The Relationship between Academic Performance, Peer Pressure, and Educational Stress as It Relates to High School Students’ Openness to Seeking Professional Psychological Help
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Adolescents, especially high school students, are more susceptible to stress and encounter other mental health issues. This is linked to extrinsic causes like academics, family, and friends. However, previous studies have shown low rates of students seeking professional psychological help for their problems. This study investigate the relationship among factors including academic performance, educational stress, peer pressure and openness to seeking professional psychological help. We conducted this study with 471 high school students (grades 10–12) engaged. The questionnaire was based on three measurements: peer pressure short form (PPSF), educational stress scale for adolescents (ESSA), and openness to seeking professional psychological help (ATSPPH_O). The Mann-Whitney U test, Kruskal-Wallis test and The PLS-SEM method were used to evaluate this research. The results showed that: (i) students with a higher level of peer pressure have a greater openness to seeking professional psychological help; (ii) the more open to seeking professional psychological help, the higher educational stress that students got; (iii) students with a higher level of peer pressure have greater educational stress; (iv) the openness to seeking professional psychological help would mediate the relationship between peer pressure and educational stress; (v) there was a significant difference between academic performance of peer pressure. On the one hand, counselors, clinicians, and therapists must identify students who are experiencing educational stress in the context of peer pressure as vulnerable groups in need of early mental health interventions. On the other hand, educators and teachers must consider the impact of peer pressure on students' academic performance and devise appropriate teaching strategies.
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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".