The Influence of Residential Status on the Adjustment to College at Four Urban Universities

Abstract

College student adjustment, success, and retention have been a focus of college administrators and student development professionals for decades. However, national college retention and graduation statistics are typically focused on full-time residential college populations. The purpose of the current study was to examine more closely the influence of commuting on the adjustment to college. Residential status, race or ethnicity, and gender were utilized as predictors of college adjustment for 359 college freshmen attending four diverse urban universities. The four subscales of the Student Adaptation to College Questionnaire were employed as outcome variables. A hierarchical regression analysis revealed that the model of residential status, gender, and race or ethnicity proved to be the best model and a significant predictor of the social adjustment and institutional attachment subscales of the Student Adaptation to College Questionnaire for the current population. Implications for future research and commuter student support programming are discussed.

Keywords

college adjustment commuter students Student Adaptation to College Questionnaire

College student success, adjustment, and retention have been a concern of college administrators and student development professionals for decades. Although some relevant findings have been reported regarding retention and adjustment to college for traditional populations (Braxton, Hirschy, & McClendon, 2004), the changing landscape of higher education has shifted the focus of adjustment or retention research toward more nontraditional populations such as urban commuter students (Melendez, 2016; Newbold, Mehta, & Forbus, 2011).

Zea, Jarama, and Bianchi (1995) observed that successful adaptation (adjustment) to college was defined as “remaining in college, enjoying psychological well-being, and performing well academically” (p. 511). However, current college graduation statistics indicate that about 60% of students who began seeking a bachelor’s degree at a 4-year institution in the fall of 2008 completed that degree within 6 years, with the rate of graduation being higher for females (62%) than for males (57%) (National Center for Education Statistics [NCES], 2016). While concerning, these statistics only address part of the overall college success equation. College retention and graduation are influenced by numerous factors such as SES, race or ethnicity, and gender (Keels, 2013; Toews & Yazedjian, 2007). Moreover, living status among college students (i.e., residential dormitories vs. commuting from off campus) has also been theorized to play an important role in the adjustment and retention of college students (Jacoby & Garland, 2004; Melendez & Melendez, 2010). Much of the past research on adjustment and retention of college students fails to consider the experiences of nonresidential commuter students, choosing to focus instead on traditional residential populations (Newbold et al., 2011) and those that do typically report higher attrition and lower graduation rates for commuter student populations (Weissberg, Jenkins, & Harburg, 2003; White & Mosley, 1995).

In light of the scant literature on commuter student attrition, the purpose of the current study was to more closely examine the impact of residential status, along with other demographic variables known to influence adjustment and retention to college (gender and race or ethnicity), on the adjustment to college of a diverse population of college freshmen. It is theorized that residential status, gender, and race or ethnicity will all influence the adjustment to college to varying degrees and together will provide the most effective predictor model.

Adjustment to College

Baker and Siryk (1999) defined college adjustment as a multifaceted psychosocial process that exposes students to stressors and requires them to develop appropriate coping skills. Similarly, college retention can be defined as a “complex web of events that shape student leaving and persistence” (Tinto, 2006, p. 1).

As constructs, college adjustment and college retention have been linked somewhat in the literature. Crede and Niehorster (2012) spoke to the construct of college adjustment as being multidimensional while also being a good predictor of college retention. In addition, Brunelle-Joiner (1999) and Fabian (2002) reported significant correlations between aspects of college adjustment and college retention.

The ability to adjust to college life and maintain enrollment is affected by a number of nonacademic, socioemotional, and logistical challenges. For example, managing romantic relationships, relationships with family and friends, making connections to the college community, coping with alienation, stress, depression and anxiety, finances, health, interpersonal skills, difficulty adjusting to change, development of personal autonomy, and making important career decisions have all been hypothesized to be challenges to college adjustment in the literature (Herzog, 2008; Melendez, 2008; Pascarella & Terenzini, 2005; Schevaletta, 2000). To meet these challenges, the development of key adaptational resources can be beneficial, including the incorporation of external support structures such as relationships with parents and family, friends and peers, and internal support structures such as self-esteem (Kalsner & Pistole, 2003; Kenny & Rice, 1995; Melendez & Melendez, 2010), all of which can be influenced by students’ living environments in college.

Commitment to completing a college degree and developing an attachment to the institution may also influence students’ college adjustment and retention. Students making clear and purposeful goals are more likely to persist in attaining their academic goals while students entering college with unrealistic goals and expectations often create dissonance, therefore increasing their risk of attrition (Gerdes & Mallinckrodt, 1994). Finally, the college adjustment process can vary among different groups of students depending upon a variety of internal and external variables such as gender, race or ethnicity, family influence, and environment (Kalsner & Pistole, 2003).

Gender and college adjustment

Female students have been reported as more persistent in college, more likely to graduate and obtain college degrees, and more likely to enroll in graduate school (Diprete & Buchmann, 2006; Horn & Carroll, 2006). Females also earned 57% of all bachelor’s degrees and 63% of all master’s degrees across the nation in 2009–2010 (NCES, 2012). In addition, female students comprised the majority (between 60% and 65%) of student populations of color (Keels, 2013), with Black females comprising 64% of the Black student population as compared with 58% for Hispanic or Latino females and 53% for Asian females nationally (Snyder & Dillow, 2010).

Gender comparisons have revealed other trends regarding college student success and adjustment, mostly indicating that females report higher levels of academic adjustment, social adjustment, and institutional attachment than males and higher rates of degree completion (Low & Handal, 1995; Melendez, 2006; Tinto, 2006). Kalsner and Pistole (2003) “reported higher levels of attachment related emotional support and caregiver sensitivity as well as stronger ethnic identity and openness to other groups” (p. 104) for female students, while Živčić-Bećirević, Smojver, Kukic, and Jasprica (2007) reported higher scores on academic and social adjustment and lower scores on personal-emotional adjustment when compared with their male peers.

Race or ethnicity and college adjustment

Students of color attending predominantly White institutions (PWIs) have also faced increased risks to college adjustment and longer odds for retention and graduation than their White peers in the literature (Buddin, 2012; Melendez, 2008). Currently, 73% of bachelor’s degree recipients from public and private colleges and universities were White, while only 9% of African Americans and 9% of Hispanic or Latinos were bachelor’s degree recipients nationally in 2008 (NCES, 2013). In addition, Black students comprise about 11% and Hispanic or Latino students comprise about 14% of the student population at PWIs (Keels, 2013). Retention rates for African American students are 13% lower and retention rates for Hispanic or Latino students are 6% lower than for White students at 4-year colleges while graduation rates for African American students are 20% lower and graduation rates for Hispanic or Latino students are 10% lower than for White students at 4-year colleges (Buddin, 2012). Finally, racial or ethnic differences in college adjustment on a number of interpersonal variables have also been reported in the literature, with White students often reporting higher scores on indices of college adjustment than their Black or Hispanic or Latino peers (Hutz, Martin, & Beitel, 2007; Kalsner & Pistole, 2003; Young & Koplow, 1997).

Commuter Student Challenges

Commuter students are generally defined as those who do not live in university-owned housing on campus but attend from local and surrounding areas. Currently, commuters account for approximately 75% of all U.S. college students (Newbold et al., 2011). However, most research exploring college student adjustment and retention fails to address the commuter perspective and is not typically generalizeable to commuter populations. In turn, established theories of student retention focused primarily on the experiences of residential students may need to be abandoned when conceptualizing retention of commuter students (Braxton & Hirschy, 2005). According to Jacoby and Garland (2004), “no matter where commuter students live or what type of institution they attend, the fact that they commute to the college campus profoundly influences the nature of their educational experience” (p. 63).

Johnson (1997) reported that many factors influencing the retention of commuter students to college were identical to the factors influencing residential student retention. However, other studies conducted on commuter student populations revealed lower correlations between many predictors, college retention, and grade point average (GPA) than with residential populations (Braxton & Hirschy, 2005). Four-year commuter colleges comprise nearly 32% of the total number of senior colleges in the United States and have typically reported higher baseline drop-out rates than residential campuses 1, 2, and 3 years after entering college (Weissberg & Owen, 2005). The causes of the increased drop-out rates may be linked to the many unique concerns associated with commuting beginning with transportation, weather, and driving costs as well as more common psychosocial concerns such as balancing work, school, and household obligations, and establishing support networks (Gefen, 2010; Jacoby & Garland, 2004).

Balancing multiple roles

Other differences between commuter and residential student populations have been reported in the literature, such as race or ethnicity, class, age, birth origin, employment, and transfer status (Jacoby & Garland, 2004; Melendez, 2016; Torres, 2006). Newbold et al. (2011) reported that commuter students (a) were more apt to be nontraditional students, (b) were more likely to be transfer students, (c) were likely to work more hours per week, (d) were likely to earn more income (e) were likely to be less involved in school sponsored activities, (f) were less likely to believe the university is distinct, (g) were less likely to believe the university had a good reputation, (h) were less likely to identify with the university, and (i) were less likely to be involved with the Alumni Association prior to graduation. Differing experiences regarding the challenges of living at home versus living on campus have also been theorized to impact the adjustment to college (Pascarella, Duby & Iverson, 1983; Torres, 2006). Mattanah, Lopez, and Govern (2011) reported stronger correlations between parental attachment and adjustment to college for students residing away from their parents (i.e., residential) when compared with students living at home (i.e., nonresidential or commuter) during college.

Commuter college students who lived off campus, in their own homes, or with parents also viewed the college environment differently (Cabrera, Nora, & Castaneda, 1993) and reported a somewhat different experience (Torres, 2006). One example of balancing multiple demands involves work and college. While many college students work, the reality for many commuter students is that their jobs can, at times, take precedence over college, which can alter their college experiences and adjustment.

Jacoby and Garland (2004) reported:

An increasing trend reveals that over 46% of full-time students work 25 or more hours per week simply to make ends meet. Commuter students are more likely to work, to work more hours, and to work off campus than residential students. As a result, they may appear to be less committed to and engaged in their education … despite their commitment, many commuter students simply cannot always make college life on campus their primary focus. (p. 64)

Due to the economic realities of higher education, commuter students seem more likely to experience multiple competing demands among school, work, and family environments than students who live on campus and who do not work. Commuters are also vulnerable to changing priorities and their consequences as they try to negotiate competing academic, social, vocational, and familial demands (Braxton et al., 2004; Jacoby & Garland, 2004).

Community and social demands

Johnson (1997) reported that academic and social integration is important not only for residential students but also for commuters … and that sense of community appears to be very important to the retention of students, regardless of their residential status. Schevaletta (2000) reported essential conditions regarding the sense of community and retention for commuter students. First, neighborhood or community friendships were generally abandoned, especially if such friends did not attend college. Second, commuter students sought alliances with college peers only when the relationships supported college activities, and rarely extended such friendships beyond the academic setting. Third, commuter students typically reported overwhelming external responsibilities that hampered the development of the few friendships that they made while attending school. These findings suggest that commuter students experience challenges to their social adjustment in college that residential students may not, in turn providing a framework for future inquiry. Without the residential dormitories to anchor their social experiences in college, commuter students may be left isolated and with fewer pathways for social engagement to their peers and their institutions.

In sum, while much of the college adjustment or retention literature has focused on the experiences of traditional residential college students, some research points toward a separate and unique adjustment or retention experience for commuter students, who often face more severe environmental, social, and familial challenges.

The current study focused on how the variables of gender, race or ethnicity, and residential status influenced students’ adjustment to college. In light of the findings reported in the literature, it was theorized that the variables of gender, race or ethnicity, and residential status would all be significant predictors of college adjustment, and as a model would account for the most variance.

Method

Participants

The final (total) sample of the current study consisted of 359 college freshmen of which 204 (57%) were female and 155 (43%) were male. The sample comprises 207 residential students (residing in on-campus dorms) and 152 commuter students (living off campus), all of whom were attending large urban Mid Atlantic universities in the United States. The mean age of the participants was 18.82 years of age (SD = 1.98). The ethnic breakdown of the sample revealed that 145 (40%) of the students identified as Black, 79 (22%) identified as Hispanic or Latino, 112 (31%) identified as White, and 23 (7%) identified as other racial or ethnic backgrounds (i.e., Asian, Native American, biracial or multiracial, etc.).

Materials and Procedure

Participants were randomly selected for inclusion and recruitment was arranged through the offices of Freshmen Services and through First Year Experience programs at each participant university. All of the participants had self-identified as full-time students and had completed between 0 and 16 credits at the time they participated in this study. All participants of the study were further identified as full-time freshman at the college at the time of data collection. Data collection itself involved the distribution and administration of survey packets containing a series of questionnaires. All survey packets were administered in the classrooms by course instructors on behalf of the principal investigator. A total of 415 completed survey packets were received; 25 students who did not meet the criteria as freshman due to the number of credits accrued were removed from the sample before data collection. An additional 31 students who did not complete the instruments properly were removed from the final sample after data were collected.

Measures

Participants received a packet of measures consisting of a demographics questionnaire and the Student Adaptation to College Questionnaire (SACQ). Packets were completed independently and were returned to the principal investigator.

Demographics

Participants completed a short demographics questionnaire assessing their age, gender, race or ethnicity, credits completed, residential status, parental education, and current GPA (if any).

Adjustment to college

The SACQ (Baker & Siryk, 1999) is a 67-item, self-reported appraisal of adaptation (adjustment) to college. The scale can be administered directly to individuals or to groups. There are four SACQ subscales that utilize a 9-point Likert scale from Doesn’t apply to me at all to Applies very closely to me. The Academic Adjustment subscale measures the student’s success in coping with the various educational demands characteristic of the college experience. The Social Adjustment subscale measures the student’s success in coping with the interpersonal-societal demands inherent in the college experience. The Personal-Emotional Adjustment subscale focuses on the student’s intra-psychic state during his or her adjustment to college. Finally, the Goal Commitment or Institutional Attachment subscale measures a student’s degree of commitment to educational goals and the degree of attachment to the particular institution being attended. Each of the four subscales generates a separate score and the four subscale scores can be combined to create a total college adjustment score.

Supportive research for the SACQ is extensive. In their meta-analytic review, Crede and Niehorster (2012) reported that adjustment to college was multidimensional, predictive of college grades, and an unusually good predictor of college retention. Reliability studies report alpha values ranging

from .81 to .90 for the Academic Adjustment subscale, from .83 to .91 for the Social Adjustment subscale, from .77 to .86 for the Personal Emotional Adjustment subscale, from .85 to .91 for the Attachment subscale, and from .92 to .95 for the Full Scale. (Dahmus, Bernardin, & Bernardin, 1992, p. 140)

Validity also appears strong for the instrument. For the current study, alpha values were as follows: Academic Adjustment = .83, Social Adjustment = .82, Personal-Emotional Adjustment = .76, Institutional-Attachment = .74, and Total Adjustment = .96. Finally, Baker and Siryk (1999) reported that academic adjustment was significantly correlated with GPA and membership in an academic honor society while Principal Components Analysis confirmed the existence of a distinct four subscale structure for the SACQ.

Results

Data analysis was conducted in three distinct steps in the current study. First, descriptive statistics were calculated for the key variables. Second, an intercorrelation matrix was computed for all variables of interest. Finally, a hierarchical multiple regression analysis was calculated, utilizing the four subscales of the SACQ (Baker & Siryk, 1999) as outcome variables, to determine the best predictive model of college adjustment among the predictor variables discussed.

Descriptive Statistics and Correlational Analysis

Means and standard deviations across residential status were computed for the four subscales of the SACQ (Table 1).

Table 1.

Means and Standard Deviations Across Residential Status on the Four SACQ Subscales.

Group		n	Acadadj	Socadj	Person Emoadj	Inst Attach
Residents
	M	207	140.25	130.60	84.27	103.62
	SD	–	24.92	23.17	21.91	18.42
Commuters
	M	152	143.11	121.84	83.75	91.25
	SD	–	30.05	26.62	22.41	19.71

Note. N = 359. Acadj = Academic Adjustment; Socadj = Social Adjustment; Person Emoadj = Personal-Emotional Adjustment; Inst Attach = Institutional Attachment.

In addition, a Pearson correlation matrix was conducted for the total sample. The variables of interest were gender, race or ethnicity, residential status, and the four subscales of the SACQ. Total sample intercorrelations are also presented (see Table 2).

Table 2.

Intercorrelations Among the Variables of Interest for the Total Sample.

	1	2	3	4	5	6
1. Residential status
2. Gender	−.098
3. Race or ethnicity	.124*	−.018
4. Academic adjustment	.052	−.162**	−.108*
5. Social adjustment	−.515**	−.121*	−.239**	.340**
6. Personal-emotional adjustment	−.012	−.083	−.072	.529**	.357**
7. Institutional attachment	−.307	−.172**	−.181**	.522**	.759**	528**

Note. N = 359.

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

As expected, significant intercorrelations were revealed among the four college adjustment subscales of the SACQ (r’s ranging from .340 to .759 and p’s < .001). Other significant correlations were revealed among the variables of interest. Residential status was inversely correlated with Social Adjustment (r = −.515, p < .001) and Institutional Attachment (r = −.307, p < .001) subscales of the SACQ. In addition, gender was inversely correlated with the Academic Adjustment (r = −.162, p < .002), Social Adjustment (r = −.121, p < .021), and Institutional Attachment (r = −.172, p < .001) subscales of the SACQ. Ethnicity was significantly correlated with residential status (r = .124, p < .05) and was inversely correlated with Academic Adjustment (r = −.108, p < .041), Social Adjustment (r = −.239, p < .001), and Institutional Attachment (r = −.181, p < .001).

Regression Analyses

A hierarchical multiple regression analysis was also conducted to test the prediction that residential status combined with the other variables of interest would account for the highest percentage of variance of across the four subscales of the SACQ. The variables being tested were entered in two steps. Step 1 included the variable predicted to be less salient, gender, and race or ethnicity. Step 2 included the two variables included in Step 1 with the addition of residential status, the variable predicted to be the most salient to college adjustment. Significant findings were revealed for both steps across three of the four SACQ subscales (Table 3).

Table 3.

Hierarchical Multiple Regression Analysis of Gender, Ethnicity, and Residential Status Across the Four Subscales of the SACQ.

Attach	Academic Adjustment		Social Adjustment		Personal-Emotional Adjustment		Institutional Attachment
Variables	Β	R ²	β	R ²	β	R ²	β	R ²
Step 1		.039		.073		.012		.064
Gender	−.164**		−.127*		−.084		−.176***
Ethnicity	−.112*		−.241***		−.073		−.185***
Step 2		.041		.327		.012		.157
Gender	−.159**		−.176***		−.086		−.206***
Ethnicity	−.118*		−.179***		−.072		−.148**
Residential status	.051		−.510***		−.011		−.309***

Note. N = 359.

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

Step 1

Step 1 tested a model predicting scores on several of the SACQ subscales, beginning with the Academic Adjustment subscale, F(2, 356) = 7.14, p < .001. A significant negative beta was revealed for gender (β = −.164, t = −3.16, p < .002) indicating that female students reported higher scores on Academic Adjustment than their male peers, and for race or ethnicity (β = −.112, t = 2.15, p < .032). The Social Adjustment subscale of the SACQ also revealed significant findings, F(2, 356) = 14.02, p < .001, accounting for 7% of the variance. Significant negative betas were revealed for gender (β = −.1.27, t = −2.49, p < .013) and ethnicity (β = −.241, t = −4.7, p < .001), indicating that female students and White students reported higher scores on Social Adjustment than their peers. Finally, Model 1 predicted scores on the Institutional Attachment subscale of the SACQ, F(2, 356) = 12.14, p < .001, accounting for 6% of the variance. Significant negative betas were also revealed for gender (β = −.176, t = −3.43, p < .001) and ethnicity (β = −1.85, t = −3.61, p < .001) indicating that female students and White students reported higher scores on Academic Adjustment than their peers.

Step 2

Step 2 tested a model which added the variable of residential or commuter status to the variables of Step 1, and improved the variance accounted for considerably. Step 2 also predicted scores on several SACQ subscales beginning with the Social Adjustment subscale, F(3, 355) = 57.43, p < .001, accounting for 33% of the variance. Significant negative betas were also revealed for gender (β = −.176, t = −4.01, p < .001), ethnicity (β = −.179, t = −4.09, p < .001), and residential status (β = −.510, t = −12.00, p < .001) indicating that female students, White students, and residential students (housed in dormitories) reported higher scores on Social Adjustment than their peers. Model 2, while significant, only increased the variance in Academic Adjustment by a negligible amount, F(3, 355) = 5.07, p < .002, (ΔR²= .002), over Step 1.

In addition, no significant findings were revealed for residential status on the Academic Adjustment scale. Finally, Model 2 predicted scores on the Institutional Attachment subscale of the SACQ, F(3, 355) = 16.30, p < .001, accounting for 16% of the variance. Significant negative betas were revealed for gender (β = −.206, t = −4.20, p < .001), ethnicity (β = −.148, t = −3.01, p < .003), and residential status (β = −.301, t = −6.30, p < .001), indicating that female students, White students, and residential students (housed in dormitories) reported higher scores on institutional attachment than their peers. No significant findings were revealed for the Personal-Emotional subscale in either model, indicating that the variable of interest had no impact for the current sample.

Finally, across the two models, the addition of the variable of residential status in Step 2 increased the R² from 7% to 33% for the Social Adjustment subscale and from 6% to 16% on the Institutional Attachment subscale, indicating that residential status was the most salient variable in the adjustment to college of the current sample.

Discussion

The current study revealed several significant findings indicating that the variables of interest were salient to college adjustment. More specifically, the findings indicated that residential status significantly impacted the adjustment to college, lending support to previous research on the commuter student experience (Jacoby & Garland, 2004; Weissberg et al., 2003) and laying the groundwork for future research and support programming focused on college adjustment for commuter student populations.

In the current study, it was theorized that the variables of gender, race or ethnicity, and residential status would all be significant predictors of college adjustment, and as a model would account for the most variance. It was also theorized that the variable of residential status would account for the largest percentage of the variance among all of the variables assessed.

Results of the current study partially supported the theory. Table 3 illustrates the effectiveness of the hierarchical regression models (steps) across all four subscales of the SACQ. The model of gender, ethnicity, and residential status significantly predicted college adjustment scores, but only for the Social Adjustment subscale, accounting for 33% of the variance, and the Institutional Attachment subscale, accounting for 16% of the variance. Although the model did significantly predict scores on the Academic Adjustment subscale of the SACQ, the variance accounted for was minimal (4%), indicating that other variables were more salient. Interestingly, while gender and race or ethnicity accounted for a minimal percentage of the variance on the Academic Adjustment subscale, residential status was not a significant predictor of Academic Adjustment at all. The Personal-Emotional subscale did not reveal any significant findings in the current study.

Of the variables of interest in the model, residential status accounted for the most variance on the Social Adjustment and Institutional Attachment subscales of the SACQ, greatly exceeding the influence of race or ethnicity and gender combined. Related significant negative betas indicated that commuter students reported lower scores on both social adjustment and institutional attachment in the current study. Correlational findings revealed that academic adjustment was significantly correlated with gender and ethnicity, but not residential status. Personal-emotional adjustment was correlated only with the other SACQ subscales, indicating that in the current study, the variables of interest were not salient to the personal-emotional adjustment of the students. The lack of findings on these two outcome variables speaks not only to the complexity of college adjustment as a construct but to commuting or residential status as a strong, but only partial influence on the overall adjustment to college.

Implications

The findings of the current study clearly indicate that college adjustment presents different challenges to commuter students than it does for traditional residential students, especially socially. According to Crede and Niehorster (2012):

Social adjustment reflects the degree to which students have integrated themselves into the social structures of university residencies and the broader university, are taking part in campus activities, meeting new people and making friends, as opposed to experiencing difficulties with loneliness or missing of family, … [while] institutional attachment refers specifically to the degree to which students identify with and have become emotionally attached to the university community. (p. 135)

Given the aforementioned definitions, commuter students in the current study reporting significantly lower scores on these variables may be more vulnerable to the consequences of social isolation from peers and withdrawal from their campus environments. This is in line with other literature reporting that commuter students limit their time on campus, seek social support off campus, lack a sense of belonging, and participate less in school activities (Jacoby & Garland, 2004; Newbold et al., 2011). In addition, the Social Adjustment and Institutional Attachment subscales of the SACQ were highly correlated, currently and in previous literature, indicating that the two variables, while distinct, are also closely related (Baker & Siryk, 1999; Melendez & Melendez, 2010; Melendez, 2016).

According to Tinto (2006), social membership in college yields a number of benefits to retention including social support and academic stress reduction, access to peer information regarding navigation of the college, promotion of self-worth and academic performance, and promotion of institutional attachment and commitment. Kalsner and Pistole (2003) reported that interpersonal aspects of commuter college adjustment were influenced by a stronger orientation to other groups, a stronger ethnic identity, and a bond to one’s university and commitment to educational goals. Together with the current findings, these literatures suggest that institutional attachment and social adjustment are not only important but may be reciprocally linked. Therefore, difficulty or success with one may lead to difficulty or success with the other.

Commuter student support and empowerment

Prudent commuter student support programming should therefore entail any activity or experience that maximizes social adjustment and institutional attachment potential, while also supporting, but not over focusing on academic and personal-emotional adjustment potential. Many have suggested strategies for making college campuses more commuter friendly including rethinking the way courses and schedules are taught and structured for commuter students, providing orientation programming for commuter students and their families, and maximizing opportunities for learning communities and service learning (Jacoby & Garland, 2004; Newbold et al., 2011; Tinto, 2006). While helpful, many of these program-based interventions are campus centric, which can limit their effectiveness with commuters. In addition, colleges still employ governance structures that sometimes fail to recognize commuter student populations as equals and often leave them feeling disconnected and disenfranchised. Providing a mechanism to empower commuter students, such as establishing a separate commuter student governance body, with equal power to influence institutional governance and budgeting decisions as the residential student body may be necessary, thus securing commuter students an equal say in tuition and fees levied and student services provided.

Adapting student-based services to commuters

To better engage commuters and provide opportunities to improve their college adjustment and attachment, tailoring certain services, such as counseling, academic advising, campus services and activities, and financial aid, to better meet the demands of commuter students may be necessary. Offering high-demand services in the evenings and on weekends when commuter students are more likely to be available should increase their utilization. Moreover, offering some of these vital services by phone or online, via instant text or live video messaging, can also boost utilization and student satisfaction by helping commuters feel their unique needs are understood. To further boost the potential for social engagement, virtual communities (Jacoby & Garland, 2004) offering web-based workshops, counseling, support, and advisement groups, and chatrooms geared toward the specific issues and challenges of commuter students could be offered as well. Finally, given the current sample, special, for credit, sections of typical freshman orientation courses could be created for commuter students. These sections could also utilize hybrid or online formats to further reduce campus dependence.

Restructuring the higher education experience for commuters

Given that 75% of college students nationally are commuters (Newbold et al., 2011), commuter students may need to be prioritized as never before. The question may no longer be “how do we make the college campuses more amenable to commuter students?” The question may now be “how do we reshape the higher education experience so that the campus is no longer a mandatory part of the success equation for all students”? Globally, virtual universities have been developed with the specific intent of meeting the unique needs of nontraditional and commuter students (Carnoy, Rabling, Castano-Munoz, Montoliu, & Sancho-Vinuesa, 2012) without the restrictions and social challenges of negotiating a campus. However, more research will be needed to better understand the complexities of such an alternative paradigm.

Limitations and Future Directions

Findings of the current study have implications for assisting students and developing of programs and strategies that could foster retention and college adjustment among students with diverse backgrounds. However, the study has limitations, and therefore caution must be exercised in generalizing the findings of this study to all students. The current study relied exclusively on self-report measures for its data. In addition, the moderate sample size may have contributed to bias in the design. Finally, the inclusion of students from urban institutions exclusively in the sample also limits the generalizeability of the findings. Residential status may have a far different impact on college adjustment in more suburban or rural settings.

To help offset these limitations, future research should employ larger and more representative samples to help improve generalizeability, as well as decrease bias. The incorporation of more diversity of college environments (i.e., suburban or rural) would be key as well. It may also be valuable in future research designs to obtain more demographic information regarding socioeconomic status, parental occupation and education, financial resources in paying for college, language spoken at home, immigration status, number of years living in the United States, and social support networks. Such information could provide greater clarity regarding the myriad of variables that contribute to students’ adjustment to college. In addition, incorporation of longitudinal and qualitative research designs can help to further illuminate the unique influences of residential status, race or ethnicity, and gender on college adjustment over time.

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 Biography

Mickey C. Melendez, PhD, received his doctorate from Michigan State University and is currently a tenured faculty member in the Department of Counseling and Human Services at John Jay College of Criminal Justice, City University of New York. He is currently the coordinator for the Human Services program and also serves as a reviewer for the Journal of College Student Retention: Research, Theory, and Practice. His professional interests include teaching and curriculum development focused on the education and training of Counseling and Human Service professionals. His research is focused on factors impacting college adjustment and retention of vulnerable student populations including first generation students, student athletes, urban males of color, and urban commuter students.

References

Baker

Siryk

(1999) SACQ: Student adaptation to college questionnaire manual, Los Angeles, CA: Western Psychological Services.

Braxton, J. M., & Hirschy, A. S. (2005). Theoretical developments in the study of college student departure. In A. Seidman (Ed.), College student retention: Formula for student success (pp. 61–88). Santa Barbara, CA: Greenwood.

Braxton

J. M.

Hirschy

A. S.

McClendon

S. A.

(2004) Understanding and reducing college student departure, San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Brunelle-Joiner

K. M.

(1999) Effects of an extended orientation program on personal resiliency and adjustment to college as it relates to academic performance and retention. Dissertation Abstracts International Section A: Humanities and Social Sciences 60(2-A): 0354.

Buddin, R. (2012). Implications of educational attainment trends for labor market outcomes. ACT Research Report Series, 2012(7). Retrieved from ACT website: http://www.act.org/research/researchers/reports/.

Cabrera

A. F.

Nora

Castaneda

M. B.

(1993) College persistence: Structural equations modeling test of an integrated model of student retention. Journal of Higher Education 64(2): 123–129.

Carnoy

Rabling

B. J.

Castano-Munoz

Montoliu

J. M. D.

Sancho-Vinuesa

(2012) Who attends and completes virtual universities: The case of the open University of Catalonia (UOC). Higher Education: The International Journal of Higher Education and Educational Planning 63: 53–82. doi:10.1007/s10734-011-9424-0.

Crede

Niehorster

(2012) Adjustment to college as measured by the Student Adaptation to College Questionnaire: A quantitative review of its structure and relationships with correlates and consequences. Educational Psychology Review 24(1): 33–165. doi:1-1007/s10648-011-9184-5.

Dahmus

Bernardin

H. J.

Bernardin

(1992) Student adaptation to college questionnaire. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development 25: 139–142.

10.

Diprete

Buchmann

(2006) Gender-specific trends in the value of education and the emerging gender gap in college completion. Demography 43(1): 1–24.

11.

Fabian

T. M.

(2002) English language proficiency and psychosocial factors predicting adjustment of European American, Mexican American, and Native American college students. Dissertation Abstracts International Section A: Humanities and Social Sciences 63(5-A): 1707.

12.

Gefen

D. R.

(2010) Adjustment to college: The relationship among family functioning, stress, and coping in non-residential freshmen students. Dissertation Abstracts International Section A: Humanities and Social Sciences 71(12-A): 4302.

13.

Gerdes

Mallinckrodt

(1994) Emotional, social, and academic adjustment of college students: A longitudinal study of retention. Journal of Counseling and Development 72: 281–288.

14.

Herzog, S. T. (2008). Estimating the influence of financial aid on student retention: A discrete choice propensity score-matching model. Retrieved from http://www.aair.org.au/jir/2007Papers/Herzog.pdf.

15.

Horn, L., & Carroll, C. D. (2006). Placing college graduation rates in context: How 4-year college graduation rates vary with selectivity and the size of low-income enrollment (NCES 2007-161). Retrieved from U.S. Department of Education, Washington, DC: National Center for Educational Statistics website: http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp/pubid=2007161.

16.

Hutz

Martin

W. E.

Beitel

(2007) Ethnocultural person-environment fit and college adjustment: Some implications for college counselors. Journal of College Counseling 10(2): 130–141.

17.

Jacoby

Garland

(2004) Strategies for enhancing commuter student success. Journal of College Student Retention: Theory, Research, Practice 6(1): 61–79.

18.

Johnson

J. L.

(1997) Commuter college students: What factors determine who will persist and who will drop out? College Student Journal 31(3): 323–332.

19.

Kalsner

Pistole

M. C.

(2003) College adjustment in a multiethnic sample: Attachment, separation-individuation, and ethnic identity. Journal of College Student Development 44(1): 92–109.

20.

Keels

(2013) Getting them enrolled is only half the battle: College success as a function of race or ethnicity, gender, and class. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry 83(2 Pt 3): 310–322.

21.

Kenny

Rice

K. G.

(1995) Attachment to parents in late adolescent college students: Current status, applications, and future considerations. The Counseling Psychologist 23: 433–456.

22.

Low, C. A. & Handal, P. J. (1995). The relationship between religion and adjustment to college. Journal of College Student Development, 36(5), 406–412.

23.

Mattanah

J. F.

Lopez

F. G.

Govern

J. M.

(2011) The contributions of parental attachment bonds to college student development and adjustment: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Counseling Psychology 58(4): 565–596.

24.

Melendez, M. C. (2006). The influence of athletic participation on the college adjustment of freshmen and sophomore student athletes. Journal of College Student Retention: Research, Theory and Practice, 8(1), 39–55.

25.

Melendez, M. C. (2008). Black football players on a predominantly White college campus: Psychosocial and emotional realities of the college athlete experience. Journal of Black Psychology, 34, 423–445.

26.

Melendez, M. C., & Melendez, N. B. (2010). The influence of parental attachment the college adjustment of women: A cross-cultural investigation. Journal of College Student Development, 51, 419–435.

27.

Melendez, M.C. (2016). Adjustment to college in an urban commuter setting: The impact of gender, race/ethnicity, and athletic participation. Journal of College Student Retention: Research, Theory and Practice, 18(1), 31–48.

28.

National Center for Education Statistics. (2012). The Condition of Education 2012 (NCES 2012-045), Indicator 47. Retrieved from the U.S. Department of Education, Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics website: http://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=72.

29.

National Center for Education Statistics. (2013). Today’s baccalaureate: The fields and courses that 2007–08 Bachelor’s degree recipients studied (NCES 2013- 755). Retrieved from U.S. Department of Education, Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics website: http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch.

30.

National Center for Education Statistics. (2016). Condition of education: Undergraduate retention and graduation rates. (NCES 2016-144). Retrieved from U.S. Department of Education, Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics website: http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator_ctr.asp.

31.

Newbold

J. J.

Mehta

S. S.

Forbus

(2011) Commuter students: Involvement and identification with an institution of higher education. Academy of Educational Leadership Journal 15(2): 141–153.

32.

Pascarella

E. T.

Duby

P. B.

Iverson

B. K.

(1983) A test reconceptualization of a theoretical model of college withdrawal in a commuter institution setting. Sociology of Education 56: 88–11.

33.

Pascarella

E. T.

Terenzini

P. T.

(2005) How college affects students: A third decade of research, 2nd ed. New York, NY: John Wiley.

34.

Schevaletta

A. M.

(2000) A qualitative study of the college social adjustment of Black students from lower socioeconomic communities. Journal of Multicultural Counseling and Development 28(1): 2–15.

35.

Snyder, T. D. & Dillow, S. A. (2010). Digest of educational statistics. Retrieved from www.nces.ed.gov/pubs2011/2011015.pdf.

36.

Tinto

(2006) Research and practice of student retention: What next? Journal of College Student Retention: Theory, Research, and Practice 8: 1–19.

37.

Toews

M. L.

Yazedjian

(2007) College adjustment among freshmen: Predictors for White and Hispanic male and females. College Student Journal 41(4): 891–900.

38.

Torres

(2006) A mixed method study testing data-model fit of a retention model for Latino/a students at urban universities. Journal of College Student Development 47: 299–318.

39.

Weissberg

N. C.

Jenkins

A. H.

Harburg

(2003) The incremental variance problem: Enhancing the predictability of academic success in an urban, commuter institution. Genetic, Social, and General Psychology Monographs 129: 153–180.

40.

Weissberg

N. C.

Owen

D. R.

(2005) Do psychosocial and study skill factors predict college outcomes? Comment on Robbins et al. (2004). Psychological Bulletin 131: 407–409.

41.

White

Mosely

(1995) Twelve year pattern of retention and attrition in a commuter type university. Education 115(3): 400–403.

42.

Young

J. W.

Koplow

S. L.

(1997) The validity of two questionnaires for predicting minority students’ college grades. The Journal of General Education 46: 45–55.

43.

Zea

M. C.

Jarama

Bianchi

F. T.

(1995) Social support and psychosocial competence: Explaining the adaptation to college of ethnically diverse students. American Journal of Community Psychology 23: 509–531.

44.

Živčić-Bećirević

Smojver-Ažić

Kukić

Jasprica

(2007) Age and gender differences in academic, social, and emotional college adjustment. Psychological Topics 16(1): 121–1.