Cited by 289Student Stress and CopingResilience and Mental HealthHealth and Well-being Studies

Prevalence of psychological distress and the effects of resilience and perceived social support among Chinese college students: Does gender make a difference?

Zhang, Mingliang, Zhang, Jianmei, Zhang, Feng, Zhang, Li, Feng, Danjun·2018·Psychiatry Research

Abstract

This study aimed to examine the gender differences in the prevalence of psychological distress, and in the effects of resilience and perceived social support on psychological distress among Chinese college students. A cross-sectional survey was conducted in current study. The psychological distress, resilience, and perceived social support of 1400 university students of China were measured using the Kessler Psychological Distress Scale, the 10-item Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale, and the 12-item Multidimensional Scale of Perceived Social Support, respectively. Multiple group analyses were conducted using structural equation modeling to examine the moderating role of gender in the effects of resilience and perceived social support on psychological distress. The prevalence of psychological distress was 90.86%. Female college students reported a higher prevalence of psychological distress (94.07%) than males (89.11%). Among male college students, the resilience was more strongly associated with psychological distress than perceived social support (-0.18 vs.-0.16). In contrast, among female college students, resilience was not significantly related, but perceived social support was closely related with psychological distress (0.01 vs. -0.31). In conclusion, Chinese female college students are more vulnerable to psychological distress than males. Gender moderates the relationships among resilience, perceived social support, and psychological distress.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.psychres.2018.06.038

Cites

35 of 35 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 36 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Zhang, M., Zhang, J., Zhang, F., Zhang, L., & Feng, D.
Affiliations
  • Shandong Normal University (CN)
  • Linyi University (CN)
  • Shandong University (CN)
Corresponding author
Feng, Danjun
Venue
Psychiatry Research
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2018-09
Volume
267
Pages
409-413
ISSN
0165-1781 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2808880682
Cited by
275
References
36
Citations by year
2026: 17 · 2025: 33 · 2024: 44 · 2023: 46 · 2022: 62 · 2021: 40 · 2020: 25 · 2019: 8
FWCI
35.89
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Psychiatry Research (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
Young Scholars Program of Shandong University (2017WLJH42)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Student Stress and Coping
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Resilience and Mental Health
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Health and Well-being Studies
Keywords
psychological distress, resilience, perceived social support, gender differences, university students, Chinese students, moderating effect of gender, prevalence of psychological distress
MeSH terms
Adolescent, China, Cross-Sectional Studies, Female, Humans, Male, Perception, Sex Factors, Social Support, Stress, Psychological, Students, Prevalence, Resilience, Psychological, Young Adult

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review