	(0.304)	(0.316)
Decrease in school-average peer academic ability^a		0.223***		−0.006
Decrease in school-average peer academic ability^a		(0.076)		(0.072)
Increase in school-average peer academic ability^a		0.047		−0.030
Increase in school-average peer academic ability^a		(0.084)		(0.077)
Control variables
Race/ethnicity^b: Non-Hispanic Black	−0.055	−0.033	0.311***	0.310***
Race/ethnicity^b: Non-Hispanic Black	(0.079)	(0.079)	(0.079)	(0.079)
Race/ethnicity^b: Other	0.056	0.083	−0.067	−0.064
	(0.065)	(0.066)	(0.065)	(0.066)
Parental education^c—HS degree	0.175	0.172	−0.213	−0.213
Parental education^c—HS degree	(0.140)	(0.140)	(0.149)	(0.150)
Parental education^c—College degree	0.173	0.174	−0.261	−0.260
Parental education^c—College degree	(0.148)	(0.148)	(0.151)	(0.152)
Parental education^c—Graduate degree	0.224	0.229	−0.269	−0.270
Parental education^c—Graduate degree	(0.150)	(0.150)	(0.151)	(0.151)
Household income	−0.0003	−0.0002	−0.0002	−0.0002
	(0.0004)	(0.0004)	(0.0004)	(0.0004)
Lived with biological parents	−0.021	−0.008	0.019	0.019
Lived with biological parents	(0.055)	(0.056)	(0.055)	(0.055)
Female	0.055	0.060	−0.062	−0.063
	(0.052)	(0.052)	(0.051)	(0.052)
High-school PPVT^d score (Wave 1)	−0.001	−0.001	−0.004	−0.004
High-school PPVT^d score (Wave 1)	(0.002)	(0.002)	(0.002)	(0.002)
Age	−0.047**	−0.048**	0.043*	0.044*
	(0.017)	(0.017)	(0.017)	(0.017)
Either parent on public income assistance	0.142	0.160	−0.0002	0.004
Either parent on public income assistance	(0.128)	(0.128)	(0.125)	(0.126)
Self-reported physical health	−0.019	−0.019	0.003	0.003
Self-reported physical health	(0.033)	(0.032)	(0.033)	(0.033)
School attachment	−0.017*	−0.017*	0.030**	0.030**
	(0.008)	(0.008)	(0.012)	(0.012)
Expect to graduate college	−0.034	−0.033	0.015	0.015
Expect to graduate college	(0.018)	(0.018)	(0.017)	(0.017)
Wave 1 mental well-being	0.300***	0.300***	0.313***	0.313***
Wave 1 mental well-being	(0.028)	(0.028)	(0.027)	(0.027)
Attended private high school	0.010	0.039	0.058	0.056
Attended private high school	(0.094)	(0.094)	(0.094)	(0.094)
High-school SES	−0.006	−0.057	0.003	−0.001
	(0.043)	(0.049)	(0.046)	(0.050)
Intercept	0.682	0.593	−1.003*	−0.982*
	(0.401)	(0.403)	(0.391)	(0.392)
N	1,453	1,453	1,453	1,453

Note. Standard errors in parentheses. CES-D = Center for Epidemiologic Studies–Depression scale; HS = high school; PPVT = Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test; SES = socioeconomic standing; Add Health = National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent to Adult Health.

Reference group = no change in peer academic ability.

Reference group = non-Hispanic White.

Reference group = less than high-school degree.

Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test.

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

Model 2 adds the transition indicator variables to the equation. This model tests whether ability transitions matter for student well-being change net of high school and college peer academic ability and a rich vector of precollege covariates. Transition estimates reveal that a peer ability decrease from high school to college is associated with increased depression (more than one fifth of a standard deviation; b = 0.223, p < .001), which translates into a 27% increase from the average CES-D score in terms of its original scale. A peer ability increase is not significantly linked to mental well-being relative to no change in peer academic ability (b = 0.047, ns).

Meanwhile, students who report stronger high school attachment report decreases in depressive symptoms during college (b = −0.017, p < .001). We also find that older students experience a decrease in depressive symptoms (b = −0.048, p < .001). To place the importance of changes in peer ability in the context of the other background variables, the effect of a downward ability transition (0.223) is nearly as large as the effect of a 1 standard deviation increase in prior depression levels (0.300) and more than 4 times as large as the effect of moving from the 25th (10) to the 75th (13) percentile on high school attachment ([13 − 10] × −0.017 = −0.051).

Self-esteem

The final two columns in Table 4 display results from lagged DMMs of self-esteem. Similar to depression, weights in the baseline self-esteem model (Model 1) demonstrate that college students report levels of self-esteem more closely resembling those of their collegiate peers (q = 0.711). As for depression, the college weight is statistically different from 0.5 (p < .05). Model 2 reveals no significant effects of peer ability transitions on self-esteem (ability decrease b = −0.006, ns; ability increase b = −0.030, ns). Among control variables, Blacks relative to Whites (b = 0.310, p < .001), older students (b = 0.044, p < .05), and students with greater high-school attachment (b = 0.030, p < .01) experienced higher self-esteem across the transition.

Discussion

While high school and college environments both matter for student adjustment, transitions between these environments may contribute powerfully to differences in mental well-being observed among today’s college students. Using national longitudinal data, we analyzed associations between changes in student mental well-being and changes in school-average peer academic ability from high school to college. An increase in school-average peer ability may decrease student well-being through less favorable social comparisons or more restricted access to academic resources. In contrast, gains in peer ability across the transition may translate into increased mental well-being through prestige conveyed by membership in a higher status academic community. We find, however, that students enrolled in higher ability colleges relative to high school show no significant changes in either depressive symptoms or self-esteem linked to the transition itself. Therefore, gains in peer ability may bring about a combination of interpersonal processes—resulting in countervailing influences on mental well-being—and an overall null association of school ability gains with student well-being.

We also examined changes in well-being linked to decreases in school-average peer ability. Students experiencing a decrease in peer ability may experience gains in well-being through more favorable social comparisons or more attention from faculty. We find, however, elevated depressive symptoms among students at colleges where average peer academic ability is lower relative to high school. Elevated depressive symptoms due to lower school-average ability may reflect unmet or failed expectations for attending a rigorous college. Students attend lower ability colleges relative to high school for a variety of reasons, including parental unfamiliarity with the college application process, and a desire to live close to family and precollege friendship networks (Deutschlander, 2017; Turley, Desmond, & Bruch, 2010). In addition, families are sensitive to financial-aid packages and tuition costs, which are more financially attractive in public universities, even after controlling for family income (Baryla & Dotterweich, 2001; Mixon & Hsing, 1994). In short, families may voluntarily trade academic prestige for lower financial burden, but family financial savings may incur emotional costs in the form of lowered student well-being.

At the same time, however, peer ability transitions do not foreshadow any significant changes in self-esteem according to our national findings. Apparently, students matriculating into a lower ability academic setting relative to high school still seem to regard themselves as academically competent, resulting in no significant changes in overall self-esteem linked to ability transitions themselves. Targeted measures of academic self-esteem would help evaluate this interpretation (Rosenberg, Schooler, Schoenbach, & Rosenberg, 1995). Regardless, students who remain convinced of their academic competence and overall worth nonetheless may become frustrated with suddenly restricted access to the types of academic resources and relationships they experienced while in high school, which may generate depressive symptoms even as self-esteem does not change due to the transition itself.

In this regard, it is important to note that our findings shed light on the relative importance of high-school versus college academic environments for shaping student well-being, beyond any well-being changes linked to different types of academic transitions. Specifically, our findings for depression as well as self-esteem indicate that students’ mental well-being comes to resemble that of others attending colleges with similar academic ability. This is a valuable and new finding, as prior research had not made it clear to what extent college students’ well-being reflects prior schooling experiences versus current ones, and to what extent these differences may be due to transitions rather than academic environments themselves. This finding falls in line with recent work on intragenerational (personal) social class mobility among adults, which finds that destination or final social class exerts stronger effects on well-being than does origin or initial social class (Houle, 2011).

Findings here should be considered within the study’s limitations: First, other ecological characteristics aside from general school-average academic ability may contribute to changes in well-being across the college transition. For instance, at similar levels of school-average peer ability, school cultures may vary due to student body composition, segmentation of students into majors or concentrations, or institutional heritage or traditions. Moreover, narrower ecologies developed through social or extracurricular commitments, such as part-time work, athletics, romantic relationships, or groups or clubs, may establish social networks that may differ in salience depending on personal academic performance (Armstrong & Hamilton, 2013; Lareau & Weininger, 2008). Exploring how these variations in school cultures and school-linked ecologies influence mental well-being represents a valuable direction for future research, one that would shed more light on school-based and developmental mechanisms underlying our national findings. In addition, college transitions often occur around the same time as other social transitions such as leaving home and shifting peer relationships, which may also influence depressive symptoms. However, these contemporaneous changes involving family and friends are normative, and thus likely to be present across a range of peer ability transitions. Although longitudinal, our findings do not reveal growth trajectories of symptoms after college, which is an important avenue for future research. Adult transitions involving work, family, or community may be pivotal in the long term for redirecting mental health trajectories after college (e.g., Pearlin & Bierman, 2013; Schulenberg, Sameroff, & Cicchetti, 2004).

Conclusion

Our study breaks new ground by bringing attention to the important role that shifting academic environments may play in influencing adjustment among today’s college students. Changes in academic environments matter for predicting student adjustment, net of the individuals composing them and net of school environments themselves. Because school change is defined by academic environments as well as by differences between environments, future research should continue to utilize diagonal mobility techniques to gain greater insights into the transition to college and into well-being during early adulthood more generally.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Author Biographies

Noli Brazil is an assistant professor in Community and Regional Development in the Department of Human Ecology at the University of California, Davis. His research and teaching interests focus on the causes and consequences of neighborhood inequality. He is particularly interested in how neighborhoods and schools interact to impact youth development and social inequality.

Matthew Andersson is an assistant professor in the health and society program in the department of sociology at Baylor University. His work spans diverse contexts of health and has appeared in American Journal of Sociology, Social Forces, Journal of Health and Social Behavior, Society and Mental Health, Social Science Research, and Social Science & Medicine. His current areas of work include institutional analyses of socioeconomic health disparities (with Jennifer Glass, Vida Maralani, and Robin Simon) and empirical approaches to human dignity (with Steven Hitlin).

References

Andersen

I. G.

Jaeger

M. M.

(2015). Cultural capital in context: Heterogeneous returns to cultural capital across schooling environments. Social Science Research, 50, 177-188.

Armstrong

E. A.

Hamilton

L. T.

(2013). Paying for the party: How college maintains inequality. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Arum

Roksa

(2010). Academically adrift: Limited learning on college campuses. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.

Attewell

(2001). The winner-take-all high school: Organizational adaptations to educational stratification. Sociology of Education, 74, 267-295.

Baryla

E. A.

Dotterweich

(2001). Student migration: Do significant factors vary by region? Education Economics, 9, 269-280.

Bifulco

Fletcher

J. M.

Ross

S. L.

(2011). The effect of classmate characteristics on post-secondary outcomes: Evidence from the add health. American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, 3, 25-53.

Bourdieu

(1990). The logic of practice. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

Brewer

M. B.

Manzi

J. M.

Shaw

J. S.

(1993). In-group identification as a function of depersonalization, distinctiveness, and status. Psychological Science, 4, 88-92.

Brissette

Scheier

M. F.

Carver

C. S.

(2002). The role of optimism in social network development, coping, and psychological adjustment during a life transition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82, 102-111.

10.

Chung

J. M.

Robins

R. W.

Trzesniewski

K. H.

Noftle

E. E.

Roberts

B. W.

Widaman

K. F.

(2014). Continuity and change in self-esteem during emerging adulthood. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 106, 469-483.

11.

Conley

C. S.

Durlak

J. A.

Kirsch

A. C.

(2015). A meta-analysis of universal mental health prevention programs for higher education students. Prevention Science, 16, 487-507.

12.

Conley

C. S.

Kirsch

A. C.

Dickson

D. A.

Bryant

F. B.

(2014). Negotiating the transition to college: Developmental trajectories and gender differences in psychological functioning, cognitive-affective strategies, and social well-being. Emerging Adulthood, 2, 195-210.

13.

Dai

D. Y.

Rinn

A. N.

(2008). The big-fish-little-pond effect: What do we know and where do we go from here? Educational Psychology Review, 20, 283-317.

14.

Day

S. E.

Hinterland

Myers

Gupta

Harris

T. G.

Konty

K. J.

(2016). A school-level proxy measure for individual-level poverty using school-level eligibility for free and reduced-price meals. Journal of School Health, 86, 204-214.

15.

Demakakos

Nazroo

Breeze

Marmot

(2008). Socioeconomic status and health: The role of subjective social status. Social Science & Medicine, 67, 330-340.

16.

Deutschlander

(2017). Academic undermatch: How general and specific cultural capital structure inequality. Sociological Forum, 32, 162-185.

17.

Dufner

Reitz

A. K.

Zander

(2015). Antecedents, consequences, and mechanisms: On the longitudinal interplay between academic self-enhancement and psychological adjustment. Journal of Personality, 83, 511-522.

18.

Dunn

(1981). Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test: Forms L and M. American Guidance Service.

19.

Espenshade

T. J.

Hale

L. E.

Chung

C. Y.

(2005). The frog pond revisited: High school academic context, class rank, and elite college admission. Sociology of Education, 78, 269-293.

20.

Fletcher

J. M.

Frisvold

D. E.

(2011). College selectivity and young adult health behaviors. Economics of Education Review, 30, 826-837.

21.

Gasper

DeLuca

Estacion

(2010). Coming and going: Explaining the effects of residential and school mobility on adolescent delinquency. Social Science Research, 39, 459-476.

22.

Gasper

DeLuca

Estacion

(2012). Switching schools: Revisiting the relationship between school mobility and high school dropout. American Educational Research Journal, 49, 487-519.

23.

Hardie

J. H.

(2014). The consequences of unrealized occupational goals in the transition to adulthood. Social Science Research, 48, 196-211.

24.

Harris

(2009). The national longitudinal study of adolescent to adult health (Add Health), Waves I & II, 1994-1996; Wave III, 2001-2002; Wave IV, 2007-2009 [machine-readable data file and documentation]. Chapel Hill, NC: Carolina Population Center, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. doi: 10.3886/ICPSR27021.v9.

25.

Hendrickx

De Graaf

N. D.

Lammers

Ultee

(1993). Models for status inconsistency and mobility: A comparison of the approaches by Hope and Sobel with the mainstream square additive model. Quality & Quantity, 27, 335-352.

26.

Houle

J. N.

(2011). The psychological impact of intragenerational social class mobility. Social Science Research, 40, 757-772.

27.

Houle

J. N.

Martin

M. A.

(2011). Does intergenerational mobility shape psychological distress? Sorokin revisited. Research in Social Stratification and Mobility, 29, 193-203.

28.

Jennings

J. L.

Deming

Jencks

Lopuch

Schueler

B. E.

(2015). Do differences in school quality matter more than we thought? New evidence on educational opportunity in the twenty-first century. Sociology of Education, 88, 56-82.

29.

Kurlaender

Grodsky

(2013). Mismatch and the paternalistic justification for selective college admissions. Sociology of Education, 86, 294-310.

30.

Lareau

Weininger

E. B.

(2008). Class and the transition to adulthood. In A. Lareau & D. Conley (Eds.), Social class: How does it work (pp. 118-151). New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.

31.

Lucas

R. E.

(2007). Adaptation and the set-point model of subjective well-being: Does happiness change after major life events? Current Directions in Psychological Science, 16, 75-79.

32.

Luhmann

Hofmann

Eid

Lucas

R. E.

(2012). Subjective well-being and adaptation to life events: A meta-analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 102, 592-615.

33.

Marsh

H. W.

(1987). The big-fish-little-pond effect on academic self-concept. Journal of Educational Psychology, 79, 280-295.

34.

Marsh

H. W.

Kong

C.-K.

Hau

K.-T.

(2000). Longitudinal multilevel models of the big-fish-little-pond effect on academic self-concept: Counterbalancing contrast and reflected-glory effects in Hong Kong schools. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 337-349.

35.

Marsh

H. W.

Seaton

Trautwein

Lüdtke

Hau

K. T.

O’Mara

A. J.

Craven

R. G.

(2008). The big-fish–little-pond-effect stands up to critical scrutiny: Implications for theory, methodology, and future research. Educational Psychology Review, 20, 319-350.

36.

Marsh

H. W.

Trautwein

Ludtke

Koller

Baumert

(2006). Integration of multidimensional self-concept and core personality constructs: Construct validation and relations to well-being and achievement. Journal of Personality, 74, 403-456.

37.

Marsh

H. W.

Trautwein

Ludtke

Baumert

Koller

(2007). The big-fish-little-pond effect: Persistent negative effects of selective high schools on self-concept after graduation. American Educational Research Journal, 44, 631-669.

38.

McFarland

Buehler

(1995). Collective self-esteem as a moderator of the frog-pond effect in reactions to performance feedback. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68, 1055-1070.

39.

Mixon

F. G.

Hsing

(1994). The determinants of out-of-state enrollments in higher education: A tobit analysis. Economics of Education Review, 13, 329-335.

40.

Nicholson

L. M.

Slater

S. J.

Chriqui

J. F.

Chaloupka

(2014). Validating adolescent socioeconomic status: Comparing school free or reduced price lunch with community measures. Spatial Demography, 2, 55-65.

41.

Nora

(2004). The role of habitus and cultural capital in choosing a college, transitioning from high school to higher education, and persisting in college among minority and nonminority students. Journal of Hispanic Higher Education, 3, 180-208.

42.

Pearlin

L. I.

Bierman

(2013). Current issues and future directions in research into the stress process. In Aneshensel

C. S.

Phelan

J. C.

(Eds.), Handbook of the sociology of mental health (pp. 325-340). New York, NY: Springer.

43.

Quon

McGrath

J. J.

(2014). Subjective socioeconomic status and adolescent health: A meta-analysis. Health Psychology, 33, 433-447.

44.

Radloff

L. S.

(1977). The CES-D Scale: A self-report depression scale for research in the general population. Applied Psychological Measurement, 1, 385-401.

45.

Reynolds

J. R.

Baird

C. L.

(2010). Is there a downside to shooting for the stars? Unrealized educational expectations and symptoms of depression. American Sociological Review, 75, 151-172.

46.

Rosenberg

(1965). Society and the adolescent self-image. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

47.

Rosenberg

Schooler

Schoenbach

Rosenberg

(1995). Global self-esteem and specific self-esteem: Different concepts, different outcomes. American Sociological Review, 60, 141-156.

48.

Schneider

B. L.

Keesler

V. A.

(2007). School reform 2007: Transforming education into a scientific enterprise. Annual Review of Sociology, 33, 197-217.

49.

Schulenberg

J. E.

Sameroff

A. J.

Cicchetti

(2004). The transition to adulthood as a critical juncture in the course of psychopathology and mental health. Development and Psychopathology, 16, 799-806.

50.

Smith

T. C.

Smith

B. L.

Dobbs

(1991). Relationship between the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test-Revised, Wide Range Achievement Test-Revised, and Weschler Intelligence Scale for Children-Revised. Journal of School Psychology, 29, 53-56.

51.

Smokowski

P. R.

Guo

Rose

Evans

C. B. R.

Cotter

K. L.

Bacallao

(2014). Multilevel risk factors and developmental assets for internalizing symptoms and self-esteem in disadvantaged adolescents: Modeling longitudinal trajectories from the rural adaptation project. Development and Psychopathology, 26, 1495-1513.

52.

Sobel

M. E.

(1981). Diagonal mobility models: A substantively motivated class of designs for the analysis of mobility effects. American Sociological Review, 46, 893-906.

53.

Sobel

M. E.

(1985). Social mobility and fertility revisited: Some new models for the analysis of the mobility effects hypothesis. American Sociological Review, 50, 699-712.

54.

Sorokin

(1959). Social and cultural mobility (2nd ed.). Glencoe, IL: Free Press.

55.

South

S. J.

Haynie

D. L.

(2004). Friendship networks of mobile adolescents. Social Forces, 83, 315-350.

56.

Srivastava

Tamir

McGonigal

K. M.

John

O. P.

Gross

J. J.

(2009). The social costs of emotional suppression: A prospective study of the transition to college. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96, 883-897.

57.

Strauss

L. C.

Volkwein

(2004). Predictors of student commitment at two-year and four-year institutions. Journal of Higher Education, 75, 203-227.

58.

Turley

N. L.

Desmond

Bruch

S. K.

(2010). Unanticipated educational consequences of a positive parent-child relationship. Journal of Marriage and Family, 72, 1377-1390.

59.

Turner

Firth

(2007). GNM package in R (Version 0.9-2). Warwick, UK: University of Warwick.

60.

Umbach

P. D.

Wawrzynski

M. R.

(2005). Faculty do matter: The role of college faculty in student learning and engagement. Research in Higher Education, 46, 153-184.

61.

Wagner

Ludtke

Jonkmann

Trautwein

(2013). Cherish yourself: Longitudinal patterns and conditions of self-esteem change in the transition to young adulthood. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 104, 148-163.

62.

Wang

M. T.

Dishion

T. J.

(2012). The trajectories of adolescents’ perceptions of school climate, deviant peer affiliation, and behavioral problems during the middle school years. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 22, 40-53.

63.

Wang

Song

Cai

(2017). The development of implicit self-esteem during emerging adulthood: A longitudinal analysis. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 9(7), 835-843. doi:10.1177/1948550617726831

64.

Webber

K. L.

Laird

T. F. N.

BrckaLorenz

A. M.

(2013). Student and faculty member engagement in undergraduate research. Research in Higher Education, 54(2), 227-249

65.

Winship

Radbill

(1994). Sampling weights and regression analysis. Sociological Methods & Research, 23, 230-257.

66.

Wouters

Germeijs

Colpin

Verschueren

(2011). Academic self-concept in high school: Predictors and effects on adjustment in higher education. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 52, 586-594.