keene state college – new hampshire marj droppa, phd dick jardine, phd acha annual conference 2013
TRANSCRIPT
Keene State College – New HampshireMarj Droppa, PhDDick Jardine, PhD
ACHA Annual Conference2013
Objective 1 Relationship between
wellness & academics
Objective 2 Impact of risky health
behavior on success of first-year cohorts
Objective 3 Using research to keep
our first-years in school
Relationship between Wellness and Academic Performance
Dropout
1. Stress – 29%
2. Sleep – 20%
3. Anxiety – 19%
4. Cold/flu – 14%
7. Depression – 11.3%
2 first-year cohorts
Entry – Graduation
Race/ethnicity
By 2017: 20 million college students
First generation Female Black, Hispanic,
Asian Veterans Disabilities
SexualWellness
Emotional Wellness
Physical Wellness
Drug/AlcoholWellness
COLLEGE WELLNESS SURVEY
Overall Wellness Score
Score in each Wellness Dimension Drugs/Alcohol Sexual Wellness Emotional Wellness Physical Wellness
Impact of risky health behavior on first-year academic performance
Institution comparison – Respondent racial composition
Difference in GPA from first-second year was not significant
MEAN WELLNESS SCORE
Sophomores at KSC were less well than in their 1st year
DifferenceSample Mean
Std. Err. DF T-Stat P-value
μ1K - μ2K 0.0175 0.0081 318.89 2.160 0.0314
μ1T - μ2T -0.0019 0.0084 508.35 -0.225 0.822
Hypothesis test results: μ1k : mean of KSC 1st
μ2k : mean of KSC 2nd
μ1k - μ2k : mean difference
H0 : μ1k - μ2k = 0
HA : μ1k - μ2k ≠ 0
Hypothesis test results: μ1T : mean of TAMU 1st
μ2T : mean of TAMU 2nd
μ1T - μ2T : mean difference
H0 : μ1T - μ2T = 0
HA : μ1T - μ2T ≠ 0
Significance testing of difference in mean wellness scores
CONCLUSION: KSC students’ wellness score worsened from first to the second year, and the difference is statistically significant.
CAVEAT: Data distribution skewed, not a probability sample, groups not independent
Wellness score KSC 1st KSC 2nd TAMU 1st TAMU 2ndmean 0.804 0.787 0.793 0.797
standard deviation 0.090 0.103 0.102 0.089
Dimension subscore (mean )
D&A 65.7 64.5 66.7 66.7Sexual 50.9 49.1 51 51.4
Physical 23.3 22.5 21.7 21.2Emotional 33.9 33.8 33.3 34
Numerical summary of Wellness Survey scores
• KSC students’ wellness scores dropped across all dimensions
• Which wellness dimension had significant effect on GPA?
Logistic regression analyzes relationships between dichotomous response variable (e.g., higher and lower GPA) and categorical or quantitative explanatory variables (e.g., Wellness Score)
Combines the explanatory variables to determine the probability that the response variable would occur
Logistic regression requires no assumptions of normality or of similar variability in the explanatory variables
Applied Logistic Analysis Hosmer, Lemeshow and Sturdivant
Variable Estimate Std. Err. Zstat P-valueOdds Ratio
Intercept -4.438 1.459 -3.042 0.0023
Wellness Score
0.020 0.0083 2.423 0.0151 1.020
Logistic regression results Dependent Variable: High GPA Independent Variable(s): Weighted Wellness Score
Parameter estimates
Conclusion: Student GPA performance most significantly influenced by their propensity to smoke cigarettes.
TAMU-CC Cohort
While women claimed to have higher GPA, their wellness score was lower than their male counterparts
% High GPAMean Weighted Wellness
Score
Female (n = 151) 49.7% 0.79
Male (n = 73) 38.4% 0.82
Students who reported as Asian or multiracial had higher Wellness scores and reported higher GPA
If resource constrained, intervention should be targeted on the Hispanic and White student groups
race n% High
GPAMean Weighted Wellness Score
Asian 12 75.0% 0.85Biracial 11 36.4% 0.80Black 18 44.4% 0.80
Hispanic 89 43.8% 0.79Multiracial 11 81.8% 0.83
White 94 45.7% 0.79
Using research to keep our first-year students in school
Questions
Freshmen programming focus?If use our analysis, what would you have to change on your campus?Please share
Drugs & Alcohol SmokersSmokers
SOPHOMORES
2 more years of First-Year Cohorts study New Wellness Survey New Collaborations
Marj Droppa, PhDKeene State College, New HampshireEmail: [email protected]