Stress and GPA: Analysis of the Initial Administration of a New Instrument for

Measuring Stress and its Relationship to College GPA

Abstract:
This study details the construction, initial administration, and analysis of the results for a
new instrument for measuring stress and its relationship to college student GPA. Participants
(n=70) for this cross-sectional study were a diverse group of undergraduates from a mid-size
Midwestern university. Data were analyzed by gender, class standing, and ethnicity. Stress was
subdivided into three areas: school, work, and home; because of the cross-sectional nature of this
study cumulative GPA was used. Contrary to previous studies a slight positive non-significant
correlation between stress and GPA was found. The findings are discussed in light of previous
research, as well as limitations of this study and implications for future research.
Introduction:
Stress has often taken the blame for what is wrong in the lives of people. It is said that stress
causes both physical and mental ailments, stress is the cause of break-ups between significant
others, and stress causes people to act out in rash, sometimes criminal behaviors. Stress can be
indicated in many different forms: financial, work, school, family, friends, and intimate
relationships. However, stress can sometimes act upon people in a positive way, such as work
deadlines that prompt people to get their work done. Although stress can be used in positive
waysan external force that acts upon people to stimulate some form of actionthe negative
aspects of stress that are usually studied. It is along this venue that this analysis is based onthat
stress influences college students GPA. In a study by Barnes, Potter, and Fiedler (1983), how
different types of interpersonal stress affects the contribution of intellectual performance on

complex and intellectually demanding tests is studied. This study is important because it can
specify in which situations tests will best predict intellectual performance. It will also help in
personnel selection by employers by predicting performance on the job. The hypothesis
used states that correlations between Student Achievement Test (SAT) scores and GPAs
from students who report high levels of interpersonal stress between themselves and
superiors will be lower than those who report low stress levels. Their study was
conducted using military cadets.
Two assumptions, according to Barnes et al., of psychometric tests when measuring intelligence
are as follows: 1) The measured cognitive abilities will be effectively employed on the job, and
2) those with greater ability will perform better than those with less ability. However, predictor
tests cannot take into account contextual factors in a job situation that might negatively affect a
persons ability to perform at the level a test predicts (Barnes et al., 1983). Anxiety can impair
performance on complex tasks. In addition, the work environment can inhibit or block the use of
the predicted abilities and skills from previous test scores or GPAs. Correlations between
intelligence predicted on a test and job performance was lower when there was stress between
bosses and employees. The stress between bosses and employees blocks the ability to apply
intelligence effectively to the job. Similarly the junior cadets GPAs may fall because of the
military duties demanded by senior cadets. The level of performance drops when a superior
demands a very high level of performance without supplying necessary resources such as time,
information, or personnel. As a result, attention and time are diverted from academic work.
However, stress from parents and academic instructors will push a cadet to perform
academically, and a fear of failure which will likely decrease performance (Barnes et al., 1983).

The results this study indicate that interpersonal stress decreases the ability of SATs to predict
GPA. While stress with parents and faculty reduce academic performance, it is not as significant
as the interpersonal stress applied through peer pressure. Freshman, Sophmores, and juniors fit
the hypothesis: The SAT scores did not predict GPA when stress was high between peers and
company officers. However, the opposite was found for seniorsprobably due to having
advanced in class and having adapted to the environment. Stress from parents and instructors did
not interact with intellectual ability in a significant way. One possible reason for this finding
could be the fear of being evaluated by parents and instructors versus demands on time. Another
possibility is that worries about self-worth and confidence lessen the ability to focus on the task.
In addition, relations with peers could be stressful because junior cadets are supervised by more
senior cadets who direct and supervise their education (Barnes et al., 1983). Another study asks
the question, does writing about stressful events improve GPA? In the study by Lumley and
Provenzano (2003), they use two topics for a four day writing project with a sample of ethnically
diverse college students to determine if writing about a stressful experience will improve student
GPA: Time management is used for the control group, while stressful experiences is used for the
disclosure group. The importance of this study is based on the same premise as the previous one
by Barnes et. al., stress may interfere with academic functioning. However, Lumley and
Provenzano break the impact of stress into two main groups: behavioral and cognitive.
Behavioral included studying habits and class attendance, while cognitive processes include
attention and concentration as examples. The intention of the study is to develop stress reduction
or management techniques and find empirical support for implementing them. The results of the
Lumley and Provenzano study show that disclosure by writing about stressful experiences over a
four-day period increased GPA. Transcripts for baseline and follow-up semester were used as

markers for this determination. In addition, improved mood was noted among the disclosure
group. Both groups did not differ on the baseline semester GPA. The disclosure group mean GPA
increased slightly over the two semesters, while the control groups GPA decreased. The impact
of stress on GPA was lessened but not eliminated through the writing intervention. Writing acted
as a buffer against stress to keep GPA from declining. Relationship problems were the most
frequently written about-followed by family conflict, death of loved ones, and abuse
(Lumley & Provenzano, 2003). Another study that looks at the relationship between stress and
academic achievement is by Sawyer and Hollis-Sawyer (2005), in which the goal is to identify
the relationships between student characteristics and the testing environment on cognitive
performance. One of the main elements is stereotype threat on testing anxiety. Stereotype
threat is based on students perceptions that test performance will confirm stereotypes about their
groupssuch as gender or ethnicity. There is a need to be aware of specific factors affecting
testing outcomes. Identifying students personality characteristics and characteristics of testing
environments on test anxiety and performance can aid in understanding better ways of measuring
performance. An important aspect is the locus of control under personality characteristics. Is the
locus of control internal or external? If it is internal, there is an understanding of personal
capabilities and limitations. If it is external, then academic achievement is believed by students
to be a matter of luck or a higher forcesuch as God (Sawyer & Hollis-Sawyer, 2005).
The Sawyer and Hollis-Sawyer study is based on three models. The cognitive appraisal model
includes social-environmental factors that are context dependent which affect reactions to
cognitive testing. The second is the personality trait model in which five personality factors that
affect cognitive outcomes are explored: 1) Neuroticism, 2) extroversion, 3) openness to
experience, 4) agreeableness, and 5) conscientiousness. The third model is the transactional

process model: This purports that peoples personality and their information process, in regards
to social situations, are part of the same experience. Three dependent variables are used to
contrast the personality characteristics in response to types of stress: Social derogation, physical
tenseness, and cognitive obstruction to test anxiety. All three variables are significantly
correlated with test performance. Intelligence belief has the strongest correlation in the cognitive
test score. It is thought, however, that self-reporting may elicit a socially desirable response bias
in some personality trait areas such as neuroticism (Sawyer & Hollis-Sawyer, 2005).
Data presented in the current study shows the relationship between school stress, home stress,
work stress, and its impact on students GPA. This relates to many components from the
previously discussed studies including the stress from parents and instructors as related from the
Barnes et al. (1983) study, the stress of family, work, and school conflict as discussed in the
Lumley and Provenzano(2003) study, and the relationship between stress and cognitive
functioning in the Sawyer and Hollis-Sawyer (2005) study.
Research Questions
In the current study, the researchers have attempted to ascertain what is the level of experienced
stress reported by college students? What area of their lives is most responsible for the
experienced stress? At what class level are stress levels the highest? Is the experienced stress
associated with academic achievement as measured by GPA? How efficiently does the stress
operate as a predictor of student GPA?
Method:
Participants
Seventy college students at Oakland University, Rochester, Michigan volunteered to take part in
a survey intended to assess stress and its effect on GPA. The participants were both female and

male. The number of female respondents (67.1%, n=47) was more than twice the number of male
respondents (32.9%, n=23). The participants were requested to indicate their ethnicity and were
given four categories to choose from: Caucasian (67.1%, n=47), African-American (24.3%,
n=17), and Other (8.6%, n=6). The fourth categoryHispanicwas not indicated by any of the
respondents. The respondents represented all four class levels (freshmen through seniors).
Although, the number of upper-class undergraduate level respondents (72.9%, n=51) far
exceeded the number of respondents from the lower-class undergraduate levels (27.1%, n=19).
The respondents declared GPA ranged from 2.00 to 4.00 with a mean of 3.23 and a standard
deviation of 0.46.

Instrument
Nine students in a Psychology course created the survey. The conceptualization of the survey
was done through group discussion. The members of the group determined that learning how
stress affects the student in regard to academic success is a worthwhile goal. While many
measures of stress currently exist, the group decided to create a measure independent of any
previously published measures. The goal was to focus on the student by originating questions
from a peer perspective. Participation in the survey was limited to people who personally know
the surveys creators, as there was little inclination by the creators of the survey to have it
reviewed by the university's governing committee prior to administration. Therefore, the sample
is one of convenience and susceptible to bias. Further, due to the small size of the sample the
ability to generalize findings to the population is not appropriate. The group recognized that
stress originates from a multitude of areas and chose to focus on three wide areas of student life:

School, Work, and Home. The group discussed scaling options. Initially, a five-alternative Likert
scale was suggested. During this process, the use of a Guttman scale was also proposed because
of its ability to render a greater amount of information with the same number of questions.
However, the idea of using a Guttman scale was discarded as it would have added to the number
of respondents needed for the initial administration. Consequently, the five-alternative Likert
scale was readopted. However, since the range of answers was to be from relaxing to stressful, a
six-alternative Likert scale was conceived to force a response to be either
mildly relaxing or mildly stressful, eliminating the possibility of a neutral response. When the
range of responses was changed to "not at all stressful" to "extremely stressful", the sixalternative scale, while now unnecessary, was retained. Four items were created for each area
School, Work, and Home. While each item was specific to its own area, they were concerned
with four general conditions: interaction with peers, interaction with authority, task expectations,
and workload. The survey is a Likert scaled pencil and paper format that may be administered in
either individual or group settings, and no special training is necessary for the administrator. All
items including the demographic data were in selected-response format with the exception of the
criterion (GPA), which was in constructed-response format. (See Appendix for a copy of the
survey.)

Item Analysis
Reliability

An analysis of the reliability of the scale was conducted and descriptive statistics were generated
for item, scale, scale if item deleted, and inter-item correlations. Overall reliability was very
good. (See table 1 for the mean and standard deviation of each item and the criterion item.)
Table 1:
Means and Standard Deviations of Survey Items
Mean
SD
S1
4.09
1.248
S2
3.74
1.348
S3
2.79
1.392
S4
1.80
.809
W1
1.93
1.121
W2
2.54
1.411
W3
2.81
1.277
W4
2.46
1.315
H1
2.06
1.339
H2
2.03
1.464
H3
2.30
1.301
H4
2.04
1.083
GPA
3.0469
.60858
Note. Question areas are denoted as S=School, W=Work, H=Home followed by the item number.

Alpha overall was .7726. An analysis of alpha if each item were deleted revealed two
questionable items: S1 and W4. (See table 2 for a complete list of alpha if item deleted.) Item S1
should be dropped from the measure to increase reliability. Alpha will be raised to .7804 if item
S1 is deleted. Further, item S1 shows a significant correlation with only one other item (S2) that
is from the same item areaSchool. Item W4 is questionable. Overall alpha for the measure is .
7726 and if item W4 were deleted alpha would be raised to .7742. However, item W4 correlates
significantly with four other items on the measure: the three other items from the Work area and
H4 from the Home area of items. Therefore, item W4 should be retained.

Table 2:

Alpha Level if Item deleted, and Recommendation for Survey Revision

Alpha

if
Recommendation

S1
S2
S3
S4
W1
W2
W3

Deleted
0.7804
0.7653
0.7457
0.7628
0.7316
0.7241
0.7637

W4

0.7742

H1
H2
H3

0.7524
0.7567
0.7665

H4

0.7507

Discard to increase alpha

Retain
Retain
Retain
Retain
Retain
Retain
Retain (item correlates significantly with other
items)
Retain
Retain
Retain
Retain (Consider construction measure on basis
of this item)

Validity
Correlation coefficients were computed among the twelve survey questions and the criterion item
(GPA). Using the Bonferroni approach to control for Type 1 error across the 78 correlations, a p
value of less than .0006 (0.05 / 78) was required for significance. The correlational analyses
presented in Table 3 show that there were only eight significant correlations and only one
question (S1) of the survey questions correlated significantly with the criterion, GPA ( r = .422, p
< 0.01). The item correlations with GPA ranged in strength from .007 to .422(H4) with two of the
correlations being inverse: W1, H2 and H3.. Overall, the measure does not show significant
validity. There were 70 participants.

Table 3:
Inter-item correlations including criterion GPA
S1
S2
S3
S4
W1
S1
1
S2
.065
1
S3
.027
.063 1
S4
.046
.019 .180
1
W1
-.089 -.166 -.224 -.112 1
W2
-.142 -.223 -.110 .033 .199
W3
.083
-.020 .132
.118
-.009
W4
.055
-.031 -.120 -.063 -.017
H1
-.098 -.136 -.149 .078 .196
H2
H3

-.065
-.168

-.158 .088
.094 .028

H4

-.013

.008
.127

GPA

.422

**

W2

W3

W4

H1

1
.049
-.042
.121

1
.112 1
-.011 -.295*

H2

H3

H4

-.154
-.039

.231 -.113
-.025 -.145

-.005 .129
.025 .003

-.156 1
-.168 .376**

.247*

.159

.015

.136

.090

.047

-.072 .072

.104

.163

.104

-.100 .030

.051

.007

.061

-.090 .029

**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).

-.235

Procedure
Participant responses were totaled to produce a Total Stress Score (TS), as well as, a stress score
for each areaSchool (SS), Work (WS), and Home (HS). These scores were compared with the
reported GPA of the participants to see if an association exists. An item analysis was preformed
to assess reliability and validity of the survey. All participants were required to sign a release
acknowledging their rights as volunteers participating in a survey prior to the survey being
administered. Little or no control was exercised over the environmental conditions in which the
survey was completed. Nine different individuals administered the survey over the course of a
week to students in a wide variety of environmental conditions ranging anywhere from a
classroom to a party. Further, due to stress being a state rather than a trait, the results could be
confounded by the time during the academic year that the survey was taken two weeks after
midterms and almost a month before final exams. Regardless of the high face validity of the
instrument, respondents were informally debriefed after their participation.

Data Analysis
The first step in the analysis was the generation of frequencies for all qualitative variables to
present an accurate view of the survey participants. Next the survey responses were summed to
create a TS score and stress scores for the three areas of interestSS, WS, and HS; these scores
and GPA are the five quantitative variables in this study. Descriptive statistics were calculated on
each of the five quantitative variables to display the level of experienced stress reported by the
participants and the area school, work, or homethat is most responsible for the experienced
stress. Then two comparison of means were conductedClass Standing & TS and Class

Standing & GPAto determine the class level where stress levels are highest and to determine
which class level reported the highest GPA. A correlation coefficient was calculated for the
Total Stress score with the criterion GPA to see if an association exists. This was followed by a
correlation analysis between standardized predicted and residual GPA to ensure that the
relationship was linear. Finally, A linear regression analysis was conducted to evaluate the
prediction of GPA from the Total Stress score.
Results
The participants were requested to provide information on three qualitative variables: gender,
ethnicity, and class standing. Ethnicity and class standing had four categorical options each:
African-American, Caucasian, Hispanic, Other, and freshman sophomore, junior, senior
respectively. There are unequal frequency distributions present in all three qualitative variables,
as tables 4, 5, and 6 show.
Table 4:
Frequency of Participant Gender
Frequency Percent
Male
23
32.9
Female
47
67.1
Total
70
100

Cumulative percent
32.9
100

Table 5:
Frequency of Participant Ethnicity
Frequency

Percent

Cumulative percent

African-American

17

24.3

24.3

Caucasian
Other
Total

47
6
70

67.1
8.6
100

91.4
100

Table 6:
Frequency of Participant Class Standing
Frequency Percent
Cumulative percent
freshman
8
11.4
11.4
sophomor
11
15.7
27.1
e
junior
27
38.6
65.7
senior
24
34.3
100
Total
70
100

The number of female respondents (67.1%, n=47) was more than twice the number of male
respondents (32.9%, n=23). More than half of the participants indicated Caucasian as their
ethnicity. (Caucasian 67.1%, n=47, African-American 24.3%, n=17, and Other 8.6%, n=6.) The
fourth categoryHispanicwas not indicated by any of the participants. The participants
represented all four class levels (freshmen through seniors). Although, the number of upper-class
undergraduate level respondents (72.9%, n=51) far exceeded the number of respondents from the
lower-class undergraduate levels (27.1%, n=19).
Participants reported their GPA and participant responses to survey questions were totaled to
produce a Total Stress Score (TS), as well as, a stress score for each areaSchool (SS), Work
(WS), and Home (HS)resulting in five quantitative variables.

Table 7:

Descriptive Statistics of Quantitative variables

N
Range
Minimum Maximum
GPA
70
2.00
2.00
4.00
School Stress 70
12.00
5.00
17.00
Work Stress
70
13.00
4.00
17.00
Home Stress 70
13.00
3.00
16.00
Total Stress
70
23.00
21.00
44.00

Median
3.00
13.000
9.500
8.000
30.000

Mean
3.047
12.414
9.743
8.429
30.586

SD
6.086
2.657
2.749
2.711
4.339

The possible range for GPA scores is 0.00 to 4.00. None of the participants reported a GPA lower
than 2.00 and the median was 3.0 indicating that half of the participants were reporting above
average academic achievement. This is not unusual, since a GPA below 2.00 would indicate that
a participant would be on academic probation. Frequently students carrying a GPA below 2.00
will discontinue their academic endeavors. The possible range for TS scores is 12 to 72 (Mdn
30). More than half the participants scored slightly less (Mdn 28) than potential midpoint of
scores, indicating that the participants did not express experiencing a high amount of stress. The
three factors of TSSS, WS, HSall had potential score ranges from four to twenty-four (Mdn
30). More than half of the participants reported an elevated SS (Mdn 13) that was slightly higher
than the midpoint of the possible range. However, more than half the participants reported WS
(Mdn 9.5) and HS (Mdn 8) that was slightly lower than the midpoint of the possible range.
This indicates that the stress reported by participants came primarily from the area of School.
Further, since the arithmetic mean of each of the stress scoresTS = 30.586, SS = 12.414, WS =
9.743, HS = 8.429are higher than the median scores reported; the distribution of each is
positively skewed by some participants reporting elevated or extreme levels of stress as figures
1-4 show.

Figure 1. Distribution of participant total stress scores.

Figure 2. Distribution of participant school stress scores.

Figure 3. Distribution of participant work stress scores.

Figure 4. Distribution of participant home stress scores.

A comparison of the means revealed that upper-class undergraduates reported both higher TS
levels but lower GPA. Seniors had the highest total stress and lowest GPA, reporting a mean of
31.292 and a median value of 31.00 for Total Stress with a mean of 2.889 and a median value of
2.870 reported for GPA. The results of this comparison suggest a negative association between
stress and GPA, as reported stress increases, reported GPA decreases. (Tables 8 & 9, Figures 5 &
6).

Table 8:
Total Stress by Class Standing
N
Range
Freshman
8
12.00
Sophomore
11
12.00
Junior
27
23.00
Senior
24
14.00
Total
70
23.00

Minimum
23.00
25.00
21.00
25.00
21.00

Maximum
35.00
37.00
44.00
39.00
44.00

Median
32.500
31.000
30.000
31.000
30.000

Mean
30.875
30.545
29.889
31.292
30.586

SD
4.291
3.908
5.064
3.759
4.339

Table 9:
GPA by Class Standing
Freshman
sophomore
Junior
Senior

N
8
11
27
24

Range
1.52
1.91
1.97
1.98

Minimum
2.46
2.07
2.00
2.02

Maximum
3.98
3.98
3.97
4.00

Median
3.510
3.310
2.850
2.870

Mean
3.423
3.205
3.011
2.889

SD
0.510
0.650
0.567
0.630

Total

70

2.00

2.00

4.00

Figure 5. Boxplot of Total Stress by Class Standing

3.000

3.047

0.609

Figure 6. Boxplot of total stress by GPA

A correlation coefficient was calculated for the Total Stress score with the criterion, GPA. A
positive linear correlation (r = +.154) was found, however, the correlation was not statistically
significant. A graphic view of the data is presented in Figure 7.

Figure 7. Scatter plot depicting the relationship between Total Stress scores and GPA.
A linear regression analysis was conducted to evaluate the prediction of GPA from the Total
Stress score. The scatter plot of the two variables, as shown in Figure 6, indicates that the two
variables are linearly related such that as Total Stress increases GPA increases. The regression
equation for predicting GPA is
GPA = +2.387 + (+.022) Total Stress.
The 95% confidence interval for the slope -.01 to +.053 contains the value of zero, and therefore
Total Stress is not significantly related to GPA. The correlation between Total Stress and GPA
was +.154. Approximately 2% (R2 = .024) of the variance of GPA was accounted for by its linear
relationship with the Total Stress score. Accuracy in predicting GPA was poor. Overall

relationship was not significant (F1,68 = 1.358, p = .248). The p value exceeds the threshold of p
<.05 as shown in table 10. Since the overall relationship is not statistically significant, it cannot
be said with any certainty the results of this study are not due to chance.
Table 10. Description of Linear Relationship between GPA and Total Stress score
Model Summary
Adjusted R Std. Error of
Model
1

R
.154a

R Square Square
.024
.009

the Estimate
.60574

a. Predictors: (Constant), Total Stress

ANOVAa
Sum
Model
1

of

Squares
Regression
.605
Residual
24.950
Total
25.555
a. Dependent Variable: GPA
b. Predictors: (Constant), Total Stress
Coefficientsa

Mean
Df
1
68
69

Square
.605
.367

F
1.648

Sig.
.204b

t
4.598

Sig.
.000

1.284

.204

Standardize

Model
1

Unstandardized

d
Coefficients
Beta

(Constant)

Coefficients
B
SE
2.387
.519

Total Stress

.022

.154

.017

a. Dependent Variable: GPA

While a slight positive correlation was shown in this study, it was not statistically significant.
The results may reach significance with a larger sample size. However, the results of this study
do not allow conclusions to be drawn about the association between GPA and Stress.
Discussion:

Descriptive qualifiers for participants in all four studies were the same, with the addition that the
participants in the Barnes et al. study were also cadets in the military. Otherwise, all participants
were college students. There was a variety of ethnicities involved, although the current studys
majority ethnicity is white (67%). All four studies dealt with the impact of stress on academic
success, whether by GPA, temporary stunting of cognitive abilities, or relationship conflicts. In
the current study, stress as presented in broad categories of school, work, and home is used to
determine levels of total stress and its impact on GPA. In the study by Barnes et. al., the impact
of stress from peers, authority, and parent pressures is examined to measure future job
performance based on previous SAT scores. Or, just because students get good scores before
college, does that mean they will have GPAs indicative of those scores once they are faced with
the pressures of older peers, parent expectations, and added expectations outside of academics?
The findings in the current study, with its majority of upper level undergraduate studentswhose
mean and median GPA and Total Stress levels exceed the mean and median of both variables for
the lower level undergraduate studentsis supported by the findings in the Barnes et. al. study in
which higher stress levels for seniors correlated with higher performance. In the Barnes et al.
study, as with the current study, there is a correlation to the impact of stress from those
relationships to the level of students GPAs (1983). In the Lumley and Provenzano (2003) study,
they too used the factors of peer stress, teacher authority, and parent relationships in studying the
impact of stress on students, and they also found a positive correlation to stress and those factors.
However, the correlation was determined by how writing about stressful experiences can mediate
levels of stress. They found that the writing exercise did mediate and ameliorate student stress
levels resulting in an increase in GPA. Their findings would seem to contradict the findings of
the current study, which found a small correlation between higher stress and higher GPA.

However, the participants in the Lumley and Provenzano (2003) study were experiencing high
levels of physical symptoms. The current study did not seek out
participants experiencing high levels of stress much less the extreme stress necessary to cause
somatic concerns; its focus was to measure the stress reported by a random, albeit biased and
convenient, sample. It is possible that levels of extreme stress may hinder academic achievement
as measured by GPA. Stress, like anxiety, may possess a threshold at which its increase hinders
instead of aiding performance similar to the situations described by the Yerkes-Dodson Law.
Implications of the Study
While this study indicated that, for this sample, a slight positive correlation exists between stress
and GPA, school administrators and counselors should be wary in generalizing these findings. At
appropriate levels, stress evidently acts as a positive motivational factor. However, the threshold
at which the negative impacts of stress manifest themselves is difficult to determine and, theses
thresholds, are likely different for each individual student. Increasing student stress in an effort
to raise student GPA is a dangerous proposition that could adversely effect student retention
increase the dropout rateor, more importantly, may adversely effect students in other parts of
their lives i.e. increasing alcohol/drug consumption or negative social behavior.

Limitations of the Study

This survey, while showing very good reliability, exhibits poor validity and would not be a useful
tool for predicting GPA. There are many problems associated with this survey, not the least of
which is the nature of stress itself. Being a state rather than a trait stress can change from

moment to moment. The time frame in which this test was administereda couple of weeks
after midterms and almost a month before finalsmost likely had an effect on the responses of
the students. Would, for instance, S1, "I find test taking ___" been deemed an acceptable item
with responses gathered from a test administration just prior to midterms or finals? Immediately
after exams? We cannot know without another administration of the test, but it seems likely.
Another potential administration problem that could have affected the responses was the
haphazard method of administration. Nine different individuals administered this survey over the
course of a week to students in a wide variety of environmental conditions ranging anywhere
from a classroom to a party. The results may have differed considerably if tighter controls had
been exercised on its administration. The administration is not the only area in which potential
problems exist.
Another potential problem is that of subject selection. According to the demographic results, if a
student participated in this survey, they were most likely Caucasian, female, of junior or senior
standing, with a 50% chance of having a GPA over 3.30. Since the survey could only be
administered to students the creators of the test personally know, the variability of the
participants was restricted. The inordinate number of upper-class undergraduate students (72.9%,
n=51) is particularly problematic as these more experienced students may have learned, through
the course of their college careers, coping strategies which allow them to balance out competing
stresses in their lives. Therefore, these students while reporting higher levels of stress may be
coping with their stress and ameliorating its effects as the participants in the Lumley and
Provenzano (2003) study. An additional criticism of the survey is the small number of
participants, less than six per question. Considering the high face validity of the measure and a
possible motivation to fake good because of the extremely negative connotations modern society

places on stress, a larger number of participants may have yielded better results. In short,
it would have been better to select a larger more random sample while taking into account the
population parameters of Oakland University students in regards to Sex, Ethnicity, and Class
Standing.
Suggestions for Future Studies
The measure does not need to be discarded entirely but it has many shortcomings that need to be
addressed. By revising things such as tighter controls on test administration, providing
operational definitions, selecting a more randomized representative sample, doing additional
surveys on demographic subcategories, developing more specific survey questions it may be
possible to create a measure that is valid as well as reliable. Although the current study did not
include a mediating factor for stress, the study could be improved by conducting a mixed study.
In this mixed study, a short interview could be held with randomly selected students in which
open-ended questions would be asked to prompt responses on what particular types of activities,
or experiences, within each domain cause the most stress. Questions could include the following:
1. What types of academic tests given by instructors cause you the most stress negative
2.
3.
4.
5.

emotions or difficulties?
What would make interactions with professors less stressful?
What do your peers (or coworkers) do that makes your life difficult?
What do your peers (or coworkers) do that makes your life easier?
What responsibilities do you find overwhelming at home, or at work, while you are
attending college that you wish you did not have?

Once these interviews are completed and transcribed, theme could be pulled from them to
develop more specific questions about specific events/experiences that create or alleviate stress
in these relationships. The survey could then be given to a larger, more diverse sample to see if
the information could be generalized to the majority of college students. Once researchers have

more specific information about stressful events/experiences, steps can be taken to help students
cope with these events/experiences so that the college experience and GPAs are not impacted in a
negative way.
In conclusion, while the correlation of the current study may not be significant, a pattern of
correlation between stress and GPA can be seen. However, due to the limitations of this survey it
is impossible to comment with any surety on the depth and breadth of that relationship.

References:
1. Barnes, V., Potter, E. H. III, & Fiedler, F. E. (1983). Effect of interpersonal stress on the
prediction of academic performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 68, 686-697.
2. Lumley, M. A. & Provenzano, K. M. (2003). Stress management through written
emotional disclosure improves academic performance among college students with
physical symptoms. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95, 641-649.
3. Sawyer, T. P. Jr. & Hollis-Sawyer, L. A. (2005). Predicting stereotype threat, test
anxiety, and cognitive ability test performance: An examination of three models.
International Journal of Testing, 5, 225-246