Next Article in Journal
Development and Evaluation of a Community Surveillance Method for Estimating Deaths Due to Injuries in Rural Nepal
Previous Article in Journal
Biomonitoring of Phthalates, Bisphenols and Parabens in Children: Exposure, Predictors and Risk Assessment
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
IJERPH
Volume 18
Issue 17
10.3390/ijerph18178911
ijerph-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

The Impact of Self-Efficacy, Optimism, Resilience and Perceived Stress on Academic Performance and Its Subjective Evaluation: A Cross-Sectional Study

by
Ovidiu Popa-Velea
1,*,
Irina Pîrvan
2 and
Liliana Veronica Diaconescu
1
1
Department of Medical Psychology, Faculty of Medicine, University of Medicine and Pharmacy “Carol Davila”, 050474 Bucharest, Romania
2
Faculty of Medicine, University of Medicine and Pharmacy “Carol Davila”, 050474 Bucharest, Romania
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18(17), 8911; https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18178911
Submission received: 1 August 2021 / Revised: 17 August 2021 / Accepted: 23 August 2021 / Published: 24 August 2021
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
This study aimed to highlight the contribution of self-efficacy, optimism, resilience and perceived stress on academic performance (GPA) at medical undergraduate students. Additionally, we investigated the relationship established between abovementioned variables, gender and position in the academic cycle and the factors associated with satisfaction regarding own academic results. 118 students (25 men, 93 women, mean age 22.863, SD = 1.763) participated in the study. They were administered the General Self-Efficacy Scale (G-SES), the Revised Life Orientation test (LOT-R), the Brief Resilience Scale (BRS) and the Perceived Stress Scale (PSS). t, Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney, chi-square tests, and linear regressions were performed, in order to test the strength of the hypothesized associations. Data analysis demonstrates a significant association between low optimism, low resilience, high perceived stress and poor academic performance. Even though preclinical students displayed greater perceived stress, it negatively correlated to GPA only in clinical students, this indicating a possible accumulation of stress-related effects. No gender differences were met for the studied variables. Students in clinical cycle were significantly less satisfied about their own performance. These results indicate solid associations between psychosocial variables and academic performance, and differences in the subjective evaluation of own performance, suggesting key points to address, when designing interventions against academic stress.

1. Introduction

Academic stress is a major unwanted consequence of many undergraduate study programs across the world, significantly impairing quality of life, mental health and social integration of the affected individuals [1,2,3]. Despite consistent efforts being undertaken to address this problem, stress experienced by students continues to be widely prevalent [4,5,6,7,8] and represents a major contributor to burnout. This “occupational phenomenon” [9] can occur right from the early years of academic formation, and later durably extend onto professional life, causing many additional undesirable costs for the individual and the society [10,11,12,13,14].
Among different types of educational contexts, academic stress is especially a matter of concern in medical schools [15,16,17]. This is partially due to its multiple sources, such as the vast nature of the curriculum, possibly including “hidden contents” [18], the perceived lack of control experienced by students [19], the emotionally-charged components of the medical training [20], the substantial workload [21], concluded with frequent and difficult examinations [22] and the significant interference with other domains of life [23]. Consequently, many medical students may lose, throughout studies, the track of their initial motivation to pursue this career [24,25,26], while a gap may occur and widen between the objective evaluation of their abilities and their subjective self-evaluation [27]. This discrepancy may represent an additional reason for self-doubt and unhappiness in students pertaining to vulnerable groups [28,29].
While individual creativity, innovations and encouragement of assertiveness and autonomy could represent valuable tools for addressing these problems, organizational structures may oppositely perceive the solutions as coming from the implementation of an even stronger top-down control and more centralized decisions [30]. Regrettably, in many cases the rigidity of the frameworks in which academic medical institutions have been conceptualized and function may provide a genuine low sensitivity to the issue of academic stress, considering it “unreachable and/or unchangeable” [31]. In this particular context, personal variables can be decisive in moderating or alleviating the confrontation to academic stress. Several of these variables have been quoted in literature to have particular importance:
  • Self-efficacy, defined as the ability “to set higher goals, commit to challenges that are more difficult and strive to meet those goals” [32], is often considered “the most important predictor of change in behavior” [33]. It represents a significant resource, able to substantially predict academic success, for example the first-year college GPA, the number of accumulated credits and college retention after the first year [34]. There is a strong correlation between self-efficacy and students’ adjustment to university life, with those with a high level of self-efficacy perceiving transition as a challenge rather than a threat [35]. Self-efficacy correlates with effort regulation, deep processing strategies and goal orientation [36]. It is less clear however to what extent self-efficacy remains associated throughout studies with feelings of personal satisfaction and accomplishment about personal academic results.
  • Resilience is conceptualized as “the ability to maintain or regain mental health, despite experiencing adversity” [37] and has been reported to predict academic performance, especially through the dimensions of hardiness and resourcefulness [38]. This effect is not exclusively direct, but it could be mediated by additional factors, such as the increased ability of resilient students to use social support networks [39] or to perform healthy behaviors [40].
  • Optimism, within certain ranges, has generally a positive correlation with academic achievement, and especially with its self-perception [41]. These relationships are partially explained by the way optimistic students both think and subjectively relate to specific stressful events, such as intensive learning or confrontation to exams. In the case of medical and allied health undergraduates, literature findings show that they are significantly more active and able to efficiently use adaptive coping strategies, such as problem-solving and social support [6,42,43]. In addition, they are more relaxed and involved in their tasks, experience a higher sense of competence and invest more effort to achieve their goals [44,45,46]. On a long run, they may feel encouraged for novel, varied and exploratory thoughts and actions, potentially leading to new skills and resources [47,48], which could further feed academic performance. Still, one should notice that the magnitude of these associations may differ, according to gender and personality characteristics [49], and may reach a plateau in above-average optimism ranges [50], or even reverse, in students with extreme low or high optimism levels [51].
  • Perceived stress has been described as being more prevalent in academic contexts [6,52] and being linked to poor academic outcomes [53] and a higher risk of burnout [20,54,55,56]. The negative relationship between stress and academic performance can be mediated by psychiatric or psychosomatic symptoms, or by disturbances of the biological rhythms. In the latter category, a particular importance is attributed to sleep disorders, as they can impair on a long run the consolidation of new notions and the recollection of the already-learned information [57,58]. In students affected by these conditions, poor academic performance can be not only an effect, but also a cause for further disability, thus leading to a vicious circle [59]. It is remarkable to notice that perceived academic stress seems to impact even the infrastructural neuronal level, disrupting plasticity [60], possibly via high secretion of cortisol [61] and malfunctioning of the limbic system [62]. Consequently, abilities which are critical for the academic performance, such as the acquiring and memorizing of new information, may be durably impaired [63,64].
Despite these undeniable associations, the link between perceived stress and academic performance can be a complex one, with literature reports about moderate stress actually being a stimulus for students to enhance their performance [65,66]. For these reasons, the study of academic stress dynamics, especially in long-term studies, such as Medicine, remains a challenging study topic.
Even though the abovementioned variables seem to significantly influence academic performance and its subjective evaluation, little is known about their comparative importance in exerting this action. Furthermore, their influence can be gender-related, or sensitive to the content of the academic curriculum, with a potential significant change occurring at the transition from preclinical to clinical instruction. The latter corresponds to a shift from mostly theoretical notions to the exercise of practical skills and confrontation to emotionally-charged clinical situations. This can bring feelings of frustration, incompetence and dissatisfaction with the way individual performance is assessed, which can be counterproductive and represent an additional source of demotivation and burnout.
In this sense, our study aims to clarify the individual role and the comparative importance of self-efficacy, resilience, optimism and perceived stress on academic performance in Medicine undergraduates. Additionally, we considered in our analyses the differences of psychological variables and Grade Point Average (GPA) attributable to gender and the position in the academic cycle, and the subjective evaluation of own academic performance. These data could be particularly important in Romania, a country where the prevalence of stress-related disorders and burnout in the academic settings is rising and where the support systems for students facing academic difficulties are scarce and not yet effective enough [31]. Beyond our explorative intention, which fills a gap in current knowledge of this research area, these data could be important for educational counselors and psychologists in addressing specific psychological variables, or in considering care strategies, tailored to specific contexts in which interventions are needed.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Design

The design of the study was cross-sectional, with a single administration of a series of standardized psychometric instruments.

2.2. Participants

Participants were undergraduate students undergoing their training at the University of Medicine and Pharmacy “Carol Davila” Bucharest, Romania (UMFCD). This university is the largest medical school in Romania, gathering students from all regions of the country. 118 students (25 men, 93 women; mean age = 22.864, SD = 1.763, range 18–27) agreed to participate in the study. All participants met the inclusion criteria, set as being at least 18 years of age and having the status of current undergraduate students in the abovementioned institution. Exclusion criteria were represented by current self-reported somatic or psychiatric morbidity, cognitive deficits or any other impairments which would render the understanding and completion of the study questionnaires difficult, and lack of completion of one or more study instruments. 78.81% of participants were women, which is consistent with the high proportion of female enrollment in Romanian medical schools. The sex ratio between men and women in our sample (25/93 = 1:3.72), although higher from the sex ratio of all students enrolled in the university (1:2.38) was not significantly different (χ2 = 3.106, p < 0.08, ns).

2.3. Procedure

Data were gathered in March–May 2021, through the administering of an online set of questions, containing the study instruments. Before taking part in this research, all participants received a brief explanatory statement about the study and completed informed consent forms. The study was run in accordance with the World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki and was approved by the UMFCD Institutional Review Board (no. 7873/2021). A researcher (IP) was available by phone or email, in case there were questions related to the process of filling the questionnaires. All responses were processed anonymously and a numerical code was assigned for each participant. The collected data were accessible exclusively to study researchers (OPV, IP, LVD). Regular didactic staff had no access to the distribution, collection or interpretation of questionnaires. The interpretation of the questionnaires was performed independently by two researchers (IP, LVD) and cross-checked for congruence afterwards. Final results were included in a SPSS 21 (SPSS® Inc., Chicago, IL, USA) database.

2.4. Instruments

All participants received four questionnaires—General Self-Efficacy Scale (G-SES), The Revised Life Orientation test (LOT-R), The Brief Resilience Scale (BRS) and the Perceived Stress Scale (PSS), which were chosen based on the existing literature data supporting their adequacy to the aims of the study:
  • The General Self-Efficacy Scale (G-SES) [67] comprises 10 items and is used to assess a person’s beliefs about their own ability to cope with difficulties encountered during solving tasks. Example of areas investigated by the questionnaire include ability to solve difficult problems, consistency in following one’s goals or the propensity to recourse to own resourcefulness and positive emotions. The answering options vary from 1 to 4, where 1 = “completely untrue”, and 4 = “perfectly true”. The total scores may range between 10 and 40. The scale has been reported to display good psychometric properties, with Cronbach’s alpha index values between 0.79 and 0.93 [68,69];
  • The Revised Life Orientation test (LOT-R) [70] comprises 10 items and evaluates optimism versus pessimism. Items investigate aspects such as enjoyment in social life, resistance to bad or unforeseen circumstances or ability to relax. The answers are provided on a Likert scale from 0 to 4, where 0 = “strongly disagree” and 4 = “strongly agree”. The scale has good construct validity and reliability in both clinical and non-clinical samples, including students, with values of Cronbach’s alpha between 0.72 and 0.78 [71,72].
  • The Brief Resilience Scale [73] assesses a person’s ability to recover after a stressful period. Example of behaviors investigated by this test include the ability to bounce back in negative circumstances or to recover after facing acute stress. It comprises 6 items and a 5-steps Likert response scale, where 1 represents “total disagreement” and 5 “total agreement”. The scale has good properties in assessing resilience in undergraduate students, with Cronbach’s alpha above 0.70 and good construct validity [74].
  • The Perceived Stress Scale (PSS) [75] is a 14-item self-report instrument, designed to measure the degree to which situations in one’s life are appraised as stressful. Items investigate aspects such as the emotional reaction to negative life situations, the degree of perceived control over sources of stress or the confidence in handling one’s problems. Each item is rated using a 5-point Likert type scale, with a total score ranging between 0 and 56. This psychometric tool has been empirically validated with populations of college students [76] and depicts convergent validity, indicated by its solid relationships with scales measuring depression and somatic symptoms [75].
In addition to these four psychometric instruments, the participants provided information about their age at the time of the testing, the academic year in which they were enrolled and a subjective assessment about their perceived satisfaction concerning the own academic performance in previous years (expressed as a dichotomic answer yes/no).
The distinct variable to which the results of the psychometric tests were referred to was the Grade Point Average (GPA). In Romanian medical universities, for each distinct class (both preclinical or clinical), an objective grade is offered, ranging from 1 (worst performance) to 10 (best performance). In this study, the student’s GPA was calculated at the end of an academic year as a weighted mean of grades, according to the number of credits assigned to each class (different classes can have a different number of credits, so their load in the calculation of the GPA can differ).

2.5. Data Analysis

The analysis included firstly a descriptive level and an assessment (via Shapiro Wilk tests) of the position of the study variables in the normality-abnormality continuum. According to this outcome, a series of t-tests for independent samples and Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney tests were run to assess differences in self-efficacy, perceived stress and, respectively, resilience, optimism and academic performance, which were attributable to gender and position in the academic cycle (preclinical or clinical). Similarly, chi-square and Student or Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney tests were performed to document the differences in terms of satisfaction regarding own performance, in relationship to self-efficacy, optimism, resilience, perceived stress and GPA. Linear regression was performed to establish the comparative weight of GPA predictors, by grouping independent variables into demographical ones (age, gender, position in the academic cycle) and psychological ones (self-efficacy, optimism, resilience, perceived stress). This last analysis was separately run for students in the upper and the lower GPA quartile. Throughout statistical analyses, missing data were handled through list wise deletion. Assumptions of data normality and linearity were confirmed using histograms and partial plots. The independence of errors was checked through the Durbin-Watson test. For all calculations, the threshold of statistical significance was p < 0.05.

3. Results

3.1. Study Variables

A synthesis of the mean, standard deviation, minimum and maximum values of independent and dependent variables, as well as of their distribution, in terms of normality, is depicted in Table 1.
The normal distribution was ensured for self-efficacy and perceived stress and not met for optimism, resilience and GPA. Consequently, two different types of statistical tests were used for further comparisons concerning these two distinct categories of variables (3.3 and 3.4).

3.2. Determinants of Academic Performance (GPA)

A series of multivariate regression analyses aimed to investigate the distinct association between demographical and psychological variables, and academic performance (measured through the students’ GPA).
In a first step, these analyses compared students with poor academic performance (in the lower quartile, i.e., GPA below 8.62) to students with high academic performance (in the upper quartile, i.e., GPA above 9.64). The investigated demographical variables were gender and age, while the psychological variables were self-efficacy, optimism, resilience, perceived stress and satisfaction regarding own academic performance. These results are displayed in Table 2 and Table 3.
For this category of students, the second depicted model was statistically significant (F = 2.919, p < 0.017). The GPA predictors for this student category were optimism (t = 2.819, p < 0.033), resilience (t = 2.727, p < 0.039) and perceived stress (t = −2.575, p < 0.018).
None of the models proved to be statistically significant (F = 1.323, p < 0.284 at model 1; F = 0.815, p < 0.585 at model 2).
In the second step, we realized a similar analysis of the determinants of academic performance, by taking into consideration the position in the study cycle (preclinical and clinical). These results are depicted in Table 4 and Table 5.
None of the two models was statistically significant (F = 1.712, p < 0.209 at model 1; F = 0.904, p < 0.532 at model 2).
For clinical students, although none of the models was statistically significant, a certain importance of perceived stress was evident in model 2 (t = −2.641, p < 0.010).

3.3. Analysis of Variables, by Gender and Position in the Academic Cycle

This analysis was conducted via Student tests for independent samples (in the case of Self-efficacy and Perceived stress) and via Wilcoxon–Mann–Whitney two-sample rank-sum test (in the case of Optimism, Resilience and GPA) (Table 6 and Table 7).
No significant differences were met, according to the participants’ gender (p < 0.220–0.976).
The only significant difference between clinical and preclinical students consists in the amount of perceived stress, higher in preclinical students (p < 0.028).

3.4. Subjective Evaluation of Own Academic Performance

Table 8 depicts the inventory of differences met between students who were dissatisfied and, respectively, satisfied with their academic performance (GPA).
The significant satisfaction differences were related to the position in the academic cycle (students in clinical academic years were significantly less satisfied; p < 0.019) and to the GPA itself (dissatisfied students had lower GPAs; p < 0.012).

4. Discussion

This study aimed to clarify the individual role and the comparative importance of several psychological variables (self-efficacy, resilience, optimism and perceived stress) on academic performance. Additionally, we investigated the possible associations between these variables and gender and position in the academic cycle. Finally, we examined the factors associated with dissatisfaction, respectively, satisfaction in respect to own academic results.
Regarding the first objective, a substantial percentage (34.1%) of GPA variance was predicted, in the case of low performance students, by psychological variables, specifically low optimism (p < 0.033), low resilience (p < 0.039) and high perceived stress (p < 0.018). This is in concordance with existing literature data, which distinctly point out each of these factors as substantially affecting academic performance. Specifically, students with low scores in optimism typically display a generalized expectancy about bad outcomes in life [77], which might diminish their expectations about academic performance, subsequently influencing their motivation and behavior at school and exposing them to burnout [78]. Inversely, optimistic students may use more often problem-focused strategies in controllable situations related to academic challenges [79], emphasize the positive aspects of the encountered difficulties and be more confident when dealing with them [80]. On their turn, students with low resilience may be deprived by the buffer effect of resilience on the relationship between adjustment problems and academic performance [81]. Lastly, perceived stress has been consistently reported as a distinct variable able to negatively influence academic achievement, via multiple, sometimes complimentary mechanisms [82,83,84].
Interestingly, in what concerns high academic performance (expressed as a GPA placed in the upper quartile), this was predicted in a much lesser amount (namely 4.8% of the GPAs variance) by the considered psychological variables. This could be explained by the intervention, in high performing students, of additional factors that can shape performance, such as learned resourcefulness [85], conscientiousness [49], sense of coherence [86] or self-esteem [87], which were not explored in this study.
In terms of the second study objective, we were able to identify statistically significant differences between preclinical and clinical students. Specifically, the amount of perceived stress in preclinical students was significantly higher than in clinical students (p < 0.028). However, GPA and perceived stress correlated negatively only in clinical students (p < 0.004), suggesting a possible cumulative effect of the academic stress perceived in preclinical years. This stress load can evolve later in the academic cycle into burnout [88], making the identification of high perceived stress in early years of education a priority for school counselors and tutors, as well as for students themselves.
Remarkably, in our sample gender differences have not been proved to be statistically significant. Self-efficacy, optimism, resilience, perceived stress and GPA were similar in men and women, a finding that could reflect a symmetry in what concerns the gender-wise development of these parameters. Still, these findings could be equally explained, at least partially, by the low number of male subjects having participated in the study.
In what concerns the third study objective, the subjective evaluation of own academic performance depended on the position in the academic cycle (with clinical students less satisfied, p < 0.019), and on the GPA itself (p < 0.012). These results argue in favor of higher demands put by the students on themselves in the clinical years of their academic formation, possibly in view of their forthcoming career as physicians. This hypothesis is strengthened by the large number (N = 41) of 6th year students dissatisfied with their academic performance. Overall, this high percentage of dissatisfied students can represent a warning sign, from the perspective of the inner motivation needed for a successful entering on the medical job market. In addition, from the perspective of burnout risk, this could represent a potential unfavorable circumstance, given the presence of “Low personal accomplishment” as a distinct component of this condition.
This study has a number of limitations, among which the most important are its cross-sectional design, the limited number of respondents, their self-selection, the sex ratio skewed towards women and the comparatively small sample of preclinical students. The exclusion criteria may have removed from the study potentially interesting participants, namely those with history of stress-related disorders. The dissatisfaction about academic performance may have remained unreported, especially in those students who engage in health risk behaviors (e.g., use of energy drinks, psychostimulants, cannabis), to increase their academic performance and to better cope with academic stress [89,90]. These flaws could be remedied through the design of future multicenter prospective studies, including a larger diversity of students and investigating a larger number of psychosocial variables able to influence academic performance.

5. Conclusions

The results of this study point out the associations between low resilience, low optimism, high perceived stress and poor academic performance in medical undergraduates. In contrast, high academic performance has not been predicted by these variables, creating the possibility for the involvement of additional psychosocial factors that need to be addressed in further research. Perceived stress has been higher in preclinical students, however academic performance and perceived stress correlated negatively in clinical students only. This suggests a cumulative effect of academic stress in preclinical years that impacts academic life in the clinical cycle. The risks brought by this increased stress load is supplemented by the dissatisfaction regarding own academic performance, which was higher in clinical students, possibly echoing the insecurity about their capacity to properly handle clinical duties and responsibilities.
As a whole, our study represents an argument for the necessity to construct and apply early in medical education preventive and therapeutic programs against academic stress and promoting resilience and positive emotions. These strategies can be taught as part of the medical curriculum, or could be implemented with the help of counselors and tutors. In terms of cost-benefit ratio, the recourse to these measures could be much more efficient than intervening on already-existent burnout, and could ensure a long-term preservation of mental health in both medical students and physicians.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, O.P.-V. and L.V.D.; data curation, I.P.; formal analysis, O.P.-V. and L.V.D.; investigation, I.P.; methodology, O.P.-V.; project administration, O.P.-V. and L.V.D.; resources, I.P.; software, I.P.; supervision, O.P.-V. and L.V.D.; validation, L.V.D.; writing—original draft, O.P.-V., L.V.D. and I.P.; writing—review and editing, O.P.-V. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

The study was conducted according to the guidelines of the Declaration of Helsinki and approved by the Institutional Review Board of University of Medicine and Pharmacy “Carol Davila”—Bucharest (no. 7873/2021).

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

Data Availability Statement

The dataset presented in this study is available on reasonable request from the corresponding author.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to warmly thank to all the participants in the study.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Ribeiro, I.; Pereira, R.; Freire, I.V.; de Oliveira, B.G.; Casotti, C.A.; Boery, E.N. Stress and Quality of Life Among University Students: A Systematic Literature Review. Health Prof. Educ. 2018, 4, 70–77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Alharbi, E.S.; Smith, A.P. Review of the Literature on Stress and Wellbeing of International Students in English-Speaking Countries. Int. Educ. Stud. 2018, 11, 22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  3. Wuthrich, V.M.; Jagiello, T.; Azzi, V. Academic Stress in the Final Years of School: A Systematic Literature Review. Child. Psychiatry Hum. Dev. 2020, 51, 986–1015. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Hoying, J.; Melnyk, B.M.; Hutson, E.; Tan, A. Prevalence and Correlates of Depression, Anxiety, Stress, Healthy Beliefs, and Lifestyle Behaviors in First-Year Graduate Health Sciences Students. Worldviews Evid. Based Nurs. 2020, 17, 49–59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  5. Voltmer, E.; Kötter, T.; Spahn, C. Perceived medical school stress and the development of behavior and experience patterns in German medical students. Med. Teach. 2012, 34, 840–847. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Heinen, I.; Bullinger, M.; Kocalevent, R.-D. Perceived stress in first year medical students—Associations with personal resources and emotional distress. BMC Med. Educ. 2017, 17, 4. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  7. Beiter, R.; Nash, R.; McCrady, M.; Rhoades, D.; Linscomb, M.; Clarahan, M.; Sammut, S. The prevalence and correlates of depression, anxiety, and stress in a sample of college students. J. Affect. Disord. 2015, 173, 90–96. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Ramón-Arbués, E.; Gea-Caballero, V.; Granada-López, J.M.; Juárez-Vela, R.; Pellicer-García, B.; Antón-Solanas, I. The Prevalence of Depression, Anxiety and Stress and Their Associated Factors in College Students. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 7001. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. World Health Organization. The ICD-11 Classification of Mental Disorders and Behavioral Disorders: Clinical Descriptions and Diag-nostic Guidelines; WHO: Geneva, Switzerland, 1992; Available online: https://icd.who.int/browse11/l-m/en (accessed on 10 June 2021).
  10. Popa-Velea, O.; Diaconescu, L.V.; Gheorghe, I.R.; Olariu, O.; Panaitiu, I.; Cerniţanu, M.; Goma, L.; Nicov, I.; Spinei, L. Factors Associated with Burnout in Medical Academia: An Exploratory Analysis of Romanian and Moldavian Physicians. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2019, 16, 2382. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  11. Ishak, W.; Nikravesh, R.; Lederer, S.; Perry, R.; Ogunyemi, D.; Bernstein, C. Burnout in medical students: A systematic review. Clin. Teach. 2013, 10, 242–245. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  12. Dyrbye, L.N.; Shanafelt, T.D. A narrative review on burnout experienced by medical students and residents. Med. Educ. 2015, 50, 132–149. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Hope, V.; Henderson, M. Medical student depression, anxiety and distress outside North America: A systematic review. Med. Educ. 2014, 48, 963–979. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Popa-Velea, O.; Pamfile, D.; Popp, I. Psychosocial support and burnout at physicians attending advanced care patients: The impact of Balint training. Int. J. Behav. Med. 2014, 21, S95–S96. [Google Scholar]
  15. Dyrbye, L.N.; Thomas, M.R.; Shanafelt, T.D. Systematic Review of Depression, Anxiety, and Other Indicators of Psychological Distress among U.S. and Canadian Medical Students. Acad. Med. 2006, 81, 354–373. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Dahlin, M.; Joneborg, N.; Runeson, B. Stress and depression among medical students: A cross-sectional study. Med. Educ. 2005, 39, 594–604. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  17. Afsar, N.; Kulsoom, B. Stress, anxiety, and depression among medical students in a multiethnic setting. Neuropsychiatr. Dis. Treat. 2015, 11, 1713–1722. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  18. Hafferty, F.W. Beyond curriculum reform: Confronting medicine’s hidden curriculum. Acad. Med. 1998, 73, 403–407. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Ishak, W.W.; Lederer, S.; Mandili, C.; Nikravesh, R.; Seligman, L.; Vasa, M.; Ogunyemi, D.; Bernstein, C.A. Burnout During Residency Training: A Literature Review. J. Grad. Med. Educ. 2009, 1, 236–242. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  20. Kremer, T.; Mamede, S.; Filho, J.S.R.; Leite, J.M. Emotionally Difficult Experiences Faced by Medical Students During Training. Health Prof. Educ. 2016, 2, 24–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  21. Ball, S.; Bax, A. Self-care in medical education: Effectiveness of health-habits interventions for first-year medical students. Acad. Med. 2002, 77, 911–917. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Sreeramareddy, C.T.; Shankar, P.R.; Binu, V.S.; Mukhopadhyay, C.; Ray, B.; Menezes, R.G. Psychological morbidity, sources of stress and coping strategies among undergraduate medical students of Nepal. BMC Med. Educ. 2007, 7, 26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  23. Bergmann, C.; Muth, T.; Loerbroks, A. Medical students’ perceptions of stress due to academic studies and its interrelationships with other domains of life: A qualitative study. Med. Educ. Online 2019, 24, 1603526. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  24. Pagnin, D.; De Queiroz, V.; Filho, M.A.D.O.; Gonzalez, N.V.A.; Salgado, A.E.T.; Oliveira, B.C.E.; Lodi, C.S.; Melo, R.M.D.S. Burnout and career choice motivation in medical students. Med. Teach. 2013, 35, 388–394. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Hayat, A.A.; Salehi, A.; Kojuri, J. Medical student’s academic performance: The role of academic emotions and motivation. J. Adv. Med. Educ. Prof. 2018, 6, 168–175. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  26. Wu, H.; Li, S.; Zheng, J.; Guo, J. Medical students’ motivation and academic performance: The mediating roles of self-efficacy and learning engagement. Med. Educ. Online 2020, 25, 1742964. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  27. Inayah, A.T.; Anwer, L.A.; Shareef, M.A.; Nurhussen, A.; Alkabbani, H.M.; Alzahrani, A.A.; Obad, A.S.; Zafar, M.; Afsar, N.A. Objectivity in subjectivity: Do students’ self and peer assessments correlate with examiners’ subjective and objective assessment in clinical skills? A prospective study. BMJ Open 2017, 7, e012289. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Popa-Velea, O.; Diaconescu, L.V.; Ion, F.A.; Ştefancu, D.; Truţescu, C. Attachment style and perceived discrimination: Associations with depression among young lesbian, gay, and bisexual Romanian adults. J. Soc. Pers. Relatsh. 2018, 36, 3259–3272. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Popa-Velea, O.; Trutescu, C.; Ionescu, E.V.; Almasan, E.R.; Bobirnac, G. The usefulness of the Draw-a-Person (DAP) test in the diagnosis and assessment of domestic violence. Rom. J. Leg. Med. 2016, 24, 231–235. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Gertrude, Z.; Zziwa, G. Does the organizational structure affect the management of universities in Uganda? An empirical analysis. Int. J. Educ. Adm. Policy Stud. 2014, 6, 159–169. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Popa-Velea, O.; Diaconescu, L.; Mihăilescu, A.; Popescu, M.J.; Macarie, G. Burnout and Its Relationships with Alexithymia, Stress, and Social Support among Romanian Medical Students: A Cross-Sectional Study. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2017, 14, 560. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  32. Bandura, A. Human agency in social cognitive theory. Am. Psychol. 1989, 44, 1175–1184. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Lenz, E.R.; Shortridge-Baggett, L.M. Self-Efficacy in Nursing; Springer: New York, NY, USA, 2002. [Google Scholar]
  34. Zajacova, A.; Lynch, S.M.; Espenshade, T.J. Self-Efficacy, Stress, and Academic Success in College. Res. High. Educ. 2005, 46, 677–706. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Morton, S.; Mergler, A.; Boman, P. Managing the Transition: The Role of Optimism and Self-Efficacy for First-Year Australian University Students. Aust. J. Guid. Couns. 2013, 24, 90–108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  36. Honicke, T.; Broadbent, J. The influence of academic self-efficacy on academic performance: A systematic review. Educ. Res. Rev. 2016, 17, 63–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Herrman, H.; Stewart, D.E.; Diaz-Granados, N.; Berger, E.L.; Jackson, B.; Yuen, T. What is Resilience? Can. J. Psychiatry 2011, 56, 258–265. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  38. Ayala, J.C.; Manzano, G. Academic performance of first-year university students: The influence of resilience and engagement. High. Educ. Res. Dev. 2018, 37, 1–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Wilks, S.E.; Spivey, C.A. Resilience in Undergraduate Social Work Students: Social Support and Adjustment to Academic Stress. Soc. Work. Educ. 2010, 29, 276–288. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Park, J.H.; Kim, E.H. Relationship of academic stress, ego-resilience and health promoting behaviors in nursing students. J. Korea Acad. Industr. Coop. Soc. 2017, 18, 193–202. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Vizoso, C.; Arias-Gundín, O.; Rodríguez, C. Exploring coping and optimism as predictors of academic burnout and performance among university students. Educ. Psychol. 2019, 39, 768–783. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. MacArthur, K.R.; Sikorski, J. A qualitative analysis of the coping reservoir model of pre-clinical medical student well-being: Human connection as making it ‘worth it’. BMC Med. Educ. 2020, 20, 157. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Gardner, D.H.; Parkinson, T.J. Optimism, self-esteem, and social support as mediators of the relationships among workload, stress, and well-being in veterinary students. J. Veter- Med. Educ. 2011, 38, 60–66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Stewart, S.M.; Betson, C.; Lam, T.H.; Marshall, I.B.; Lee, P.W.H.; Wong, C.M. Predicting stress in first year medical students: A longitudinal study. Med. Educ. 1997, 31, 163–168. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Nurttila, S.; Ketonen, E.; Lonka, K. Sense of Competence and Optimism as Resources to Promote Academic Engagement. Procedia Soc. Behav. Sci. 2015, 171, 1017–1026. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  46. Supervía, P.U.; Bordás, C.S.; Lorente, V.M. Exploring the Psychological Effects of Optimism on Life Satisfaction in Students: The Mediating Role of Goal Orientations. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 7887. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  47. Singh, I.; Jha, A. Anxiety, Optimism and Academic Achievement among Students of Private Medical and Engineering Colleges: A Comparative Study. J. Educ. Dev. Psychol. 2013, 3, p222. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  48. Karademas, E.C. Self-efficacy, social support and well-being: The mediating role of optimism. Pers. Individ. Differ. 2006, 40, 1281–1290. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Icekson, T.; Kaplan, O.; Slobodin, O. Does optimism predict academic performance? Exploring the moderating roles of conscientiousness and gender. Stud. High. Educ. 2019, 45, 635–647. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Tetzner, J.; Becker, M. Think Positive? Examining the Impact of Optimism on Academic Achievement in Early Adolescents. J. Pers. 2017, 86, 283–295. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Brown, J.D.; Marshall, M.A. Self-Esteem and Emotion: Some Thoughts about Feelings. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 2001, 27, 575–584. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  52. Neveu, D.; Doron, J.; Visier, L.; Boiché, J.; Trouillet, R.; Dujols, P.; Ninot, G. Students perceived stress in academic programs: Consequences for its management. Rev. Epidemiol. St. Publique 2012, 60, 255–264. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  53. Kötter, T.; Wagner, J.; Brüheim, L.; Voltmer, E. Perceived Medical School stress of undergraduate medical students predicts academic performance: An observational study. BMC Med. Educ. 2017, 17, 256. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  54. Santen, S.A.; Holt, D.B.; Kemp, J.D.; Hemphill, R.R. Burnout in Medical Students: Examining the Prevalence and Associated Factors. South. Med. J. 2010, 103, 758–763. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  55. Erschens, R.; Keifenheim, K.E.; Herrmann-Werner, A.; Loda, T.; Schwille-Kiuntke, J.; Bugaj, T.J.; Nikendei, C.; Huhn, D.; Zipfel, S.; Junne, F. Professional burnout among medical students: Systematic literature review and meta-analysis. Med. Teach. 2018, 41, 172–183. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Frajerman, A.; Morvan, Y.; Krebs, M.-O.; Gorwood, P.; Chaumette, B. Burnout in medical students before residency: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur. Psychiatry 2019, 55, 36–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Yeung, W.-F.; Chung, K.-F.; Chan, T. Sleep–wake habits, excessive daytime sleepiness and academic performance among medical students in Hong Kong. Biol. Rhythm. Res. 2008, 39, 369–377. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Azad, M.C.; Fraser, K.; Rumana, N.; Abdullah, A.F.; Shahana, N.; Hanly, P.J.; Turin, T.C. Sleep Disturbances among Medical Students: A Global Perspective. J. Clin. Sleep Med. 2015, 11, 69–74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  59. Ahrberg, K.; Dresler, M.; Niedermaier, S.; Steiger, A.; Genzel, L. The interaction between sleep quality and academic performance. J. Psychiatr. Res. 2012, 46, 1618–1622. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Concerto, C.; Patel, D.; Infortuna, C.; Chusid, E.; Muscatello, M.R.; Bruno, A.; Zoccali, R.; Aguglia, E.; Battaglia, F. Academic stress disrupts cortical plasticity in graduate students. Stress 2017, 20, 212–216. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  61. Sale, M.; Ridding, M.C.; Nordstrom, M.A. Cortisol Inhibits Neuroplasticity Induction in Human Motor Cortex. J. Neurosci. 2008, 28, 8285–8293. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  62. Sapolsky, R.M. Stress and plasticity in the limbic system. Neurochem. Res. 2003, 28, 1735–1742. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  63. Bazzari, A.H.; Parri, H.R. Neuromodulators and Long-Term Synaptic Plasticity in Learning and Memory: A Steered-Glutamatergic Perspective. Brain Sci. 2019, 9, 300. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  64. Schaefer, N.; Rotermund, C.; Blumrich, E.-M.; Lourenco, M.V.; Joshi, P.; Hegemann, R.U.; Jamwal, S.; Ali, N.; Romero, E.M.G.; Sharma, S.; et al. The malleable brain: Plasticity of neural circuits and behavior—A review from students to students. J. Neurochem. 2017, 142, 790–811. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  65. Nguyen, T.T.T.; Seki, N.; Morio, I. Stress predictors in two Asian dental schools with an integrated curriculum and traditional curriculum. Eur. J. Dent. Educ. 2018, 22, e594–e601. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  66. Lin, X.-J.; Zhang, C.-Y.; Yang, S.; Hsu, M.-L.; Cheng, H.; Chen, J.; Yu, H. Stress and its association with academic performance among dental undergraduate students in Fujian, China: A cross-sectional online questionnaire survey. BMC Med. Educ. 2020, 20, 181. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Schwarzer, R.; Jerusalem, M. Generalized Self-Efficacy Scale. In Measures in Health Psychology: A User’s Portfolio. Causal and Control Beliefs; Weinman, J., Wright, S., Johnston, M., Eds.; Nfer-Nelson: Windsor, UK, 1995; pp. 35–37. [Google Scholar]
  68. Schwarzer, R.; Bäßler, J.; Kwiatek, P.; Schröder, K.; Zhang, J.X. The Assessment of Optimistic Self-beliefs: Comparison of the German, Spanish, and Chinese Versions of the General Self-efficacy Scale. Appl. Psychol. 1997, 46, 69–88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Scholz, U.; Doña, B.G.; Sud, S.; Schwarzer, R. Is general self-efficacy a universal construct? Psychometric findings from 25 countries. Eur. J. Psychol. Assess. 2002, 18, 242–251. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Scheier, M.F.; Carver, C.S.; Bridges, M.W. Distinguishing optimism from neuroticism (and trait anxiety, self-mastery, and self-esteem): A reevaluation of the Life Orientation Test. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 1994, 67, 1063–1078. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Schou, I.; Ekeberg, Ø.; Ruland, C.; Sandvik, L.; Kåresen, R. Pessimism as a predictor of emotional morbidity one year following breast cancer surgery. Psycho-Oncology 2004, 13, 309–320. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Gustems-Carnicer, J.; Calderon, C.; Santacana, M.F. Psychometric properties of the Life Orientation Test (LOT-R) and its relationship with psychological well-being and academic progress in college students. Rev. Latinoam. Psicol. 2017, 49, 19–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  73. Smith, B.W.; Dalen, J.; Wiggins, K.; Tooley, E.M.; Christopher, P.; Bernard, J. The brief resilience scale: Assessing the ability to bounce back. Int. J. Behav. Med. 2008, 15, 194–200. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Fung, S.-F. Validity of the Brief Resilience Scale and Brief Resilient Coping Scale in a Chinese Sample. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 1265. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  75. Cohen, S.; Kamarck, T.; Mermelstein, R. A Global Measure of Perceived Stress. J. Health Soc. Behav. 1983, 24, 385. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Lee, E.-H. Review of the Psychometric Evidence of the Perceived Stress Scale. Asian Nurs. Res. 2012, 6, 121–127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  77. Carver, C.S.; Scheier, M.F. Optimism, pessimism, and self-regulation. In Optimism & Pessimism: Implications for Theory, Research, and Practice; Chang, E.C., Ed.; American Psychological Association: Washington, DC, USA, 2001; pp. 31–51. [Google Scholar]
  78. Fowler, J.B.; Fiani, B.; Kiessling, J.W.; Khan, Y.R.; Li, C.; Quadri, S.A.; Mahato, D.; Siddiqi, J. The Correlation of Burnout and Optimism among Medical Residents. Cureus 2020, 12, e6860. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  79. Nes, L.S.; Segerstrom, S. Dispositional Optimism and Coping: A Meta-Analytic Review. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Rev. 2006, 10, 235–251. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Carver, C.S.; Scheier, M.F.; Segerstrom, S.C. Optimism. Clin. Psychol. Rev. 2010, 30, 879–889. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  81. Kazmi, U.E.R.; Muazzam, A. Adjustment Problems, Depression and Academic Achievement: The Mediating Role of Resilience. Pak. J. Psychol. Res. 2020, 35, 545–557. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Talib, N.; Zia-ur-Rehman, M. Academic performance and perceived stress among university students. Educ. Res. Rev. 2012, 7, 127–132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Gabre, H.; Kumar, G. The Effects of Perceived Stress and Facebook on Accounting Students’ Academic Performance. Account. Finance Res. 2012, 1, 87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Haider, S.I. Effect of Stress on Academic Performance of Undergraduate Medical Students. J. Community Med. Health Educ. 2017, 7, 1–4. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Akgün, S.; Ciarrochi, J. Learned Resourcefulness Moderates the Relationship Between Academic Stress and Academic Performance. Educ. Psychol. 2003, 23, 287–294. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Salamonson, Y.; Ramjan, L.M.; Nieuwenhuizen, S.V.D.; Metcalfe, L.; Chang, S.; Everett, B. Sense of coherence, self-regulated learning and academic performance in first year nursing students: A cluster analysis approach. Nurse Educ. Pr. 2016, 17, 208–213. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  87. Arshad, M.; Zaidi, S.M.I.H.; Mahmood, K. Self-esteem and academic performance among university students. J. Educ. Pract. 2015, 6, 156–162. [Google Scholar]
  88. Fares, J.; Al Tabosh, H.; Saadeddin, Z.; El Mouhayyar, C.; Aridi, H. Stress, burnout and coping strategies in preclinical medical students. North Am. J. Med. Sci. 2016, 8, 75–81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  89. Infortuna, C.; Silvestro, S.; Crenshaw, K.; Muscatello, M.R.A.; Bruno, A.; Zoccali, R.A.; Chusid, E.; Intrator, J.; Han, Z.; Battaglia, F. Affective Temperament Traits and Age-Predicted Recreational Cannabis Use in Medical Students: A Cross-Sectional Study. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 4836. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  90. Mineo, L.; Sarraf, Y.; Ingram, C.; Hanauer, S.; Infortuna, C.; Chusid, E.; Coira, D.; Aguglia, E.; Battaglia, F. Affective temperaments and stimulant medications misuse for neuroenhancement in graduate students. J. Subst. Use 2017, 23, 124–129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Table
Table 1. Scores of the study variables.
Table 1. Scores of the study variables.
VariableMeanStandard DeviationMinimum ValueMaximum ValueNormality Check of
Distribution
StatisticdfSignificance
Self-efficacy29.2035.29616400.984 *1180.167
Optimism19.7715.3269290.965 *1180.003
Resilience18.1181.87213250.952 *1180.001
Perceived stress30.4403.55623380.981 *1180.090
GPA9.1040.7137.30100.914 *1180.001
* Shapiro-Wilk test, GPA = Grade Point Average.
Table
Table 2. Determinants of academic performance for students in the lower GPA quartile. (GPA < 8.32) (N = 22) (linear regression).
Table 2. Determinants of academic performance for students in the lower GPA quartile. (GPA < 8.32) (N = 22) (linear regression).
ModelRR2Adj.R2SEECoefficientstp
VariableBBeta
10.2150.046−0.0270.358(constant)8.087 10.7150.000
Gender0.1690.2181.1240.271
Age−0.004−0.024−0.1230.903
20.7250.5310.3410.318(constant)10.058 8.7900.000
Gender0.1790.0231.2990.208
Age0.0420.0241.1030.283
Self-efficacy0.0070.1170.5340.599
Optimism0.0290.4752.8190.033
Resilience0.0470.3072.7270.039
Perceived stress−0.053−0.569−2.5750.018
Satisfaction regarding own academic performance−0.023−0.307−1.4110.173
Model 1 predictors: (constant), Gender, Age. Model 2 predictors: (Constant), Gender, Age, Self-efficacy, Optimism, Resilience, Perceived stress, Satisfaction regarding own academic performance. Adj. = adjusted; SEE = standard error of the estimate.
Table
Table 3. Determinants of academic performance for students in the upper GPA quartile. (GPA > 9.64) (N = 29) (linear regression).
Table 3. Determinants of academic performance for students in the upper GPA quartile. (GPA > 9.64) (N = 29) (linear regression).
ModelRR2Adj.R2SEECoefficientstp
VariableBBeta
10.3040.0920.0230.123(constant)9.473 25.9100.000
Gender−0.073−0.256−1.3530.188
Age0.0170.2081.1000.281
20.4620.214−0.0480.127(constant)9.695 11.7300.000
Gender−0.095−0.333−1.4650.158
Age0.0270.3230.8680.395
Self-efficacy0.0050.1870.8170.423
Optimism−0.005−0.197−0.8330.414
Resilience−0.016−0.186−0.7750.447
Perceived stress−0.004−0.130−0.5820.567
Satisfaction regarding own academic performance−0.088−0.220−0.6020.554
Model 1 predictors: (constant), Gender, Age. Model 2 predictors: (Constant), Gender, Age, Self-efficacy, Optimism, Resilience, Perceived stress, Satisfaction regarding own academic performance. Adj. = adjusted; SEE = standard error of the estimate.
Table
Table 4. Determinants of academic performance for preclinical students. (N = 21) (linear regression).
Table 4. Determinants of academic performance for preclinical students. (N = 21) (linear regression).
ModelRR2Adj.R2SEECoefficientstp
VariableBBeta
10.4000.1600.0670.680(constant)13.414 4.6850.000
Gender0.4110.2541.1570.263
Age−0.233−0.360−1.6380.119
20.5720.327−0.0350.716(constant)10.019 2.0750.058
Gender0.6450.4001.5490.145
Age−0.2290.174−1.3180.210
Self-efficacy−0.026−0.201−0.7690.455
Optimism0.0150.1100.4030.693
Resilience0.0900.3491.4700.165
Perceived stress0.0670.2470.9190.375
Satisfaction regarding own academic performance−0.082−0.054−0.2020.843
Model 1 predictors: (constant), Gender, Age. Model 2 predictors: (Constant), Gender, Age, Self-efficacy, Optimism, Resilience, Perceived stress, Satisfaction regarding own academic performance. Adj. = adjusted; SEE = standard error of the estimate.
Table
Table 5. Determinants of academic performance for clinical students. (N = 97) (linear regression).
Table 5. Determinants of academic performance for clinical students. (N = 97) (linear regression).
ModelRR2Adj.R2SEECoefficientstp
VariableBBeta
10.2660.0710.0510.683(constant)6.006 4.7770.000
Gender0.0370.1241.5440.053
Age−0.186−0.108−1.0790.283
20.4360.1900.1270.655(constant)8.012 4.8890.000
Gender−0.2200.168−1.3090.194
Age−0.013−0.120−1.5380.056
Self-efficacy0.0030.0250.2090.835
Optimism0.0010.0090.0750.940
Resilience0.0220.0520.5300.598
Perceived stress−0.054−0.282−2.6410.010
Satisfaction regarding own academic performance−0.279−0.188−1.9470.055
Model 1 predictors: (constant), Gender, Age. Model 2 predictors: (Constant), Gender, Age, Self-efficacy, Optimism, Resilience, Perceived stress, Satisfaction regarding own academic performance. Adj. = adjusted; SEE = standard error of the estimate.
Table
Table 6. Analysis of variables by gender.
Table 6. Analysis of variables by gender.
VariablesGender
MaleFemale
N = 25N = 93
Self-efficacyMean30.36028.892
Standard deviation5.1065.329
Student test for independent samples−1.233
df116
p0.220
OptimismMean rank59.68059.451
Sum of ranks1492.0005529.000
Wilcoxon–Mann–Whitney
two-sample rank-sum test		1158.000
Z−0.03
p0.976
ResilienceMean rank59.72059.440
Sum of ranks1493.0005528.000
Wilcoxon–Mann–Whitney
two-sample rank-sum test		1157.000
Z−0.037
p0.971
Perceived stressMean30.28030.483
Standard deviation3.4343.604
Student test for independent samples0.254
df116
p0.800
GPAMean rank57.70059.983
Sum of ranks1442.5005578.500
Wilcoxon–Mann–Whitney
two-sample rank-sum test		1117.500
Z−0.296
p0.767
Table
Table 7. Analysis of variables by position in the academic cycle.
Table 7. Analysis of variables by position in the academic cycle.
VariablesPosition in
the Academic Cycle
PreclinicalClinical
N = 21N = 97
Self-efficacyMean30.04729.020
Standard deviation5.3525.293
Student test for independent samples0.805
df116
p0.423
OptimismMean rank61.78559.005
Sum of ranks1297.5005723.500
Wilcoxon–Mann–Whitney
two-sample rank-sum test		970.500
Z−0.338
p0.735
ResilienceMean rank61.61959.041
Sum of ranks1294.0005727.000
Wilcoxon–Mann–Whitney
two-sample rank-sum test		974.000
Z−0.319
p0.750
Perceived stressMean31.71430.164
Standard deviation2.5913.685
Student test for independent samples2.285
df116
p0.028*
GPAMean rank48.97658.644
Sum of ranks944.5005076.500
Wilcoxon–Mann–Whitney
two-sample rank-sum test		913.500
Z−1.947
p0.062
Table
Table 8. Determinants of perceived academic performance.
Table 8. Determinants of perceived academic performance.
VariablesDissatisfaction Regarding
Own
Academic Performance
(N = 80)		Satisfaction Regarding Own Academic Performance
(N = 38)		Differences between Groups
Statistical Testp
A. Demographical variables
GenderMale (N)1510χ2 = 0.883
(df = 1)		0.347
Female (N)6528
AgeMean score22.87522.842t = 0.094
(df = 116)		0.925
Standard deviation1.6412.021
Min.-Max. score19–2718–27
Position in the academic cycleFirst year (N)52χ2 = 13.546
(df = 5)		0.019
Second year (N)104
Third year (N)74
Fourth year (N)104
Fifth year (N)78
Sixth year (N)4116
B. Psychological variables
Self-efficacyMean29.56229.447t = 1.069
(df = 116)		0.287
Standard deviation5.3955.066
Min.-Max. score16–4018–38
OptimismMean20.08719.105Wilcoxon-Mann-
Whitney test = 1188.500
(Z = −1.137)		0.255
Standard deviation5.1275.737
Min.-Max. score9–2910–29
ResilienceMean18.16218.026Wilcoxon-Mann-
Whitney test = 1277.500
(Z = −0.608)		0.443
Standard deviation1.9771.651
Min.-Max. score13–2516–23
Perceived stressMean30.47530.368t = 0.152
(df = 116)		0.880
Standard deviation3.4823.752
Min.-Max. score25–3823–38
Grade point averageMean9.0209.280Wilcoxon-Mann-
Whitney test = 960.000
(Z = −2.519)		0.012
Standard deviation0.7090.697
Min.-Max. score7.40–10.007.30–10.00
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Popa-Velea, O.; Pîrvan, I.; Diaconescu, L.V. The Impact of Self-Efficacy, Optimism, Resilience and Perceived Stress on Academic Performance and Its Subjective Evaluation: A Cross-Sectional Study. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 8911. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18178911

AMA Style

Popa-Velea O, Pîrvan I, Diaconescu LV. The Impact of Self-Efficacy, Optimism, Resilience and Perceived Stress on Academic Performance and Its Subjective Evaluation: A Cross-Sectional Study. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2021; 18(17):8911. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18178911

Chicago/Turabian Style

Popa-Velea, Ovidiu, Irina Pîrvan, and Liliana Veronica Diaconescu. 2021. "The Impact of Self-Efficacy, Optimism, Resilience and Perceived Stress on Academic Performance and Its Subjective Evaluation: A Cross-Sectional Study" International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 18, no. 17: 8911. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18178911

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop