A Cross-Cultural Comparison of College Student Self-Efficacy, Self-Regulation, and Resilience Between the US and China During the COVID-19 Pandemic

edited-book

Author(s): Yan Dai , Hyun Sung Jang , Jill D. Salisbury-Glennon , Chih-hsuan Wang , Kamden K. Strunk

Publication date: February 18 2022

Publisher: IGI Global

Read this book at

Publisher

Buy book

Bookmark

There is no author summary for this book yet. Authors can add summaries to their books on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

Abstract

The unprecedented COVID-19 global pandemic has created many challenges across the educational domains experienced by many cultures around the world. The present study elucidates a cross-cultural comparison of college students' self-efficacy, self-regulation, and resilience between college students in the United States and China during these challenging times. A total of 479 college students from the United States and China were recruited to participate in the present study. Multivariate analyses of variance (MANOVA) were conducted, and results indicated that U.S. college students demonstrated significantly higher self-efficacy and resilience and significantly lower self-regulation than Chinese college students. Further, the implications of the present study provide suggestions for effective teaching and learning strategies that can be used to establish supportive learning environments for students from different cultural backgrounds.

Related collections

Most cited references 82

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

Development of a new resilience scale: the Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale (CD-RISC).

Kathryn M Connor, Jonathan Davidson (2003)

Resilience may be viewed as a measure of stress coping ability and, as such, could be an important target of treatment in anxiety, depression, and stress reactions. We describe a new rating scale to assess resilience. The Connor-Davidson Resilience scale (CD-RISC) comprises of 25 items, each rated on a 5-point scale (0-4), with higher scores reflecting greater resilience. The scale was administered to subjects in the following groups: community sample, primary care outpatients, general psychiatric outpatients, clinical trial of generalized anxiety disorder, and two clinical trials of PTSD. The reliability, validity, and factor analytic structure of the scale were evaluated, and reference scores for study samples were calculated. Sensitivity to treatment effects was examined in subjects from the PTSD clinical trials. The scale demonstrated good psychometric properties and factor analysis yielded five factors. A repeated measures ANOVA showed that an increase in CD-RISC score was associated with greater improvement during treatment. Improvement in CD-RISC score was noted in proportion to overall clinical global improvement, with greatest increase noted in subjects with the highest global improvement and deterioration in CD-RISC score in those with minimal or no global improvement. The CD-RISC has sound psychometric properties and distinguishes between those with greater and lesser resilience. The scale demonstrates that resilience is modifiable and can improve with treatment, with greater improvement corresponding to higher levels of global improvement. Copyright 2003 Wiley-Liss, Inc.

0 comments Cited 2672 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

The global prevalence of common mental disorders: a systematic review and meta-analysis 1980-2013.

Zachary Steel, Claire Marnane, Changiz Iranpour … (2014)

Since the introduction of specified diagnostic criteria for mental disorders in the 1970s, there has been a rapid expansion in the number of large-scale mental health surveys providing population estimates of the combined prevalence of common mental disorders (most commonly involving mood, anxiety and substance use disorders). In this study we undertake a systematic review and meta-analysis of this literature. We applied an optimized search strategy across the Medline, PsycINFO, EMBASE and PubMed databases, supplemented by hand searching to identify relevant surveys. We identified 174 surveys across 63 countries providing period prevalence estimates (155 surveys) and lifetime prevalence estimates (85 surveys). Random effects meta-analysis was undertaken on logit-transformed prevalence rates to calculate pooled prevalence estimates, stratified according to methodological and substantive groupings. Pooling across all studies, approximately 1 in 5 respondents (17.6%, 95% confidence interval:16.3-18.9%) were identified as meeting criteria for a common mental disorder during the 12-months preceding assessment; 29.2% (25.9-32.6%) of respondents were identified as having experienced a common mental disorder at some time during their lifetimes. A consistent gender effect in the prevalence of common mental disorder was evident; women having higher rates of mood (7.3%:4.0%) and anxiety (8.7%:4.3%) disorders during the previous 12 months and men having higher rates of substance use disorders (2.0%:7.5%), with a similar pattern for lifetime prevalence. There was also evidence of consistent regional variation in the prevalence of common mental disorder. Countries within North and South East Asia in particular displayed consistently lower one-year and lifetime prevalence estimates than other regions. One-year prevalence rates were also low among Sub-Saharan-Africa, whereas English speaking counties returned the highest lifetime prevalence estimates. Despite a substantial degree of inter-survey heterogeneity in the meta-analysis, the findings confirm that common mental disorders are highly prevalent globally, affecting people across all regions of the world. This research provides an important resource for modelling population needs based on global regional estimates of mental disorder. The reasons for regional variation in mental disorder require further investigation.