| Literature DB >> 35206597 |
Yueh-Luen Hu1, Amy Roberts2, Gregory S Ching3,4, Pei-Ching Chao1.
Abstract
This study examined the relationship between intercultural social efficacy (ISE), coping strategies, Mandarin Chinese and English language proficiency, and depression. In total, 1870 foreign students in Taiwan participated in the study. Study results indicated that aspects of background demographics may influence depression levels. Participants with an immigrant background and those who are older are more likely to suffer from depression; however, gender and length of stay do not seem to affect depression. The moderating effects of Mandarin Chinese and English language proficiency and ISE on the relationship between coping strategies and depression were examined. Based on the results, the moderating role of Mandarin Chinese and English language proficiency was not supported, suggesting that coping strategies are independent of linguistic proficiency. However, knowing both languages is an important factor in reducing the stress of studying abroad. Additionally, the results confirmed the moderating effects of ISE, suggesting that a higher level of social effectiveness reinforces the negative association between coping strategies and depression. Students who are better able to interact with other cultures may be able to develop effective coping strategies. Moreover, this study found that although most of the study abroad students were not depressed, early intervention and prevention measures could help alleviate possible mental health crises.Entities:
Keywords: Taiwan; coping strategies; depression; intercultural social efficacy; study abroad
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35206597 PMCID: PMC8875477 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph19042409
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 3.390
Figure 1Theoretical framework of the study.
Participants’ demographics and the distribution of depression.
| Category | Groups | CES-D (Mean ± SD) | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age (years) | 10.73 | <0.001 | |||
| G1: ≤25 | 1213 (65%) | 11.44 (8.95) | G2 > G1 | ||
| G2: 26 to 35 | 492 (26%) | 13.30 (8.16) | G3 > G1 | ||
| G3: >35 | 165 (9%) | 13.54 (7.19) | |||
| Gender | 1.83 | 0.067 | |||
| G1: Female | 925 (49%) | 11.74 (8.45) | |||
| G2: Male | 945 (51%) | 12.48 (8.83) | |||
| Study level | 1.23 | 0.294 | |||
| G1: Undergraduate | 1160 (62%) | 12.05 (8.09) | |||
| G2: Master’s | 467 (25%) | 11.86 (9.71) | |||
| G3: Doctoral | 243 (13%) | 12.90 (9.06) | |||
| Length of stay (months) | 2.00 | 0.113 | |||
| G1: ≤12 | 1352 (72%) | 11.81 (8.09) | |||
| G2: 13 to 24 | 182 (10%) | 13.08 (9.94) | |||
| G3: 25 to 36 | 123 (7%) | 12.83 (10.19) | |||
| G4: >36 | 213 (11%) | 12.77 (9.80) | |||
| Immigrants | 3.12 | 0.002 | |||
| G1: No | 1545 (83%) | 11.83 (8.65) | G2 > G1 | ||
| G2: Yes | 325 (17%) | 13.47 (8.52) | |||
| Asian | 2.21 | 0.027 | |||
| G1: No | 482 (26%) | 11.39 (8.12) | G2 > G1 | ||
| G2: Yes | 1388 (74%) | 12.36 (8.82) | |||
| Mandarin Chinese Proficiency | 6.17 | <0.001 | |||
| G1: Beginner | 168 (9%) | 12.98 (8.76) | G4 > G5 | ||
| G2: Low intermediate | 76 (4%) | 11.32 (8.00) | |||
| G3: Intermediate | 223 (12%) | 12.49 (8.21) | |||
| G4: High intermediate | 417 (22%) | 13.63 (8.23) | |||
| G5: Advanced | 986 (53%) | 11.30 (8.86) | |||
| English Proficiency | 12.23 | <0.001 | |||
| G1: Beginner | 24 (1%) | 19.00 (7.89) | G1 > G3, G4, G5 | ||
| G2: Low intermediate | 58 (3%) | 17.71 (8.04) | G2 > G3, G4, G5 | ||
| G3: Intermediate | 171 (9%) | 12.66 (7.56) | G3 > G5 | ||
| G4: High intermediate | 913 (49%) | 11.34 (8.58) | |||
| G5: Advanced | 704 (38%) | 12.29 (8.79) |
Notes. N = 1870. SD = standard deviation.
Descriptive statistics, intercorrelations, reliabilities, and validities for the coping strategies.
| Subscales | Alpha | M | SD | CR | AVE | SS | SA | CR | FS | HR | DR | SR |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Social support (SS) | 0.92 | 4.06 | 0.81 | 0.93 | 0.61 |
| 0.23 | 0.19 | 0.25 | 0.12 | 0.12 | 0.22 |
| Self-actualization (SA) | 0.91 | 4.11 | 0.79 | 0.91 | 0.63 | 0.21 ** |
| 0.29 | 0.46 | 0.08 | 0.21 | 0.46 |
| Classroom rapport (CR) | 0.88 | 3.73 | 0.78 | 0.88 | 0.59 | 0.17 ** | 0.26 ** |
| 0.21 | 0.05 | 0.20 | 0.27 |
| Family support (FS) | 0.88 | 3.88 | 0.94 | 0.88 | 0.59 | 0.23 ** | 0.41 ** | 0.19 ** |
| 0.12 | 0.15 | 0.25 |
| Health responsibility (HR) | 0.81 | 2.77 | 1.05 | 0.82 | 0.55 | 0.11 ** | 0.07 ** | 0.04 ** | 0.10 ** |
| 0.40 | 0.26 |
| Daily routine (DR) | 0.77 | 3.31 | 0.98 | 0.75 | 0.45 | 0.10 ** | 0.18 ** | 0.16 ** | 0.12 ** | 0.32 ** |
| 0.57 |
| Self-relaxation (SR) | 0.63 | 3.66 | 0.89 | 0.64 | 0.40 | 0.17 ** | 0.35 ** | 0.20 ** | 0.19 ** | 0.18 ** | 0.39 ** |
|
Notes. N = 1870. Overall Cronbach’s alpha reliability = 0.88. M = mean, SD = standard deviation, Alpha = reliability of subscale, CR = composite reliability, AVE = average variance extracted (convergent validity). Discriminant validities are in bold within the diagonal. Pearson’s correlations are below the diagonal, whereas heterotrait:monotrait ratio values of correlations are above the diagonal. ** p < 0.01.
Descriptive statistics, intercorrelations, reliabilities, and validities for the ISE.
| Subscales | Alpha | M | SD | CR | AVE | ASD | SC | SI | FI |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Absence of social difficulty (ASD) | 0.89 | 3.95 | 0.77 | 0.88 | 0.48 |
| 0.42 | 0.27 | 0.22 |
| Social confidence (SC) | 0.88 | 3.57 | 0.89 | 0.88 | 0.61 | 0.38 ** |
| 0.34 | 0.45 |
| Showing interest (SI) | 0.86 | 3.24 | 0.94 | 0.87 | 0.68 | 0.23 ** | 0.30 ** |
| 0.39 |
| Friendship initiative (FI) | 0.64 | 3.05 | 1.01 | 0.65 | 0.48 | 0.17 ** | 0.34 ** | 0.29 ** |
|
Notes. N = 1870. Overall Cronbach’s alpha reliability = 0.88. M = mean, SD = standard deviation, Alpha = reliability of subscale, CR = composite reliability, AVE = average variance extracted (convergent validity). Discriminant validities are in bold within the diagonal. Pearson’s correlations are below the diagonal, whereas heterotrait:monotrait ratios of correlations are above the diagonal. ** p < 0.01.
Hierarchical multiple regression analysis of study-abroad-related depression.
| Predictors |
| df | B | SE | β | R2 Change | VIF | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dependent Variable: CES-D | |||||||||
| I. | Constant | 7.287 | 0.994 | ||||||
| Control variables | 5.97 *** | 6, 1863 | 0.019 | ||||||
| Age | 3.86 *** | 0.117 | 0.030 | 0.091 | 1.06 | ||||
| Gender | 1.19 | 0.478 | 0.401 | 0.028 | 1.02 | ||||
| Study level | 1.01 | 0.304 | 0.302 | 0.025 | 1.18 | ||||
| Length of stay (months) | 0.82 | 0.008 | 0.010 | 0.021 | 1.21 | ||||
| Immigrants | 2.50 * | 1.328 | 0.530 | 0.058 | 1.03 | ||||
| Asian | 2.34 * | 1.070 | 0.458 | 0.054 | 1.02 | ||||
| II. | Predictors | 56.09 *** | 4, 1859 | 0.106 | |||||
| Chinese language | −2.21 * | −0.339 | 0.153 | −0.050 | 1.07 | ||||
| English language | −2.64 ** | −0.615 | 0.233 | −0.058 | 1.04 | ||||
| Coping strategies | −7.40 *** | −3.359 | 0.454 | −0.193 | 1.45 | ||||
| ISE | −6.22 *** | −2.266 | 0.364 | −0.161 | 1.43 | ||||
Notes. N = 1870. df = degrees of freedom, B = unstandardized coefficients, SE = standard error, β = standardized coefficients, and VIF = variance inflation factor. ISE = intercultural social efficacy. Age is in years. Gender: 0 = female, 1 = male. Study level: 1 = undergraduate, 2 = master’s, 3 = doctoral. Length of stay is in months. Immigrants and Asian: 0 = no, 1 = yes. * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001.
Moderation analysis for coping strategies, Mandarin Chinese proficiency, and depression.
| Full Regression Model | β | SE |
|
| LLCI | ULCI |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Predictor variables | ||||||
| Constant | 12.28 | 0.86 | 14.27 | <0.001 | 10.589 | 13.965 |
| Covariates | ||||||
| Age | 0.10 | 0.03 | 3.34 | <0.001 | 0.041 | 0.158 |
| Gender | 0.39 | 0.38 | 1.02 | 0.308 | −0.362 | 1.146 |
| Study level | 0.18 | 0.29 | 0.62 | 0.538 | −0.390 | 0.747 |
| Length of stay | 0.01 | 0.01 | 1.40 | 0.162 | −0.005 | 0.031 |
| Immigrants | 0.66 | 0.51 | 1.29 | 0.198 | −0.344 | 1.660 |
| Asian | 0.90 | 0.44 | 2.04 | 0.041 | 0.035 | 1.755 |
| Main effects | ||||||
| Coping strategies | −3.88 | 1.28 | −3.03 | 0.002 | −6.388 | −1.368 |
| Mandarin Chinese proficiency | −0.35 | 0.15 | −2.25 | 0.025 | −0.653 | −0.045 |
| Two-way interaction | ||||||
| Coping strategies X Mandarin Chinese | −0.28 | 0.30 | −0.92 | 0.358 | −0.867 | 0.313 |
| Model fit | R2 | Adjusted R2 | f2 | |||
| 0.103 | 0.098 | 0.11 |
Notes. All variables and predictors were standardized and centered prior to computing. N = 1870. β = standardized coefficients, SE = standard error, LLCI = lower-level confidence interval, and ULCI = upper-level confidence interval. Age is in years. Gender: 0 = female, 1 = male. Study level: 1 = undergraduate, 2 = master’s, 3 = doctoral. Length of stay is in months. Immigrants and Asian: 0 = no, 1 = yes.
Moderation analysis for coping strategies, English proficiency, and depression.
| Full Regression Model | β | SE |
|
| LLCI | ULCI |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Predictor variables | ||||||
| Constant | 13.96 | 1.21 | 11.58 | <0.001 | 11.597 | 16.324 |
| Covariates | ||||||
| Age | 0.12 | 0.03 | 4.26 | <0.001 | 0.067 | 0.181 |
| Gender | 0.34 | 0.38 | 0.88 | 0.377 | −0.414 | 1.094 |
| Study level | 0.10 | 0.29 | 0.34 | 0.737 | −0.470 | 0.664 |
| Length of stay | 0.01 | 0.01 | 1.35 | 0.177 | −0.006 | 0.030 |
| Immigrants | 0.66 | 0.51 | 1.30 | 0.195 | −0.339 | 1.663 |
| Asian | 0.84 | 0.44 | 1.93 | 0.054 | −0.015 | 1.705 |
| Main effects | ||||||
| Coping strategies | −4.36 | 2.01 | −2.17 | 0.030 | −8.304 | −0.422 |
| English proficiency | −0.69 | 0.24 | −2.92 | 0.003 | −1.159 | −0.229 |
| Two-way interaction | ||||||
| Coping strategies X English proficiency | −0.12 | 0.47 | −0.25 | 0.800 | −1.035 | 0.798 |
| Model fit | R2 | Adjusted R2 | f2 | |||
| 0.104 | 0.100 | 0.12 |
Notes. All variables and predictors were standardized and centered prior to computing. N = 1870. β = standardized coefficients, SE = standard error, LLCI = lower-level confidence interval, and ULCI = upper-level confidence interval. Age is in years. Gender: 0 = female, 1 = male. Study level: 1 = undergraduate, 2 = master’s, 3 = doctoral. Length of stay is in months. Immigrants and Asian: 0 = no, 1 = yes.
Moderation analysis for coping strategies, ISE, and depression.
| Full Regression Model | β | SE |
|
| LLCI | ULCI |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Predictor variables | ||||||
| Constant | 15.04 | 1.31 | 11.46 | <0.001 | 12.466 | 17.614 |
| Covariates | ||||||
| Age | 0.11 | 0.03 | 3.73 | <0.001 | 0.052 | 0.168 |
| Gender | 0.44 | 0.38 | 1.16 | 0.248 | −0.306 | 1.185 |
| Study level | 0.15 | 0.29 | 0.52 | 0.605 | −0.413 | 0.710 |
| Length of stay | 0.01 | 0.01 | 1.41 | 0.160 | −0.005 | 0.031 |
| Immigrants | 0.75 | 0.50 | 1.49 | 0.137 | −0.238 | 1.740 |
| Asian | 0.81 | 0.43 | 1.87 | 0.061 | −0.038 | 1.660 |
| Mandarin Chinese proficiency | −0.34 | 0.15 | −2.25 | 0.025 | −0.644 | −0.044 |
| English proficiency | −0.60 | 0.23 | −2.58 | 0.010 | −1.055 | −0.143 |
| Main effects | ||||||
| Coping strategies | −3.34 | 0.45 | −7.36 | <0.001 | −4.227 | −2.448 |
| ISE | −2.25 | 0.36 | −6.19 | <0.001 | −2.966 | −1.539 |
| Two-way interaction | ||||||
| Coping strategies X ISE | −1.23 | 0.52 | −2.38 | 0.018 | −2.237 | −0.215 |
| Model fit | R2 | Adjusted R2 | f2 | |||
| 0.127 | 0.122 | 0.15 |
Notes. All variables and predictors were standardized and centered prior to computing. N = 1870. β = standardized coefficients, SE = standard error, LLCI = lower-level confidence interval, and ULCI = upper-level confidence interval. Age is in years. Gender: 0 = female, 1 = male. Study level: 1 = undergraduate, 2 = master’s, 3 = doctoral. Length of stay is in months. Immigrants and Asian: 0 = no, 1 = yes.
Simple slope models for coping strategies, ISE, and depression.
| Simple Slope Models | β | SE |
|
| LLCI | ULCI |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Groupings | ||||||
| +2 SD ( | ||||||
| Intercept | 12.26 | 0.46 | −10.63 | <0.001 | −5.743 | −3.954 |
| Slope | −4.85 | |||||
| Mean ( | ||||||
| Intercept | 15.04 | 0.45 | −7.36 | <0.001 | −4.227 | −2.448 |
| Slope | −3.34 | |||||
| −2 SD ( | ||||||
| Intercept | 17.82 | 0.45 | −4.02 | <0.001 | −2.717 | −0.937 |
| Slope | −1.83 | |||||
| Simple slopes difference (+2 SD, −2 SD) | ||||||
| −3.02 | 0.23 | −12.99 | <0.001 |
Notes. All variables and predictors were standardized and centered prior to computing. N = 1870. β = standardized coefficients, SE = standard error, LLCI = lower-level confidence interval, and ULCI = upper-level confidence interval.
Figure 2Simple slope plot for the moderation effect of ISE.