Mediating role of Social Support and Self-efficacy on Academic stress and Student’s Psychological well-being among University Students in Mogadishu -Somalia.

Ali Dahir Mohamed; Abdulkadir Jeilani

doi:10.12688/f1000research.155275.2

Home Browse Mediating role of Social Support and Self-efficacy on Academic stress...

ALL Metrics

Views

Downloads

Get PDF

Get XML

Export

▬

✚

Research Article

Revised

Mediating role of Social Support and Self-efficacy on Academic stress and Student’s Psychological well-being among University Students in Mogadishu -Somalia.

[version 2; peer review: 2 approved with reservations, 1 not approved]

Previous Title 'Mediating role of Social Support and Self-efficiency on Academic stress and Student’s Psychological well-being among Public and Private Universities in Mogadishu -Somalia.'

Ali Dahir Mohamed¹, Abdulkadir Jeilani ²

PUBLISHED 13 Feb 2025

Author details Author details

¹ Faculty of Education, Mogadishu University, Mogadishu University, Somalia
² Faculty of Computer Science & IT, Mogadishu University, Mogadishu, Somalia

Ali Dahir Mohamed
Roles: Data Curation, Formal Analysis, Writing – Original Draft Preparation

Abdulkadir Jeilani
Roles: Data Curation, Formal Analysis, Writing – Original Draft Preparation

OPEN PEER REVIEW

REVIEWER STATUS

Abstract

Background

Academic stress is a significant factor affecting students’ psychological well-being, particularly in higher education. Understanding the mediating roles of social support and self-efficacy can provide insights into how these factors influence students’ psychological well-being in public and private universities.

Methods

The study examined the mediating roles of social support and self-efficacy in the relationship between academic stress and psychological well-being among university students in Mogadishu, Somalia. Utilizing a stratified sampling technique, data were collected from 663 students across public (52.6%) and private (47.4%) universities through a structured questionnaire and analyzed using path analysis to assess direct and indirect effects. Structural equation modeling technique was used for data analysis.

Results

The analysis revealed a significant direct effect of academic stress on psychological well-being (β = 0.087, p = 0.001). Social support was significantly related to Academic stress (β = 0.117, p = 0.031) and self-efficacy (β =0.088, p = 0.021). However, both social support (β = 0.099, p = 0.000) and self-efficacy (β = 0.646, p = 0.000) were significantly related to psychological well-being. The mediating analysis showed that social support partially mediated the relationship between academic stress and psychological well-being (Indirect effect = 0.012, CI [0.002, 0.024], p = 0.000), while self-efficacy did not mediate this relationship (Indirect effect = 0.057, CI [0.006, 0.111], p = 0.068).

Conclusions

The findings suggest a significant positive impact of academic stress on psychological well-being, while social support partially mediates this relationship, highlighting its buffering role. Conversely, self-efficacy, although positively contributing to psychological well-being, does not mediate the effect of academic stress. These results underscore the importance of robust social support systems and targeted interventions to enhance students’ coping mechanisms and overall psychological well-being. Study limitations and implication are discussed.

Keywords

Social Support, Self-efficiency, Academic stress, psychological well-being, Public and Private Universities

Corresponding authors: Ali Dahir Mohamed, Abdulkadir Jeilani

Competing interests: No competing interests were disclosed.

Grant information: The author(s) declared that no grants were involved in supporting this work.

Copyright: © 2025 Dahir Mohamed A and Jeilani A. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

How to cite: Dahir Mohamed A and Jeilani A. Mediating role of Social Support and Self-efficacy on Academic stress and Student’s Psychological well-being among University Students in Mogadishu -Somalia. [version 2; peer review: 2 approved with reservations, 1 not approved]. F1000Research 2025, 13:1108 (https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.155275.2) First published: 30 Sep 2024, 13:1108 (https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.155275.1) Latest published: 30 May 2025, 13:1108 (https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.155275.3)

Revised Amendments from Version 1

The revised version of this manuscript incorporates significant improvements based on the reviewer’s feedback, enhancing its clarity, rigor, and practical relevance. Key updates include the resolution of a confidence interval discrepancy in the indirect effect analysis through resampling with 5,000 bootstraps. The conclusions have been refined to accurately describe the negative impact of academic stress on psychological well-being, partial mediated by social support, while excluding the gender factor for clarity. Methodological details, including the use of SPSS v24 and AMOS v22 for data analysis, bootstrapping, and structural equation modeling, have been added to improve replicability.
The Introduction has been streamlined to remove redundancy, clarify definitions, and provide proper citations, particularly for academic stress factors and Social Cognitive Theory. In the Literature Review, overlapping content was merged, and a new title was introduced for better categorization. The Methods section now features concise descriptions of targeted universities, accurate scale naming (e.g., General Self-Efficacy Scale), and software specifications. The Results section was refined for clarity and precision, with consistent reporting of p-values, grammatical improvements, and definitions of abbreviations. Figures and tables have been updated with appropriate citations and labels. Practical significance was emphasized in the Discussion, particularly the role of social support systems in mitigating stress. The abbreviation "PWB" was either introduced earlier for consistency, and the Conclusion was moved to the end, with Implications and Limitations presented as separate sections. Limitations related to low AVE values were acknowledged, with suggestions for future improvements. Data sharing and reproducibility were strengthened by providing analysis scripts and documentation on Figshare. The practical recommendations section was enriched, focusing on actionable strategies for educational institutions to support students’ well-being. These comprehensive revisions address all reviewer concerns, significantly enhancing the manuscript's robustness and practical applicability.

See the authors' detailed response to the review by Nguyen Tan Dat
See the authors' detailed response to the review by Zartashia Kynat Javaid
See the authors' detailed response to the review by Somaya Shokry Mohammad Mahmoud

1. Introduction

Stress is one of the most important factors in psychological research since it has an impact on the well-being and health of individuals, the psychological well-being of students is significantly harmed by academic stress, which is caused by work, high performance, tests, and challenging assignments. Therefore, it is essential to fully understand the complex relationship between academic stress and psychological well-being in order to develop effective treatments.¹

Academic stress refers to the pressure experienced by individuals in educational settings due to a range of factors, primarily arising from an inability to manage academic-related tasks effectively. This stress can lead to various negative consequences, such as smoking behavior, mental health issues, poor sleep quality, depression, insomnia, substance addiction, self-harm, and suicidal ideation. Contributing factors include self-inflicted stress, parental expectations, academic queries, lack of time for revision, low parental education levels, poor exam grades, family pressures, scholarship demands, financial burdens, classroom competition, time management challenges, and course-related stress.²^–⁸ Coping strategies such as academic psychological capital and self-efficacy can mitigate these effects. However, most research focuses on symptoms rather than protective strategies. Educational institutions should develop interventions to reduce stress and support students in managing academic pressures to protect their mental health.⁹^–¹¹

The current study aimed to examine the effects of academic stress on students’ psychological wellbeing, with an emphasis on the mediating roles of self-efficacy and social support. By integrating the Transactional Theory of Stress and Coping with the Social Cognitive Theory, researchers can gain a broader understanding of how academic stress impacts students’ psychological well-being, especially in the context of social support and self-efficacy, across public and private universities. These theories provide a framework for exploring the complex interactions among stress, coping, social support, and self-efficacy in shaping students’ well-being outcomes in academic settings. The study addressed the absence of comprehensive research on the impacts of academic stress on students’ psychological well-being in both public and private universities.

2. Literature review

2.1 Transactional theory and of stress coping

The Transactional Model of Stress and Coping, proposed by Ref. 12, focuses on how individuals assess and response to stress through cognitive appraisal and cognitive processes. Stress is the result of transactions between the person, environment, and situation, influenced by cognitive appraisals and coping strategies. This theory emphasizes the dynamic nature of stress and coping processes, and suggests that individuals’ perceptions and responses to stressors play an important role in determining their well-being outcomes.^13,14

2.2 Social Cognitive Theory

The Social Cognitive Theory, proposed by Ref. 15, emphasizes the role of cognitive processes in shaping behavior and outcomes. This means that persons’ beliefs about their ability to succeed (self-efficacy) influence their behavior and reactions to challenging situations. In the context of academic stress, this theory suggests that the students have the ability to cope with high self-efficacy are more likely to effectively cope with stressors and maintain their psychological well-being. Social Cognitive Theory also considers the impact of social influences and observational learning on individuals’ coping.¹⁶

2.3 Cognitive Appraisal and Coping Mechanisms in Managing Academic Stress

The Transactional Theory of Stress and Coping and the Social Cognitive Theory emphasize the importance of cognitive appraisal in how students perceive and respond to academic stress. Factors such as students’ evaluations of stressors, self-efficacy, and social support significantly influence their stress experiences and overall psychological well-being.¹⁷

In coping mechanism, the theories emphasize the importance of coping strategies in managing stress. Student performance related to cognitive appraisals and self-efficacy beliefs play an important role in mediating the relationship between academic stress and psychological well-being. Effective strategies, supported by social resources, help students manage academic stress and maintain well-being.^9,14,18

2.4 Academic Stress and Psychological Well-being

Academic stress has become a major mental health concern across the worldwide these days. Also has emerged as a significant mental health that affecting various groups of students. Studies,^5,8 have highlighted the detrimental impact of academic stress on mental well-being, with associations found between high levels of academic stress and issues like depression, anxiety, self-harm, and suicidal ideation.

Academic stress among university students has been extensively studied, revealing various insights. According to research, there is a strong link between mental health and academic stress⁶ with self-inflicted stress being a prominent factor in high stress levels among students. Critical thinking skills were found not to have a significant relationship with academic stress.¹¹ However, academic stress was positively correlated with academic performance, motivating students to study harder.¹⁹ Academic stress significantly impacts the mental well-being of university students.^3,19,20 High levels of academic stress have been linked to increased probability of experiencing mental health issues like Weakening Mental Health.¹³

A study found a strong correlation (r=0.582) between academic stress and psychological well-being among university students, indicating that higher stress levels correspond to lower well-being.¹⁶

2.5 Mediating Role of Social Support

Social support plays a crucial role in mediating academic stress and enhancing students’ psychological well-being. Studies^21,22 indicated that social support from various sources like family, friends, and significant others positively correlates with happiness, subjective well-being, satisfaction with life, and flourishing among university students.

The impact of social support on students’ levels of academic stress is significant. Studies reveal a negative relationship between academic stress and parental social support, with more encouragement resulting into reduced stress levels.²² Additionally, perceived social support from various sources like family, friends, and significant others has been found to significantly correlate with reduced stress levels among undergraduate Health Sciences students.¹⁶ Moreover, teacher support at the individual level is associated with better coping abilities and lower helplessness, while peer support at the class level is linked to enhanced coping abilities and academic achievement.²³ Furthermore, peer social support has been shown to lower academic stress levels during online learning, highlighting its importance in helping students deal with the challenges of virtual education.^24,25

2.6 Mediating role of self-efficacy

Self-efficacy plays an important role in mediating the relationship between academic stress and students’ psychological well-being. Studies have shown²⁵^,²⁶ that higher levels of academic self-efficacy are associated with greater well-being, while academic stress tends to lead to psychological distress, such as symptoms of anxiety and depression. Additionally, factors like social support and mindfulness have been identified as mediating variables that influence academic self-efficacy in the face of psychological distress, ultimately impacting students’ well-being.

Self-efficacy plays an essential role in influencing academic performance across various educational settings. Research indicates that self-efficacy positively impacts academic achievement.²⁷ It acts as a predictor of academic success and can mitigate academic burnout, reduce dropout rates, and enhance engagement.²⁸ Moreover, self-efficacy mediates the relationship between parental expectations, academic stress, and performance, emphasizing its significance in academic outcomes. The correlation between self-efficacy and academic performance is particularly evident in vocational high school students, where self-efficacy significantly influences academic success. Overall, enhancing self-efficacy levels is vital for improving academic performance and student outcomes in various educational domains, highlighting the importance of fostering self-belief and confidence in learners. Therefore, the need to study the relationship between Academic stress on Student’s Psychological well-being, the following hypothesis is suggested.

Based on the above discussion the researchers proposed the following hypotheses:

H1.

There is a significant impact of academic stress on psychological well-being,

H2.

There is a significant impact of academic stress on social support.

H3.

There is a significant impact of academic stress on self-efficacy.

H4.

There is a significant impact of social support on psychological well-being,

H5.

There is a significant impact of self-efficacy on psychological well-being.

H6.

Social supports mediate the relationship between academic stress and psychological well-being.

H7.

Self-efficacy mediates the relationship between academic stress and psychological well-being ( Figure 1).

Figure 1. Research Model proposed by the authors

3. Methods

3.1 Context of the study, population and sample

The context of the study was university students in Mogadishu – Somalia. Nearly 50,000 students are intended in these universities. These universities have fields of study at undergraduate, diploma and postgraduate levels. Faculties provided these universities include social science, computer technology, public health, business Economics and management sciences, sharia and law studies, education, engineering, medicine and surgery, Arts & humanities, agriculture & Environmental Sciences, languages, Islamic studies, geology, media & journalism, public admin and politics dentistry and postgraduate studies. The population of the study are target population from which the sample is actually selected or aggregation of study elements.²⁹ The study population are undergraduate students of these universities, its estimated around 30,000 students. The study included stratified sample technique. Stratified sample technique is type of sampling method in which the total population is divided into smaller groups or strata to complete the sampling process.³⁰ The study examined various factors related to academic stress and psychological well-being. The sample includes 663 students, with a gender distribution of 40.4% female and 59.6% male.

3.2 Research instrument and measures

A survey questionnaire was developed as the instrument for data collection. Items used for Academic Stress adapted by Ref. 31 to get students’ views of academic pressures and consists of 10 items, Psychological well-being Scale (PWS) adapted by Ref. 21 and consist of 18 items, Social Support Scale (SSS) adapted by Ref. 32 and 12 items, Self-Efficacy Scale (SES) adapted by Ref. 33 and consist of 10 items.

3.3 Data collection strategy

Data collected using adopted questionnaires distributed electronically, depending on the feasibility and preferences of participants. The questionnaire comprised validated measures assessing academic stress, psychological well-being, social support, and self-efficacy. Additionally, demographic information such as age, gender, academic major, and university affiliation collected to facilitate subgroup analyses. The data collected from May 15 to Jun 3 2024.

3.4 Data analysis

Descriptive statistics used to characterize the sample and examine the distribution of key variables. Structural equation modeling was used to examine mediating analysis of social support, self-efficacy in the relationship between academic stress, and psychological well-being. AMOS – SPSS 22 was used to estimate the measurement model, structural model as well as mediating analysis based on a 5000-bootstrap method of social support, self-efficacy in the relationship between academic stress, and psychological well-being.

3.5 Ethical consideration

Prior to data collection, ethical approval was received from Mogadishu University institutional review board (IRB) in Mogadishu, Somalia (Date:15 – 05 – 2024, protocol number: MUIRB/09/24/001). Informed consent was obtained from all students. The students were informed that the research would be conducted following the principle of confidentiality and that all information obtained would be kept confidential. We obtained informed consent from all participants, according to the IRB’s guidelines. Each of the 663 participants reviewed and signed the consent form before participating in the study. We confirm that all participants adhered to the signed consent form.

4. Data analysis and results

4.1 Profile data

A total of 663 sample size was achieved, the demographic profile of respondents for this study showed that female respondents made up 40.4%, of the sample while male made up 59.6% and mostly aged 18 to 21 years 67.1%. The distribution between public (52.6%) and private (47.4%) universities is nearly even. Most students are in their first three years of study, with Year One students representing the largest group 36.2%, while there are few students in Year Five (0.9%) and Year Six (1.2%) ( Table 1).

Table 1. Demographic profile data.

		Frequency	Percentage (%)
Gender	Female	268	40.4%
Gender	Male	395	59.6%
Age	18 to 21 years	445	67.1%
	22 to 31 years	212	32.0%
	32 to 41 years	6	0.9%
University sector	Public	349	52.6%
University sector	Private	314	47.4%
Study year	Year One	240	36.2%
	Year Two	152	22.9%
	Year Three	178	26.8%
	Year Four	79	11.9%
	Year Five	6	0.9%
	Year Six	8	1.2%

Measurement model

The results indicate strong reliability and validity across the constructs, as evidenced by the factor loadings, squared multiple correlations (SMC), and Cronbach’s alpha values. The factor loadings range from 0.595 to 0.855, with most indicators exceeding the acceptable threshold of 0.6, demonstrating significant contributions to their respective constructs and indicating good convergent validity.³⁴ The SMC values range from 0.354 to 0.731, indicating that the latent constructs explain a reasonable proportion of the variance in their indicators. Cronbach’s alpha values are consistently above the recommended threshold of 0.7,³⁵ ranging from 0.755 to 0.906, confirming good internal consistency for all constructs. Similarly, the composite reliability (CR) values for all constructs are above the recommended threshold, suggesting good internal consistency. However, the average AVE values for the academic stress (0.399) and psychological well-being (0.487) constructs are below the recommended threshold of 0.50, indicating that these constructs may not be capturing a sufficient amount of variance in their respective indicators. The correlation matrix reveals moderate to strong relationships between the constructs, with the highest correlation observed between self-efficacy factor and psychological well-being (0.814), suggesting a strong positive association between these two variables. Overall, the results provide insights into the psychometric properties of the measured constructs and their interrelationships within the study context. The discriminant validity was achieved. The result presented in Tables 2 and 3.

Table 2. Factor loading, Composite reliability (CR) and average variance extracted (AVE).

	Factor loading	SMC	Alpha
Academic stress			0.755
AS1	0.604	0.365
AS2	0.704	0.496
AS3	0.614	0.377
AS4	0.597	0.356
AS5	0.632	0.399
Social support factor			0.906
SO1	0.851	0.724
SO2	0.855	0.731
SO3	0.835	0.697
SO4	0.819	0.671
Self-efficacy factor			0.843
SES1	0.787	0.619
SES2	0.790	0.624
SEs3	0.706	0.498
SES4	0.744	0.554
Psychology well-being			0.821
PWB1	0.740	0.548
PWB2	0.782	0.612
PWB3	0.595	0.354
PWB4	0.674	0.454
PWB5	0.683	0.466

Table 3. Discriminant validity.

	CR	AVE	SEF	AS	SSF	PWB
SES	0.843	0.574	0.758
AS	0.768	0.399	0.068	0.631
SSF	0.906	0.706	0.516	0.076	0.840
PWB	0.825	0.487	0.814	0.189	0.430	0.698

Structural model

The structural model illustrates the relationships among the constructs in the proposed study framework. H1 indicates that academic stress significantly negative impacts students’ psychological well-being. The findings revealed that academic stress has significant negative impact (total effect) on psychological well-being (β = 0.870, t = 3.287, p < 0.001). Hence, H1 supported. However, higher academic stress corresponds to lower psychological well-being, it could indicate that manageable levels of academic stress serve as a motivator or enhance students' resilience, ultimately contributing positively to their psychological well-being. H2 reveals a weak but significant positive relationship between social support factors (SSF) and academic stress (AS) (β = 0.088, t = 2.314, p = 0.021). H2 supported, similarly, H3 demonstrates a weak positive relationship between social support factors (SSF) and psychological well-being (PWB) (β = 0.099, t = 5.278, p < 0.0001). Finally, H4 highlights a strong positive relationship between self-efficacy scale (SES) and psychological well-being (PWB) (β = 0.646, t = 24.278, p < 0.0001). The result presents in the Table 4.

Table 4. Hypotheses test.

	Path coefficient	T statistics	P values
H1: AS➔PWB	0.870	3.287	0.001
H2: SSF ➔AS	0.088	2.314	0.021
H3: SSF➔PWB	0.099	5.278	0.000
H4: SES➔PWB	0.646	24.278	0.000

Mediation analysis

The results demonstrate the mediating roles of social support factors (SSF) and self-efficacy scale (SES) in the relationship between academic stress (AS) and psychological well-being (PWB). For the AS → SSF → PWB relationship, academic stress has a significant direct effect on PWB (β = 0.117), and the indirect effect through SSF is small but statistically significant (β = 0.012, p = 0.041). The confidence interval [0.002, 0.024] does not include zero, indicating reliable partial mediation. This suggests that social support factors play an important role in buffering the effects of academic stress on psychological well-being. In contrast, for the AS → SEF → PWB relationship, academic stress has a weaker direct effect on PWB (β = 0.088). Although the indirect effect through SEF is significant (β = 0.057, p = 0.068), the confidence interval [0.006, 0.111] includes zero, indicating no substantial mediation. This implies that while self-efficacy is influenced by academic stress, it does not meaningfully mediate the connection between academic stress and psychological well-being. These findings highlight the critical role of social support in mitigating the negative impacts of academic stress, whereas self-efficacy may have a limited mediating effect. Mediation analysis summary is presented in Table 5 and Figure 2.

Table 5. Mediating role social support and self-efficacy.

Relationship	Direct effect	Indirect effect	Confidence interval		P-value	Conclusion
			Lower Bounded	Upper Bound
AS->SSF->PWB	0.117	0.012	$- 0.002$	$0.024$	$0.041$	Partial Mediation
AS->SEF->PWB	0.088	0.057	$0.061$	$0.111$	$0.068$	No Mediation

Figure 2. Mediation model proposed by the authors.

Table 6. Summary of the hypotheses.

Hypotheses	Finding
H1. There is a significant impact of academic stress on psychological well-being	Supported
H2. There is a significant impact of academic stress on social support.	Supported
H3. There is a significant impact of academic stress on self-efficacy.	Supported
H4. There is a significant impact of social support on psychological well-being.	Supported
H5. Social support mediates the relationship between academic stress and psychological well-being.	Partial Mediation
H6. Self-efficacy mediates the relationship between academic stress and psychological well-being.	No Mediation

Evaluation model fit

The model evaluation results indicate a good fit of the model to the data. The relative chi-square (2.537) is within the recommended threshold of less than 5, and all the fit indices, including the Goodness of Fit Index (0.948), Adjusted Goodness of Fit Index (0.931), Comparative Fit Index (0.962), Incremental Fit Index (0.963), Normed Fit Index (0.940), Tucker-Lewis Index (0.955), and the Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (0.048), meet or exceed their respective recommended thresholds. Additionally, the Standardized Root Mean Square Residual (0.0369) is within the recommended limit of less than 0.05,^36,37 further supporting the good fit of the model ( Table 7).

Table 7. Model fit indices.

	Recommended	Result
Relative Chi-Sq	$Chi < 5$	$2.537$
Goodness fit index (GFI)	$GFI \geq .90$	$0.948$
Adjusted goodness fit index (AGFI)	$AGFI \geq .90$	$0.931$
Comparative fit index (CFI)	$CFI \geq .90$	$0.962$
Incremental fit index (IFI)	$IFI \geq .90$	$0.963$
Normed fit index (NFI)	$NFI \geq .90$	$0.940$
Tucker-Lewis Index	$TFI \geq .90$	$0.955$
Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA)	$RMSEA \leq 0.08$	$0.048$
Standard RMR	$SRMR \leq 0.05$	$0.037$

5. Discussion

The study is set out to establish the relationship between academic stress (AS), student’s psychological well-being (PWB), social support factor (SSF) and self-efficacy scale (SES). The study found a significant impact of academic stress on student psychological well-being among public and universities in Mogadishu - Somalia. The outcomes affirm this recommendation are steady with the discoveries of the past examinations where the positive relationship between academic stress (AS) and psychological well-being (PWB) outcomes was found.^24,25,38 This relationship indicates that the pressures of academic demands, such as exams and assignments, can lead to negative psychological outcomes, including anxiety and decreased life satisfaction. The findings align with the Transactional Model of Stress and Coping, which suggests that stress occurs when individuals perceive demands exceeding their coping abilities. The unique socio-cultural and educational challenges in Somalia, such as limited resources and high expectations, may intensify the effects of academic stress, emphasizing the need for support systems and interventions to help students manage stress and improve their psychological well-being.

The study found insignificant impact of academic stress on social support factor, suggesting that academic stress does not significantly alter the level of social support students perceive or receive. This result may indicate that social support, whether from peers, family, or faculty, remains stable despite fluctuations in academic stress levels. Previous research has shown that while social support can buffer the effects of stress, the presence of stress does not necessarily reduce the availability or perception of social support.^24,25,38

This stability might be due to cultural or social norms that encourage strong support networks, regardless of individual stress levels. Additionally, social support might be more influenced by factors such as personal relationships and community dynamics rather than academic pressures.

The study found that academic stress had an insignificant impact on self-efficacy among students in university students in Mogadishu. This suggests that the students’ belief in their ability to manage and succeed in academic tasks was not significantly affected by the levels of academic stress they experienced. This finding is inconsistent with research indicating that self-efficacy is often a stable trait influenced more by long-term experiences and personal characteristics than by situational stress.^26,39 Self-efficacy may be bolstered by intrinsic factors such as past successes, individual resilience, and consistent encouragement from mentors and peers, which help maintain students’ confidence in their abilities despite academic pressures.

The study found that social support significantly impacts psychological well-being (PWB) among students in university students in Mogadishu. This means that students who receive higher levels of social support from peers, family, and faculty tend to have better psychological well-being, experiencing less anxiety and higher life satisfaction. This finding aligns with previous research which indicates that social support acts as a buffer against stress and promotes mental health by providing emotional comfort, practical assistance, and a sense of belonging.³²^–³⁴ The presence of a strong support network can mitigate the adverse effects of stress and enhance overall well-being by improving coping mechanisms and providing resources for managing academic challenges.

The study found that self-efficacy significantly impacts psychological well-being (PWB) among students in university students in Mogadishu. This indicates that students who have a strong belief in their ability to manage and succeed in academic tasks tend to have better psychological well-being, with lower levels of anxiety and higher life satisfaction. This finding is supported by previous research showing that self-efficacy enhances mental health by promoting resilience, reducing stress, and encouraging proactive coping strategies.^41,43,44 High self-efficacy helps students to perceive challenges as manageable and to maintain a positive outlook, which contributes to better psychological well-being.

Finally, the results of this research offer important empirical insight into the indirect effect on academic stress on psychological well-being through mediation of social support factor. The finding shows that social support partially mediation the relationship between academic stress and psychological well-being. This consistent with the previous finding which have found the significant mediating role of social support^32,45,46 which suggests that social support can mitigate the harmful effects of stress by providing emotional comfort, practical help, and a sense of belonging, thus enhancing overall psychological well-being. On other hand, the study found that self-efficacy does not mediate the relationship between academic stress and psychological well-being (PWB) among students in Mogadishu’s universities. This means that while self-efficacy directly contributes to better psychological well-being, it does not significantly alter the impact of academic stress on well-being. This finding contrasts with some studies that suggest self-efficacy can buffer stress impacts³² indicating that in this context, other factors may play a more significant role in mediating the relationship between academic stress and psychological well-being.

6. Conclusion

In conclusion, the study reveals several key findings about the relationships between academic stress, psychological well-being (PWB), social support, and self-efficacy among students in Mogadishu’s universities. Academic stress significantly impacts students’ psychological well-being, highlighting the need for interventions to manage academic pressures. Social support plays a critical role in partially mediating this relationship, buffering some of the negative effects of academic stress on mental health. In contrast, self-efficacy, while positively contributing to psychological well-being, does not mediate the relationship between academic stress and psychological well-being (PWB). These insights underscore the importance of enhancing social support networks and developing targeted strategies to improve student resilience and mental health in the face of academic challenges.

7. Implication

Universities should prioritize the development and enhancement of student support services, including counseling and mental health resources, to help students manage academic stress and improve psychological well-being. More broadly, the study contributes to the development of studies linking academic stress, social support, self -efficacy and psychological well-being and strengthens the relationship evidence in the literature that social support contributes to psychological well -being. Institutions should encourage the formation of strong social networks through peer mentoring, student organizations, and community-building activities, as social support is crucial in buffering the negative effects of academic stress. Although self-efficacy does not mediate the stress-well-being relationship, enhancing students’ confidence in their abilities through workshops, positive feedback, and opportunities for skill development can directly improve their psychological well-being. Additionally, the study adds knowledge to studies seeking to understand the factors that influence psychological well-being. Thus, the findings suggest that universities should develop and implement stress management programs that equip students with strategies to cope with academic demands, thus improving their psychological well-being. Institutions should promote social support systems through peer mentoring, counseling services, and community-building activities to buffer students against the negative effects of academic stress. Institutions should promote social support systems through peer mentoring, counseling services, and community-building activities to buffer students against the negative effects of academic stress. Educational policies should prioritize mental health by incorporating stress management and support systems into the academic environment, ensuring holistic student development. Finally, it’s important that educational policymakers should integrate mental health education and stress management strategies into the curriculum, ensuring students are equipped with the tools to handle academic pressures effectively.

8. Research limitations and further research

The study’s limitations include its cross-sectional design, which limits causal inference, and the reliance on self-reported measures, which may introduce biases. Additionally, the findings are context-specific to Mogadishu, Somalia, and may not be generalizable to other settings. The research also focused narrowly on social support and self-efficacy as mediators, potentially overlooking other influential factors. Future studies should explore other potential mediators and moderators in the relationship between academic stress and psychological well-being, such as coping styles, resilience, and environmental factors, to develop a more comprehensive understanding and targeted interventions.

Data availability

Underlying data

Figshare: Mediating role of Social Support and Self-efficacy on Academic stress and Student’s Psychological well-being among University Students in Mogadishu -Somalia. https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.26820745⁴⁷

The project contains the following data:

- Academic stress and Psychological well being.xlsx
- Pschological Well being Mediating Role Updated.sav

Extended data

Figshare: Mediating role of Social Support and Self-efficacy on Academic stress and Student’s Psychological well-being among university students in Mogadishu-Somalia. https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.26820745⁴⁷

The project contains the following data:

- Analyzing the results and calculating p-value using 5000 Bootstrap.docx
- Measurement model.jpg

Data are available under the terms of the Creative Commons Zero “No rights reserved” data waiver (CC0 1.0 Public domain dedication).

References

1. Barbayannis G, Bandari M, Zheng X, et al.: Academic Stress and Mental Well-Being in College Students: Correlations, Affected Groups, and COVID-19. Front. Psychol. 2022; 13(May):1–10. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
2. Mohebi S, Parham M, Sharifirad G, et al.: Social Support and Self - Care Behavior Study. J. Educ. Health Promot 2018:1–6. Publisher Full Text
3. Ramachandiran M, Dhanapal S: Academic Stress Among University Students: A Quantitative Study of Generation Y and Z’s Perception. Soc. Sci. Humanit. 2018; 26(3):2115–2128.
4. Farooq K: ACADEMIC STRESS AMONG STUDENTS OF HIGHER EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS IN KARACHI Sumera Ishrat Samina Rauf.2023.
5. Córdova Olivera P, Gasser Gordillo P, Naranjo Mejía H, et al.: Academic stress as a predictor of mental health in university students. Cogent Educ. 2023; 10(2). Publisher Full Text
6. Nogueira MJCC: Positive and Negative Predictors of Mental Health in College Students. A cross-sectional predictive study.2023:1–19.
7. Slimmen S, Timmermans O, Mikolajczak-Degrauwe K, et al.: How stress-related factors affect mental wellbeing of university students A cross-sectional study to explore the associations between stressors, perceived stress, and mental wellbeing. PLoS One. 2022; 17(11):e0275925–e0275916. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
8. Mayya SS, Martis M, Mayya A, et al.: Academic Stress among Pre-University Students of the Commerce Stream: A Study in Karnataka. Pertanika J. Soc. Sci. Humanit. 2022; 30(2):605–621. Publisher Full Text
9. Ben-Zur H: Transactional Model of Stress and Coping. Encycl. Personal. Individ. Differ. 2019:1–4. Publisher Full Text
10. Shen R: The Effects of Psychosocial Factors on International Students’ Mental Health and Relevant Interventions. SHS Web Conf. 2023; 157:01021. Publisher Full Text
11. Mohamed RM, Ali MAM: Promoting Students’ Mental Health through Design and Implementation of Multi-Activity Pods in Educational Institutions Using the WELL Building Standard. Designs. 2023; 7(1). Publisher Full Text
12. Lazarus RS, Folkman S: Transactional theory and research on emotions and coping. Eur. J. Pers. 1987; 1(3):141–169. Publisher Full Text
13. Scruggs R, Broglia E, Barkham M, et al.: The impact of psychological distress and university counselling on academic outcomes: Analysis of a routine practice-based dataset. Couns. Psychother. Res. 2023; 23(3):781–789. Publisher Full Text
14. Khafifah KA, Hasanah U, Zulfa V: Hubungan Antara Stres Akademik Dengan Academic Performance Pada Santri Madrasah Aliyah Pondok Pesantren Al Hamid. JKKP (Jurnal Kesejaht. Kel. dan Pendidikan). 2023; 10(01):27–37. Publisher Full Text
15. Ayhan B: Social cognitive theory. Psychol. Press. 2010:139–151. Publisher Full Text
16. Cristina M, Gapunuan P: Self-Efficacy Towards Student Engagement and Academic Performance in Beauty Care. Int. J. Res. Publ. 2023; 124(1):406–416. Publisher Full Text
17. Mrs. Maryam SaifCoffman DL, Gilligan TD: Impact of Arts Education on Psychological wellbeing among Undergraduate Students. J. Coll. Student Retent. Res. Theory Pract. 2002; 2(3): pp. 99–120. Publisher Full Text
18. Fahruni FE, Nurismawan AS, Salsabila NS: How Do School Counselors Advocate for Gifted and Intelligent Children in Junior High School? Bisma J. Couns. 2022; 6(3): 329–334. Publisher Full Text
19. Mukti SAS, Ansyah EH: The Relationship Between Parental Social Support and Academic Stress in University Students. Indones. J. Innov. Stud. 2023; 21:1–11. Publisher Full Text
20. Byrne MM, Thompson P: A positive analysis of financial incentives for cadaveric organ donation. J. Health Econ. 2001; 20:69–83. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
21. Akhtar N, Francis LJ, Sailer AB, et al.: Introducing the Psychological Wellbeing Scale for Muslim Societies (PWS-MS): a study among young adults in Pakistan. Ment. Heal. Relig. Cult. 2023; 1–12. Publisher Full Text
22. Abdul Aziz NA, Baharudin NS, Alias NA: Association between Stress and Social Support Perceived among Undergraduate Health Sciences Student. Malaysian J. Med. Sci. 2023; 30(3):176–183. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
23. Hoferichter F, Kulakow S, Raufelder D: How teacher and classmate support relate to students’ stress and academic achievement. Front. Psychol. 2022; 13(November) PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
24. Rathakrishnan B, et al.: The interaction between academic stress and self-control in predicting psychological well-being. Environ. Soc. Psychol. 2023; 8(3):1–16. Publisher Full Text
25. Varghese RP, Norman TSJ, Thavaraj S: Perceived Stress and Self Efficacy Among College Students: A Global Review. SSRN Electron. J. 2015; 5(3):15–24. Publisher Full Text
26. Altermatt ER: Academic Support From Peers as a Predictor of Academic Self-Efficacy Among College Students. J. Coll. Student Retent. Res. Theory Pract. 2019; 21(1):21–37. Publisher Full Text
27. Aw JX, Mohamed NF, Rahmatullah B: The Role of Perceived Social Support on Psychological Well-Being of University Students During the Covid-19 Pandemic.Asia Pacific J. Heal. Manag. 2023; 18(1). Publisher Full Text
28. Marôco J, et al.: Predictors of academic efficacy and dropout intention in university students: Can engagement suppress burnout? PLoS One 2020; 15(10):e0239816–e0239826. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
29. Taherdoost H; Hamta Group: Sampling Methods in Research Methodology; How to Choose a Sampling Sampling Methods in Research. Int. J. Acad. Res. Manag. 2016. Publisher Full Text
30. Taherdoost H: Sampling Methods in Research Methodology: How to Choose a Sampling Technique for Research Hamed Taherdoost To cite this version: HAL Id: hal-02546796. Int. J. Acad. Res. Manag. 2016; 5(2):18–27. Publisher Full Text
31. Arip MASM, Kamaruzaman DN, Roslan A, et al.: Manual Student Stress Inventory (SSI) Edition 2019 Development, Validity And Reliability of Student Stress Inventory (SSI).December 2018, p. 3, 2019.
32. Calderón C, et al.: Multidimensional scale of perceived social support (MSPSS) in cancer patients: Psychometric properties and measurement invariance. Psicothema. 2021; 33(1):131–138. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
33. Sherer M, Adams CH: Construct Validation of the Self-Efficacy Scale. Psychol. Rep. 1983; 53(3):899–902. Publisher Full Text
34. Fornell C, Larcker DF: Evaluating Structural Equation Models with Unobservable Variables and Measurement Error. J. Mark. Res. 1981; 18(1):39. Publisher Full Text
35. Hair JF, Sarstedt M, Pieper TM, et al.: The Use of Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling in Strategic Management Research: A Review of Past Practices and Recommendations for Future Applications. Long Range Plann. 2012; 45(5–6):320–340. Publisher Full Text
36. Bentler PM: Fit Indexes, Lagrange Multipliers, Constraint Changes and Incomplete Data in Structural Models. Multivariate Behav. Res. 1990; 25:163–172. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
37. Shi D, Maydeu-Olivares A, DiStefano C: The Relationship Between the Standardized Root Mean Square Residual and Model Misspecification in Factor Analysis Models. Multivariate Behav. Res. 2018; 53(5):676–694. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
38. Heizomi H, Allahverdipour H, Bazargan Hejazi S, et al.: Factors Associating Perceived Stress and Psychological Well-being among Iranian Female Adolescents. Int. J. Depress Anxiety. 2018; 1(1): 3. Publisher Full Text
39. Markley R: The Far East and the English Imagination, 1600-1730. Cambridge Univ. Press. 2006; 41(4):125. Publisher Full Text
40. Aw JX, Mohamed NF, Rahmatullah B: The Role of Perceived Social Support on Psychological Well-Being of University Students During the COVID-19 Pandemic.Asia Pacific J. Heal. Manag. 2023; 18(1). Publisher Full Text
41. Sharifian N, Grühn D: The Differential Impact of Social Participation and Social Support on Psychological Well-Being: Evidence From the Wisconsin Longitudinal Study. Int. J. Aging Hum. Dev. 2019; 88(2):107–126. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
42. Rahmawati NR, Handarini DM, Triyono T: Relation of Emotional Intelligence, Self-esteem, Self-efficacy, and Psychological Well-Being Students of State Senior High School. J. Pendidik. Hum. 2017; 5(1):40–46. Publisher Full Text
43. Mrs. Maryam Saif: Impact of Arts Education on Psychological wellbeing among Undergraduate Students. Al-NASR 2024:99–120. Publisher Full Text
44. Fatima S, Sharif S, Khalid I: How does religiosity enhance psychological well-being? Roles of self-efficacy and perceived social support. Psycholog. Relig. Spiritual. 2018; 10(2):119–127. Publisher Full Text
45. Lai CCW, Ma CMS: The mediating role of social support in the relationship between psychological well-being and health-risk behaviors among Chinese university students. Heal. Psychol. Open 2016; 3(2). PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
46. Rehman AU, Bhuttah TM, You X: Linking burnout to psychological well-being: The mediating role of social support and learning motivation. Psychol. Res. Behav. Manag. 2020; 13:545–554. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
47. Mohamed AJAD: Mediating Role of Social Support and Self-efficacy on Academic Stress and Students’ Psychological well-being among University Students in Mogadishu - Somalia. F1000Research. 2024. Publisher Full Text

Comments on this article Comments (0)

Version 3

VERSION 3 PUBLISHED 30 Sep 2024

Author details Author details

¹ Faculty of Education, Mogadishu University, Mogadishu University, Somalia
² Faculty of Computer Science & IT, Mogadishu University, Mogadishu, Somalia

Ali Dahir Mohamed
Roles: Data Curation, Formal Analysis, Writing – Original Draft Preparation

Abdulkadir Jeilani
Roles: Data Curation, Formal Analysis, Writing – Original Draft Preparation

Competing interests

No competing interests were disclosed.

Grant information

The author(s) declared that no grants were involved in supporting this work.

Article Versions (3)

version 3

Revised

Published: 30 May 2025, 13:1108

https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.155275.3

version 2

Revised

Published: 13 Feb 2025, 13:1108

https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.155275.2

version 1

Published: 30 Sep 2024, 13:1108

https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.155275.1

© 2025 Dahir Mohamed A and Jeilani A. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Download

Export To

metrics

	Views	Downloads
F1000Research	-	-
PubMed Central Data from PMC are received and updated monthly.	-	-

Citations

SEE MORE DETAILS

CITE

how to cite this article

Dahir Mohamed A and Jeilani A. Mediating role of Social Support and Self-efficacy on Academic stress and Student’s Psychological well-being among University Students in Mogadishu -Somalia. [version 2; peer review: 2 approved with reservations, 1 not approved]. F1000Research 2025, 13:1108 (https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.155275.2)

NOTE: If applicable, it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article.

track

receive updates on this article

Track an article to receive email alerts on any updates to this article.

Open Peer Review

Current Reviewer Status: ?

Key to Reviewer Statuses VIEW HIDE

ApprovedThe paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested

Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit.

Not approvedFundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions

Version 2

VERSION 2

PUBLISHED 13 Feb 2025

Revised

Views

Reviewer Report 21 May 2025

Zartashia Kynat Javaid, Government College University Faisalabad, Faisalabad, Punjab, Pakistan

Approved with Reservations

https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.177201.r379969

I appreciate your efforts to carry out this work. Authors have addressed the concerns and revision is significantly improved. I have one suggestion for the sake of further improvements of sections and coherence. Introduction section must include atleast definitions of all study variables. You should reorganize introduction and literature review part to align well. I recommend consulting this systematic review covering areas and literature on psychological wellbeing throwing light on outcome variable.(Refer to 1 )

Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature?

Yes
Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound?

Yes
Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others?

Yes
If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate?

Yes
Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility?

Yes
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results?

Yes

References

1. Javaid, Z. K., Batool, H., Fatima, N., Muneer, A., & Azam, S. (2024). Eudaimonic well-being among young adults: A systematic review of influencing factors and outcomes. Journal of Policy Research, 10(2), 46-57.

Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed.

Reviewer Expertise: Applied Psychology

I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however I have significant reservations, as outlined above.

CITE

Report a concern

Author Response 01 Aug 2025

Abdulkadir Jeilani, Faculty of Computer Science & IT, Mogadishu University, Mogadishu, Somalia

01 Aug 2025

Author Response

We sincerely appreciate the reviewer’s thoughtful and constructive feedback on our manuscript. Your insights have been invaluable in enhancing the clarity, coherence, and academic rigor of our study.
In response ... Continue reading We sincerely appreciate the reviewer’s thoughtful and constructive feedback on our manuscript. Your insights have been invaluable in enhancing the clarity, coherence, and academic rigor of our study.
In response to your suggestion, we have carefully revised the Introduction section to include clear definitions of all key study variables—academic stress, psychological well-being, social support, and self-efficacy. Additionally, we reorganized the Introduction and Literature Review sections to ensure better alignment and logical flow between conceptual discussions and theoretical foundations.
We also consulted and integrated relevant insights from the recommended systematic review:
Javaid, Z. K., Batool, H., Fatima, N., Muneer, A., & Azam, S. (2024). Eudaimonic well-being among young adults: A systematic review of influencing factors and outcomes. Journal of Policy Research, 10(2), 46–57.
This review contributed to our understanding of psychological well-being as an outcome variable, which is now more clearly contextualized in the revised manuscript.
We believe that these revisions have significantly strengthened our manuscript, and we are grateful for your guidance in improving the quality of this research.
We sincerely appreciate the reviewer’s thoughtful and constructive feedback on our manuscript. Your insights have been invaluable in enhancing the clarity, coherence, and academic rigor of our study.
In response to your suggestion, we have carefully revised the Introduction section to include clear definitions of all key study variables—academic stress, psychological well-being, social support, and self-efficacy. Additionally, we reorganized the Introduction and Literature Review sections to ensure better alignment and logical flow between conceptual discussions and theoretical foundations.
We also consulted and integrated relevant insights from the recommended systematic review:
Javaid, Z. K., Batool, H., Fatima, N., Muneer, A., & Azam, S. (2024). Eudaimonic well-being among young adults: A systematic review of influencing factors and outcomes. Journal of Policy Research, 10(2), 46–57.
This review contributed to our understanding of psychological well-being as an outcome variable, which is now more clearly contextualized in the revised manuscript.
We believe that these revisions have significantly strengthened our manuscript, and we are grateful for your guidance in improving the quality of this research.
Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Close
Report a concern
Respond or Comment

COMMENTS ON THIS REPORT

Author Response 01 Aug 2025

Abdulkadir Jeilani, Faculty of Computer Science & IT, Mogadishu University, Mogadishu, Somalia

01 Aug 2025

Author Response

We sincerely appreciate the reviewer’s thoughtful and constructive feedback on our manuscript. Your insights have been invaluable in enhancing the clarity, coherence, and academic rigor of our study.
In response ... Continue reading We sincerely appreciate the reviewer’s thoughtful and constructive feedback on our manuscript. Your insights have been invaluable in enhancing the clarity, coherence, and academic rigor of our study.
In response to your suggestion, we have carefully revised the Introduction section to include clear definitions of all key study variables—academic stress, psychological well-being, social support, and self-efficacy. Additionally, we reorganized the Introduction and Literature Review sections to ensure better alignment and logical flow between conceptual discussions and theoretical foundations.
We also consulted and integrated relevant insights from the recommended systematic review:
Javaid, Z. K., Batool, H., Fatima, N., Muneer, A., & Azam, S. (2024). Eudaimonic well-being among young adults: A systematic review of influencing factors and outcomes. Journal of Policy Research, 10(2), 46–57.
This review contributed to our understanding of psychological well-being as an outcome variable, which is now more clearly contextualized in the revised manuscript.
We believe that these revisions have significantly strengthened our manuscript, and we are grateful for your guidance in improving the quality of this research.
We sincerely appreciate the reviewer’s thoughtful and constructive feedback on our manuscript. Your insights have been invaluable in enhancing the clarity, coherence, and academic rigor of our study.
In response to your suggestion, we have carefully revised the Introduction section to include clear definitions of all key study variables—academic stress, psychological well-being, social support, and self-efficacy. Additionally, we reorganized the Introduction and Literature Review sections to ensure better alignment and logical flow between conceptual discussions and theoretical foundations.
We also consulted and integrated relevant insights from the recommended systematic review:
Javaid, Z. K., Batool, H., Fatima, N., Muneer, A., & Azam, S. (2024). Eudaimonic well-being among young adults: A systematic review of influencing factors and outcomes. Journal of Policy Research, 10(2), 46–57.
This review contributed to our understanding of psychological well-being as an outcome variable, which is now more clearly contextualized in the revised manuscript.
We believe that these revisions have significantly strengthened our manuscript, and we are grateful for your guidance in improving the quality of this research.
Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Close
Report a concern

Version 1

VERSION 1

PUBLISHED 30 Sep 2024

Views

Reviewer Report 10 Jan 2025

Nguyen Tan Dat, Can Tho University of Medicine and Pharmacy, An Khánh, Vietnam

Not Approved

https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.170424.r353385

Overall, the paper examines the impact of academic stress on psychological well-being among university students in Mogadishu, Somalia, exploring the mediating roles of social support and self-efficacy. The results indicate that social support partially mediates the relationship between academic stress and well-being, while self-efficacy does not. The study's use of robust methodology, including stratified sampling and structural equation modeling, and its practical implications for improving student mental health through social support, are key strengths.
However, I believe that a significant rewrite and thorough English editing are necessary to enhance the quality of the article for submission
Introduction

Could the authors please provide the citation for this sentence in the second paragraph of the Introduction Introduction, paragraph 2: “Also, other factors contributing to academic stress include self-inflicted stress, parental expectations, academic queries, lack of time for revision, low parental education levels, and poor exam grades.”
I suggest the authors use only 'self-efficacy' for consistency throughout the paper. In my opinion, 'self-efficacy' is the more widely recognized and commonly used term.
It seems that the second citation is wrong: The paper name is supposed to be “Academic Stress Among University Students: A Quantitative Study of Generation Y and Z’s Perception”. “SOCIAL SCIENCES & HUMANITIES:” is part of the journal name.
I think it would be more beneficial to shorten the 2nd, 3rd, 4th,, 5th, 6th paragraph in the introduction because some ideas are repeated. For example this paragraph: “Academic stress arises from the inability to cope with academic related tasks, leading to negative impacts such as smoking behavior, mental health issues, poor sleep quality, depression, insomnia, substance addiction, self-harm, and suicidal ideation. Also, other factors contributing to academic stress include self-inflicted stress, parental expectations, academic queries, lack of time for revision, low parental education levels, and poor exam grades.” And this paragraph “Academic stress is the product of a combination of academic-related demands that exceed the adaptive resources available to an individual,2 Researchers agree that students face common academic stressors, such as family-pressures, scholarship demands, financial burdens, competition in class, examination, time-management and course-related stress.2 According to Ref. 3 the main cause of academic stress are academic results, admissions, students transfer, exams, load of extra classes, social comparison, exams stress, expectations teachers and parents.” Both paragraphs talk about the cause of academic stress
I also feel that this sentence: “Academic stress arises from the inability to cope with academic related tasks, leading to negative impacts such as smoking behavior, mental health issues, poor sleep quality, depression, insomnia, substance addiction, self-harm, and suicidal ideation.” and this sentence: “The most common psychological consequences associated with academic stress include depression, anxiety, substance abuse, and suicide ideation.7” are similar.
I have taken a look at the source of citation for this sentence ““Additionally, coping strategies like Academic Psychological capital and self-efficacy play a crucial role in mitigating the effects of academic stress on psychological well-being.” and could not find any information about how self-efficacy and academic psychological capital mitigates the effect of academic stress on psychological well-being. Can the authors highlight it? This is the paper that I found for your citation. Ref (1)
I don’t understand what this sentence want to say: In the context of academic stress, this theory suggests that the students have the ability to cope with high self-efficacy are more likely to effectively cope with stressors and maintain their psychological well-being.
Citation number 9 format is different than others.
The authors lack citation for Social Cognitive Theory.
Why is coping mechanisms capitalized, and why theories is plural in this sentence “In Coping Mechanisms, the theories emphasize the importance of coping strategies in managing stress.” ? Do you mean to talk about “The Transactional Model of Stress and Coping”and “Social Cognitive Theory”?
Additionally, when the authors wrote these two paragraphs under Social Cognitive Theory, it seems like these paragraphs were talking about the theory. But I think these paragraphs are talking about common themes of both “The Transactional Model of Stress and Coping”and “Social Cognitive Theory” theories:

“In the context of the impact of academic stress on students’ psychological well-being, the Transactional Theory of Stress and Coping and the Social Cognitive Theory focus on the following. Both theories highlight the importance of cognitive appraisal in how individuals perceive and respond to stress. Students’ cognitive evaluations of academic stressors, their perceived ability to cope (self-efficacy), and the availability of social support influence their stress experiences and psychological well-being.10”
“ In Coping Mechanisms, the theories emphasize the importance of coping strategies in managing stress. Student performance related to cognitive appraisals and self-efficacy beliefs play an important role in mediating the relationship between academic stress and psychological well-being. Effective strategies, supported by social resources, help students manage academic stress and maintain well-being.9,10,15”
So I suggest the authors add another title for these 2 paragraphs.

Why also is the subject in this sentence? “Also has emerged as a significant mental health that affecting various groups of students.”
Don’t break this sentence into another paragraph: A study found a strong correlation (r=0.582) between academic stress and psychological well-being among university students, indicating that higher stress levels correspond to lower well-being.
Also, I feel these paragraphs titled “Academic Stress and Psychological Well-being” is a repeat of the start of the Introduction. I suggest the author omitted or combined these paragraph together with those paragraphs at the start of the Introduction.
I noticed that several common terms are inconsistently capitalized (e.g., 'Academic Psychological capital,' 'Health Sciences'). In academic writing, only proper nouns, titles, or the first words of sentences should be capitalized. I recommend reviewing the manuscript for unnecessary capitalization and ensuring it follows standard conventions for consistency and clarity.
I feel the Introduction is too long, it would be beneficial to be shorter

Methods

I don't think it is necessary to go into such depth about the targeted universities (e.g., the number of students, the included faculties, etc.).
There are three things wrong with this part of the sentence “Self-Efficiency Scale (SSS) adapted by Ref. 35 and consist of 10 items.”: First, it is self-efficacy not self-efficiency. Second, if the scale is called Self-efficacy scale, is should be abbreviated as SES not SSS. Third, The scale in Reference 35 is called “General Self-Efficacy Scale”, not Self-efficacy Scale
The authors did not mention which software used for data analysis.

Results

For very small p-values, avoid reporting them as 0.000; instead, use p < 0.001.
Please check carefully for grammar issues(The result presents in the Table 4->The result is presented in Table 4., partially mediation-> partial mediation)
In Table 4, the meaning of the symbol 'H1: ASàPWB' is unclear.
I noticed that the author sometimes reports results with four decimal places (e.g., 0.0075) and other times with three decimal places (e.g., 3.524). To ensure consistency and clarity, I recommend using three decimal places consistently throughout the paper.
Please ensure that each abbreviation is defined or explained in every table for clarity.
Please cite Figure 2 in the Results, I also suggest changing Figure 2 name to reflect the mediation model.

Discussion
25. I noticed that the abbreviation 'PWB' for 'psychological well-being' is introduced suddenly in the Discussion section, despite the full term being used throughout the paper. For consistency and clarity, it would be helpful to either introduce the abbreviation earlier in the text or continue using the full term throughout the manuscript: The study found that social support significantly impacts psychological well-being (PWB)
Conclusion
26. Please put the conclusion paragraph at the end instead of before 6.1 Implications and 6.2 Limitations.
27. I believe the order of the sections could be improved for better clarity and logical flow. In the current structure, '6.1 Implications' and '6.2 Limitations and Further Research' are listed as sub-sections under '6. Conclusion,' which may not be ideal. Typically, implications and limitations are treated as separate sections rather than sub-sections of the conclusion. I suggest considering reorganizing the sections, perhaps by placing 'Implications' and 'Limitations and Further Research' as standalone sections after the conclusion for a clearer structure.
28. I noticed that the authors have cited their own preprint (citation 42). While self-citation is not inherently unethical, it may be worth considering if this citation is necessary and appropriate, especially in light of the potential for bias. It might be helpful to ensure that all citations are relevant and contribute to the academic discourse in a transparent manner.
29. The paper investigates both public and private universities, but the results section does not address why data was collected from both types of institutions or highlight any notable differences between them. Additionally, there seems to be no analysis exploring potential distinctions between public and private universities, despite the title emphasizing the inclusion of both. It would strengthen the paper to either explore these differences or provide a rationale for including both types of universities in the study..
30. the keyword 'Public and Private Universities' might be too broad. It could be helpful to consider a more specific keyword like "university students"

Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature?

Partly
Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound?

Partly
Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others?

Partly
If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate?

I cannot comment. A qualified statistician is required.
Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility?

Yes
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results?

Partly

References

1. Findivia Egga Fahruni, Ach. Sudrajad Nurismawan, Nabila Salma Salsabila: How Do School Counselors Advocate for Gifted and Intelligent Children in Junior High School?. Bisma The Journal of Counseling. 2022; 6 (3): 329-334 Publisher Full Text

Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed.

Reviewer Expertise: Clinical psychology

I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to state that I do not consider it to be of an acceptable scientific standard, for reasons outlined above.

CITE

Report a concern

Author Response 13 Feb 2025

Abdulkadir Jeilani, Faculty of Computer Science & IT, Mogadishu University, Mogadishu, Somalia

13 Feb 2025

Author Response
We sincerely thank the reviewer for his insightful and constructive feedback, which has significantly contributed to improving the quality and clarity of our manuscript. We have carefully addressed each comment ... Continue reading
We sincerely thank the reviewer for his insightful and constructive feedback, which has significantly contributed to improving the quality and clarity of our manuscript. We have carefully addressed each comment and made the suggested revisions as detailed below:
Introduction

Comment: Could the authors provide a citation for this sentence:
“Also, other factors contributing to academic stress include self-inflicted stress, parental expectations, academic queries, lack of time for revision, low parental education levels, and poor exam grades.”
Response: The citation for this statement has been included.

Comment: Use 'self-efficacy' consistently throughout the manuscript for clarity.
Response: We have replaced all instances of "self-efficiency" with "self-efficacy."

Comment: The second citation is incorrect; the paper title should be "Academic Stress Among University Students: A Quantitative Study of Generation Y and Z’s Perception."
Response: The incorrect citation has been corrected.

Comment: Consider shortening paragraphs 2–6 of the Introduction, as they contain repetitive ideas.
Response: We combined the content of these paragraphs into two concise paragraphs to avoid redundancy.

Comment: These sentences appear similar and repetitive:
“Academic stress arises from the inability to cope with academic-related tasks, leading to negative impacts such as smoking behavior, mental health issues, poor sleep quality, depression, insomnia, substance addiction, self-harm, and suicidal ideation.”
“The most common psychological consequences associated with academic stress include depression, anxiety, substance abuse, and suicide ideation.”
Response: The repetition has been removed, and the sentences have been streamlined for clarity.

Comment: Could the authors clarify how self-efficacy and academic psychological capital mitigate the effects of academic stress on psychological well-being?
Response: We reviewed the source and highlighted the relevant information to address this query.

Comment: This sentence is unclear:
“In the context of academic stress, this theory suggests that the students have the ability to cope with high self-efficacy are more likely to effectively cope with stressors and maintain their psychological well-being.”
Response: The sentence has been revised for clarity and grammatical accuracy.

Comment: Citation number 9 is formatted differently from others.
Response: The formatting inconsistency has been corrected.

Comment: Provide a citation for Social Cognitive Theory.
Response: We have included the appropriate citation for Social Cognitive Theory.

Literature Review

Comment: Why are “Coping Mechanisms” and “Theories” capitalized?
Response: These terms are no longer capitalized for consistency with academic conventions.

Comment: The paragraphs under Social Cognitive Theory appear to address common themes of multiple theories, not just Social Cognitive Theory. Consider adding a new title.
Response: A new title has been added to appropriately categorize these paragraphs.

Comment: This sentence is unclear:
“Also has emerged as a significant mental health that affecting various groups of students.”
Response: The sentence has been revised for clarity.

Comment: Avoid breaking this sentence into a new paragraph:
“A study found a strong correlation (r=0.582) between academic stress and psychological well-being among university students, indicating that higher stress levels correspond to lower well-being.”
Response: The sentence has been kept intact within the paragraph for continuity.

Comment: The Academic Stress and Psychological Well-being section is repetitive. Consider merging or omitting parts that overlap with the Introduction.
Response: The section has been merged with the relevant parts of the Introduction for conciseness.

Comment: Terms like 'Academic Psychological Capital' and 'Health Sciences' are inconsistently capitalized.
Response: We reviewed the manuscript to ensure capitalization consistency.

Methods

Comment: Details about targeted universities (e.g., the number of students, and included faculties) may be unnecessary.
Response: The description has been shortened to focus on relevant details.

Comment: There are three issues with this sentence:
“Self-Efficiency Scale (SSS) adapted by Ref. 35 and consists of 10 items.”

It should be "Self-efficacy," not "Self-efficiency."

The abbreviation should be "SES," not "SSS."

The correct name of the scale is the General Self-Efficacy Scale.
Response: All corrections have been made.

Comment: The software used for data analysis is not mentioned.
Response: The software has been specified in the Methods section.

Results

Comment: Report small p-values as p < 0.001 instead of 0.000.
Response: This has been corrected throughout the Results section.

Comment: Ensure grammatical accuracy (e.g., "The result presents in Table 4" → "The result is presented in Table 4").
Response: Grammar issues have been corrected.

Comment: In Table 4, the symbol 'H1: ASàPWB' is unclear.
Response: The symbol has been clarified.

Comment: Use three decimal places consistently across results.
Response: All results now use three decimal places for consistency.

Comment: Define or explain abbreviations in every table.
Response: All abbreviations are now defined within the tables.

Comment: Cite Figure 2 in the Results section and rename it to reflect the mediation model.
Response: Figure 2 has been cited and renamed accordingly.

Discussion and Conclusion

Comment: Introduce the abbreviation PWB for "psychological well-being" earlier or use the full term consistently.
Response: We now use the full term consistently throughout the manuscript.

Comment: Move the conclusion paragraph to the end and treat Implications and Limitations as separate sections.
Response: The Conclusion has been moved to the end, and Implications and Limitations are now standalone sections.

Comment: Consider whether the self-citation (citation 42) is necessary.
Response: This self-citation was included as supplementary data per journal guidelines.

Comment: Address differences between public and private universities or provide a rationale for including both.
Response: The rationale has been clarified, and notable distinctions are highlighted.

Comment: Replace the broad keyword Public and Private Universities with a more specific term like university students.
Response: The keyword has been replaced with university students.
We sincerely thank the reviewer for his insightful and constructive feedback, which has significantly contributed to improving the quality and clarity of our manuscript. We have carefully addressed each comment and made the suggested revisions as detailed below:
Introduction

Comment: Could the authors provide a citation for this sentence:
“Also, other factors contributing to academic stress include self-inflicted stress, parental expectations, academic queries, lack of time for revision, low parental education levels, and poor exam grades.”
Response: The citation for this statement has been included.

Comment: Use 'self-efficacy' consistently throughout the manuscript for clarity.
Response: We have replaced all instances of "self-efficiency" with "self-efficacy."

Comment: The second citation is incorrect; the paper title should be "Academic Stress Among University Students: A Quantitative Study of Generation Y and Z’s Perception."
Response: The incorrect citation has been corrected.

Comment: Consider shortening paragraphs 2–6 of the Introduction, as they contain repetitive ideas.
Response: We combined the content of these paragraphs into two concise paragraphs to avoid redundancy.

Comment: These sentences appear similar and repetitive:
“Academic stress arises from the inability to cope with academic-related tasks, leading to negative impacts such as smoking behavior, mental health issues, poor sleep quality, depression, insomnia, substance addiction, self-harm, and suicidal ideation.”
“The most common psychological consequences associated with academic stress include depression, anxiety, substance abuse, and suicide ideation.”
Response: The repetition has been removed, and the sentences have been streamlined for clarity.

Comment: Could the authors clarify how self-efficacy and academic psychological capital mitigate the effects of academic stress on psychological well-being?
Response: We reviewed the source and highlighted the relevant information to address this query.

Comment: This sentence is unclear:
“In the context of academic stress, this theory suggests that the students have the ability to cope with high self-efficacy are more likely to effectively cope with stressors and maintain their psychological well-being.”
Response: The sentence has been revised for clarity and grammatical accuracy.

Comment: Citation number 9 is formatted differently from others.
Response: The formatting inconsistency has been corrected.

Comment: Provide a citation for Social Cognitive Theory.
Response: We have included the appropriate citation for Social Cognitive Theory.

Literature Review

Comment: Why are “Coping Mechanisms” and “Theories” capitalized?
Response: These terms are no longer capitalized for consistency with academic conventions.

Comment: The paragraphs under Social Cognitive Theory appear to address common themes of multiple theories, not just Social Cognitive Theory. Consider adding a new title.
Response: A new title has been added to appropriately categorize these paragraphs.

Comment: This sentence is unclear:
“Also has emerged as a significant mental health that affecting various groups of students.”
Response: The sentence has been revised for clarity.

Comment: Avoid breaking this sentence into a new paragraph:
“A study found a strong correlation (r=0.582) between academic stress and psychological well-being among university students, indicating that higher stress levels correspond to lower well-being.”
Response: The sentence has been kept intact within the paragraph for continuity.

Comment: The Academic Stress and Psychological Well-being section is repetitive. Consider merging or omitting parts that overlap with the Introduction.
Response: The section has been merged with the relevant parts of the Introduction for conciseness.

Comment: Terms like 'Academic Psychological Capital' and 'Health Sciences' are inconsistently capitalized.
Response: We reviewed the manuscript to ensure capitalization consistency.

Methods

Comment: Details about targeted universities (e.g., the number of students, and included faculties) may be unnecessary.
Response: The description has been shortened to focus on relevant details.

Comment: There are three issues with this sentence:
“Self-Efficiency Scale (SSS) adapted by Ref. 35 and consists of 10 items.”

It should be "Self-efficacy," not "Self-efficiency."

The abbreviation should be "SES," not "SSS."

The correct name of the scale is the General Self-Efficacy Scale.
Response: All corrections have been made.

Comment: The software used for data analysis is not mentioned.
Response: The software has been specified in the Methods section.

Results

Comment: Report small p-values as p < 0.001 instead of 0.000.
Response: This has been corrected throughout the Results section.

Comment: Ensure grammatical accuracy (e.g., "The result presents in Table 4" → "The result is presented in Table 4").
Response: Grammar issues have been corrected.

Comment: In Table 4, the symbol 'H1: ASàPWB' is unclear.
Response: The symbol has been clarified.

Comment: Use three decimal places consistently across results.
Response: All results now use three decimal places for consistency.

Comment: Define or explain abbreviations in every table.
Response: All abbreviations are now defined within the tables.

Comment: Cite Figure 2 in the Results section and rename it to reflect the mediation model.
Response: Figure 2 has been cited and renamed accordingly.

Discussion and Conclusion

Comment: Introduce the abbreviation PWB for "psychological well-being" earlier or use the full term consistently.
Response: We now use the full term consistently throughout the manuscript.

Comment: Move the conclusion paragraph to the end and treat Implications and Limitations as separate sections.
Response: The Conclusion has been moved to the end, and Implications and Limitations are now standalone sections.

Comment: Consider whether the self-citation (citation 42) is necessary.
Response: This self-citation was included as supplementary data per journal guidelines.

Comment: Address differences between public and private universities or provide a rationale for including both.
Response: The rationale has been clarified, and notable distinctions are highlighted.

Comment: Replace the broad keyword Public and Private Universities with a more specific term like university students.
Response: The keyword has been replaced with university students.
Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Close
Report a concern
Respond or Comment

COMMENTS ON THIS REPORT

Author Response 13 Feb 2025

Abdulkadir Jeilani, Faculty of Computer Science & IT, Mogadishu University, Mogadishu, Somalia

13 Feb 2025

Author Response
We sincerely thank the reviewer for his insightful and constructive feedback, which has significantly contributed to improving the quality and clarity of our manuscript. We have carefully addressed each comment ... Continue reading
We sincerely thank the reviewer for his insightful and constructive feedback, which has significantly contributed to improving the quality and clarity of our manuscript. We have carefully addressed each comment and made the suggested revisions as detailed below:
Introduction

Comment: Could the authors provide a citation for this sentence:
“Also, other factors contributing to academic stress include self-inflicted stress, parental expectations, academic queries, lack of time for revision, low parental education levels, and poor exam grades.”
Response: The citation for this statement has been included.

Comment: Use 'self-efficacy' consistently throughout the manuscript for clarity.
Response: We have replaced all instances of "self-efficiency" with "self-efficacy."

Comment: The second citation is incorrect; the paper title should be "Academic Stress Among University Students: A Quantitative Study of Generation Y and Z’s Perception."
Response: The incorrect citation has been corrected.

Comment: Consider shortening paragraphs 2–6 of the Introduction, as they contain repetitive ideas.
Response: We combined the content of these paragraphs into two concise paragraphs to avoid redundancy.

Comment: These sentences appear similar and repetitive:
“Academic stress arises from the inability to cope with academic-related tasks, leading to negative impacts such as smoking behavior, mental health issues, poor sleep quality, depression, insomnia, substance addiction, self-harm, and suicidal ideation.”
“The most common psychological consequences associated with academic stress include depression, anxiety, substance abuse, and suicide ideation.”
Response: The repetition has been removed, and the sentences have been streamlined for clarity.

Comment: Could the authors clarify how self-efficacy and academic psychological capital mitigate the effects of academic stress on psychological well-being?
Response: We reviewed the source and highlighted the relevant information to address this query.

Comment: This sentence is unclear:
“In the context of academic stress, this theory suggests that the students have the ability to cope with high self-efficacy are more likely to effectively cope with stressors and maintain their psychological well-being.”
Response: The sentence has been revised for clarity and grammatical accuracy.

Comment: Citation number 9 is formatted differently from others.
Response: The formatting inconsistency has been corrected.

Comment: Provide a citation for Social Cognitive Theory.
Response: We have included the appropriate citation for Social Cognitive Theory.

Literature Review

Comment: Why are “Coping Mechanisms” and “Theories” capitalized?
Response: These terms are no longer capitalized for consistency with academic conventions.

Comment: The paragraphs under Social Cognitive Theory appear to address common themes of multiple theories, not just Social Cognitive Theory. Consider adding a new title.
Response: A new title has been added to appropriately categorize these paragraphs.

Comment: This sentence is unclear:
“Also has emerged as a significant mental health that affecting various groups of students.”
Response: The sentence has been revised for clarity.

Comment: Avoid breaking this sentence into a new paragraph:
“A study found a strong correlation (r=0.582) between academic stress and psychological well-being among university students, indicating that higher stress levels correspond to lower well-being.”
Response: The sentence has been kept intact within the paragraph for continuity.

Comment: The Academic Stress and Psychological Well-being section is repetitive. Consider merging or omitting parts that overlap with the Introduction.
Response: The section has been merged with the relevant parts of the Introduction for conciseness.

Comment: Terms like 'Academic Psychological Capital' and 'Health Sciences' are inconsistently capitalized.
Response: We reviewed the manuscript to ensure capitalization consistency.

Methods

Comment: Details about targeted universities (e.g., the number of students, and included faculties) may be unnecessary.
Response: The description has been shortened to focus on relevant details.

Comment: There are three issues with this sentence:
“Self-Efficiency Scale (SSS) adapted by Ref. 35 and consists of 10 items.”

It should be "Self-efficacy," not "Self-efficiency."

The abbreviation should be "SES," not "SSS."

The correct name of the scale is the General Self-Efficacy Scale.
Response: All corrections have been made.

Comment: The software used for data analysis is not mentioned.
Response: The software has been specified in the Methods section.

Results

Comment: Report small p-values as p < 0.001 instead of 0.000.
Response: This has been corrected throughout the Results section.

Comment: Ensure grammatical accuracy (e.g., "The result presents in Table 4" → "The result is presented in Table 4").
Response: Grammar issues have been corrected.

Comment: In Table 4, the symbol 'H1: ASàPWB' is unclear.
Response: The symbol has been clarified.

Comment: Use three decimal places consistently across results.
Response: All results now use three decimal places for consistency.

Comment: Define or explain abbreviations in every table.
Response: All abbreviations are now defined within the tables.

Comment: Cite Figure 2 in the Results section and rename it to reflect the mediation model.
Response: Figure 2 has been cited and renamed accordingly.

Discussion and Conclusion

Comment: Introduce the abbreviation PWB for "psychological well-being" earlier or use the full term consistently.
Response: We now use the full term consistently throughout the manuscript.

Comment: Move the conclusion paragraph to the end and treat Implications and Limitations as separate sections.
Response: The Conclusion has been moved to the end, and Implications and Limitations are now standalone sections.

Comment: Consider whether the self-citation (citation 42) is necessary.
Response: This self-citation was included as supplementary data per journal guidelines.

Comment: Address differences between public and private universities or provide a rationale for including both.
Response: The rationale has been clarified, and notable distinctions are highlighted.

Comment: Replace the broad keyword Public and Private Universities with a more specific term like university students.
Response: The keyword has been replaced with university students.
We sincerely thank the reviewer for his insightful and constructive feedback, which has significantly contributed to improving the quality and clarity of our manuscript. We have carefully addressed each comment and made the suggested revisions as detailed below:
Introduction

Comment: Could the authors provide a citation for this sentence:
“Also, other factors contributing to academic stress include self-inflicted stress, parental expectations, academic queries, lack of time for revision, low parental education levels, and poor exam grades.”
Response: The citation for this statement has been included.

Comment: Use 'self-efficacy' consistently throughout the manuscript for clarity.
Response: We have replaced all instances of "self-efficiency" with "self-efficacy."

Comment: The second citation is incorrect; the paper title should be "Academic Stress Among University Students: A Quantitative Study of Generation Y and Z’s Perception."
Response: The incorrect citation has been corrected.

Comment: Consider shortening paragraphs 2–6 of the Introduction, as they contain repetitive ideas.
Response: We combined the content of these paragraphs into two concise paragraphs to avoid redundancy.

Comment: These sentences appear similar and repetitive:
“Academic stress arises from the inability to cope with academic-related tasks, leading to negative impacts such as smoking behavior, mental health issues, poor sleep quality, depression, insomnia, substance addiction, self-harm, and suicidal ideation.”
“The most common psychological consequences associated with academic stress include depression, anxiety, substance abuse, and suicide ideation.”
Response: The repetition has been removed, and the sentences have been streamlined for clarity.

Comment: Could the authors clarify how self-efficacy and academic psychological capital mitigate the effects of academic stress on psychological well-being?
Response: We reviewed the source and highlighted the relevant information to address this query.

Comment: This sentence is unclear:
“In the context of academic stress, this theory suggests that the students have the ability to cope with high self-efficacy are more likely to effectively cope with stressors and maintain their psychological well-being.”
Response: The sentence has been revised for clarity and grammatical accuracy.

Comment: Citation number 9 is formatted differently from others.
Response: The formatting inconsistency has been corrected.

Comment: Provide a citation for Social Cognitive Theory.
Response: We have included the appropriate citation for Social Cognitive Theory.

Literature Review

Comment: Why are “Coping Mechanisms” and “Theories” capitalized?
Response: These terms are no longer capitalized for consistency with academic conventions.

Comment: The paragraphs under Social Cognitive Theory appear to address common themes of multiple theories, not just Social Cognitive Theory. Consider adding a new title.
Response: A new title has been added to appropriately categorize these paragraphs.

Comment: This sentence is unclear:
“Also has emerged as a significant mental health that affecting various groups of students.”
Response: The sentence has been revised for clarity.

Comment: Avoid breaking this sentence into a new paragraph:
“A study found a strong correlation (r=0.582) between academic stress and psychological well-being among university students, indicating that higher stress levels correspond to lower well-being.”
Response: The sentence has been kept intact within the paragraph for continuity.

Comment: The Academic Stress and Psychological Well-being section is repetitive. Consider merging or omitting parts that overlap with the Introduction.
Response: The section has been merged with the relevant parts of the Introduction for conciseness.

Comment: Terms like 'Academic Psychological Capital' and 'Health Sciences' are inconsistently capitalized.
Response: We reviewed the manuscript to ensure capitalization consistency.

Methods

Comment: Details about targeted universities (e.g., the number of students, and included faculties) may be unnecessary.
Response: The description has been shortened to focus on relevant details.

Comment: There are three issues with this sentence:
“Self-Efficiency Scale (SSS) adapted by Ref. 35 and consists of 10 items.”

It should be "Self-efficacy," not "Self-efficiency."

The abbreviation should be "SES," not "SSS."

The correct name of the scale is the General Self-Efficacy Scale.
Response: All corrections have been made.

Comment: The software used for data analysis is not mentioned.
Response: The software has been specified in the Methods section.

Results

Comment: Report small p-values as p < 0.001 instead of 0.000.
Response: This has been corrected throughout the Results section.

Comment: Ensure grammatical accuracy (e.g., "The result presents in Table 4" → "The result is presented in Table 4").
Response: Grammar issues have been corrected.

Comment: In Table 4, the symbol 'H1: ASàPWB' is unclear.
Response: The symbol has been clarified.

Comment: Use three decimal places consistently across results.
Response: All results now use three decimal places for consistency.

Comment: Define or explain abbreviations in every table.
Response: All abbreviations are now defined within the tables.

Comment: Cite Figure 2 in the Results section and rename it to reflect the mediation model.
Response: Figure 2 has been cited and renamed accordingly.

Discussion and Conclusion

Comment: Introduce the abbreviation PWB for "psychological well-being" earlier or use the full term consistently.
Response: We now use the full term consistently throughout the manuscript.

Comment: Move the conclusion paragraph to the end and treat Implications and Limitations as separate sections.
Response: The Conclusion has been moved to the end, and Implications and Limitations are now standalone sections.

Comment: Consider whether the self-citation (citation 42) is necessary.
Response: This self-citation was included as supplementary data per journal guidelines.

Comment: Address differences between public and private universities or provide a rationale for including both.
Response: The rationale has been clarified, and notable distinctions are highlighted.

Comment: Replace the broad keyword Public and Private Universities with a more specific term like university students.
Response: The keyword has been replaced with university students.
Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Close
Report a concern

Views

Reviewer Report 17 Dec 2024

Somaya Shokry Mohammad Mahmoud, Imam Abdulrahman Bin Faisal University, Dammam, Eastern Province, Saudi Arabia

Approved with Reservations

https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.170424.r342011

The mediating analysis showed that social support partially mediated the relationship between academic stress and psychological well-being (Indirect effect = 0.070, CI [-0.036, 0.197], p = 0.000),
Social Support: The indirect effect (0.070) is partially mediated, but the confidence interval (CI [-0.036, 0.197]) includes zero. This creates a discrepancy because the p-value (p = 0.000) suggests significance.
Conclusions
The findings suggest a significant positive impact of academic stress on psychological well-being
revise this statement. I think there is a significant negative impact of academic stress on psychological well-being
"Why is the gender factor included in Figure 1?"
A study found a strong correlation (r=0.582) between academic stress and psychological well-being among university students, indicating that higher stress levels correspond to lower well-being.¹⁷
Is the correlation positive or negative?
The study design is appropriate for the research objectives, and the work is technically sound overall.
The study provides many details that enable replication, particularly regarding the sample, constructs, and statistical analysis. To improve replicability, the following should be addressed:

Specify the software and analytical procedures used.

Overall, the statistical analysis and its interpretation are appropriate and align with standard practices. Key areas for improvement include addressing the confidence interval discrepancy for social support mediation, acknowledging the low AVE values, and providing more details on effect sizes. These adjustments would further strengthen the robustness and clarity of the statistical conclusions.
The study makes a commendable effort by sharing its source data on Figshare, ensuring transparency and partial reproducibility. However, to achieve full reproducibility, additional documentation and sharing of analysis scripts are needed. This would allow other researchers to replicate the study comprehensively and with minimal barriers.
he conclusions are mostly supported by the results, with some exceptions:

The confidence interval issue for social support mediation should be addressed to confirm this conclusion.
The practical significance of the relationships should be better reflected.
The low AVE values should be discussed to acknowledge potential measurement limitations.

Addressing these points would make the conclusions more robust and aligned with the study's results.

Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature?

Yes
Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound?

Yes
Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others?

Partly
If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate?

Partly
Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility?

Partly
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results?

Partly

Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed.

Reviewer Expertise: Educational Psycholgy

CITE

Report a concern

Author Response 26 Dec 2024

Abdulkadir Jeilani, Faculty of Computer Science & IT, Mogadishu University, Mogadishu, Somalia

26 Dec 2024

Author Response
We sincerely appreciate the time and effort the reviewer has dedicated to providing insightful and constructive feedback on our manuscript. Your comments have significantly enhanced the quality and clarity of ... Continue reading
We sincerely appreciate the time and effort the reviewer has dedicated to providing insightful and constructive feedback on our manuscript. Your comments have significantly enhanced the quality and clarity of our work.
We are particularly grateful for your detailed observations, including the suggestions to address the confidence interval discrepancy, improve the discussion on AVE values, and provide additional details to strengthen replicability. These recommendations have been invaluable in refining our analysis and ensuring the robustness of our conclusions.
Thank you for recognizing our study's strengths and highlighting areas for improvement. Your expertise and thoughtful input have guided us in making meaningful revisions, and we are confident that the manuscript is much stronger due to your valuable contributions.
Here are the responses for each comment
Social Support: Confidence Interval Discrepancy and Indirect Effect
Reviewer Comment:
The indirect effect (0.070) is partially mediated, but the confidence interval (CI [-0.036, 0.197]) includes zero. This creates a discrepancy because the p-value (p = 0.000) suggests significance.
Response:
We appreciate the reviewer highlighting this discrepancy. The p-value indicates statistical significance, but the confidence interval suggests potential variability in the indirect effect. To address this:

We resample bootstrap with 5,000 now the inconsistency is solved

Conclusions: Nature of the Impact of Academic Stress
Reviewer Comment:
The findings suggest a significant positive impact of academic stress on psychological well-being. Revise this statement to indicate there is a significant negative impact.
Response:
Thank you for pointing this out. The relationship between academic stress and psychological well-being is indeed negative, as supported by the correlation analysis and theoretical framework. We revised the conclusion to:
"The findings suggest that academic stress has a significant negative impact on psychological well-being, partially mediated by social support."
Gender Factor in Figure 1
Reviewer Comment:
           Why is the gender factor included in Figure 1?
Response:
             Thank you, we excluded Gender from the research model.
Correlation Between Academic Stress and Psychological Well-being
Reviewer Comment:
A study found a strong correlation (r = 0.582) between academic stress and psychological well-being. Is the correlation positive or negative?
Response:
The correlation is negative, as higher academic stress corresponds to lower psychological well-being. This is explicitly stated in the discussion section to avoid any ambiguity.
Replicability: Software and Analytical Procedures
Reviewer Comment:
           Specify the software and analytical procedures used to improve replicability.
Response:
We added the following details:

The software used for analysis was SPSS (version 24) and AMOS (version 22).

Analytical procedures such as path analysis, bootstrapping (5,000 samples), and structural equation modeling were applied to test direct and indirect effects.

Practical Significance of Relationships
Reviewer Comment:
           The practical significance of the relationships should be better reflected.
Response:
The partial mediation by social support indicates the importance of strengthening support systems to mitigate the negative effects of academic stress on well-being.
Low AVE Values
Reviewer Comment:
              The low AVE values should be discussed to acknowledge potential measurement limitations.
Response:
We acknowledge the low AVE values for some constructs (e.g., academic stress: 0.399). Noted as a limitation, indicating potential issues with convergent validity. We recommended revising measurement items in future studies to better capture the constructs.
Data Sharing and Reproducibility
Reviewer Comment:
Additional documentation and sharing of analysis scripts are needed to achieve full reproducibility.
Response:
We shared analysis scripts and detailed documentation alongside the dataset on Figshare. This will ensure that researchers can replicate the analysis comprehensively.
Practical Recommendations
Reviewer Comment:
            Address practical recommendations based on the findings.
Response:
We emphasized the importance of social support systems and stress management interventions in educational institutions. These could include peer mentoring programs, counseling services, and workshops on effective coping mechanisms.
We sincerely appreciate the time and effort the reviewer has dedicated to providing insightful and constructive feedback on our manuscript. Your comments have significantly enhanced the quality and clarity of our work.
We are particularly grateful for your detailed observations, including the suggestions to address the confidence interval discrepancy, improve the discussion on AVE values, and provide additional details to strengthen replicability. These recommendations have been invaluable in refining our analysis and ensuring the robustness of our conclusions.
Thank you for recognizing our study's strengths and highlighting areas for improvement. Your expertise and thoughtful input have guided us in making meaningful revisions, and we are confident that the manuscript is much stronger due to your valuable contributions.
Here are the responses for each comment
Social Support: Confidence Interval Discrepancy and Indirect Effect
Reviewer Comment:
The indirect effect (0.070) is partially mediated, but the confidence interval (CI [-0.036, 0.197]) includes zero. This creates a discrepancy because the p-value (p = 0.000) suggests significance.
Response:
We appreciate the reviewer highlighting this discrepancy. The p-value indicates statistical significance, but the confidence interval suggests potential variability in the indirect effect. To address this:

We resample bootstrap with 5,000 now the inconsistency is solved

Conclusions: Nature of the Impact of Academic Stress
Reviewer Comment:
The findings suggest a significant positive impact of academic stress on psychological well-being. Revise this statement to indicate there is a significant negative impact.
Response:
Thank you for pointing this out. The relationship between academic stress and psychological well-being is indeed negative, as supported by the correlation analysis and theoretical framework. We revised the conclusion to:
"The findings suggest that academic stress has a significant negative impact on psychological well-being, partially mediated by social support."
Gender Factor in Figure 1
Reviewer Comment:
           Why is the gender factor included in Figure 1?
Response:
             Thank you, we excluded Gender from the research model.
Correlation Between Academic Stress and Psychological Well-being
Reviewer Comment:
A study found a strong correlation (r = 0.582) between academic stress and psychological well-being. Is the correlation positive or negative?
Response:
The correlation is negative, as higher academic stress corresponds to lower psychological well-being. This is explicitly stated in the discussion section to avoid any ambiguity.
Replicability: Software and Analytical Procedures
Reviewer Comment:
           Specify the software and analytical procedures used to improve replicability.
Response:
We added the following details:

The software used for analysis was SPSS (version 24) and AMOS (version 22).

Analytical procedures such as path analysis, bootstrapping (5,000 samples), and structural equation modeling were applied to test direct and indirect effects.

Practical Significance of Relationships
Reviewer Comment:
           The practical significance of the relationships should be better reflected.
Response:
The partial mediation by social support indicates the importance of strengthening support systems to mitigate the negative effects of academic stress on well-being.
Low AVE Values
Reviewer Comment:
              The low AVE values should be discussed to acknowledge potential measurement limitations.
Response:
We acknowledge the low AVE values for some constructs (e.g., academic stress: 0.399). Noted as a limitation, indicating potential issues with convergent validity. We recommended revising measurement items in future studies to better capture the constructs.
Data Sharing and Reproducibility
Reviewer Comment:
Additional documentation and sharing of analysis scripts are needed to achieve full reproducibility.
Response:
We shared analysis scripts and detailed documentation alongside the dataset on Figshare. This will ensure that researchers can replicate the analysis comprehensively.
Practical Recommendations
Reviewer Comment:
            Address practical recommendations based on the findings.
Response:
We emphasized the importance of social support systems and stress management interventions in educational institutions. These could include peer mentoring programs, counseling services, and workshops on effective coping mechanisms.
Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed Close
Report a concern
Respond or Comment

COMMENTS ON THIS REPORT

Author Response 26 Dec 2024

Abdulkadir Jeilani, Faculty of Computer Science & IT, Mogadishu University, Mogadishu, Somalia

26 Dec 2024

Author Response
We sincerely appreciate the time and effort the reviewer has dedicated to providing insightful and constructive feedback on our manuscript. Your comments have significantly enhanced the quality and clarity of ... Continue reading
We sincerely appreciate the time and effort the reviewer has dedicated to providing insightful and constructive feedback on our manuscript. Your comments have significantly enhanced the quality and clarity of our work.
We are particularly grateful for your detailed observations, including the suggestions to address the confidence interval discrepancy, improve the discussion on AVE values, and provide additional details to strengthen replicability. These recommendations have been invaluable in refining our analysis and ensuring the robustness of our conclusions.
Thank you for recognizing our study's strengths and highlighting areas for improvement. Your expertise and thoughtful input have guided us in making meaningful revisions, and we are confident that the manuscript is much stronger due to your valuable contributions.
Here are the responses for each comment
Social Support: Confidence Interval Discrepancy and Indirect Effect
Reviewer Comment:
The indirect effect (0.070) is partially mediated, but the confidence interval (CI [-0.036, 0.197]) includes zero. This creates a discrepancy because the p-value (p = 0.000) suggests significance.
Response:
We appreciate the reviewer highlighting this discrepancy. The p-value indicates statistical significance, but the confidence interval suggests potential variability in the indirect effect. To address this:

We resample bootstrap with 5,000 now the inconsistency is solved

Conclusions: Nature of the Impact of Academic Stress
Reviewer Comment:
The findings suggest a significant positive impact of academic stress on psychological well-being. Revise this statement to indicate there is a significant negative impact.
Response:
Thank you for pointing this out. The relationship between academic stress and psychological well-being is indeed negative, as supported by the correlation analysis and theoretical framework. We revised the conclusion to:
"The findings suggest that academic stress has a significant negative impact on psychological well-being, partially mediated by social support."
Gender Factor in Figure 1
Reviewer Comment:
           Why is the gender factor included in Figure 1?
Response:
             Thank you, we excluded Gender from the research model.
Correlation Between Academic Stress and Psychological Well-being
Reviewer Comment:
A study found a strong correlation (r = 0.582) between academic stress and psychological well-being. Is the correlation positive or negative?
Response:
The correlation is negative, as higher academic stress corresponds to lower psychological well-being. This is explicitly stated in the discussion section to avoid any ambiguity.
Replicability: Software and Analytical Procedures
Reviewer Comment:
           Specify the software and analytical procedures used to improve replicability.
Response:
We added the following details:

The software used for analysis was SPSS (version 24) and AMOS (version 22).

Analytical procedures such as path analysis, bootstrapping (5,000 samples), and structural equation modeling were applied to test direct and indirect effects.

Practical Significance of Relationships
Reviewer Comment:
           The practical significance of the relationships should be better reflected.
Response:
The partial mediation by social support indicates the importance of strengthening support systems to mitigate the negative effects of academic stress on well-being.
Low AVE Values
Reviewer Comment:
              The low AVE values should be discussed to acknowledge potential measurement limitations.
Response:
We acknowledge the low AVE values for some constructs (e.g., academic stress: 0.399). Noted as a limitation, indicating potential issues with convergent validity. We recommended revising measurement items in future studies to better capture the constructs.
Data Sharing and Reproducibility
Reviewer Comment:
Additional documentation and sharing of analysis scripts are needed to achieve full reproducibility.
Response:
We shared analysis scripts and detailed documentation alongside the dataset on Figshare. This will ensure that researchers can replicate the analysis comprehensively.
Practical Recommendations
Reviewer Comment:
            Address practical recommendations based on the findings.
Response:
We emphasized the importance of social support systems and stress management interventions in educational institutions. These could include peer mentoring programs, counseling services, and workshops on effective coping mechanisms.
We sincerely appreciate the time and effort the reviewer has dedicated to providing insightful and constructive feedback on our manuscript. Your comments have significantly enhanced the quality and clarity of our work.
We are particularly grateful for your detailed observations, including the suggestions to address the confidence interval discrepancy, improve the discussion on AVE values, and provide additional details to strengthen replicability. These recommendations have been invaluable in refining our analysis and ensuring the robustness of our conclusions.
Thank you for recognizing our study's strengths and highlighting areas for improvement. Your expertise and thoughtful input have guided us in making meaningful revisions, and we are confident that the manuscript is much stronger due to your valuable contributions.
Here are the responses for each comment
Social Support: Confidence Interval Discrepancy and Indirect Effect
Reviewer Comment:
The indirect effect (0.070) is partially mediated, but the confidence interval (CI [-0.036, 0.197]) includes zero. This creates a discrepancy because the p-value (p = 0.000) suggests significance.
Response:
We appreciate the reviewer highlighting this discrepancy. The p-value indicates statistical significance, but the confidence interval suggests potential variability in the indirect effect. To address this:

We resample bootstrap with 5,000 now the inconsistency is solved

Conclusions: Nature of the Impact of Academic Stress
Reviewer Comment:
The findings suggest a significant positive impact of academic stress on psychological well-being. Revise this statement to indicate there is a significant negative impact.
Response:
Thank you for pointing this out. The relationship between academic stress and psychological well-being is indeed negative, as supported by the correlation analysis and theoretical framework. We revised the conclusion to:
"The findings suggest that academic stress has a significant negative impact on psychological well-being, partially mediated by social support."
Gender Factor in Figure 1
Reviewer Comment:
           Why is the gender factor included in Figure 1?
Response:
             Thank you, we excluded Gender from the research model.
Correlation Between Academic Stress and Psychological Well-being
Reviewer Comment:
A study found a strong correlation (r = 0.582) between academic stress and psychological well-being. Is the correlation positive or negative?
Response:
The correlation is negative, as higher academic stress corresponds to lower psychological well-being. This is explicitly stated in the discussion section to avoid any ambiguity.
Replicability: Software and Analytical Procedures
Reviewer Comment:
           Specify the software and analytical procedures used to improve replicability.
Response:
We added the following details:

The software used for analysis was SPSS (version 24) and AMOS (version 22).

Analytical procedures such as path analysis, bootstrapping (5,000 samples), and structural equation modeling were applied to test direct and indirect effects.

Practical Significance of Relationships
Reviewer Comment:
           The practical significance of the relationships should be better reflected.
Response:
The partial mediation by social support indicates the importance of strengthening support systems to mitigate the negative effects of academic stress on well-being.
Low AVE Values
Reviewer Comment:
              The low AVE values should be discussed to acknowledge potential measurement limitations.
Response:
We acknowledge the low AVE values for some constructs (e.g., academic stress: 0.399). Noted as a limitation, indicating potential issues with convergent validity. We recommended revising measurement items in future studies to better capture the constructs.
Data Sharing and Reproducibility
Reviewer Comment:
Additional documentation and sharing of analysis scripts are needed to achieve full reproducibility.
Response:
We shared analysis scripts and detailed documentation alongside the dataset on Figshare. This will ensure that researchers can replicate the analysis comprehensively.
Practical Recommendations
Reviewer Comment:
            Address practical recommendations based on the findings.
Response:
We emphasized the importance of social support systems and stress management interventions in educational institutions. These could include peer mentoring programs, counseling services, and workshops on effective coping mechanisms.
Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed Close
Report a concern

Comments on this article Comments (0)

Version 3

VERSION 3 PUBLISHED 30 Sep 2024

Open Peer Review

Reviewer Status

Reviewer Reports

	Invited Reviewers
	1	2	3	4
Version 3 (revision) 30 May 25			read	read
Version 2 (revision) 13 Feb 25			read
Version 1 30 Sep 24	read	read

Somaya Shokry Mohammad Mahmoud, Imam Abdulrahman Bin Faisal University, Dammam, Saudi Arabia
Nguyen Tan Dat, Can Tho University of Medicine and Pharmacy, An Khánh, Vietnam
Zartashia Kynat Javaid, Government College University Faisalabad, Faisalabad, Pakistan
Hengki Yandri, Kerinci Regency, Jambi, Indonesia

Comments on this article

All Comments(0)

Add a comment

Browse by related subjects

Back to all reports

Reviewer Report

2 Views

05 Jun 2025 | for Version 3

Hengki Yandri, Kerinci Regency, Jambi, Indonesia

2 Views Cite this report Responses(0)

Approved With Reservations

Areas for Improvement (Reasons for Revision):
Methodological Detail: The methods section requires more detail to allow for full replication (e.g., psychometric properties of instruments, more detailed data collection procedures, justification for sample size).
Literature Integration & Originality: The introduction and discussion would benefit from deeper integration with the existing literature and a stronger explanation of the study's original contribution, especially within its geographical context.
Clarification of Results & Interpretation: Some parts of the discussion could be clearer in interpreting the results, especially the implications of the mediating effects.
Stronger Limitations: The limitations section needs to be expanded to include methodological limitations and their implications for the findings.
Citing Current Literature: There is an opportunity to incorporate more recent studies to demonstrate a comprehensive understanding of the field.

Overall, this research has a solid foundation and contributes to the literature. With the suggested revisions, the scientific quality and clarity of presentation of this article will significantly improve, making it suitable for indexing in a reputable journal.

Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature?

Yes
Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound?

Yes
Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others?

Yes
If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate?

Yes
Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility?

Yes
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results?

Yes

Competing Interests

No competing interests were disclosed.

Reviewer Expertise

Spiritual Counseling, Educational Psychology, Counseling, and Mental Health

Respond to this report

Responses (0)

Back to all reports

Reviewer Report

8 Views

03 Jun 2025 | for Version 3

Zartashia Kynat Javaid, Government College University Faisalabad, Faisalabad, Punjab, Pakistan

8 Views Cite this report Responses(1)

Approved

Amendments are satisfactory.

Competing Interests

No competing interests were disclosed.

Reviewer Expertise

Applied Psychology

I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard.

Respond to this report

Responses (1)

Back to all reports

Reviewer Report

13 Views

21 May 2025 | for Version 2

Zartashia Kynat Javaid, Government College University Faisalabad, Faisalabad, Punjab, Pakistan

13 Views Cite this report Responses(1)

Approved With Reservations

Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature?

Yes
Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound?

Yes
Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others?

Yes
If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate?

Yes
Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility?

Yes
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results?

Yes

References

Competing Interests

No competing interests were disclosed.

Reviewer Expertise

Applied Psychology

Respond to this report

Responses (1)

Author Response

01 Aug 2025

Abdulkadir Jeilani, Faculty of Computer Science & IT, Mogadishu University, Mogadishu, Somalia

We sincerely appreciate the reviewer’s thoughtful and constructive feedback on our manuscript. Your insights have been invaluable in enhancing the clarity, coherence, and academic rigor of our study.
In response to your suggestion, we have carefully revised the Introduction section to include clear definitions of all key study variables—academic stress, psychological well-being, social support, and self-efficacy. Additionally, we reorganized the Introduction and Literature Review sections to ensure better alignment and logical flow between conceptual discussions and theoretical foundations.
We also consulted and integrated relevant insights from the recommended systematic review:
Javaid, Z. K., Batool, H., Fatima, N., Muneer, A., & Azam, S. (2024). Eudaimonic well-being among young adults: A systematic review of influencing factors and outcomes. Journal of Policy Research, 10(2), 46–57.
This review contributed to our understanding of psychological well-being as an outcome variable, which is now more clearly contextualized in the revised manuscript.
We believe that these revisions have significantly strengthened our manuscript, and we are grateful for your guidance in improving the quality of this research.

View more View less

Competing Interests

No competing interests were disclosed.

Back to all reports

Reviewer Report

24 Views

10 Jan 2025 | for Version 1

Nguyen Tan Dat, Can Tho University of Medicine and Pharmacy, An Khánh, Vietnam

24 Views Cite this report Responses(1)

Not Approved

Could the authors please provide the citation for this sentence in the second paragraph of the Introduction Introduction, paragraph 2: “Also, other factors contributing to academic stress include self-inflicted stress, parental expectations, academic queries, lack of time for revision, low parental education levels, and poor exam grades.”
I suggest the authors use only 'self-efficacy' for consistency throughout the paper. In my opinion, 'self-efficacy' is the more widely recognized and commonly used term.
It seems that the second citation is wrong: The paper name is supposed to be “Academic Stress Among University Students: A Quantitative Study of Generation Y and Z’s Perception”. “SOCIAL SCIENCES & HUMANITIES:” is part of the journal name.
I think it would be more beneficial to shorten the 2nd, 3rd, 4th,, 5th, 6th paragraph in the introduction because some ideas are repeated. For example this paragraph: “Academic stress arises from the inability to cope with academic related tasks, leading to negative impacts such as smoking behavior, mental health issues, poor sleep quality, depression, insomnia, substance addiction, self-harm, and suicidal ideation. Also, other factors contributing to academic stress include self-inflicted stress, parental expectations, academic queries, lack of time for revision, low parental education levels, and poor exam grades.” And this paragraph “Academic stress is the product of a combination of academic-related demands that exceed the adaptive resources available to an individual,2 Researchers agree that students face common academic stressors, such as family-pressures, scholarship demands, financial burdens, competition in class, examination, time-management and course-related stress.2 According to Ref. 3 the main cause of academic stress are academic results, admissions, students transfer, exams, load of extra classes, social comparison, exams stress, expectations teachers and parents.” Both paragraphs talk about the cause of academic stress
I also feel that this sentence: “Academic stress arises from the inability to cope with academic related tasks, leading to negative impacts such as smoking behavior, mental health issues, poor sleep quality, depression, insomnia, substance addiction, self-harm, and suicidal ideation.” and this sentence: “The most common psychological consequences associated with academic stress include depression, anxiety, substance abuse, and suicide ideation.7” are similar.
I have taken a look at the source of citation for this sentence ““Additionally, coping strategies like Academic Psychological capital and self-efficacy play a crucial role in mitigating the effects of academic stress on psychological well-being.” and could not find any information about how self-efficacy and academic psychological capital mitigates the effect of academic stress on psychological well-being. Can the authors highlight it? This is the paper that I found for your citation. Ref (1)
I don’t understand what this sentence want to say: In the context of academic stress, this theory suggests that the students have the ability to cope with high self-efficacy are more likely to effectively cope with stressors and maintain their psychological well-being.
Citation number 9 format is different than others.
The authors lack citation for Social Cognitive Theory.
Why is coping mechanisms capitalized, and why theories is plural in this sentence “In Coping Mechanisms, the theories emphasize the importance of coping strategies in managing stress.” ? Do you mean to talk about “The Transactional Model of Stress and Coping”and “Social Cognitive Theory”?
Additionally, when the authors wrote these two paragraphs under Social Cognitive Theory, it seems like these paragraphs were talking about the theory. But I think these paragraphs are talking about common themes of both “The Transactional Model of Stress and Coping”and “Social Cognitive Theory” theories:

Why also is the subject in this sentence? “Also has emerged as a significant mental health that affecting various groups of students.”
Don’t break this sentence into another paragraph: A study found a strong correlation (r=0.582) between academic stress and psychological well-being among university students, indicating that higher stress levels correspond to lower well-being.
Also, I feel these paragraphs titled “Academic Stress and Psychological Well-being” is a repeat of the start of the Introduction. I suggest the author omitted or combined these paragraph together with those paragraphs at the start of the Introduction.
I noticed that several common terms are inconsistently capitalized (e.g., 'Academic Psychological capital,' 'Health Sciences'). In academic writing, only proper nouns, titles, or the first words of sentences should be capitalized. I recommend reviewing the manuscript for unnecessary capitalization and ensuring it follows standard conventions for consistency and clarity.
I feel the Introduction is too long, it would be beneficial to be shorter

Methods

I don't think it is necessary to go into such depth about the targeted universities (e.g., the number of students, the included faculties, etc.).
There are three things wrong with this part of the sentence “Self-Efficiency Scale (SSS) adapted by Ref. 35 and consist of 10 items.”: First, it is self-efficacy not self-efficiency. Second, if the scale is called Self-efficacy scale, is should be abbreviated as SES not SSS. Third, The scale in Reference 35 is called “General Self-Efficacy Scale”, not Self-efficacy Scale
The authors did not mention which software used for data analysis.

Results

For very small p-values, avoid reporting them as 0.000; instead, use p < 0.001.
Please check carefully for grammar issues(The result presents in the Table 4->The result is presented in Table 4., partially mediation-> partial mediation)
In Table 4, the meaning of the symbol 'H1: ASàPWB' is unclear.
I noticed that the author sometimes reports results with four decimal places (e.g., 0.0075) and other times with three decimal places (e.g., 3.524). To ensure consistency and clarity, I recommend using three decimal places consistently throughout the paper.
Please ensure that each abbreviation is defined or explained in every table for clarity.
Please cite Figure 2 in the Results, I also suggest changing Figure 2 name to reflect the mediation model.

Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature?

Partly
Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound?

Partly
Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others?

Partly
If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate?

I cannot comment. A qualified statistician is required.
Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility?

Yes
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results?

Partly

References

Competing Interests

No competing interests were disclosed.

Reviewer Expertise

Clinical psychology

Respond to this report

Responses (1)

Author Response

13 Feb 2025

Abdulkadir Jeilani, Faculty of Computer Science & IT, Mogadishu University, Mogadishu, Somalia

We sincerely thank the reviewer for his insightful and constructive feedback, which has significantly contributed to improving the quality and clarity of our manuscript. We have carefully addressed each comment and made the suggested revisions as detailed below:
Introduction

Comment: Could the authors provide a citation for this sentence:
“Also, other factors contributing to academic stress include self-inflicted stress, parental expectations, academic queries, lack of time for revision, low parental education levels, and poor exam grades.”
Response: The citation for this statement has been included.
Comment: Use 'self-efficacy' consistently throughout the manuscript for clarity.
Response: We have replaced all instances of "self-efficiency" with "self-efficacy."
Comment: The second citation is incorrect; the paper title should be "Academic Stress Among University Students: A Quantitative Study of Generation Y and Z’s Perception."
Response: The incorrect citation has been corrected.
Comment: Consider shortening paragraphs 2–6 of the Introduction, as they contain repetitive ideas.
Response: We combined the content of these paragraphs into two concise paragraphs to avoid redundancy.
Comment: These sentences appear similar and repetitive:
“Academic stress arises from the inability to cope with academic-related tasks, leading to negative impacts such as smoking behavior, mental health issues, poor sleep quality, depression, insomnia, substance addiction, self-harm, and suicidal ideation.”
“The most common psychological consequences associated with academic stress include depression, anxiety, substance abuse, and suicide ideation.”
Response: The repetition has been removed, and the sentences have been streamlined for clarity.
Comment: Could the authors clarify how self-efficacy and academic psychological capital mitigate the effects of academic stress on psychological well-being?
Response: We reviewed the source and highlighted the relevant information to address this query.
Comment: This sentence is unclear:
“In the context of academic stress, this theory suggests that the students have the ability to cope with high self-efficacy are more likely to effectively cope with stressors and maintain their psychological well-being.”
Response: The sentence has been revised for clarity and grammatical accuracy.
Comment: Citation number 9 is formatted differently from others.
Response: The formatting inconsistency has been corrected.
Comment: Provide a citation for Social Cognitive Theory.
Response: We have included the appropriate citation for Social Cognitive Theory.

Literature Review

Comment: Why are “Coping Mechanisms” and “Theories” capitalized?
Response: These terms are no longer capitalized for consistency with academic conventions.
Comment: The paragraphs under Social Cognitive Theory appear to address common themes of multiple theories, not just Social Cognitive Theory. Consider adding a new title.
Response: A new title has been added to appropriately categorize these paragraphs.
Comment: This sentence is unclear:
“Also has emerged as a significant mental health that affecting various groups of students.”
Response: The sentence has been revised for clarity.
Comment: Avoid breaking this sentence into a new paragraph:
“A study found a strong correlation (r=0.582) between academic stress and psychological well-being among university students, indicating that higher stress levels correspond to lower well-being.”
Response: The sentence has been kept intact within the paragraph for continuity.
Comment: The Academic Stress and Psychological Well-being section is repetitive. Consider merging or omitting parts that overlap with the Introduction.
Response: The section has been merged with the relevant parts of the Introduction for conciseness.
Comment: Terms like 'Academic Psychological Capital' and 'Health Sciences' are inconsistently capitalized.
Response: We reviewed the manuscript to ensure capitalization consistency.

Methods

Comment: Details about targeted universities (e.g., the number of students, and included faculties) may be unnecessary.
Response: The description has been shortened to focus on relevant details.
Comment: There are three issues with this sentence:
“Self-Efficiency Scale (SSS) adapted by Ref. 35 and consists of 10 items.”
- It should be "Self-efficacy," not "Self-efficiency."
- The abbreviation should be "SES," not "SSS."
- The correct name of the scale is the General Self-Efficacy Scale.
  Response: All corrections have been made.
Comment: The software used for data analysis is not mentioned.
Response: The software has been specified in the Methods section.

Results

Comment: Report small p-values as p < 0.001 instead of 0.000.
Response: This has been corrected throughout the Results section.
Comment: Ensure grammatical accuracy (e.g., "The result presents in Table 4" → "The result is presented in Table 4").
Response: Grammar issues have been corrected.
Comment: In Table 4, the symbol 'H1: ASàPWB' is unclear.
Response: The symbol has been clarified.
Comment: Use three decimal places consistently across results.
Response: All results now use three decimal places for consistency.
Comment: Define or explain abbreviations in every table.
Response: All abbreviations are now defined within the tables.
Comment: Cite Figure 2 in the Results section and rename it to reflect the mediation model.
Response: Figure 2 has been cited and renamed accordingly.

Discussion and Conclusion

Comment: Introduce the abbreviation PWB for "psychological well-being" earlier or use the full term consistently.
Response: We now use the full term consistently throughout the manuscript.
Comment: Move the conclusion paragraph to the end and treat Implications and Limitations as separate sections.
Response: The Conclusion has been moved to the end, and Implications and Limitations are now standalone sections.
Comment: Consider whether the self-citation (citation 42) is necessary.
Response: This self-citation was included as supplementary data per journal guidelines.
Comment: Address differences between public and private universities or provide a rationale for including both.
Response: The rationale has been clarified, and notable distinctions are highlighted.
Comment: Replace the broad keyword Public and Private Universities with a more specific term like university students.
Response: The keyword has been replaced with university students.

View more View less

Competing Interests

No competing interests were disclosed.

Back to all reports

Reviewer Report

15 Views

17 Dec 2024 | for Version 1

Somaya Shokry Mohammad Mahmoud, Imam Abdulrahman Bin Faisal University, Dammam, Eastern Province, Saudi Arabia

15 Views Cite this report Responses(1)

Approved With Reservations

Specify the software and analytical procedures used.

The confidence interval issue for social support mediation should be addressed to confirm this conclusion.
The practical significance of the relationships should be better reflected.
The low AVE values should be discussed to acknowledge potential measurement limitations.

Addressing these points would make the conclusions more robust and aligned with the study's results.

Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature?

Yes
Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound?

Yes
Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others?

Partly
If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate?

Partly
Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility?

Partly
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results?

Partly

Competing Interests

No competing interests were disclosed.

Reviewer Expertise

Educational Psycholgy

Respond to this report

Responses (1)

Author Response

26 Dec 2024

Abdulkadir Jeilani, Faculty of Computer Science & IT, Mogadishu University, Mogadishu, Somalia

We sincerely appreciate the time and effort the reviewer has dedicated to providing insightful and constructive feedback on our manuscript. Your comments have significantly enhanced the quality and clarity of our work.
We are particularly grateful for your detailed observations, including the suggestions to address the confidence interval discrepancy, improve the discussion on AVE values, and provide additional details to strengthen replicability. These recommendations have been invaluable in refining our analysis and ensuring the robustness of our conclusions.
Thank you for recognizing our study's strengths and highlighting areas for improvement. Your expertise and thoughtful input have guided us in making meaningful revisions, and we are confident that the manuscript is much stronger due to your valuable contributions.
Here are the responses for each comment
Social Support: Confidence Interval Discrepancy and Indirect Effect
Reviewer Comment:
The indirect effect (0.070) is partially mediated, but the confidence interval (CI [-0.036, 0.197]) includes zero. This creates a discrepancy because the p-value (p = 0.000) suggests significance.
Response:
We appreciate the reviewer highlighting this discrepancy. The p-value indicates statistical significance, but the confidence interval suggests potential variability in the indirect effect. To address this:

We resample bootstrap with 5,000 now the inconsistency is solved

Conclusions: Nature of the Impact of Academic Stress
Reviewer Comment:
The findings suggest a significant positive impact of academic stress on psychological well-being. Revise this statement to indicate there is a significant negative impact.
Response:
Thank you for pointing this out. The relationship between academic stress and psychological well-being is indeed negative, as supported by the correlation analysis and theoretical framework. We revised the conclusion to:
"The findings suggest that academic stress has a significant negative impact on psychological well-being, partially mediated by social support."
Gender Factor in Figure 1
Reviewer Comment:
           Why is the gender factor included in Figure 1?
Response:
             Thank you, we excluded Gender from the research model.
Correlation Between Academic Stress and Psychological Well-being
Reviewer Comment:
A study found a strong correlation (r = 0.582) between academic stress and psychological well-being. Is the correlation positive or negative?
Response:
The correlation is negative, as higher academic stress corresponds to lower psychological well-being. This is explicitly stated in the discussion section to avoid any ambiguity.
Replicability: Software and Analytical Procedures
Reviewer Comment:
           Specify the software and analytical procedures used to improve replicability.
Response:
We added the following details:

The software used for analysis was SPSS (version 24) and AMOS (version 22).
Analytical procedures such as path analysis, bootstrapping (5,000 samples), and structural equation modeling were applied to test direct and indirect effects.

Practical Significance of Relationships
Reviewer Comment:
           The practical significance of the relationships should be better reflected.
Response:
The partial mediation by social support indicates the importance of strengthening support systems to mitigate the negative effects of academic stress on well-being.
Low AVE Values
Reviewer Comment:
              The low AVE values should be discussed to acknowledge potential measurement limitations.
Response:
We acknowledge the low AVE values for some constructs (e.g., academic stress: 0.399). Noted as a limitation, indicating potential issues with convergent validity. We recommended revising measurement items in future studies to better capture the constructs.
Data Sharing and Reproducibility
Reviewer Comment:
Additional documentation and sharing of analysis scripts are needed to achieve full reproducibility.
Response:
We shared analysis scripts and detailed documentation alongside the dataset on Figshare. This will ensure that researchers can replicate the analysis comprehensively.
Practical Recommendations
Reviewer Comment:
            Address practical recommendations based on the findings.
Response:
We emphasized the importance of social support systems and stress management interventions in educational institutions. These could include peer mentoring programs, counseling services, and workshops on effective coping mechanisms.

View more View less

Competing Interests

No competing interests were disclosed

Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article:

Approved - the paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested

Approved with reservations - A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit.

Not approved - fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions

[1] 1. Barbayannis G, Bandari M, Zheng X, et al.: Academic Stress and Mental Well-Being in College Students: Correlations, Affected Groups, and COVID-19. Front. Psychol. 2022; 13(May):1–10. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[2] 2. Mohebi S, Parham M, Sharifirad G, et al.: Social Support and Self - Care Behavior Study. J. Educ. Health Promot 2018:1–6. Publisher Full Text

[3] 3. Ramachandiran M, Dhanapal S: Academic Stress Among University Students: A Quantitative Study of Generation Y and Z’s Perception. Soc. Sci. Humanit. 2018; 26(3):2115–2128.

[4] 4. Farooq K: ACADEMIC STRESS AMONG STUDENTS OF HIGHER EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS IN KARACHI Sumera Ishrat Samina Rauf.2023.

[5] 5. Córdova Olivera P, Gasser Gordillo P, Naranjo Mejía H, et al.: Academic stress as a predictor of mental health in university students. Cogent Educ. 2023; 10(2). Publisher Full Text

[6] 6. Nogueira MJCC: Positive and Negative Predictors of Mental Health in College Students. A cross-sectional predictive study.2023:1–19.

[7] 7. Slimmen S, Timmermans O, Mikolajczak-Degrauwe K, et al.: How stress-related factors affect mental wellbeing of university students A cross-sectional study to explore the associations between stressors, perceived stress, and mental wellbeing. PLoS One. 2022; 17(11):e0275925–e0275916. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[8] 8. Mayya SS, Martis M, Mayya A, et al.: Academic Stress among Pre-University Students of the Commerce Stream: A Study in Karnataka. Pertanika J. Soc. Sci. Humanit. 2022; 30(2):605–621. Publisher Full Text

[9] 9. Ben-Zur H: Transactional Model of Stress and Coping. Encycl. Personal. Individ. Differ. 2019:1–4. Publisher Full Text

[10] 10. Shen R: The Effects of Psychosocial Factors on International Students’ Mental Health and Relevant Interventions. SHS Web Conf. 2023; 157:01021. Publisher Full Text

[11] 11. Mohamed RM, Ali MAM: Promoting Students’ Mental Health through Design and Implementation of Multi-Activity Pods in Educational Institutions Using the WELL Building Standard. Designs. 2023; 7(1). Publisher Full Text

[12] 12. Lazarus RS, Folkman S: Transactional theory and research on emotions and coping. Eur. J. Pers. 1987; 1(3):141–169. Publisher Full Text

[13] 13. Scruggs R, Broglia E, Barkham M, et al.: The impact of psychological distress and university counselling on academic outcomes: Analysis of a routine practice-based dataset. Couns. Psychother. Res. 2023; 23(3):781–789. Publisher Full Text

[14] 14. Khafifah KA, Hasanah U, Zulfa V: Hubungan Antara Stres Akademik Dengan Academic Performance Pada Santri Madrasah Aliyah Pondok Pesantren Al Hamid. JKKP (Jurnal Kesejaht. Kel. dan Pendidikan). 2023; 10(01):27–37. Publisher Full Text

[15] 15. Ayhan B: Social cognitive theory. Psychol. Press. 2010:139–151. Publisher Full Text

[16] 16. Cristina M, Gapunuan P: Self-Efficacy Towards Student Engagement and Academic Performance in Beauty Care. Int. J. Res. Publ. 2023; 124(1):406–416. Publisher Full Text

[17] 17. Mrs. Maryam SaifCoffman DL, Gilligan TD: Impact of Arts Education on Psychological wellbeing among Undergraduate Students. J. Coll. Student Retent. Res. Theory Pract. 2002; 2(3): pp. 99–120. Publisher Full Text

[18] 18. Fahruni FE, Nurismawan AS, Salsabila NS: How Do School Counselors Advocate for Gifted and Intelligent Children in Junior High School? Bisma J. Couns. 2022; 6(3): 329–334. Publisher Full Text

[19] 19. Mukti SAS, Ansyah EH: The Relationship Between Parental Social Support and Academic Stress in University Students. Indones. J. Innov. Stud. 2023; 21:1–11. Publisher Full Text

[20] 20. Byrne MM, Thompson P: A positive analysis of financial incentives for cadaveric organ donation. J. Health Econ. 2001; 20:69–83. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[21] 21. Akhtar N, Francis LJ, Sailer AB, et al.: Introducing the Psychological Wellbeing Scale for Muslim Societies (PWS-MS): a study among young adults in Pakistan. Ment. Heal. Relig. Cult. 2023; 1–12. Publisher Full Text

[22] 22. Abdul Aziz NA, Baharudin NS, Alias NA: Association between Stress and Social Support Perceived among Undergraduate Health Sciences Student. Malaysian J. Med. Sci. 2023; 30(3):176–183. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[23] 23. Hoferichter F, Kulakow S, Raufelder D: How teacher and classmate support relate to students’ stress and academic achievement. Front. Psychol. 2022; 13(November) PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[24] 24. Rathakrishnan B, et al.: The interaction between academic stress and self-control in predicting psychological well-being. Environ. Soc. Psychol. 2023; 8(3):1–16. Publisher Full Text

[25] 25. Varghese RP, Norman TSJ, Thavaraj S: Perceived Stress and Self Efficacy Among College Students: A Global Review. SSRN Electron. J. 2015; 5(3):15–24. Publisher Full Text

[26] 26. Altermatt ER: Academic Support From Peers as a Predictor of Academic Self-Efficacy Among College Students. J. Coll. Student Retent. Res. Theory Pract. 2019; 21(1):21–37. Publisher Full Text

[27] 27. Aw JX, Mohamed NF, Rahmatullah B: The Role of Perceived Social Support on Psychological Well-Being of University Students During the Covid-19 Pandemic.Asia Pacific J. Heal. Manag. 2023; 18(1). Publisher Full Text

[28] 28. Marôco J, et al.: Predictors of academic efficacy and dropout intention in university students: Can engagement suppress burnout? PLoS One 2020; 15(10):e0239816–e0239826. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[29] 29. Taherdoost H; Hamta Group: Sampling Methods in Research Methodology; How to Choose a Sampling Sampling Methods in Research. Int. J. Acad. Res. Manag. 2016. Publisher Full Text

[30] 30. Taherdoost H: Sampling Methods in Research Methodology: How to Choose a Sampling Technique for Research Hamed Taherdoost To cite this version: HAL Id: hal-02546796. Int. J. Acad. Res. Manag. 2016; 5(2):18–27. Publisher Full Text

[31] 31. Arip MASM, Kamaruzaman DN, Roslan A, et al.: Manual Student Stress Inventory (SSI) Edition 2019 Development, Validity And Reliability of Student Stress Inventory (SSI).December 2018, p. 3, 2019.

[32] 32. Calderón C, et al.: Multidimensional scale of perceived social support (MSPSS) in cancer patients: Psychometric properties and measurement invariance. Psicothema. 2021; 33(1):131–138. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[33] 33. Sherer M, Adams CH: Construct Validation of the Self-Efficacy Scale. Psychol. Rep. 1983; 53(3):899–902. Publisher Full Text

[34] 34. Fornell C, Larcker DF: Evaluating Structural Equation Models with Unobservable Variables and Measurement Error. J. Mark. Res. 1981; 18(1):39. Publisher Full Text

[35] 35. Hair JF, Sarstedt M, Pieper TM, et al.: The Use of Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling in Strategic Management Research: A Review of Past Practices and Recommendations for Future Applications. Long Range Plann. 2012; 45(5–6):320–340. Publisher Full Text

[36] 36. Bentler PM: Fit Indexes, Lagrange Multipliers, Constraint Changes and Incomplete Data in Structural Models. Multivariate Behav. Res. 1990; 25:163–172. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[37] 37. Shi D, Maydeu-Olivares A, DiStefano C: The Relationship Between the Standardized Root Mean Square Residual and Model Misspecification in Factor Analysis Models. Multivariate Behav. Res. 2018; 53(5):676–694. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[38] 38. Heizomi H, Allahverdipour H, Bazargan Hejazi S, et al.: Factors Associating Perceived Stress and Psychological Well-being among Iranian Female Adolescents. Int. J. Depress Anxiety. 2018; 1(1): 3. Publisher Full Text

[39] 39. Markley R: The Far East and the English Imagination, 1600-1730. Cambridge Univ. Press. 2006; 41(4):125. Publisher Full Text

[40] 40. Aw JX, Mohamed NF, Rahmatullah B: The Role of Perceived Social Support on Psychological Well-Being of University Students During the COVID-19 Pandemic.Asia Pacific J. Heal. Manag. 2023; 18(1). Publisher Full Text

[41] 41. Sharifian N, Grühn D: The Differential Impact of Social Participation and Social Support on Psychological Well-Being: Evidence From the Wisconsin Longitudinal Study. Int. J. Aging Hum. Dev. 2019; 88(2):107–126. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[42] 42. Rahmawati NR, Handarini DM, Triyono T: Relation of Emotional Intelligence, Self-esteem, Self-efficacy, and Psychological Well-Being Students of State Senior High School. J. Pendidik. Hum. 2017; 5(1):40–46. Publisher Full Text

[43] 43. Mrs. Maryam Saif: Impact of Arts Education on Psychological wellbeing among Undergraduate Students. Al-NASR 2024:99–120. Publisher Full Text

[44] 44. Fatima S, Sharif S, Khalid I: How does religiosity enhance psychological well-being? Roles of self-efficacy and perceived social support. Psycholog. Relig. Spiritual. 2018; 10(2):119–127. Publisher Full Text

[45] 45. Lai CCW, Ma CMS: The mediating role of social support in the relationship between psychological well-being and health-risk behaviors among Chinese university students. Heal. Psychol. Open 2016; 3(2). PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[46] 46. Rehman AU, Bhuttah TM, You X: Linking burnout to psychological well-being: The mediating role of social support and learning motivation. Psychol. Res. Behav. Manag. 2020; 13:545–554. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[47] 47. Mohamed AJAD: Mediating Role of Social Support and Self-efficacy on Academic Stress and Students’ Psychological well-being among University Students in Mogadishu - Somalia. F1000Research. 2024. Publisher Full Text

Mediating role of Social Support and Self-efficacy on Academic stress and Student’s Psychological well-being among University Students in Mogadishu -Somalia.

Abstract

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Keywords

Revised Amendments from Version 1

1. Introduction

2. Literature review

2.1 Transactional theory and of stress coping

2.2 Social Cognitive Theory

2.3 Cognitive Appraisal and Coping Mechanisms in Managing Academic Stress

2.4 Academic Stress and Psychological Well-being

2.5 Mediating Role of Social Support

2.6 Mediating role of self-efficacy

H1.

H2.

H3.

H4.

H5.

H6.

H7.

Figure 1. Research Model proposed by the authors

3. Methods

3.1 Context of the study, population and sample

3.2 Research instrument and measures

3.3 Data collection strategy

3.4 Data analysis

3.5 Ethical consideration

4. Data analysis and results

4.1 Profile data

Table 1. Demographic profile data.

Table 2. Factor loading, Composite reliability (CR) and average variance extracted (AVE).

Table 3. Discriminant validity.

Table 4. Hypotheses test.

Table 5. Mediating role social support and self-efficacy.

Figure 2. Mediation model proposed by the authors.

Table 6. Summary of the hypotheses.

Table 7. Model fit indices.

5. Discussion

6. Conclusion

7. Implication

8. Research limitations and further research

Data availability

Underlying data

Extended data

References

Comments on this article Comments (0)

Open Peer Review

Comments on this article Comments (0)

Open Peer Review

Reviewer Status

Reviewer Reports

Comments on this article

Browse by related subjects

Competing Interests Policy

Stay Updated