Perceived Stress Levels and Support of Student Disability Services
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Perceived stress of university students tends to be higher for students with disabilities compared to students without disabilities. Students with disabilities may therefore require campus support to manage additional stress they encounter. The current study investigated the relationship between students’ perceived stress levels and enrollment in university campus Disability Services for Students (DSS). Three groups of university students were studied: those without disabilities (n = 42), those with disabilities registered with DSS (n = 21), and those with disabilities not registered with DSS (n = 23). Three hypotheses were tested. First, students with disabilities would have higher overall perceived stress levels compared to students without disabilities. Second, students with disabilities who were not registered with DSS would experience a higher level of perceived stress compared to students with disabilities who were registered with DSS. Third, students with disabilities registered with DSS would have a similar level of perceived stress to students without disabilities. Student participants completed an online self-report survey containing the Perceived Stress Scale(Cohen, Kamarck, & Mermelstein, 1983). A one-way analysis of variance was conducted to investigate potential differences in perceived stress levels between the three groups. The results indicated that students with disabilities reported higher levels of stress compared to their peers without disabilities, yet DSS had no significant effect on perceived stress among students with disabilities. With these findings, we suggest that further research on the relationship between DSS and other academic factors, such as students’ grade point average, should be conducted.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".