Author’s Accepted Manuscript

MENTAL HEALTH PROBLEMS IN COLLEGE

FRESHMEN: PREVALENCE AND ACADEMIC
FUNCTIONING

Ronny Bruffaerts, Philippe Mortier, Glenn Kiekens,

Randy P. Auerbach, Pim Cuijpersd, Koen
Demyttenaere, Jennifer G. Green, Matthew K.
Nock, Ronald C. Kessler www.elsevier.com/locate/jad

PII: S0165-0327(16)32454-5
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2017.07.044
Reference: JAD9110
To appear in: Journal of Affective Disorders
Received date: 28 December 2016
Revised date: 19 July 2017
Accepted date: 24 July 2017
Cite this article as: Ronny Bruffaerts, Philippe Mortier, Glenn Kiekens, Randy P.
Auerbach, Pim Cuijpersd, Koen Demyttenaere, Jennifer G. Green, Matthew K.
Nock and Ronald C. Kessler, MENTAL HEALTH PROBLEMS IN COLLEGE
FRESHMEN: PREVALENCE AND ACADEMIC FUNCTIONING, Journal of
Affective Disorders, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2017.07.044
This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for
publication. As a service to our customers we are providing this early version of
the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo copyediting, typesetting, and
review of the resulting galley proof before it is published in its final citable form.
Please note that during the production process errors may be discovered which
could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.
 MENTAL HEALTH PROBLEMS IN COLLEGE FRESHMEN: PREVALENCE
AND ACADEMIC FUNCTIONING

RONNY BRUFFAERTSa*, PHILIPPE MORTIERb, GLENN KIEKENSb, RANDY P

AUERBACHc, PIM CUIJPERSdf, KOEN DEMYTTENAEREa, JENNIFER G
GREENe,MATTHEW K NOCKd, RONALD C KESSLERg

a
Research Group Psychiatry, Department of Neurosciences, KU Leuven University,
Universitair Psychiatrisch Centrum – KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium
b
Research Group Psychiatry, Department of Neurosciences, KU Leuven University,
Leuven, Belgium
c
Department of Psychiatry, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA; Center for
Depression, Anxiety and Stress Research, McLean Hospital, Belmont, MA, USA
d
Department of Psychology, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA, USA
e
School of Education, Boston University, Boston, MA, USA
f
Department of Clinical, Neuro and Developmental Psychology, Vrije Universiteit
Amsterdam
g
Harvard Medical School, Department of Health Care Policy, Harvard University, Boston,
MA, USA

*
Corresponding author. Universitair Psychiatrisch Centrum – KU Leuven, campus
Gasthuisberg, Herestraat 49, B-3000 Leuven, Belgium,
[email protected]

ABSTRACT
Background. Mental health problems in college and their associations with academic
performance are not well understood. The main aim of this study was to investigate to what
extent mental health problems are associated with academic functioning.

Methods. As part of the World Mental Health Surveys International College Student project,
12-month mental health problems among freshmen (N=4,921) was assessed in an e-survey of
students at KU Leuven University in Leuven, Belgium. The associations of mental health
problems with academic functioning (expressed in terms of academic year percentage [or
AYP] and grade point average [GPA]) were examined across academic departments.

Results. Approximately one in three freshman reports mental health problems in the past year,
with internalizing and externalizing problems both associated with reduced academic
functioning (2.9-4.7% AYP reduction, corresponding to 0.2-0.3 GPA reduction). The
association of externalizing problems with individual-level academic functioning was
significantly higher in academic departments with comparatively low average academic
functioning.

Limitations. Limited sample size precluded further investigation of interactions between

department-level and student-level variables. No information was available on freshman
secondary school academic performance.

Conclusions. Mental health problems are common in college freshman, and clearly associated
with lower academic functioning. Additional research is needed to examine the potentially
causal nature of this association, and, if so, whether interventions aimed at treating mental
health problems might improve academic performance.

1. INTRODUCTION

The college years are a developmentally crucial period when students make the transition

from late adolescence to emerging adulthood (Arnett, 2000). Epidemiological studies suggest

that 12-50% of college students meet criteria for one or more common mental disorders

(Blanco et al., 2008; Hunt & Eisenberg, 2010; Verger et al. 2010). Differences between

college students and their non-college peers are generally understudied but the available

evidence shows that college students are somewhat at lower risk of mental disorders

(Auerbach et al., 2016; Blanco et al., 2008). In any case, mental disorders in early adulthood

are associated with long-term adverse outcomes in later adulthood, including persistent

emotional and physical health problems (Scott et al., 2016), relationship dysfunction (Kerr &

Capaldi, 2011), and labor market marginalization (Niederkrotenthaler et al., 2014; Goldman-

Mellor et al., 2014). These long-term adverse outcomes may be mediated by mental health

problems that exist during the college years, as these years constitute a peak period for the

first onset of a broad range of mental disorders (Ibrahim et al., 2013).

In Belgium, around roughly 70% of high school graduates attains higher education after

graduating from high school (Dehon & Ortiz, 2008), but only 37-39% will succeed and even

28% will never obtain any diploma (Declercq & Verboven, 2014). Reasons for dropout are

comparable to international literature, and include: lower socio-economic status (Walpole,

2003), male gender (Dehon & Ortiz, 2008), or the overall lack of social resources (Tinto,

1998). Also mental disorders may contribute to college dropout. Most of the research so far

discussed the role of pre-matriculation mental disorders on subsequent academic functioning

(Kosidou et al., 2014; Eisenberg et al., 2009; Gunnell et al., 2009). Previous studies show that

college students with mental disorders are twice as likely to drop out without obtaining a

degree (Kessler et al., 1995; Hartley, 2010). Consistent with this finding, between 15% and

23% of college students with mental disorders suggest that they confer a negative academic

impact (Kernan et al., 2008). Studies that investigate the association between mental health

distress and academic performance in college are much scarcer. Most evidence exists for the

finding that depression and suicidal thoughts and behaviours are related to a lower grade point

average (De Luca et al., 2016; Mortier et al., 2015; Hysenbergasi et al., 2009; Andrews &

Wilding, 2009). In addition, most studies focus on the impact of just one disorder (e.g. Meda

et al., 2017; Arria et al., 2015), leading to uncertainties as to the overall associations of a

broad range of mental health problems with academic outcomes. Prior studies also mostly

relied on self-reported academic performance or were based on reports from students

presenting to the student (mental) health center.

We address these shortcomings in the current report by using data obtained in the Leuven

College Surveys. These surveys were carried out as part of the International College Student

project (WMH-ICS; http://www.hcp.med.harvard.edu/wmh/college_student_survey.php) of

the WHO World Mental Health Surveys. The WMH-ICS aims to obtain accurate cross-
national information on the prevalence, incidence, and correlates of mental, substance, and

behavioral problems among college students worldwide, to describe patterns of service use

and unmet need for treatment, to investigate the associations of these disorders with academic

functioning, and to evaluate the effects of a wide range of preventive and clinical

interventions on student mental health, social functioning, and academic performance. The

current study builds on earlier work on academic functioning in college students (Mortier et

al., 2015; Kiekens et al., 2016; Auerbach et al., 2016). The aim is to investigate the prevalence

of mental health problems in the past year and the extent to which these problems in freshmen

in the Leuven College Surveys were associated with objectively-assessed measures of

academic performance obtained from official university records at the end of the freshman

year. We also go beyond previous studies in investigating the possibility that these

associations vary by academic departments (like bio-engineering, law school,…) using

analysis methods that take into account clustering of students within departments so as to

avoid over-generalizing conclusions.

2. MATERIAL AND METHOD

2.1. Procedures

As part of the WMH-ICS project, the Leuven College Surveys consist of a series of ongoing

web-based self-report surveys of KU Leuven students. As Belgium's largest university, KU

Leuven has an enrollment of over 40,000 students, with 7,527 Dutch-speaking incoming

freshmen aged 18 years or older in the 2012 and 2013 entering classes eligible for the baseline

survey. The sample was recruited in three stages. In the first stage, the baseline survey was

included in a routine medical check-up organized by the university student health center early

in the academic year. All incoming freshmen from all university departments were sent a

standard invitation letter for the check-up. Students who arrived at their check-up were invited
to complete the study survey on a desktop computer in the waiting room of the student health

center. In a second stage, non-respondents to the first stage were personally contacted using

customized emails containing unique electronic links to the survey. The third stage was

identical to the second stage, but additionally included an incentive to complete the survey

(i.e., a raffle for 20 euro store credit coupons). Each stage used reminder emails, setting the

maximum amount of contacts at eight. The study's protocol was approved by the University

Hospital Leuven Biomedical Ethical Board (B322201215611) and by the Belgian

Commission for the Protection of Privacy (VT005053139). We used the code for a pure

epidemiological study (in contrast to an intervention study) and have permission to include

baseline samples until September 2018. The ethical board adopts the International Conference

on Harmonisation – Guidelines of Good Clinical Practice) principles. Students who reported

any 12-month suicidality or non-suicidal self-injury were presented with links to local mental

health resources.

We obtained freshman departmental status from the KU Leuven administration office. The

KU Leuven is divided in 40 departments based on the academic content offered to the

enrolled students within that department (e.g., bio-engineering, law, romance languages – for

a full list, see https://www.kuleuven.be/english/faculties_schools). A department is a micro-

unit within the larger campus environment, with shared structural (e.g., classrooms),

interpersonal (e.g., sense of belongingness), and social (e.g., sports participation) elements.

The clustering of students in academic departments enabled us to estimate multilevel models

that investigated the possibility of between-department variability in prevalence and

associations of 12-month mental disorders with subsequent academic performance. Such an

approach may be especially valuable given that students' wellbeing and performance are
known to be is linked to peer-group characteristics, student–faculty interactions, and general

institution characteristics (Astin, 1993; Fink, 2014).

2.2. Measures

The WMH-ICS survey instrument was developed by the World Mental Health Survey

Consortium and includes multiple screening instruments for a wide range of mental health

problems. For each respondent, survey data were linked to unique administrative unit-level

data obtained from the KU Leuven students' administration office, including academic year

functioning, and sociodemographic variables.

Sociodemographic variables

Socio-demographics included gender, age, and parental educational level. Parental

education was divided in three levels: both parents completed a high academic degree (i.e.,

college bachelor degree or more), only one parent obtained a high academic degree, and

neither parent obtained a high academic degree. Parental education was included as covariate

because it is a reliable proxy variable for socio-economic status (Hauser & Warren, 1997), as

well as for young people’s educational success and achievement-related behaviors (Eccles et

al., 2004).

Mental health problems

were assessed using the Global Appraisal of Individual Needs Short Screener (GAIN-

SS), a well-validated screening instrument for 12-month mental health problems in adolescent

and adult populations (Dennis et al., 2006). The 20-item instrument is developed to provide a

quick and accurate screening of emotional and behavioural problems in order to identify

groups of adolescents and young adults with a possible need for referral or treatment, and thus
to aid in clinical referral, treatment planning, and program evaluation (Dennis et al., 2006). It

is used by more than 1,700 agencies in both clinical services and research communities

(Conrad et al., 2012). The GAIN-SS is one of the few screening instruments that effectively

addresses mental health and substance abuse problems. The instrument has been used in a

variety of populations (primary care, school, criminal justice system, homeless populations,

college populations, and general population samples - e.g. Truman et al., 2012; Shinn et al.,

2007; Sacks et al., 2008; Mortier et al., 2015). It has also been used to screen for various

mental health problems such as major depression, psychotic problems, substance abuse

problems, or bipolar disorder (Peters et al., 2008; Rush et al., 2013). The GAIN-SS consists of

four sub-screeners, each indicative for one type of mental health problems, including:

internalizing mental health problems (depression, anxiety, sleep problems, post-traumatic

stress, and suicidal ideation), externalizing mental health problems (inattentiveness,

hyperactivity, impulsivity, and conduct disorder), problems with substance use (problematic

use, substance abuse, and dependence), and crime/violence-related problems (interpersonal,

property, and drug related crimes). Sub-screeners show good internal consistency (Cronbach

α=0.65–0.81), and they are highly correlated with the original corresponding subscales of the

60–120 min DSM-IV-TR based GAIN structured interview (Pearson r=0.84–0.93; Dennis et

al., 2006). For each type of mental health problems the recommended cut-off score of three or

more positive symptoms in the past 12 months. The GAIN-SS does not allow us to assign

diagnoses or identify disorders in se; the instrument is developed and used in order to identify

4 types of mental health problems.

Academic year percentage (AYP)

The AYP is the final grade percentage (range 0.0–100.0%), as objectively calculated

by the KU Leuven administration office. The AYP is the mean result of all final course grades
(in terms of percentages) obtained from the examination periods in June and September, and

is an expression of the academic achievement of the individual student in a given academic

year. The AYP is calculated after the September retakes. If students do not participate in an

examination, the obtained grade for this particular course is zero. For reasons of comparability

with other studies, we also provide grade point average (GPA) apart from the AYP.

2.3. Statistical analyses

All analyses were performed with SAS (version 9.3) and MLwiN software (version 2.24;

Rasbash et al., 2009). First, non-response propensity weighting techniques were applied on

the data to adjust for socio-demographic differences between survey respondents and non-

respondents using de-identified socio-demographic data for the population obtained from

university administrative records. These techniques were applied to account for non-response

bias and missingness of data. This approach enables us to obtain estimates representative for

the full student population of incoming freshmen with respect to the post-stratification

variables. Since response rates can be poor indicators of data representativity (Groves, 2006),

we also calculated representativity indicators (R-indicators; Schouten et al., 2009) for each

additional inclusion stage. These are calculated as 1 - (2 x the standard deviation of the

response propensities). Response propensities are the probability of response, as calculated

here by a logistic regression model, with response as the outcome variable and all

sociodemographic variables as predictors. The more variability there is in the response

probabilities, the better the sociodemographic variables actually explain the response (or non-

response). In other words, the higher the standard deviation of the response propensities, the

more likely there is nonresponse based on sociodemographic variables. Hence, subtracting 1

by 2 times the standard deviation of the response propensities results in a multivariate

determined indicator of representativity. Values of R-indicators vary between 0 and 1, the

latter indicating data are fully representative of the population under study with respect to the

population parameters investigated.

Generalized linear modeling (GLM; using SAS GENMOD procedure) was used initially to

estimate the associations of 12-month mental health problems with AYP adjusting for gender,

age, and parental education. Two-level linear regression models were subsequently fitted,

with students (level one) nested within academic departments (level two). We estimated

between- and within-department random slopes for the associations of 12-month mental

health problems with AYP, again adjusting for individual-level socio-demographics in the

fixed part of the model. Significance testing from zero of fixed effects and (co)variances was

performed using the univariate Wald test. Finally, we estimated Spearman’s ranking

correlation coefficients (using SAS PROC CORR procedure) between the predicted slopes of

AYP on mental health problems from the multilevel models and departmental proportions in

gender, age, parental educational level, 12-month mental health problems, and departmental

mean values in AYP, and number of students enrolled.

Prevalence estimates are reported as weighted numbers (n), weighted proportions (%), and

standard errors (SE), corrected for finite population sampling without replacement (SAS

PROC SURVEYFREQ procedure). To describe between-department variance in variables,

median values and interquartile range (IQR) were calculated. Model parameters are reported

as weighted unstandardized regression coefficients (β), associated standard errors (SE), and

95% confidence intervals (95%CI).

 3. RESULTS

3.1. Sample description

Sample and department characteristics are presented in Table 1. The final sample consisted of

4,921 freshmen (with a response rate of 73.2% after correction for college dropout). R-

indicators increased from 0.803 after inclusion stage 1 to 0.815 after inclusion stage 3,

suggesting a good socio-demographic representativeness of the weighted sample. Freshmen

survey respondents were distributed over 38 different departments (two departments were left

out of the analysis due to n<10). The median number of students per department was 64

(IQR=36-164). The median departmental response rate was 67.4% (IQR=59.7-73.2) and the

mean AYP across departments was 50.1% (corresponding to a GPA of 1.7).

3.2. Twelve month mental health problems

Mental health problems in the past year were estimated at 34.9% (SE=0.45) of college

freshmen, with higher estimates for internalizing (23.7%) and externalizing (18.3%) problems

than for either substance use (5.4%) or antisocial (0.1%) problems. Mental health problems

were frequently co-occurring as 36.1% of those who had one type of problems also had

another type of mental health problems. That means that mutual exclusive types of mental

health problems were much lower, with estimates of 14.2% (SE=0.56) for internalizing

problems, 8.6% (SE=0.46) for externalizing, 1.7% (SE=0.21) for substance use, and 0% for

antisocial problems.

3.3. Associations between 12-month mental health problems and academic functioning

Table 2 shows the generalized linear model parameters estimating the association between

mental health problem and academic functioning in two statistical models, i.e. a model for
each of the mental health problem separately (left pane) and a full-factorial model (right pane)

(bivariate analyses upon request). Two out of the four types of mental health problems

(internalizing and externalizing problems) were associated with significant decreases in

academic functioning (after adjusting for socio-demographics) of 2.9% and 4.7% in AYP,

corresponding to a decrease of 0.2-0.3 in GPA, respectively. Substance abuse and antisocial

problems were not significantly associated with academic functioning, although power to

detect an association involving antisocial problems was low due to the small number of

students with that disorder (n=5). Being older than 18 years old and having parents without

academic degrees were also significantly associated with decreased academic functioning

(with AYP reductions of 4.0-7.4%, corresponding to GPA reductions of 0.5-0.7).

In addition, we have also tested whether gender, age, or SES moderates the interaction

between mental health problems and academic functioning. None of these interactions

reached significance (tables upon request). We have also tested whether multicollinearity in

the multivariate model may be an issue by calculating tolerance and variance inflation factors

(VIF – Kutner et al., 2004). These statistics were very reassuring, with tolerance values in the

range 0.880-0.992, and VIF values in the range 1.008-1.137. In fact, the Pearson correlations

between the four types of mental health problems were rather low, i.e. all in the range 0.080-

0.240 (4 out of 6 correlations significant).

3.4. Between-department variance in impact of 12-month mental health problems academic

functioning

Table 3 shows summary results of the multilevel linear models that estimated between-

department variance in the associations of mental health problems with academic functioning.
The main finding is that the associations of internalizing and externalizing mental health

problems remain significant when taking into account the between-departmental variability in

the multilevel analyses, with externalizing mental health problems associated with a 4.3%

(95%CI= -5.8 to -2.7) decrease and internalizing problems a 2.3% (95%CI= -4.1 to -0.6)

decrease in AYP. We also found a significant interaction (p=0.005) between mean

departmental academic functioning and the individual-level association between mental health

problems and academic functioning: the negative individual-level association between mental

health problems and academic functioning was stronger among freshmen in departments with

a lower departmental AYP or GPA average. Indeed, these departments showed a higher

decrease in AYP/GPA associated with externalizing mental health problems compared to

those in higher performing departments, with within-department reductions of on average

4.1% in AYP (corresponding to 0.3 drop in GPA). Department membership explained 6.5%

of the variance in the AYP/GPA among students with 12-month externalizing mental health

problems compared to 3.7% among students without externalizing problems.

Spearman’s ranking correlation coefficients between the estimated departmental decrease in

AYP associated with externalizing problems (38 departments) and other departmental

characteristics are presented in Table 4. Spearman’s ρ between decrease in AYP associated

with externalizing disorders and departmental AYP was 0.784 (p<.001). Decreases in AYP

associated with externalizing problems were positively correlated with the proportion of

males (Spearman’s ρ=0.324, p<0.05) and the proportion of students with highly educated

parents (Spearman’s ρ=0.484, p<0.01) but negatively correlated with 12-month internalizing

problems (Spearman’s ρ= -0.384, p<0.05). After calculating partial Spearman ranking

correlation coefficients (adjusting for all other departmental mean values and proportions in
Table 4), the departmental decrease in AYP associated with 12-month externalizing problems

remained significantly correlated with departmental AYP (ρ=-0.747; p<0.001).

4. DISCUSSION

This is the first study that investigated the extent to which a broad range of 12-month mental

health problems are associated with objectively-measured academic performance among

college freshman. We addressed several shortcomings of previous studies in the field, by

including a large sample, using propensity weights that enable to draw population-based

conclusions, and by using multivariate multilevel equations to investigate effects of the

departments in the research questions. These elements make the innovation or impact of this

paper above and beyond what has been done in the field of college mental health before. Two

main findings stand out. First, freshmen with internalizing and externalizing mental health

problems have significant lower academic functioning than other students. Second, the

association of internalizing problems with academic functioning is consistent across

departments, whereas the association of externalizing problems with academic functioning

varies significantly across departments as an inverse function of mean department-level AYP

or GPA.

Approximately one in three indicated having mental health problems in the past year, a

finding that is consistent with prior studies, although the estimate of alcohol problems is

somewhat to the lower end (Auerbach et al., 2016; Aertgeerts et al., 2002). More importantly,

externalizing mental health problems (other than Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder;

ADHD) in college students have been rarely examined, largely because of the assumption that

persons with childhood onset externalizing problems are at high risk for dropping out in high

school and thus never make it to college (Alexander et al., 1997). Still, we estimate the

proportion of freshmen students with externalizing problems is one in five, higher than full

(Lee et al., 2008) or subthreshold ADHD (around 7-8%) (Weyandt & DuPaul, 2006). The
exact reason for such high numbers is unclear, and may be the result of the fact that we use a

low-threshold screening instrument for mental health problems. It may also be explained by

an increasing number of adolescents with mental health problems entering tertiary education

(Gallagher, 2007).

Students who have mental health problems in the past year have, on average, a decrease of

2.9-4.7% of their AYP (or 0.2-0.3 decrease in GPA) at the end of the academic year compared

to those without these problems. That means that a student who functions on an academic

level in the 50th percentile will make a drop to the 38th and 35th percentile in the presence of

internalizing or externalizing mental health problems, respectively, comparable to the

Eisenberg et al. (2009) data, although the average GPA in US universities is higher than the

one in our study (2.6 vs. 1.7, respectively – Zwick, 2004; Cabrera et al., 2013). A new finding

is that a wide range of emotional problems – not just depression – have a significant

association with lower academic functioning, even after adjusting for a broad set of

confounders. Specifically freshmen with externalizing problems had a marked decrease in

academic functioning. The role of externalizing problems in college is far from settled, mostly

confined to studies of ADHD (Green & Rabiner, 2012) and high-risk health behaviors

(Adams & Moore, 2007), and our data point to the need of studying these problems among

college students in the future.

That externalizing problems play an important role in freshmen college life is further reflected

by the fact that we found that context-specific features may moderate the associations of

externalizing problems with academic functioning. Similar to what was found for suicide

attempts (see Mortier et al., 2015), the association of 12-month externalizing problems with

academic functioning was stronger in departments with lower academic functioning. The

most plausible interpretation here is that academic programs that are more rigorous may
increase student distress and may lead to higher mental health problems, and eventually to

lower academic functioning. An alternative interpretation may be that academically poor

educational environments have lower sense of connectedness or social support, and that this,

in turn, may temper the academic impact of externalizing mental health problems (Tinto et al.,

1993).

The results of this study should be interpreted in light of several limitations. First, the

relatively low number of cases precluded simultaneous tests of level 2 effects for all

covariates, as such analyses require very large sample sizes (e.g., N>4,000,000 - Jablonska et

al., 2009). However, a low amount of level 2 units comes mainly at the cost of

underestimating level 2 variances (Hox, 2010), leaving other estimates unbiased. Second, we

did not have exact information on pre-college functioning of the freshmen in our sample. This

may have led to the possibility that the associations we found could be partially driven by so-

far unmeasured factors (such as social or intellectual functioning). However, the fact that we

adjusted for the fixed effects of both age and parental educational level (i.e. proxies for fall-

behinds in high school – Spera et al., 2009) in the multilevel models limits the possibility of a

selection effect that explains away the observed interaction effect between departmental

academic functioning and the individual-level association of externalizing problems with

AYP. Third, because of limited statistical power we were unable to add additional covariates

(such as family environment or peer relationships) in the regression models. Further research

with larger cohorts or pooled data from the WMH-ICS surveys carried out in other

universities may focus on adding these in statistical models because these variables may

explain the association between mental health problems and academic performance. This is

also the case for an extensive examination of comorbidity which is beyond the scope of the

current study. Fourth, our data are based on the results of a screening instrument that assesses
mental health problems. Despite the fact that this is a well-validated screener with good

internal reliability and external validity, the use of a screening instrument implies that

findings might have been different if we used full diagnostic interviews. Related to this, the

GAIN-SS may not be the best instrument to identify antisocial personality in college

freshmen. The information gathered on the proportion of students with antisocial problems is

more likely to be informative than conclusive, because the lack of any statistical power for

this type of mental health problems. Fifth, although nonresponse bias might limit the

generalizability of our findings, we showed high socio-demographic representativeness of our

final sample and non-response propensity weighting was used to adjust to the extent possible

for sample bias. Finally, our findings are based on data from one university, and may

therefore not be generalized to other universities or to college students in general.

The need to understand patterns of mental health problems among college students is

important. Around 1/3 of college freshmen endorses problems with mental health in the

previous 12 months, and our data also suggest that mental health problems are directly

associated with lower academic performance. Low academic performance, in turn, is

associated with dropout in the short-term and loss of human capital for societies in the longer

term (Freudenberg & Ruglis, 2007). This means that emotional problems among college

students are not just a theoretical, clinical, or educational problem but also a societal problem.

Our study suggests a potential role of the college environment as a target for treatment and

prevention interventions. The best way to resolve that uncertainty definitively is to carry out

experimental effectiveness trials that evaluate the effects of treating emotional problems on

academic functioning. We plan to carry out such trials in subsequent phases of the WMH-

ICS. Prior to implementing such interventions, though, it would be valuable to add

longitudinal data and focus on potential level-2 explanatory variables (such as connectedness
to college) that might provide insights that could be used either to refine or target preventive

and clinical interventions.

Contributors
All authors contributed to and have approved the final manuscript.

Philippe Mortier had full access to all of the data in this study and takes responsibility for the
integrity of the data, and the accuracy of the data analysis.

Study concept and design: Demyttenaere, K., Auerbach, R.P., Green, J.G., Kessler, R.C.,
Nock, M.K., and Bruffaerts, R.

Acquisition of data: Mortier, P., Kiekens, G., and Bruffaerts, R.

Analysis and interpretation of data: Mortier, P., Kiekens, G., and Bruffaerts, R.

Drafting of the manuscript: Mortier, P.

Critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content: Mortier, P.,
Demyttenaere, K., Auerbach, R.P., Green, J.G., Kessler, R.C., Kiekens, G., Nock, M.K., and
Bruffaerts, R.

Statistical expertise: Mortier, P., Kiekens, G., and Bruffaerts, R.

Administrative, technical, or material support: Mortier, P. Kiekens, G.

Supervision: Demyttenaere, K., Auerbach, R.P., Green, J.G., Kessler, R.C., Nock, M.K., and
Bruffaerts, R.

Acknowledgements
The Leuven College Survey was carried out in conjunction with the World Health
Organization World Mental Health (WMH) survey initiative and is a part of the World Mental
Health International College Student project. The WMH survey is supported by the National
Institute of Mental Health (NIMH; R01MH070884), the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur
Foundation, the Pfizer Foundation, the US Public Health Service (R13-MH066849, R01-
MH069864, and R01 DA016558), the Fogarty International Center (FIRCA R03-TW006481),
the Pan American Health Organization, Eli Lilly and Company, Ortho-McNeil
Pharmaceutical, GlaxoSmithKline, and Bristol-Myers Squibb. We thank the staff of the
WMH Data Collection and Data Analysis Coordination Centers for assistance with
instrumentation, fieldwork, and consultation on data analysis. None of the funders had any
role in the design, analysis, interpretation of results, or preparation of this paper. A complete
list of all within-country and cross-national WMH publications can be found at
http://www.hcp.med.harvard.edu/wmh/. In Belgium specifically, these activities were
supported by the Belgian Fund for Scientific Research (11N0514N/11N0516N), the King
Baudouin Foundation (2014-J2140150-102905), and Eli Lilly (IIT-H6U-BX-I002). We also
thank the Student Health Centre and the Administration Offices of the KU Leuven for their
support in the data collection.

Role of the funding source

The funding sources had no role whatsoever in the study design, the collection, analysis and
interpretation of data, in writing of this report; and in the decision to submit the article for
publication.

Conflict of interest
In the past three years, Dr. Kessler has been a consultant for Hoffman-La Roche, Inc. and

Johnson & Johnson Wellness and Prevention. Dr. Kessler has served on advisory boards for

Mensante Corporation, Johnson & Johnson Services Inc. Lake Nona Life Project, and U.S.

Preventive Medicine. Dr. Kessler is a co-owner of DataStat, Inc.

5. REFERENCES

Adams,T., Moore, M. 2007. High-risk health and credit behavior among 18- to 25-year-old

students. J. Am. Coll. Health. 56, 101-108.

Aertgeerts, B., Buntinx, F., Ansoms, S., Fevery, J. 2000. Questionnaires are better than

laboratory tests to screen for current alcohol abuse or dependence in a male inpatient

population. Acta. Clin. Belg. 57, 241-249.

Alexander, K.L., Entwisle, D.R., Horsey, C.S. 1997. From First Grade Forward: Early

Foundations of High School Dropout. Soc. Educ. 70, 87-107.

Andrews, B., Wilding, J.M. 2004. The relation of depression and anxiety to life-stress and

achievement in students. Br. J. Psychol. 95, 509-521.

Arnett, J.J. 2015. Emerging adulthood. A theory of development from the late teens through

the twenties. Am. Psychol. 55, 469–480.

Astin, A. 1993. What matters in college? Four Critical Years Revisited. Jossey-Bass, San

Francisco, CA.

Auerbach, R.P., Alonso, J., Axinn, W.G., Cuijpers, P., Ebert, D.D., Green, J.G., Hwang, I., et

al. 2016. Mental disorders among college students in the World Health Organization

World Mental Health Surveys. Psychol. Med. Aug 3, 1-16.

Blanco, C., Okuda, M., Wright, C., Hasin, D.S., Grant, B.F., Liu, S.M., et al. 2008. Mental

health of college students and their non-college-attending peers: results from the

National Epidemiologic Study on Alcohol and Related Conditions. Arch. Gen. Psychiat.

65, 1429-1437.

Cabrera, N.L., Miner, D.D., Milem, J.F. 2013. Can a Summer Bridge Program Impact First-

Year Persistence and Performance?: A Case Study of the New Start Summer Program.

Res. High. Educ. 54, 481–498.

Conrad, K. J., Conrad, K. M., Mazza, J., Riley, B. B., Funk, R., Stein, M. A., & Dennis, M. L.

2012. Dimensionality, Hierarchical Structure, Age Generalizability, and Criterion

Validity of the GAIN's Behavioral Complexity Scale. Psychol. Assess. 24, 913-914.

Declercq K, Verboven F. 2014. Zijn toelatingsvoorwaarden in het hoger onderwijs wenselijk?

Leuven, KULeuven, Faculteit Economie en Bedrijfswetenschappen.

Dehon, C., Ortiz, E. 2008. What Are the Factors of Success at University? A Case Study in

Belgium. CESifo. Econ. Studies. 54, 121-148.

De Luca, S. M., Franklin, C., Yueqi, Y., Johnson, S. & Brownson, C. 2016. The Relationship

Between Suicide Ideation, Behavioral Health, and College Academic Performance.

Community. Ment. Health. J. 52, 534-540.

Dennis, M.L., Chan, Y.F., Funk, R.R. 2006. Development and validation of the GAIN Short

Screener (GSS) for internalizing, externalizing and substance use disorders and

crime/violence problems among adolescents and adults. Am. J. Addict. 5(Suppl 1), 80-

91.

Eccles, J.S., Vida, M.N., Barber, B. 2004. The relation of early adolescents' college plans and

both academic ability and task-value beliefs to subsequent college enrollment. J. Early.

Adolesc. 4, 63–77.

Eisenberg, D., Golberstein, E., Hunt, J. 2009. Mental Health and Academic Success in

College. The BE Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy 9(1).

Fink, J.E. 2014. Flourishing: exploring predictors of mental health within the college

environment. J. Am. Coll. Health. 62, 380-388.

Freudenberg, N., Ruglis, J. 2007. Reframing school dropout as a public health issue. Prev.

Chron. Dis. 4, 1-11.

Gallagher, R.P. 2007. National Survey of Counseling Directors. Alexandria, VA:

International Association of Counseling Services.

Goldman-Mellor, S.J., Caspi, A., Harrington, H., Hogan, S., Nada-Raja, S., Poulton, R., et al.

2014. Suicide attempt in young people: a signal for long-term health care and social

needs. JAMA Psych. 71, 119-127.

Green, A.L., Rabiner, D.L. 2012. What do we really know about ADHD in college students?

Neurotherapeutics. 9, 559-568.

Groves, R.M. 2006. Nonresponse Rates and Nonresponse Bias in Household Surveys. Publ.

Opin. Quart. 70, 646-675.

Gunnell, D., Löfving, S., Allebeck, P. 2011. School performance and risk of suicide in early

adulthood: follow-up of two national cohorts of Swedish school children. J. Affect.

Disord. 131, 104-112.

Hartley, M.T. 2010. Increasing Resilience: Strategies for Reducing Dropout Rates for College

Students with Psychiatric Disabilities. Am. J. Psychol. Rehab. 13, 295-315.

Hauser, R.M., Warren, J.R. 1997. Socioeconomic indexes for occupations: a review, update,

and critique. In: A.E. Raftery (Ed.), Sociological Methodology. Basil Blackwell,

Cambridge, MA, pp. 177–298.

Hysenbegasi, A., Hass, S.L., Rowland, C.R. 2005. The impact of depression on the academic

productivity of university students. J. Ment. Health. Policy. Econ. 8, 145-151.

Hox, J. 2010. Multilevel analysis. Oxon, UK: Routledge.

Hunt, J., Eisenberg, D. 2010. Mental health problems and help-seeking behavior among

college students. J. Adolsc. Health. 46, 3-10.

Ibrahim, A.K., Kelly, S.J., Adams, C.E., Glazebrook, C. 2013. A systematic review of studies

of depression prevalence in university students. J. Psych. Res. 47, 391-400.

Jablonska, B., Lindberg, L., Lindblad F., Rasmussen, F., Ostberg, V., et al. 2009. School

performance and hospital admissions due to self-inflicted injury: a Swedish national

cohort study. Int. J. Epidemiol. 38, 1334-1341.

Kerr, D.C., Capaldi, D.M. 2011. Young men's intimate partner violence and relationship

functioning: long-term outcomes associated with suicide attempt and aggression in

adolescence. Psychol. Med. 41, 759-769.

Kessler, R.C., Foster, C.L., Saunders, W.B., Stang, P.E. 1995. Social consequences of

psychiatric disorders, I: Educational attainment. Am. J. Psychiatr. 152, 1026-1032.

Kernan, W.D., Wheat, M.E. 2008. Nursing Students' Perceptions of the Academic Impact of

Various Health Issues. Nurs. Educ. 33, 215-219.

Kosidou, K., Dalman, C., Fredlund, P., Lee, B.K., Galanti, R., Isacsson, G., Magnusson, C.

2014. School performance and the risk of suicide attempts in young adults: a

longitudinal population-based study. Psychol. Med. 44, 1235-1243.

Kutner, M. H., Nachtsheim, C. J., Neter, J. 2004. Applied Linear Regression Models (4th ed.).

McGraw-Hill Irwin.

Lee, D.H., Oakland, T., Jackson, G., Glutting. J. 2008. Estimated Prevalence of Attention-

Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder Symptoms Among College Freshmen. J. Learning Dis.

41, 371-384.

Mortier, P., Demyttenaere, K., Auerbach, R.P., Green, J.G., Kessler, R.C., Kiekens, G., et al.

2015. The impact of lifetime suicidality on academic performance in college freshmen.

J. Affect. Disord. 186, 254-260.

Niederkrotenthaler, T., Tinghog, P., Alexanderson, K., Dahlin, M., Wang, M., Beckman, K.,

et al. 2014. Future risk of labour market marginalization in young suicide attempters--a

population-based prospective cohort study. Int. J. Epidemiol. 43, 1520-1530.

Rasbash, J., Charlton, C., Browne, W.J., Healy, M., Cameron, B. 2009. MLwiN, 2.1 ed.

Centre for Multilevel Modelling, University of Bristol: Bristol, UK.

Sacks, S. 2008. Brief overview of screening and assessment for co-occurring disorders. Int. J.

Mental. Health. Addict. 6, 7-19.

Schouten, B., Cobben, F., Bethlehem, J.G. 2009. Indicators for the representativeness of

survey response. Surv. Meth. 35, 101-113.

Shinn, M., Gottlieb, J., Wett, J. L., Bahl, A., Cohen, A., & Ellis, D. B. 2007. Predictors of

homelessness among older adults in New York City: Disability, economic, human and

social capital and stressful events. J. Health. Psychol. 12, 696-708.

Scott, K.M., Lim, C., Al-Hamzawi, A., Alonso, J., Bruffaerts, R., Caldas-de-Almeida, J.M.

2016. Association of Mental Disorders With Subsequent Chronic Physical Conditions:

World Mental Health Surveys From 17 Countries. JAMA Psychiatr. 73, 150-158.

Spera, C., Wentzel, K.R., Matto, H.C. 2009. Parental aspirations for their children's

educational attainment: relations to ethnicity, parental education, children's academic

 performance, and parental perceptions of school climate. J. Youth. Adolesc. 38, 1140-

1152.

Tinto, V. 1998. Colleges as communities: taking research on student persistence seriously.

Rev. Higher. Educ. 21, 167-177.

Truman, S. D., Sharar, D. A., & Pompe, J. C. 2012. The mental health status of expatriate

versus U.S. domestic workers: A comparative study. Int. J. Mental. Health. 40, 3-18.

Verger, P., Guagliardo, V., Gilbert, F., Rouillon, F., Kovess-Masfety, V. 2010. Psychiatric

disorders in students in six French universities: 12-month prevalence, comorbidity,

impairment and help-seeking. Soc. Psych. Psychiatr. Epidemiol. 45, 189-199.

Walpole M.B. 2003. Socioeconomic Status and College: How SES affects College

Experiences and Outcomes. Rev. High. Educ. 27, 45–73.

Wagner, M., Kutash, K., Duchnowski, A.J., Epstein, M.H., Sumi, W.C. 2005. The children

and youth we serve: A national picture of the characteristics of students with emotional

disturbances receiving special education. J. Emot. Behav. Disord. 13, 79–96.

Weyandt, L.L., DuPaul, G. 2006. ADHD in college students. J. Attention. Disord. 10, 9-19.

Zwick, R. 2004. Rethinking the SAT. New York, NY: Routledge Falmer.

Highlights
• 12 month internalizing and externalizing mental health problems are associated with a
decrease of 2.9-4.7% in AYP (or 0.2-0.3 GPA) in college.
• This decrease in AYP is negatively correlated with departmental performance.
TABLE 1. SAMPLE DESCRIPTION OF THE LEUVEN COLLEGE SURVEY

(n=4,921)

Sample Departments
%(w) SE n(w) median IQR
Gender
female 55.5 0.4 2725 53.7 33.4-71.0
male 44.6 0.4 2189 46.3 29.0-66.6
Age
18y 73.9 0.4 3633 73.2 64.5-78.5
19y or more 26.1 0.4 1283 26.9 21.5-35.5
Parental education
both high 60.0 0.4 2536 60.3 50.7-68.0
mixed 24.3 0.4 1027 23.6 19.4-30.0
both low 15.7 0.3 665 16.1 11.0-22.6
Mental disorder
internalizing 23.7 0.4 957 23.3% 16.0-28.6
externalizing 18.3 0.4 734 18.7% 14.8-22.6
substance use 5.4 0.2 215 5.2% 1.7-8.7
antisocial 0.1 0.0 5 0.0% 0.0-0.0

Mean SE SD median IQR

Academic year percentage (AYP) 50.1 0.2 18.3 49.9 46.3-54.0
 Table 2. Impact of past year risk for mental disorders on academic year percentage

Mental disorders separate in

Full multivariate model
model*
β SE 95% CI χ2 p β SE 95% CI χ2 p
- - - - - 56. 0.5 55. 57. 1190 <0.
(intercept) -
524 18 508 539 4.44 001
Past year risk for mental
disorder
- 0.7 - - 35. - - -
<0. 0.7 <0.
internalizing 4.2 19 5.66 2.8 08 2.9 4.3 1.4 15.64
001 43 001
57 5 48 37 93 81
- 0.7 - - 56. - - -
<0. 0.8 <0.
externalizing 5.8 80 7.39 4.3 66 4.6 6.2 3.0 32.15
001 22 001
69 8 41 63 75 51
- 1.3 - - 13. - -
<0. 1.3 0.0 0.0
substance use 4.9 43 7.62 2.3 81 2.6 5.3 3.77
001 64 26 52
91 4 59 48 21
- 7.5 - 5.7 1.4 0.2 - -
7.5 10. 0.5
antisocial 9.0 71 23.9 59 4 30 4.4 19. 0.35
13 307 56
79 18 19 144
Covariates
- - - - - - -
0.6 0.4 0.2
being male (vs. female) - 0.7 1.9 1.34
16 93 46
14 22
- - - - - - - -
0.7 103.5 <0.
age 19 or more (vs. 18) - 7.3 8.8 5.9
26 8 001
87 09 64
- - - - - - - -
low parent education (vs. 0.8 <0.
- 7.0 8.7 5.4 68.42
both high) 58 001
98 80 16
- - - - - - - -
one parent with low 0.7 <0.
- 4.0 5.4 2.6 32.57
education (vs. both high) 04 001
20 00 39

* adjusted for gender, age, and parental educational level.

 TABLE 3. MULTILEVEL ANALYSIS OF THE ASSOCIATION BETWEEN 12-
MONTH MENTAL DISORDERS AND ACADEMIC YEAR PERCENTAGE
p-
Internalizing mental disorder parametera SE 95%CI
value
Fixed effect on AYP -2.323 0.905 -4.097 -0.549 <0.001
Random effect on AYP (departmental level)
(mean departmental AYP)2 10.857 3.870 3.272 18.442 0.005
(impact internalizing disorder)2 5.892 5.291 -4.478 16.262 0.265
mean departmental AYP*impact internalizing disorder 3.270 3.288 -3.174 9.714 0.320

p-
Externalizing mental disorder parametera SE 95%CI
value
Fixed effect on AYP -4.261 0.796 -5.821 -2.701 <0.001
Random effect on AYP (departmental level)
(mean departmental AYP)2 10.334 3.588 3.302 17.366 0.004
(impact externalizing disorder)2 0.000b / / / /
mean departmental AYP*impact externalizing disorder 6.215 2.188 1.927 10.503 0.005

p-
Substance use disorder parametera SE 95%CI
value
Fixed effect on AYP -2.096 1.351 -4.744 0.552 0.121
Random effect on AYP (departmental level)
(mean departmental AYP)2 12.589 4.212 4.333 20.845 0.003
(impact substance use disorder)2 0.000b / / / /
-
mean departmental AYP*impact substance use disorder -1.766 5.045 8.122 0.726
11.654

a. beta-coefficient for fixed effect; variance/covariance for random effects

b. parameter set at zero due to negative variance
 TABLE 4. SPEARMAN RANK CORRELATION BETWEEN DEPARTMENT
CHARACTERISTICS

Departmental mean values and 8. 9. 10.

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.
proportions
reduction in AYP associated with 1.00
1.
externalizing disorder 0
0.78 1.00
2. mean AYP
4*** 0
- -
3. mean size (number of students) 0.14 0.05 1.00
9 5 0
-
4. proportion of males 0.32 0.20 0.20
4* 6 5 1.000
0.21 0.51 0.48 1.00
5. proportion of students aged 18
3 3*** 6** 0.006 0
-
proportion with parents with high
6. 0.48 0.65 0.00 0.38 1.00
educational level
4** 2*** 3 0.279 1* 0
- - - - -
7. internalizing disorder 0.38 0.47 0.14 0.637 0.28 0.38 1.0
4* 4** 1 ***
3 7* 00
- - - -
8. externalizing disorder 0.05 0.18 0.11 0.34 0.10 0.2 1.0
1 5 9 0.078 0* 1 13 00
- - -
9. substance use disorder 0.05 0.17 0.04 0.06 0.18 0.0 0.3 1.0
5 4 1 0.148 6 7 93 81* 00
- - -
1
antisocial personality disorder 0.09 0.09 0.38 - 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.0 0.0 1.0
0.
7 9 4* 0.114 2 2 85 70 41 00

* p<0.05
**p<0.01
***p<0.001