International Journal for Multidisciplinary Research (IJFMR)

E-ISSN: 2582-2160 ● Website: [Link] ● Email: editor@[Link]

Mental Health Status of the Criminology

Students at a State University in Isabela, Two
Years After the Covid-19 Pandemic
Lapitan. Arlene Rasing

Instructor, Isabela State University

Abstract:
The pandemic brought a myriad of changes to society, and one of the most affected are the students who
have to adjust themselves accordingly to the pressures of the new normal of education. This study
investigated the mental health status of the Criminology students at a state university in Isabela, two years
after the COVID-19 pandemic. The study employed the descriptive survey method and used a standardized
questionnaire to determine the mental health status of the criminology students in terms of levels of
depression, anxiety, and stress. Frequency, percentage, mean, and ANOVA were utilized to statistically
analyze and interpret the data.
The results of the study revealed that majority of the criminology students belong to age range of 19-20
years old, female and in the first year level. The criminology students have normal level of mental health
status in terms of depression, anxiety and stress, two years after the COVID-19 pandemic. There is no
significant difference in the level of depression among criminology students, two years after the COVID-
19 pandemic when they are grouped according to their demographic profiles. There is no significant
difference in the level of anxiety among criminology students, two years after the COVID-19 pandemic
when they are grouped according to their demographic profiles. There is no significant difference in the
level of stress among criminology students, two years after the COVID-19 pandemic when they are
grouped according to their demographic profiles. A Mental Health Program is proposed by the researcher
to improve the mental health status of the criminology students at the state university in Isabela.

Keywords: Anxiety, COVID-19, Depression, Mental Health, Pandemic, Stress, Students

INTRODUCTION
Mental health is often disregarded because it is not always readily observable. It is a condition that should
receive the same care and attention as any other illness. However, when a person is unable to cope with
mental illness, they are often labeled as weak, morally deficient, or lacking in character. This stigma
surrounding mental health further contributes to the neglect of treatment for mental health disorders.
Girolimon (2022) emphasized the importance of good mental health in human growth and development,
relationships, careers, education, and life goals. Addressing mental health issues in students is even more
crucial for their educational and life objectives. College life can be stressful, and students need to manage
their mental health just as diligently as they manage their academic demands.
Covid-19 is an infectious disease caused by the SARS-CoV-2 virus, which reached pandemic status in
2020. While people grappled with the virus's impact and sought mitigation strategies for their physical

IJFMR240322015 Volume 6, Issue 3, May-June 2024 1

 International Journal for Multidisciplinary Research (IJFMR)
E-ISSN: 2582-2160 ● Website: [Link] ● Email: editor@[Link]

health, a parallel and less visible crisis unfolded: a surge in mental health issues, often referred to as the
'hidden pandemic. In the initial year of the COVID-19 pandemic, scientific report shows that there was a
substantial 25% rise in the worldwide occurrence of anxiety and depression. This report also outlines the
groups most impacted by these mental health issues and offers an overview of the pandemic's impact on
the accessibility of mental health services, along with how this situation evolved during the pandemic.
With growing apprehensions regarding potential surges in mental health problems, 90% of the surveyed
countries had already integrated mental health and psychosocial support into their COVID-19 response
plans. Nevertheless, significant gaps and concerns persist in this regard (WHO, 2022). Australians
determined that the most acute phase of the pandemic caused considerable mental health impairment
among the respondents, especially when their anxiety about health risks was coupled with concerns
regarding social, work, and financial issues (Dawel et al. (2020). Similarly, in a literature review done by
Xiong et al. (2020), it was revealed that the general populations in China, Spain, Turkey, Nepal, Denmark,
and the United States experienced high rates of mental health issues. Specifically, 6.33 percent reported
symptoms of anxiety, 48.3 percent had depression, 53.8 percent experienced post-traumatic stress
disorder, 38 percent had psychological distress, and 81.9 percent felt stress. The aforementioned data
suggests that aside from the risks of getting COVID-19, they were exacerbated by mental health issues.
The study by Xiong et al. (2020) even revealed that the development of these mental issues encompassed
people from all walks of life, including students.
In higher education institutions alone, students have shown an increasing propensity to have higher levels
of stress, anxiety, depression, and even suicidal thoughts. This increased further with the pandemic, as
indicated in the study of Son et al. (2020). Generally, these were caused by the following concerns: fear
and worry about their health and their loved ones; decreased social interactions; concerns about their
academics; and disrupted or unhealthy sleep patterns. The same was observed among the Criminology
students of Isabela State University Cauayan Campus when they were confined to their homes during the
lockdowns.
In the Philippines, the mental health system is not as developed as that of other countries. As of the conduct
of the study by Malolos et al. (2021), for instance, it was noted that although the National Statistics Office
has identified mental health illnesses as the third most contributory factor for morbidity among Filipinos,
there are only 5 general hospitals that have psychiatric units for children and young people, 84 general
hospitals with psychiatric units, and 46 outpatient facilities that address mental health issues. Of these last
two, only 11 are designated to cater to children and adolescents. Furthermore, there is only a minority of
practicing psychiatrists in the country, with a large portion of them practicing in urban areas, which lessens
access for those in rural areas.
Amidst these abrupt changes and the pressures of keeping safe from health risks, many people were
subjected to mental health problems. This was widely documented in numerous studies. Tee et al. (2020),
for instance, conducted a survey among 1,879 Filipino respondents, and it was determined that at least
one-fourth of them experienced moderate to severe anxiety, while one-sixth went through moderate to
severe depression.
According to Medline Plus Medical Encyclopedia (2021), depression may be described as feeling sad,
blue, unhappy, miserable, or down at one time or another for short periods of time. Symptoms of
depression include: low mood or irritable mood most of the time; trouble sleeping or sleeping too much;
a big change in appetite, often with weight gain or loss; tiredness and lack of energy; feelings of
worthlessness, self-hate, and guilt; difficulty concentrating; slow or fast movement; lack of activity and

IJFMR240322015 Volume 6, Issue 3, May-June 2024 2

 International Journal for Multidisciplinary Research (IJFMR)
E-ISSN: 2582-2160 ● Website: [Link] ● Email: editor@[Link]

avoiding usual activities; feeling hopeless or helpless; a lack of pleasure in activities; and repeated
thoughts of death or suicide.
The Medical News Today (2021) defines anxiety as "an emotion characterized by feelings of tension,
worried thoughts, and physical changes like increased blood pressure. The symptoms will often include
restlessness, uncontrollable feelings of worry, increased irritability, concentration difficulties, and sleep
difficulties such as problems falling or staying asleep. While these symptoms might be normal to
experience in daily life, people with GAD will experience them to persistent or extreme levels. GAD may
present as vague, unsettling worry or a more severe anxiety that disrupts day-to-day living.
Stress can be defined as any type of change that causes physical, emotional, or psychological strain. Stress
is the body's response to anything that requires attention or action. Stress can be short-term or long-term.
Both can lead to a variety of symptoms, but chronic stress can take a serious toll on the body over time
and have long-lasting health effects. Some common signs of stress include changes in mood, sweaty
palms, diarrhea, difficulty sleeping, digestive problems, dizziness, feeling anxious, frequent sickness,
headaches, muscle tension, especially in the neck and shoulders, physical aches and pains, grinding teeth,
low energy, a racing heartbeat, and trembling (Scott, 2021).
The aforementioned data suggests that, aside from the risks of getting COVID-19, they were exacerbated
by mental health issues. The study by Xiong et al. (2020) even revealed that the development of these
mental issues encompassed people from all walks of life, including students.
In higher education institutions alone, students have shown an increasing propensity to have higher levels
of stress, anxiety, depression, and even suicidal thoughts. This increased further with the pandemic, as
indicated in the study of Son et al. (2020). Generally, these were caused by the following concerns: fear
and worry about their health and their loved ones; decreased social interactions; concerns about their
academics; and disrupted or unhealthy sleep patterns.

Background of the Study

While it is true that the pandemic has brought students’ mental health awareness to the forefront, this issue
existed even before the pandemic. As stipulated by Flannery (2020), the mental health needs of students
have been growing through the decades; the pandemic just made them worse. Hence, it is wrong to say
that the pandemic is the single cause of mental health problems; it just unmasked people’s underlying
mental vulnerabilities. Regardless, this is something that educators need to not only be aware of but also
address, given that they are significant figures of authority for these students. As emphasized by Cleofas
(2020), the school is an important social institution that creates environments where students’ mental well-
being and even quality of life are meant to be fostered.
The literature discussed indicates that the COVID-19 pandemic increased the susceptibility of university
and college students to mental health problems, foremost of which are anxiety, depression, and
psychological distress. Common causes include several health, social, and economic factors. For one
thing, the pandemic became a triggering point that revealed the underlying mental health conditions of
many. Aside from that, the unprecedented upheaval of the students’ environment and their forced
transition towards another mode of learning also caused them anxiety and distress. To add to that, they
also had to deal with the inequalities that became starker during the pandemic: a lack of resources and an
inability to obtain the necessary tools for their learning.
The State University of Isabela is one of the biggest HEIs in the province, as their satellite campuses are
strategically located in various parts of the said region. The Cauayan Campus caters to the biggest student

IJFMR240322015 Volume 6, Issue 3, May-June 2024 3

 International Journal for Multidisciplinary Research (IJFMR)
E-ISSN: 2582-2160 ● Website: [Link] ● Email: editor@[Link]

population in the university, and with that comes the fact that these students have diverse backgrounds.
Just like other HEIs, the state university’s primary concern at the height of the pandemic was the continuity
of learning for these students. Nonetheless, there were a lot of instances when the professors and
instructors also encountered students who showed signs of mental and emotional distress while conducting
their classes.
From this alone, it can already be deduced that the mental well-being of students at a State University also
suffered during the pandemic. And while the worst of the pandemic may be over and certain things are
returning to their rightful places in society, there remains the impact of the pandemic on the mental well-
being of many students. Given this, it is just as timely for educational institutions to assess the mental
health of their students as a safeguard for responding to any problems they might be having, which will
ultimately affect their performance and behavior in school. Furthermore, such assessments are highly
instrumental in directing educational institutions’ policies and guidelines for intervening, preventing, and
managing the mental health issues of their primary stakeholders, the students (Ines, 2019).
In ISU Cauayan Campus, there were a lot of instances when the professors and instructors encountered
students who showed signs of mental and emotional distress while conducting their classes. Some students
could not properly comply to their requirements on time due to mental pressure. While there are some
who expressed their mental health problems to their teachers but it should be noted that there might even
be more who chose not to divulge their mental health struggles.
This study aimed to assess the mental health status of the criminology students at a state university, two
years after the COVId-19 pandemic.

Research Questions
1. What is the demographic profile of the criminology students in terms of:
a. Age;
b. Sex;
c. Year Level?
2. What is the mental health status of the criminology students, two years after the COVID-19 pandemic
in terms of:
2.1 Level of Depression
2.2 Level of Anxiety
2.3 Level of Stress
3. Is there a significant difference in the level of depression among the criminology students, two years
after the COVID-19 pandemic when they are grouped according to their demographic profiles?
4. Is there a significant difference in the level of anxiety among the criminology students, two years after
the COVID-19 pandemic when they are grouped according to their demographic profiles?
5. Is there a significant difference in the level of stress among the criminology students, two years after
the COVID-19 pandemic when they are grouped according to their demographic profiles?
6. What mental health program can be proposed to improve the mental health status of criminology
students?

Research Hypotheses
1. There is no significant difference in the level of depression among the criminology students two years
after the COVID-19 pandemic when they are grouped according to their demographic profiles.

IJFMR240322015 Volume 6, Issue 3, May-June 2024 4

 International Journal for Multidisciplinary Research (IJFMR)
E-ISSN: 2582-2160 ● Website: [Link] ● Email: editor@[Link]

2. There is no significant difference in the level of anxiety among the criminology students two years
after the COVID-19 pandemic when they are grouped according to their demographic profiles.
3. There is no significant difference in the level of stress among the criminology students two years after
the COVID-19 pandemic when they are grouped according to their demographic profiles.

Significance of the Study

This study is perceived to be of interest and benefit to the following entities:
Students. Given that the students are the subject of this study, it will prove beneficial to them since it will
shed light on their mental health issues and problems. In doing so, the proposed intervention program is
designed to specifically address these problems, enabling the school to help and support them in
overcoming these issues.
Instructors. This study will help spread more awareness among the professors and instructors who, aside
from the parents and guardians, are the primary figures of authority for their students and who, therefore,
hold a loco parentis role in providing their students with the proper guidance and support. This study also
identifies the common mental health issues of students; which teachers can use to better fulfill their roles
as second parents.
Guidance and Counseling Office This study is of particular interest to the Guidance and Counseling
Office as it supplies useful data regarding the mental well-being of students. The data in this study may
be used by the office to put in place the necessary mechanisms to address the concerns and difficulties of
the students.
University Administration. The outcome of this study can aid the university in furthering its commitment
to providing responsive and inclusive engagement to its stakeholders, as the study produced an
intervention program for addressing one of the essential needs of students.
Future Researchers. This study may be used by future researchers as the groundwork for other studies
of the same nature. The recommendations of this study may also be used to further the inquiry and enrich
this body of work.

Theoretical Background
This study rests on the principles and concepts of the Resiliency Theory. Said theory was collectively
developed by numerous researchers, the most notable being Norman Garmezy. Basically, the theory
consists of various models that highlight positive factors contributing to resilience. Two of the most
studied are the compensatory model and the protective model. The compensatory model posits that a
resilience factor can counteract a risk factor. Meanwhile, the protective model posits that assets or
resources may be used to reduce the negative effect of a risk by either neutralizing or weakening said risk
(Zimmerman, 2013).
In light of said theory as well as the aforementioned discussion on the multidimensionality of mental
health, it can be concluded that aside from the universality of a mental health program, another thing to
consider is the assurance that it helps the program recipients develop resilience. This perspective therefore
underlines the idea that a comprehensive framework is essential in guiding the development of a mental
health program for students.
This was also the idea shared by Cavioni et al. (2020) who developed a comprehensive theoretical
framework geared towards mental health promotion in schools. In said framework, it was suggested that

IJFMR240322015 Volume 6, Issue 3, May-June 2024 5

 International Journal for Multidisciplinary Research (IJFMR)
E-ISSN: 2582-2160 ● Website: [Link] ● Email: editor@[Link]

a mental health program should target two objectives: foster social and emotional learning and resilience;
and mitigate social, emotional, and behavioral difficulties.
This can be achieved through the combined effort of promotion and prevention, which are guided by the
principles of social and emotional learning (SEL), resilience, and social, emotional, and behavioral
problems. The family and the community are expected to contribute towards the goals; hence, they will
participate in the planning and implementation of policies.

Conceptual Framework
INPUT PROCESS OUTPUT

Assessment of
the mental
health of the Proposed
Criminology
Criminology Mental Health
Students
Students in Program for
-Demographic terms of: Criminology
Profile Students
-Depression
-Mental Health -Anxiety
Status
-Stress

Using
standardized
survey
questionnaire

Feedback
Figure 1, The Schematic Paradigm of the Study
The study is anchored on the basic system framework of input, process and output.
The Input box includes the demographic profiles of the participants in terms of age, sex and year level and
their mental health status.
The Process box is the assessment of the mental health status of the criminology students in terms of
depression, anxiety, and stress using a standardized survey.
The Output box is a proposed mental health program to improve the mental health status of the
criminology students.

Literature Review
Mental Health
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) (2021) stipulate that mental health encompasses
emotional, psychological, and social well-being. Because of this, it impacts thought processes, emotions,
and actions. Aside from that, it also establishes how individuals handle stress, how they interact with
others, and how they make life choices.
Smith et al., (2023) indicates that good mental health does not mean the absence of negative emotions or

IJFMR240322015 Volume 6, Issue 3, May-June 2024 6

 International Journal for Multidisciplinary Research (IJFMR)
E-ISSN: 2582-2160 ● Website: [Link] ● Email: editor@[Link]

experiences. Good mental health refers to the ability of an individual to maintain their resilience and
positive outlook amidst negative situations or challenges. The inability to do these results in mental health
issues and illnesses, of which stress, depression, and anxiety are the most common.
Smith et al. (2018) state that strong mental health does not only refer to the absence of mental health issues
or illnesses. Rather, it also refers to the presence of positive mental attributes such as contentment,
enthusiasm for living, and the ability to have fun; the ability to manage stress and survive adversities; a
sense of purpose in both activities and relationships; flexibility and adaptation; balance between work and
rest; the ability to build and maintain relationships; and self-confidence and high self-esteem. In their
article, they also emphasized the fact that good mental health does not necessarily mean that a person does
not experience negativity or emotional problems. Instead, good mental health means possessing the ability
to manage difficult situations, adapt to change, and maintain a positive outlook on life. With this, it can
be said that good mental health is connected to a better quality of life, which covers an individual’s
productivity, social connections, achievement, and relationships (Holmes, 2023).
On the other hand, mental health issues affect people by adversely changing their thinking, emotions, and
behavior. It may take many forms, but the most common are stress, anxiety, and depression.
According to Cooper (2021), stress is not always negative. Technically, it pertains to a response that
enables people to prepare for and respond to challenges and dangerous situations. It is a state of mental
tension that activates physical, emotional, and cognitive responses (Cleveland Clinic, 2021). When
activated long-term, however, stress can trigger mood disorders like depression and anxiety.
The American Psychiatric Association, or APA (2023), describes depression as an illness that causes
feelings of sadness and/or loss of interest in life activities, hence decreasing one’s ability to function.
While it is commonly associated with grief or sadness, the painful or negative feelings that are caused by
depression last longer and may come with self-loathing, suicidal thoughts, and disinterest in life as a
whole. On the other hand, anxiety pertains to feelings of tension and worry that can translate to intrusive
thoughts and even physical symptoms like sweating, dizziness, and increased blood pressure. It is a normal
reaction to stress, but when it develops into a disorder, anxiety evolves into an excessive and irrational
fear of situations or people that hinders one’s ability to function normally.
Cooper (2021) emphasizes the connection of stress to the other two mental health issues, calling the causal
relationship between them bidirectional, as one can cause another and vice versa, and each can also make
the other worse.
Literature posits that stress and anxiety are normal responses to difficult or dangerous situations; however,
extreme or long-term manifestations result in mental health issues such as disorders. Depression, on the
other hand, appears to be similar to sadness or grief, but just like stress and anxiety, the negative emotions
that come with depression are often chronic and debilitating. The relationship among the three was also
identified and described as bidirectional, meaning one can cause the other and even intensify it.

Students’ Mental Health Awareness and Issues

The concept of mental health is still highly stigmatized in the Philippines. There is a lack of knowledge
and awareness about it, which is why many remain uninformed about dealing with issues and problems
related to it. In the study of Fawley (2016), for instance, it was determined that students with mental health
issues are selective in disclosing the nature and extent of their experiences. This was due to a myriad of
reasons, ranging from social pressure and stigma to a lack of information and understanding. Given this,
the World Health Organization has continuously advocated for the development and implementation of

IJFMR240322015 Volume 6, Issue 3, May-June 2024 7

 International Journal for Multidisciplinary Research (IJFMR)
E-ISSN: 2582-2160 ● Website: [Link] ● Email: editor@[Link]

mental health support systems that would encompass promotion, prevention, intervention, and
rehabilitation (Cefai et al., 2022).
In relation to this, the universality and interdisciplinary nature of addressing students’ mental health issues,
especially in the context of educational institutions’ responses to them, are emphasized. According to
Hernandez-Torrano et al. (2020), the theory, practice, and research in mental health have been embedded
in the medical, psychological, and social sciences to accommodate the multidimensionality of the concept.
Furthermore, Cefai et al. (2022) have also highlighted the effectiveness of universal interventions for
promoting mental health and well-being in educational institutions.
Regardless of this multidimensionality, research has pointed out that programs that foster resilience and
adaptability have been particularly useful in helping young people manage their mental health issues.
Resilience pertains to the ability to withstand adversity and adapt successfully to difficulties and
challenges in life. It encompasses the mental, emotional, and behavioral flexibility of adjusting to internal
and external demands (Hurley, 2019). Resilience focuses on paying attention to positive, contextual,
social, and individual variables that interfere with the propensity for problem behavior and mental distress.
Higher education comes with increased academic pressure coupled with other personal responsibilities on
the part of students. Because of this, college can become stressful for many students, escalating the
possibility of mental health problems.
Pedrelli et al. (2015), in fact, noted that most mental health problems manifest at their peak during young
adulthood, and this is the age range of most students in college. By the age of 25, for instance, individuals
with underlying mental health issues will probably have their first onset, as this will be the time when
many triggers appear. In a survey among 350, 000 students on over 300 US campuses, for instance, it was
determined that mental health disorders such as depression and anxiety are common and that the mental
health of college students has been declining consistently from 2013 to 2021 (Colarossi, 2022).
Meanwhile, self-reported mental health issues cited by college students in a report conducted by the
American College Health Association included feelings of hopelessness, distress, loneliness, sadness,
overwhelming anxiety, infirmity due to depression, substance abuse, suicide ideation, and suicide attempts
(Vanderlind, 2017). Similarly, in another study, Rakib and Islam (2021) also found out that although
university students in Bangladesh experience mental health problems and are aware that these are illnesses,
90 percent of them do not seek medical attention at all.
In the Philippines, research has shown that the general population has low mental health literacy (Pineda
& Yamanaka, 2019; Argao et al., 2021), which is at odds with the fact that mental illness is the third-
commonest disability in the country. In addition, Philippines has the highest rate of mental health issues
among the countries in the Western Pacific Region (Martinez et al., 2020). Interestingly enough, studies
such as those by Dizon (2019), Pineda and Yamanaka (2019), and Publico (2020) found that although
college students demonstrate mental health literacy ranging from high to average, it was also revealed that
their predilection to seek treatment in cases of mental health issues was negatively affected by stereotyping
and erroneous beliefs. The aforementioned was also perceived in other countries where there was a lack
of knowledge regarding mental health, a lack of mental health resources and facilities catering to the
young’s age group, and a stigma surrounding mental health in general (Muller, 2015).
Aside from this, mental healthcare in the Philippines also remains neglected and under-resourced.
According to Publico (2020), even when the Mental Health Act was enacted in 2018 for the purpose of
creating a comprehensive framework for optimal mental healthcare in the country, health facilities and
human resources were still scarce, especially in rural areas.

IJFMR240322015 Volume 6, Issue 3, May-June 2024 8

 International Journal for Multidisciplinary Research (IJFMR)
E-ISSN: 2582-2160 ● Website: [Link] ● Email: editor@[Link]

The aforementioned literature lays out the status of mental health awareness and literacy for young people,
especially college-level students. As shown, mental health issues often manifest in early adulthood, which
falls under the age range of college students. This is attributed to the fact that entering college can become
highly stressful, which can be further exacerbated by students’ personal and social problems. Regardless
of the likelihood that college students will suffer from mental health issues, they seldom seek professional
help because of the stigma surrounding mental health issues, a lack of knowledge and resources, and
erroneous beliefs about mental health. This ultimately makes the problem more complicated since the
mental disorders are seldom addressed properly, which can lead to more problems that will ultimately
impact these students until adulthood.

Mental Health during the COVID-19 Pandemic

While the world is slowly recovering from the COVID-19 pandemic, many healthcare specialists are now
issuing warnings about another public health crisis, and this time it is mental in nature. This was stipulated
by many US doctors, who reported that although it was the older generation that suffered most from the
COVID-19 virus, the mental health toll was greater among the younger generation. Medical centers across
the US have recorded the treatment of more and more younger patients throughout the pandemic and with
more acute symptoms as well (Byrd, 2022). For many, the pandemic proved to be a trigger point for
awakening pre-existing mental health conditions. The quarantine, lockdowns, social isolation, and fear of
the virus subjected people to stress, fatigue, and depressive moods (Szlamka et al., 2021).
For university and college students, COVID-19 also meant the abrupt shift of their academic lives from
conventional physical classrooms towards adaptation to online and distance learning modalities.
According to Serrano et al. (2022), this made them a vulnerable group that was highly susceptible to the
risks of psychological distress. They were expected to quickly adapt to a highly unfamiliar situation while
dealing with other family and personal responsibilities and concerns. Similarly, Anderson (2020) pointed
out how the increased academic workload of students has made the situation more difficult and stressful
for them. This is especially difficult for students who live in unstable environments and are struggling
with finances. In addition, many students also voiced anxiety about the future of their education amidst
the dangers brought about by the pandemic.
In a local study conducted by Alibudbud (2022) it was revealed that the increased demand for new
technological literacy, pressure for productivity, and information overload negatively affected the mental
health of students who engaged in online and distance learning during the pandemic. The digital divide
also caused many students to worry, as not all of them had the capacity to obtain and access the necessary
tools to effectively participate in online learning—the primary learning modality during the height of the
pandemic. This was also proven by Galanza et al. (2021), who found that although the fear of COVID-19
was the foremost factor that was associated with students’ mental health problems during the pandemic,
their financial concerns and difficulties also proved to be highly contributory. This led to students
experiencing the top three mental health issues: depression, anxiety, and stress.
In a local study conducted by Ramones et al., (2021), the persons deprived of liberty who are imprisoned
in the Municipal Bureau of Jail Management and Penology in the Province of Quirino after a year of the
COVID- 19 pandemic are between the ages of 36 and 40 years old, married and their cases are awaiting
or undergoing trial have a mild level of depression. Furthermore, the study revealed that there is no
significant difference in the mild depression levels among people who have been deprived of their liberty
based on demographic profiles such as age, civil status and classification.

IJFMR240322015 Volume 6, Issue 3, May-June 2024 9

 International Journal for Multidisciplinary Research (IJFMR)
E-ISSN: 2582-2160 ● Website: [Link] ● Email: editor@[Link]

The Role of the School and its Stakeholders in Mental Health Support
According to Barker et al. (2021), changes in the school environment, culture, and even curricula are
instrumental in providing robust mental health support to students post-pandemic. Aside from that, the
approach to be undertaken by the school should be evidence-based since this will acknowledge the specific
issues and needs of the students. In light of this, an important element to start off the development of a
mental health program in schools is assessment.
While it is true that off-campus treatment is advised, especially for complex cases, it should be noted that
the school must also have specific mechanisms that will not only help in improving the mental health of
students but also assist in determining their mental well-being in the first place (Swick & Powers, 2018).
As stated by Mansfield et al. (2021), for example, a multilevel and multi-sectorial approach to supporting
students’ mental health should be prioritized. This can be initially realized by instituting a guidance
counselor who possesses the qualifications to handle a wide range of situations, such as assessing students’
mental well-being, providing short-term intervention, and conducting parent and teacher consultations
(Engelhardt, 2016). Similarly, Glazzard (2018) stated that schools can be vital in determining the mental
health issues and needs of students at an early stage, and this can contribute a lot towards the intervention,
treatment, and recovery of students.
Aside from the presence of a skilled guidance counselor, other stakeholders, such as parents and teachers,
also have important roles in school mental health programs. As Glazzard (2018) stated, the relationships
that students have with the people around them are critical in defining their well-being. Butler et al. (2022)
also highlighted the significance of supportive relationships as a primary factor in preventing poor mental
health among young people, especially when they have experienced adverse situations or crises. In their
study, it was found that the level of family support, school authorities support, and school peers support
were independently related to the level of students’ mental health.
Understandably, parents are the foremost emotional support of students as well as their model for healthy
coping mechanisms, which is why they play such vital roles in defining students’ mental health as a whole.
Apart from their parents, teachers are the primary figures of authority in students’ lives; hence,
ecologically speaking, teachers occupy strategic positions that enable them to support their students’
mental well-being (Mansfield et al., 2021). Given this, they should also be capacitated with the knowledge
and skills to deal with their students’ mental health issues and intervene accordingly, especially since these
can impact academic performance, achievement, and well-being (Diaz, 2020).
The aforementioned literature indicates the role of the school in promoting positive mental health among
students. Specifically, literature pointed out the importance of a multi-level approach to supporting
students’ mental well-being through the collaboration of stakeholders such as the school guidance
counselor, the school authorities, and especially the teachers and the parents. Each occupies a position that
not only influences but also provides support to students at various points in their mental health issues.

Whole Campus Approach: A Comprehensive Perspective for Mental Health Programs

As posited by Cavioni et al. (2020), in accordance with the principles of Garmezy’s Resiliency Theory, a
mental health program’s goal should be twofold: foster social and emotional learning and resilience; and
mitigate social, emotional, and behavioral difficulties. This can be achieved through the combined effort
of promotion and prevention, which are guided by the principles of social and emotional learning (SEL),
resilience, and social, emotional, and behavioral problems. The family and the community are expected
to contribute towards the goals; hence, they will participate in the planning and implementation of policies.

IJFMR240322015 Volume 6, Issue 3, May-June 2024 10

 International Journal for Multidisciplinary Research (IJFMR)
E-ISSN: 2582-2160 ● Website: [Link] ● Email: editor@[Link]

Social and emotional learning (SEL) encompasses the acquisition and effective practice of skills such as
cooperation, conflict management, effective socialization, coping, resilience, and awareness and
management of feelings. SEL-geared programs have proven to be effective in developing healthier
emotion management, relationship-building skills, and higher self-efficacy (Durlak et al., 2015).
Meanwhile, enhancing the resilience of students in school-based programs results in improved stress
management, coping skills, a decrease in anxiety and depression, and social and emotional competence
(Cefai et al., 2018).
Aside from social and emotional learning and resilience, Cavioni et al. (2020) also highlight the
significance of what they termed as developmental systems consisting of family, community, and policy.
In their framework, collaboration among these three was posited as a more sustainable way for schools to
maintain the longevity and effectiveness of mental health programs.

Resilience and Adaptation as Focal Points of School Mental Health Programs

Afek et al. (2021) describe resilience as the ability to successfully cope with disruptions or adversities that
may otherwise trigger mental illness. Similarly, Fenwick-Smith et al. (2018) identified it as a vital element
in preventing or reducing mental health problems. This was proven through an extensive literature review
of five research databases. Specifically, the literature review revealed that mental health programs that
focused on resilience had a positive impact on students’ achievement, emotional and social skills, overall
behavior, and existing anxiety and depressive symptoms.
The COVID-19 pandemic highlighted the importance of resilience and adaptation among individuals, as
the situation has triggered a lot of trauma, pessimism, and stress. Because of this, helping people enhance
their resilience and adaptation skills has become more relevant than ever. Halbreich (2021) advocates for
cognitive-behavioral prevention, or CBP, which aims to aid individuals in building active self-esteem and
individual dignity; control over individual and community destiny; focused, goal-oriented actions;
assertiveness over victim mentality; proactive social support from the immediate environment; and a sense
of responsibility over one’s actions and inactions.

METHODS
Research Design
This study employed the descriptive-survey method of research. Kumar (2014) defines descriptive
research as systematically describing a situation, problem, phenomenon, service, or program, or providing
information, or describing an attitude toward an issue. According to Eduardo (2018), a descriptive method
is a purposeful process of gathering, analyzing, classifying, and tabulating data about current conditions,
practices, beliefs, processes, trends, and cause-and-effect relationships, and then making adequate and
accurate interpretations about such data with or without the assistance of statistical methods.
This method is appropriate since the purpose of the study is to assess the mental health status of the
criminology students at a state university In Isabela, two years after the COVID-19 pandemic.
Study, Site and Participants
This study was conducted at the Isabela State University-Cauayan Campus. Since its integration into the
Isabela State University System, Cauayan Campus has manifested remarkable changes not only in terms
of population but also in terms of infrastructure, school buildings, equipment, modern facilities, and
program offerings. The Bachelor of Science in Information Technology (BSIT) is its flagship program.
The Bachelor of Science in Hotel and Restaurant Management (BSHRM) is its emerging program, and

IJFMR240322015 Volume 6, Issue 3, May-June 2024 11

 International Journal for Multidisciplinary Research (IJFMR)
E-ISSN: 2582-2160 ● Website: [Link] ● Email: editor@[Link]

Teacher Education (BSE and BEED) and the Bachelor of Science in riminology are its developing
programs, including the College of Law, which produced full-fledged lawyers. Today, ISU Cauayan
Campus is becoming a premier seat of learning where students find achieving their dreams of a global
career very possible.
The participants of the study comprised of 1st to 3rd year Criminology students from the College of
Criminal Justice Education, Isabela State University, Cauayan Campus who were enrolled during the First
Semester, Academic Year 2022-2023.
Population, Sample Size and Sampling Method
The College of Criminal Justice Education had a total population of 594 students during the First Semester,
Academic Year 2022-2023. From the total population, a sample size of 235 students using Raosoft Sample
Size Calculation was randomly selected, with the distribution as follows: 93 first-year students, 82 second-
year students, and 60 third-year students.
Instruments
To properly determine the mental health status of the participants, the researcher adopted the standardized
questionnaire used by Lovibond and Lovibond (1995) in their study known as the Depression, Anxiety
and Stress Scale (DASS 21). Because the DASS-21 questionnaire is in the public domain, no permission
is required to use it. The DASS-21 is a self-administered tool that includes 21 items that are used to rate
the severity of depression, anxiety, and psychological stress symptoms on a four-point scale. Each item is
scored on a Likert Scale from 0 to 3, with 0 indicating that it does not apply to me at all, 1 indicating that
it applies to me to some degree, 2 indicating that it applies to me to a considerable degree, and 3 indicating
that it applies to me very much, or most of the time. The cumulative score of each subscale is calculated
by adding all item scores and multiplying by two. As a result, each subscale's score ranges from 0 to 42,
and the total score ranges from 0 to 129. A higher (lower) score indicates that the depression, anxiety, or
psychological stress is more severe (less severe).
The depression scale assesses a variety of depressive syndromes such as life devaluation, self-deprecation,
anhedonia, and inertia. The higher the score, the greater the level of depression, which is classified as
normal (0–9), mild (10–13), moderate (14–20), and severe (20–27); scores of 28 and above indicate
extremely severe depression.
The anxiety scale measures arousal, muscle effects, situational anxiety, and the subjective experience of
anxious effects. Scores are classified as normal (0–7), mild (8–9), moderate (10–14), and severe (15–19),
with scores of 20 or more indicating extremely severe anxiety.
The stress scale is sensitive to levels of chronic non-specific arousal. It assesses the ability to relax, nervous
arousal, and being easily upset. Scores are classified as normal (0–14), mild (15–18), moderate (19–25),
and severe (26–33), with scores of 34 or more indicating extremely severe.
Data-Gathering Procedure
The researcher used the following procedures to facilitate the collection of data more efficiently.
1. The researcher prepared a request letter to obtain permission from the Dean of the College of Criminal
Justice Education for the conduct of the study and to float survey questionnaire among the criminology
students.
2. Upon approval, random sampling was done to select the criminology students who would take part in
the data gathering. A brief orientation about the study was provided to the criminology students, and
their consent to participate in the study was also sought before the administration of the survey
questionnaire.

IJFMR240322015 Volume 6, Issue 3, May-June 2024 12

 International Journal for Multidisciplinary Research (IJFMR)
E-ISSN: 2582-2160 ● Website: [Link] ● Email: editor@[Link]

3. After the conduct of the survey, the data from the questionnaires were tallied, classified and tabulated,
and were made to undergo statistical treatment.
Data Analysis
The data gathered from the study were subjected to the following statistical analysis.
1. Frequency and Percentage were used to classify the category of the demographic profiles of the
criminology students in terms of age, sex, and year level.
2. The mean was used to measure the levels of depression, anxiety, and stress experienced by the
criminology students two years after the COVID-19 pandemic.
3. An Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) was utilized to assess whether there were significant differences
in the levels of depression, anxiety, and stress among the criminology students, two years after the
COVID -19 pandemic when grouped according to their profile variables.
Ethical Considerations
Institutional support and approval were sought before beginning the study through the Dean of the
Department. All information was treated with utmost confidentiality. Participants were duly informed of
the nature and purpose of the study, and their consent was obtained prior to the conduct of the data
gathering. The informed consent forms as well as the survey questions were explained well to the
criminology students.
Confidentiality was maintained throughout the process of the study. The researcher ensured the protection
of the respondents by excluding any identifying information apart from the demographic profile needed
for the study.

RESULTS
Part 1. Demographic Profile of the Criminology Students
The demographic profile of the criminology students are classified in terms of age, sex and year level.
1.1 Age
Table 1 shows the demographic profile of the criminology students in terms of age.
Table 1. Demographic Profile of the Criminology Students According to Age
Age Range Frequency Percent
17-18 61 25.96
19-20 145 61.70
21 and above 29 12.34
Total 235 100.00
As presented in Table 1, majority of the criminology students, 145, or 61.70 percent, belong to the age
range of 19–20 years old; 61, or 25.96 percent, belong to the age range of 18–18 years old; and 29, or
12.34 percent, belong to the age range of 21 years old and above.

1.2 Sex
Table 2 shows the demographic profile of the criminology students in terms of sex.
Table 2. Demographic Profile of the Criminology Students According to Sex
Sex Frequency Percent
Male 110 46.81
Female 125 53.19
Total 235 100.00

IJFMR240322015 Volume 6, Issue 3, May-June 2024 13

 International Journal for Multidisciplinary Research (IJFMR)
E-ISSN: 2582-2160 ● Website: [Link] ● Email: editor@[Link]

As revealed in Table 2, majority of the criminology students, 125, or 53.19 percent, are female, and 110,
or 46.61 percent, are male.

1.3 Year Level

Table 3 shows the demographic profile of the criminology students in terms of year level.
Table 3. Demographic Profile of the Criminology Students According to Year Level
Year Level Frequency Percent
First Year 93 39.57
Second Year 80 34.04
Third Year 62 26.39
Total 235 100.00
As shown in Table 3, a great number of criminology students are in the first year level: 93, or 39.57
percent, 80, or 34.04 percent, are in the second year level, and 62, or 26.39 percent, are in the third year
level.

Part 2 Mental Health Status of the Criminology Students, two years after the COVID-19 Pandemic
The mental health status of the criminology students are classified in terms of depression, anxiety and
stress.

2.1 Level of Depression of the Criminology Students, two years after the COVID-19 Pandemic
Table 4 shows the mental health status of the criminology students, two years after the COVID-19
Pandemic in terms of level of depression.
Table 4. Mental Health Status of the Criminology Students, two years after the COVID-19
Pandemic in terms of Level of Depression
Depression Mean Description
1. I couldn’t seem to experience any positive feelings at all. 1.31 Normal
2. I found it difficult to work up the initiative to do things. Normal
3. I felt that I had nothing to look forward to. 1.49 Normal
4. I felt downhearted and blue. Normal
5. I was unable to become enthusiastic about anything. 1.21 Normal
6. I felt I wasn’t worth much as a person. 1.31 Normal
7. I felt that life was meaningless. 1.23 Normal
1.41
1.05
Total Mean 1.29 Normal
As revealed in Table 4, the criminology students have normal mental health status, two years after the
COVID-19 pandemic in terms of level of depression as indicated by the following statements: I found it
difficult to work up the initiative to do things (M = 1.49); I felt I wasn’t worth much as a person (M =
1.41); I couldn’t seem to experience any positive feelings at all and I felt downhearted and blue (M =
1.31); I was unable to become enthusiastic about anything (M = 1.23); I felt that I had nothing to look
forward to (M = 1.21); and I felt that life was meaningless (M = 1.05). With a total mean of 1.29, this
implies that the criminology students have normal mental health status, two years after the COVID-19
pandemic in terms of level of depression.

IJFMR240322015 Volume 6, Issue 3, May-June 2024 14

 International Journal for Multidisciplinary Research (IJFMR)
E-ISSN: 2582-2160 ● Website: [Link] ● Email: editor@[Link]

2.2 Level of Anxiety of the Criminology Students, two years after the COVID-19 Pandemic
Table 5 shows the mental health status of the criminology students, two years after the COVID-19
pandemic in terms of level of anxiety.
Table 5. Mental Health Status of the Criminology Students, two years after the COVID-19 pandemic in
terms of Level of Anxiety
Anxiety Mean Description
1. I was aware of the dryness of my mouth. 1.41 Normal
2. I experienced breathing difficulty. 1.11 Normal
3. I experienced trembling. 1.12 Normal
4. I was worried about situations in which I might panic and make
a fool of myself. 1.70 Normal
5. I felt I was close to panicking. 1.27 Normal
6. I was aware of the action of my heart in the absence of physical
exertion. 1.36 Normal
7. I felt scared without any good reason. 1.45 Normal
Total Mean 1.35 Normal
As presented in Table 5, the criminology students have a normal level of mental health status, two years
after the COVID-19 pandemic in terms of level of anxiety, as indicated in the following statements: I was
worried about situations in which I might panic and make a fool of myself (M = 1.70); I felt scared without
any good reason (M = 1.45); I was aware of the dryness of my mouth (M = 1.41); I was aware of the action
of my heart in the absence of physical exertion (M = 1.36); I felt I was close to panicking (M = 1.27); I
experienced trembling (M = 1.12); and I experienced breathing difficulty (M = 1.11). With a total mean
of 1.35, this implies that the criminology students have normal mental health, two years after the COVID-
19 pandemic in terms of level of anxiety.

2.3 Level of Stress of the Criminology Students, two years after the COVID-19 Pandemic
Table 6 shows the mental health status of the criminology students, two years after the COVID-19
pandemic in terms of level of stress.
Table 6. Mental Health Status of the Criminology Students, two years after the COVID-19 Pandemic in
terms of Level of Stress
Stress Mean Description
1. I found it hard to wind down. 1.65 Normal
2. I tended to overreact to situations. 1.40 Normal
3. I felt that I was using a lot of nervous energy. 1.64 Normal
4. I found myself getting agitated. 1.26 Normal
5. I found it difficult to relax. 1.59 Normal
6. I was intolerant of anything that kept me from getting on with 1.31
what I was doing. Normal
7. I felt that I was rather touchy. 1.16 Normal
Total Mean 1.43 Normal
As gleaned in Table 6, the criminology students have a normal level of mental health status, two years
after the COVID-19 pandemic in terms of level of stress, as indicated in the following statements: I found
it hard to wind down (M = 1.65); I felt that I was using a lot of nervous energy (M = 1.64); I found it

IJFMR240322015 Volume 6, Issue 3, May-June 2024 15

 International Journal for Multidisciplinary Research (IJFMR)
E-ISSN: 2582-2160 ● Website: [Link] ● Email: editor@[Link]

difficult to relax (M = 1.59); I tended to overreact to situations (M = 1.40); I was intolerant of anything
that kept me from getting on with what I was doing (M = 1.31); I found myself getting agitated (M = 1.26);
and I felt that I was rather touchy (M = 1.16). With a total mean of 1.43, this implies that the criminology
students have a normal mental health status, two years after the COVID-19 pandemic in terms of their
level of stress.

Part 3 Test of Difference in the Level of Depression of the Criminology Students, Two Years After
the COVID-19 Pandemic When They Are Grouped According to their Demographic Profiles.
Table 7 shows the significant difference in the level of depression of the criminology students, two years
after the COVID-19 pandemic when they are grouped according to their age.
Table 7. Significant Difference in Level of Depression of Criminology Students, Two Years after the
COVID-19 Pandemic when they are Grouped according to Age
Age N M SD Df F p-value
17-18 years old 61 1.35 0.62 234 0.671 0.852
19-20 years old 145 1.22 0.60
Above 20 years old 29 1.49 0.54
Table 7 presents data on the level of depression among Criminology students two years after the COVID-
19 pandemic, with a focus on categorizing the students into different age groups. Understanding the mental
health impact of such a significant global event is a crucial area of study, and this table attempts to shed
light on how age might relate to depression levels in this particular student population.
The study divides the students into three distinct age categories: those aged 17-18 years, those aged 19-20
years, and those above 20 years old. The table provides information on the number of participants in each
group, with 61 students in the 17-18 age group, 145 in the 19-20 age group, and 29 in the above 20 age
group. These sample sizes provides an initial understanding of the representation of each age group in the
study.
To assess the level of depression, the study calculates the mean depression scores for each age group. The
mean is a measure of central tendency and reflects the average level of depression within each group.
According to the table, students aged 17-18 years have a mean depression score of 1.35, those aged 19-20
years have a mean score of 1.22, and those above 20 years old have a mean score of 1.49. These scores
provide a baseline understanding of the differences in reported depression levels among the age groups.
In addition to the mean scores, the table includes the standard deviation (SD) for each age group. The
standard deviation is a measure of the spread or variability of individual depression scores within each age
category. For example, students aged 17-18 years have a standard deviation of 0.62, while those aged 19-
20 years have a standard deviation of 0.60, and those above 20 years old have a standard deviation of 0.54.
These values indicate how much individual responses deviate from the group's average depression score.
One critical aspect missing from the table is the presentation of p-values, which are crucial for assessing
the statistical significance of differences between age groups. The provided p-value of 0.852 for the 17-
18 age group suggests that the level of depression in this group is not significantly different from the other
groups. However, the absence of p-values for the other age groups makes it impossible to determine if the
observed differences in mean depression scores are statistically significant.
In conclusion, this table offers valuable insights into the level of depression among Criminology students
of different age groups two years after the COVID-19 pandemic. However, further statistical analysis,
such as analysis of variance (ANOVA) or t-tests, would be necessary to establish whether the observed

IJFMR240322015 Volume 6, Issue 3, May-June 2024 16

 International Journal for Multidisciplinary Research (IJFMR)
E-ISSN: 2582-2160 ● Website: [Link] ● Email: editor@[Link]

differences in mean depression scores between age groups are statistically significant. Additionally, a
complete understanding of the study's methodology and data collection procedures would be essential for
a comprehensive scholarly interpretation of the findings.

Table 8 shows the significant difference in the level of depression of the criminology students, two years
after the COVID-19 pandemic when they are grouped according to their sex.
Table 8. Significant Difference in Level of Depression of Criminology Students, Two Years after the
COVID-19 Pandemic when they are Grouped according to Sex
Sex N M SD df F p-value
Male 110 1.21 0.54 234 0.844 0.658
Female 125 1.36 0.63
Table 8 presents data on the level of depression among Criminology students, with a focus on the gender-
based differences in depression levels two years after the COVID-19 pandemic. Understanding the impact
of gender on mental health outcomes in the aftermath of a global crisis is a significant area of study.
The study categorizes the students into two distinct gender groups: male and female. The table provides
information on the number of participants in each group, with 110 male students and 125 female students.
These sample sizes give an initial understanding of the representation of each gender in the study.
To assess the level of depression, the study calculates the mean depression scores for each gender group.
The mean is a measure of central tendency and reflects the average level of depression within each group.
According to the table, male students have a mean depression score of 1.21, while female students have a
mean score of 1.36. These scores provide a basis for comparing the depression levels between male and
female students.
In addition to the mean scores, the table includes the standard deviation (SD) for each gender group. The
standard deviation is a measure of the spread or variability of individual depression scores within each
gender category. For male students, the standard deviation is 0.54, and for female students, it is 0.63.
These values indicate how much individual responses deviate from the group's average depression score.
The table provides an F-statistic and a p-value, which are essential for assessing the statistical significance
of the observed differences in mean depression scores between male and female students. The F-value is
0.844, and the p-value is 0.658. These statistics indicate that there is no statistically significant difference
in the level of depression between male and female Criminology students based on the data presented in
the table.
In conclusion, Table 8 offers valuable insights into the level of depression among Criminology students
when they are grouped by sex two years after the COVID-19 pandemic. The data in this table suggests
that there is no statistically significant difference in the average level of depression between male and
female students in this context. However, it is important to note that this analysis is based solely on the
information presented in the table, and additional statistical tests and a comprehensive understanding of
the study's methodology would be necessary for a more robust scholarly interpretation of the findings.
Table 9 shows the significant difference in the level of depression of the criminology students, two years
after the COVID-19 pandemic when they are grouped according to their year level.
Table 9. Significant Difference in Level of Depression of Criminology Students, Two Years after the
COVID-19 Pandemic when they are Grouped according to Year Level

IJFMR240322015 Volume 6, Issue 3, May-June 2024 17

 International Journal for Multidisciplinary Research (IJFMR)
E-ISSN: 2582-2160 ● Website: [Link] ● Email: editor@[Link]

Year Level N M SD df F p-value

First Year 93 1.28 0.60 234 0.542 0.946
Second Year 80 1.28 0.65
Third Year 62 1.30 0.56
Table 9 examines the level of depression among Criminology students with a focus on how their year level
in the program relates to their mental health, two years after the COVID-19 pandemic. Understanding how
students at different stages of their academic journey may experience varying levels of depression is an
important aspect of mental health research.
The study divides the Criminology students into three distinct year levels: First Year, Second Year, and
Third Year. The table provides information on the number of participants in each group, with 93 students
in the First Year, 80 in the Second Year, and 62 in the Third Year. These sample sizes offer insight into
the representation of each year level in the study.
The table presents the mean depression scores for each year level. The mean serves as a measure of central
tendency, reflecting the average level of depression within each group. According to the table, First Year
students have a mean depression score of 1.28, as do Second Year students, while Third Year students
have a slightly higher mean score of 1.30. These scores allow for an initial comparison of depression levels
across year levels.
In addition to the mean scores, the table includes the standard deviation (SD) for each year level. The
standard deviation measures the spread or variability of individual depression scores within each year
group. For First Year students, the standard deviation is 0.60, for Second Year students, it is 0.65, and for
Third Year students, it is 0.56. These values indicate the degree to which individual responses deviate
from the group's average depression score.
The table provides an F-statistic and a p-value, which are crucial for determining the statistical significance
of differences in mean depression scores between year levels. The F-value is 0.542, and the p-value is
0.946. These statistics suggest that there is no statistically significant difference in the level of depression
between students in different year levels of the Criminology program based on the data presented in the
table.
In conclusion, Table 9 provides valuable insights into the level of depression among Criminology students
when categorized by their year level in the program two years after the COVID-19 pandemic. The data
suggests that there is no statistically significant difference in the average level of depression between First
Year, Second Year, and Third Year students in this context. However, as always in scholarly research, it
is important to consider that this analysis is based solely on the information presented in the table, and a
comprehensive understanding of the study's methodology is necessary for a more robust interpretation of
the findings.

Part 4 Test of Difference in the Level of Anxiety of the Criminology Students, Two Years After the
COVID-19 Pandemic When They Are Grouped According to Their Demographic Profiles.
Table 10 shows the significant difference in the level of anxiety of the criminology students, two years
after the COVID-19 pandemic when they are grouped according to their age.
Table 10. Significant Difference in the Level of Anxiety of Criminology Students, Two Years After The
COVID-19 Pandemic when they are Grouped according to Age
Year Level N M SD df F p-value
17-18 years old 61 1.43 0.54 234 1.041 0.415

IJFMR240322015 Volume 6, Issue 3, May-June 2024 18

 International Journal for Multidisciplinary Research (IJFMR)
E-ISSN: 2582-2160 ● Website: [Link] ● Email: editor@[Link]

19-20 years old 145 1.28 0.55

Above 20 years old 29 1.51 0.62
Table 10 examines the level of anxiety among Criminology students with a focus on how their age relates
to their anxiety levels two years after the COVID-19 pandemic. Understanding how different age groups
of students experience anxiety is essential for addressing mental health concerns in this population.
The study categorizes the Criminology students into three distinct age groups: 17-18 years old, 19-20
years old, and above 20 years old. The table provides information on the number of participants in each
group, with 61 students in the 17-18 age group, 145 in the 19-20 age group, and 29 in the above 20 age
group. These sample sizes offer insight into the representation of each age group in the study.
The table presents the mean anxiety scores for each age group. The mean serves as a measure of central
tendency, indicating the average level of anxiety within each group. According to the table, students aged
17-18 years old have a mean anxiety score of 1.43, students aged 19-20 years old have a mean score of
1.28, and those above 20 years old have a mean score of 1.51. These scores allow for an initial comparison
of anxiety levels across age groups.
In addition to the mean scores, the table includes the standard deviation (SD) for each age group. The
standard deviation measures the spread or variability of individual anxiety scores within each age group.
For students aged 17-18 years old, the standard deviation is 0.54, for those aged 19-20 years old, it is 0.55,
and for those above 20 years old, it is 0.62. These values indicate the degree to which individual responses
deviate from the group's average anxiety score.
The table provides an F-statistic and a p-value, which are crucial for determining the statistical significance
of differences in mean anxiety scores between age groups. The F-value is 1.041, and the p-value is 0.415.
These statistics suggest that there is no statistically significant difference in the level of anxiety between
students in different age groups of Criminology students based on the data presented in the table.
In conclusion, Table 10 offers valuable insights into the level of anxiety among Criminology students
when categorized by their age two years after the COVID-19 pandemic. The data suggests that there is no
statistically significant difference in the average level of anxiety between students aged 17-18 years old,
19-20 years old, and those above 20 years old in this context. However, as in all scholarly research, it's
essential to consider that this analysis is based solely on the information presented in the table, and a
comprehensive understanding of the study's methodology would be necessary for a more thorough
interpretation of the findings.
Table 11 shows the significant difference in the level of anxiety of the criminology students, two years
after the COVID-19 pandemic when they are grouped according to their sex.
Table 11. Significant Difference in Level of Anxiety of Criminology Students Two Years after the
COVID-19 Pandemic when they are Grouped according to Sex
Sex N M SD Df F p-value
Male 110 1.24 0.55 234 1.686 0.040
Female 125 1.43 0.55
Table 11 focuses on the level of anxiety among Criminology students, specifically examining how gender
(male and female) relates to their anxiety levels two years after the COVID-19 pandemic. Understanding
potential gender-based differences in anxiety is a crucial aspect of mental health research.
The study divides the Criminology students into two distinct gender groups: Male and Female. The table
provides information on the number of participants in each group, with 110 male students and 125 female
students. These sample sizes offer insight into the representation of each gender in the study.

IJFMR240322015 Volume 6, Issue 3, May-June 2024 19

 International Journal for Multidisciplinary Research (IJFMR)
E-ISSN: 2582-2160 ● Website: [Link] ● Email: editor@[Link]

The table presents the mean anxiety scores for each gender group. The mean serves as a measure of central
tendency, indicating the average level of anxiety within each group. According to the table, male students
have a mean anxiety score of 1.24, while female students have a mean score of 1.43. These scores allow
for a comparison of anxiety levels between male and female students.
In addition to the mean scores, the table includes the standard deviation (SD) for each gender group. The
standard deviation measures the spread or variability of individual anxiety scores within each gender
category. For male students, the standard deviation is 0.55, and for female students, it is also 0.55. These
values indicate the degree to which individual responses deviate from the group's average anxiety score.
The table provides an F-statistic and a p-value, which are critical for determining the statistical significance
of differences in mean anxiety scores between genders. The F-value is 1.686, and the p-value is 0.040.
These statistics suggest that there is a statistically significant difference in the level of anxiety between
male and female Criminology students based on the data presented in the table. The p-value, in particular,
is below the typical significance threshold of 0.05.
In conclusion, Table 11 provides valuable insights into the level of anxiety among Criminology students
when categorized by gender two years after the COVID-19 pandemic. The data suggests that there is a
statistically significant difference in the average level of anxiety between male and female students in this
context, with female students reporting higher levels of anxiety. However, as with all scholarly research,
it is important to consider that this analysis is based solely on the information presented in the table, and
a comprehensive understanding of the study's methodology would be necessary for a more thorough
interpretation of the findings. Additionally, further research and analysis may be needed to explore the
factors contributing to these gender-based differences in anxiety.

Table 12 shows the significant difference in the level of anxiety of the criminology students, two years
after the COVID-19 pandemic when they are grouped according to their year level.
Table 12. Significant Difference in Level of Anxiety of Criminology Students, Two Years after the
COVID-19 Pandemic when they are Grouped according to Year Level
Year Level N M SD df F p-value
First Year 93 1.37 0.52 234 0.542 0.946
Second Year 80 1.35 0.58
Third Year 62 1.29 0.59
Table 12 focuses on the level of anxiety among Criminology students and examines how their year level
in the program relates to their anxiety levels two years after the COVID-19 pandemic. This analysis aims
to understand whether students at different stages of their academic journey experience varying levels of
anxiety.
The study categorizes the Criminology students into three distinct year levels: First Year, Second Year,
and Third Year. The table provides information on the number of participants in each group, with 93
students in the First Year, 80 in the Second Year, and 62 in the Third Year. These sample sizes offer
insight into the representation of each year level in the study.
The table presents the mean anxiety scores for each year level. The mean serves as a measure of central
tendency, indicating the average level of anxiety within each group. According to the table, First Year
students have a mean anxiety score of 1.37, Second Year students have a mean score of 1.35, and Third
Year students have a mean score of 1.29. These scores allow for a comparison of anxiety levels across
year levels.

IJFMR240322015 Volume 6, Issue 3, May-June 2024 20

 International Journal for Multidisciplinary Research (IJFMR)
E-ISSN: 2582-2160 ● Website: [Link] ● Email: editor@[Link]

In addition to the mean scores, the table includes the standard deviation (SD) for each year level. The
standard deviation measures the spread or variability of individual anxiety scores within each year group.
For First Year students, the standard deviation is 0.52, for Second Year students, it is 0.58, and for Third
Year students, it is 0.59. These values indicate the degree to which individual responses deviate from the
group's average anxiety score.
The table provides an F-statistic and a p-value, which are essential for determining the statistical
significance of differences in mean anxiety scores between year levels. The F-value is 1.206, and the p-
value is 0.254. These statistics suggest that there is no statistically significant difference in the level of
anxiety between students in different year levels of the Criminology program based on the data presented
in the table. The p-value, in particular, is above the typical significance threshold of 0.05.
In conclusion, Table 12 provides valuable insights into the level of anxiety among Criminology students
when categorized by their year level in the program two years after the COVID-19 pandemic. The data
suggests that there is no statistically significant difference in the average level of anxiety between First
Year, Second Year, and Third Year students in this context. However, as with all scholarly research, it is
important to consider that this analysis is based solely on the information presented in the table, and a
comprehensive understanding of the study's methodology would be necessary for a more thorough
interpretation of the findings. Additionally, further research and analysis may be needed to explore other
potential factors influencing anxiety levels among Criminology students.

Part 5 Test of Difference in the Level of Stress of the Criminology Students, Two Years After the
COVID-19 Pandemic when they are Grouped according to their Demographic Profiles.
Table 13 shows the significant difference in the level of stress of the criminology students, two years
after the COVID-19 pandemic when they are grouped according to their age.
Table 13. Significant Difference in the Level of Stress of Criminology Students,Two Years After The
COVID-19 Pandemic when they are Grouped according to Age
Year Level N M SD df F p-value
17-18 years old 61 1.45 0.48 234 1.056 0.399
19-20 years old 145 1.40 0.51
Above 20 years old 29 1.56 0.56
Table 13 focuses on the level of stress among Criminology students and examines how their age relates to
their stress levels two years after the COVID-19 pandemic. This analysis aims to understand whether
students of different age groups experience varying levels of stress in the aftermath of the pandemic.
The study categorizes Criminology students into three distinct age groups: 17-18 years old, 19-20 years
old, and above 20 years old. The table provides information on the number of participants in each group,
with 61 students in the 17-18 age group, 145 in the 19-20 age group, and 29 in the above 20 age group.
These sample sizes offer insight into the representation of each age group in the study.
The table presents the mean stress scores for each age group. The mean serves as a measure of central
tendency, indicating the average level of stress within each group. According to the table, students aged
17-18 years old have a mean stress score of 1.45, students aged 19-20 years old have a mean score of 1.40,
and those above 20 years old have a mean score of 1.56. These scores allow for a comparison of stress
levels across age groups.
In addition to the mean scores, the table includes the standard deviation (SD) for each age group. The
standard deviation measures the spread or variability of individual stress scores within each age group.

IJFMR240322015 Volume 6, Issue 3, May-June 2024 21

 International Journal for Multidisciplinary Research (IJFMR)
E-ISSN: 2582-2160 ● Website: [Link] ● Email: editor@[Link]

For students aged 17-18 years old, the standard deviation is 0.48, for those aged 19-20 years old, it is 0.51,
and for those above 20 years old, it is 0.56. These values indicate the degree to which individual responses
deviate from the group's average stress score.
The table provides an F-statistic and a p-value, which are essential for determining the statistical
significance of differences in mean stress scores between age groups. The F-value is 1.056, and the p-
value is 0.399. These statistics suggest that there is no statistically significant difference in the level of
stress between students in different age groups of Criminology students based on the data presented in the
table. The p-value, in particular, is above the typical significance threshold of 0.05.
In conclusion, Table 13 provides valuable insights into the level of stress among Criminology students
when categorized by their age two years after the COVID-19 pandemic. The data suggests that there is no
statistically significant difference in the average level of stress between students aged 17-18 years old, 19-
20 years old, and those above 20 years old in this context. However, as with all scholarly research, it is
important to consider that this analysis is based solely on the information presented in the table, and a
comprehensive understanding of the study's methodology would be necessary for a more thorough
interpretation of the findings. Additionally, further research and analysis may be needed to explore other
potential factors influencing stress levels among Criminology students.

Table 14 shows the significant difference in the level of stress of the criminology students, two years
after the COVID-19 pandemic when they are grouped according to their sex.
Table 14. Significant Difference in Level of Stress of Criminology Students, Two Years after the
COVID-19 Pandemic when they are Grouped according to Sex
Sex N M SD df F p-value
Male 110 1.38 0.53 234 0.745 0.762
Female 125 1.47 0.49
Table 14 focuses on the level of stress among Criminology students, specifically examining how gender
(Male and Female) relates to their stress levels two years after the COVID-19 pandemic. This analysis
aims to understand potential gender-based differences in stress within this student population.
The study categorizes Criminology students into two distinct gender groups: Male and Female. The table
provides information on the number of participants in each group, with 110 male students and 125 female
students. These sample sizes offer insight into the representation of each gender in the study.
The table presents the mean stress scores for each gender group. The mean serves as a measure of central
tendency, indicating the average level of stress within each group. According to the table, male students
have a mean stress score of 1.38, while female students have a mean score of 1.47. These scores allow for
a comparison of stress levels between male and female students.
In addition to the mean scores, the table includes the standard deviation (SD) for each gender group. The
standard deviation measures the spread or variability of individual stress scores within each gender
category. For male students, the standard deviation is 0.53, and for female students, it is 0.49. These values
indicate the degree to which individual responses deviate from the group's average stress score.
The table provides an F-statistic and a p-value, which are essential for determining the statistical
significance of differences in mean stress scores between genders. The F-value is 0.745, and the p-value
is 0.762. These statistics suggest that there is no statistically significant difference in the level of stress
between male and female Criminology students based on the data presented in the table. The p-value, in
particular, is above the typical significance threshold of 0.05.

IJFMR240322015 Volume 6, Issue 3, May-June 2024 22

 International Journal for Multidisciplinary Research (IJFMR)
E-ISSN: 2582-2160 ● Website: [Link] ● Email: editor@[Link]

In conclusion, Table 14 provides valuable insights into the level of stress among Criminology students
when categorized by their gender two years after the COVID-19 pandemic. The data suggests that there
is no statistically significant difference in the average level of stress between male and female students in
this context. However, as with all scholarly research, it is important to consider that this analysis is based
solely on the information presented in the table, and a comprehensive understanding of the study's
methodology would be necessary for a more thorough interpretation of the findings. Additionally, further
research and analysis may be needed to explore other potential factors influencing stress levels among
Criminology students.

Table 15 shows the significant difference in the level of stress of the criminology students, two years
after the COVID-19 pandemic when they are grouped according to their year level.
Table 15. Significant Difference in Level of Stress of Criminology Students, Two Years after the
COVID-19 Pandemic when they are Grouped to Year Level
Year Level N M SD df F p-value
First Year 93 1.40 0.48 234 1.145 0.310
Second Year 80 1.49 0.55
Third Year 62 1.40 0.50
Table 15 focuses on the level of stress among Criminology students and examines how their year level in
the program relates to their stress levels two years after the COVID-19 pandemic. This analysis aims to
understand whether students at different stages of their academic journey experience varying levels of
stress.
The study categorizes Criminology students into three distinct year levels: First Year, Second Year, and
Third Year. The table provides information on the number of participants in each group, with 93 students
in the First Year, 80 in the Second Year, and 62 in the Third Year. These sample sizes offer insight into
the representation of each year level in the study.
The table presents the mean stress scores for each year level. The mean serves as a measure of central
tendency, indicating the average level of stress within each group. According to the table, both First Year
and Third Year students have a mean stress score of 1.40, while Second Year students have a slightly
higher mean score of 1.49. These scores allow for a comparison of stress levels across year levels.
In addition to the mean scores, the table includes the standard deviation (SD) for each year level. The
standard deviation measures the spread or variability of individual stress scores within each year group.
For First Year students, the standard deviation is 0.48, for Second Year students, it is 0.55, and for Third
Year students, it is 0.50. These values indicate the degree to which individual responses deviate from the
group's average stress score.
The table provides an F-statistic and a p-value, which are essential for determining the statistical
significance of differences in mean stress scores between year levels. The F-value is 1.145, and the p-
value is 0.310. These statistics suggest that there is no statistically significant difference in the level of
stress between students in different year levels of the Criminology program based on the data presented
in the table. The p-value, in particular, is above the typical significance threshold of 0.05.
In conclusion, Table 15 provides valuable insights into the level of stress among Criminology students
when categorized by their year level in the program two years after the COVID-19 pandemic. The data
suggests that there is no statistically significant difference in the average level of stress between First Year,
Second Year, and Third Year students in this context. However, as with all scholarly research, it's

IJFMR240322015 Volume 6, Issue 3, May-June 2024 23

 International Journal for Multidisciplinary Research (IJFMR)
E-ISSN: 2582-2160 ● Website: [Link] ● Email: editor@[Link]

important to consider that this analysis is based solely on the information presented in the table, and a
comprehensive understanding of the study's methodology would be necessary for a more thorough
interpretation of the findings. Additionally, further research and analysis may be needed to explore other
potential factors influencing stress levels among Criminology students.

Part 6. Proposed Mental Health Program

While it is true that the university has an on-campus guidance counselor, it should be considered that ISU
Cauayan Campus has a sizeable student population, hence not all may consider availing themselves of the
services of the Guidance Office for their mental health issues.
This has prompted the researcher to develop a mental health program that will help the students with their
mental health issues. This program is specifically designed in consideration of the findings of the study,
which were gleaned from the students themselves.
In light of the findings above, the researcher proposed: a mental health program that targets the
criminology students of the College of Criminal Justice Education at the Isabela State University-Cauayan
[Link] program is named Project AEGIS (Advocating Empathic Guidance for ISU Students) and
the details are as follows:

PROJECT AEGIS
(Advocating Empathic Guidance for ISU Students)
A Proposed Mental Health Program for Criminology Students at Isabela State University Cauayan
Campus Rationale
The pandemic has brought about irreversible changes to the academy, and this has prompted stakeholders
to adjust accordingly in the name of resilience and progress. This has not been easy for many students, as
the sudden transitions in their personal and academic lives have caused upheavals not only physiologically
but mentally as well.
Given that the university is also accountable for the wellbeing of its students, the current study was
conducted to shed light on the mental health status of said students. Results have suggested that many of
them suffered from certain mental health issues such as stress, depression, and anxiety due to their
experiences during the pandemic. Now that they are back for face-to-face classes at the university, the
institution has the responsibility to support them in regaining their emotional stability and assist them in
developing mental resilience in light of the adjustments they have to make in the new normal.

Goals
Project AEGIS aims to accomplish the following outcomes:
1. Train college heads and instructors in the basics of providing mental health support for students;
2. Create a direct line of communication from the college to the university’s guidance counselor with the
assistance of the college heads and instructors;
3. Establish a viable support group within the college through teacher-to-student and peer-to-peer
relationships; and
4. Provide pertinent activities to help students develop resiliency and healthy coping mechanisms for
mental health issues.

IJFMR240322015 Volume 6, Issue 3, May-June 2024 24

 International Journal for Multidisciplinary Research (IJFMR)
E-ISSN: 2582-2160 ● Website: [Link] ● Email: editor@[Link]

Stakeholders
The following individuals are considered key collaborators who will contribute to the success of this
training program:
1. Executive Officer
The Executive Officer plays a significant role in the implementation of the program as she will approve
of its implementation, provide support for the stakeholders of the program, and supervise the provision of
necessary resources to ensure that the program outcomes will be achieved accordingly.
2. Guidance Counselor
As the primary resource person in charge of the overall wellbeing of students at the university, the
Guidance Counselor will serve as the main consultant for the implementation of the program and its
components.
3. College Heads (Dean and Program Chair)
The Dean and the Program Chair serve as the direct supervisors of the program. Specifically, they are the
primary support of the faculty members and are key in informing students about the benefits of said
program. In addition, they also take on the role of consultants, who provide suggestions and advice in the
event of challenges during the program's implementation.
4. Teachers
The instructors are the ground-level implementers of the program, as they are the most involved with the
students. They are in charge of providing coaching and support for students in the program. The following
are the suggested qualifications for teachers who will be involved herein:
4.1 Bona fide teachers of the College of Criminal Justice Education in Isabela State University Cauayan
Campus
4.2 Has undergone the basic training for coaching and providing mental health support to students

5. Students
The students are the target clientele of the program. Their responsibilities include willing attendance at
the program’s sessions, cooperation with the instructors and peers in coaching and support group activities,
and undergoing assessment to determine their mental health status.

Program Components
1. Training for College Heads and Teachers
To be headed by the university’s Guidance Counselor and GAD Officer, this will focus on training
college heads and teachers on a solution-based, student-centered, and collaborative approach to advocating
mental health among the student clientele of the program. Possible topics for training might include:
1.1 Recognizing symptoms of mental health issues among students for intervention purposes;
1.2 Correct procedure for providing support to said students;
1.3 Virtual, face-to-face support systems for students with mental health issues;
1.4 Tips for supporting students in their academic, wellness and psychosocial goals
1.5 Training students to develop resilience and healthy coping mechanisms for dealing with mental health
issues
2. Standardized procedure for mental health services in the college
This may be developed during the training for the College Heads and Teachers. It involves the
identification of stakeholders who the students can contact and the process for availing mental health

IJFMR240322015 Volume 6, Issue 3, May-June 2024 25

 International Journal for Multidisciplinary Research (IJFMR)
E-ISSN: 2582-2160 ● Website: [Link] ● Email: editor@[Link]

services within the college and in the Guidance Counselor’s office.

3. Establishment of Teacher-to-Student Coaching and Peer Support Groups
This pertains to the identification of teachers as mental health coaches for students and student
organization officers as leaders for peer support groups in the college. They will be key figures for
information and resources about mental health services at the college.
4. Other pertinent activities
This may include any of the following:
4.1 Information drives and campaigns for mental health awareness;
4.2 Seminars and Workshops for mindfulness, coping mechanisms and resiliency training;
4.3 Socialization activities (Art projects; Team-building; Games and sports events; Open Forum, etc.)

DISCUSSION
This study aimed is to assess the mental health status of the criminology students, two years after the
COVID-19 pandemic at a state university in Isabela.
Demographic Profile of the Criminology Students
In terms of age, majority of the criminology students, 145, or 61.70 percent, belong to the age range 19–
20 years old; 61, or 25.96 percent, belong to the age range 18–18 years old; and 29, or 12.34 percent,
belong to the age range 21 years old and above. In terms of sex, majority of the criminology students, 125,
or 53.19 percent, are female, and 110, or 46.61 percent, are male. As to year level, a great number of
criminology students are in the first year level: 93, or 39.57 percent; 80, or 34.04 percent, are in the second
year level; and 62, or 26.39 percent, are in the third year level.
Mental Health Status of the Criminology Students, two years after the COVID-19 Pandemic In
terms of Level of Depression
The criminology students’ level of depression was measured using seven indicators, and the mean scores
for each indicator are provided. The mean scores for all seven indicators fall within the "Normal" range,
with values ranging from 1.05 to 1.49. The overall mean total score for all indicators is 1.29, which also
falls within the "Normal" range. Hence, it can be concluded that the criminology students, on average, did
not exhibit significant depressive symptoms, two years after the COVID-19 pandemic. The scores for each
indicator suggest that the participants generally experienced normal feelings, had the initiative to engage
in activities, had things to look forward to, did not feel downhearted, unenthusiastic, or worthless, and did
not perceive life as meaningless.
These findings suggest that at the time of the assessment, the participants did not show signs of clinical
depression. However, it's important to note that depression is a complex mental health condition that can
vary among individuals. These results provide an understanding of the average level of depression among
criminology students but should not be generalized to the entire population.
Further analysis and interpretation should consider other factors such as the sample size, demographic
characteristics, and the context in which the assessment was conducted. Additionally, if the goal is to
identify and address mental health concerns, it would be beneficial to explore additional measures and
consult with mental health professionals for a comprehensive assessment.
The findings of this study corroborate the study by Beloe and Derakshan (2020) who stressed that
adolescents can be at heightened risk for depression, with accumulating research reporting on associations
between depression and cognitive impairments. Several studies now point to the promise of adaptive
working memory training to increase attentional control in depressed participants and reduce depression

IJFMR240322015 Volume 6, Issue 3, May-June 2024 26

 International Journal for Multidisciplinary Research (IJFMR)
E-ISSN: 2582-2160 ● Website: [Link] ● Email: editor@[Link]

symptoms, but this has not been explored in a non-clinical adolescent population. Their findings constitute
proof of principle evidence that working memory training may help reduce depression vulnerability in a
non-clinical adolescent population. One implication is that working memory and attentional control should
be given attention.

In terms of Level of Anxiety

The criminology students’ level of anxiety was assessed using seven indicators, and the mean scores for
each indicator are given.
The mean scores for all seven indicators fall within the "Normal" range, with values ranging from 1.11 to
1.70. The overall mean total score for all indicators is 1.35, which also falls within the "Normal" range.
Based on these results, it can be concluded that the criminology students, on average, did not exhibit
significant anxiety symptoms, two years after the COVID-19 pandemic. The scores for each indicator
suggest that the criminology students generally did not experience severe physiological symptoms of
anxiety such as dry mouth, breathing difficulties, trembling, or heightened awareness of heart action. They
also did not report excessive worry about situations leading to embarrassment or panic, nor did they feel
scared without a valid reason.
These findings indicate that at the time of the assessment, the criminology students did not demonstrate
high levels of anxiety. However, it is important to note that anxiety is a complex psychological condition
that can vary among individuals. These results provide an understanding of the average level of anxiety
among criminology students but should not be generalized to the entire population.
Additional factors, such as sample size, demographics, and the context in which the assessment was
conducted, should be considered for a comprehensive analysis. If the goal is to address and manage anxiety
concerns, it is recommended to employ additional assessment measures and consult with mental health
professionals for a thorough evaluation.
It is worth noting that while the criminology students' average scores indicate normal levels of anxiety,
individual variations, and personal experiences should not be overlooked. It is essential to approach mental
health assessments holistically and consider a person's subjective experiences and overall well-being.
The findings of this study corroborate the study by Sapra et al. (2020) that anxiety disorders are a prevalent
entity in the primary care setting, accounting for a significant decrease in quality of life as well as loss in
productivity. One implication is that this leads to a constant need for tools that facilitate early recognition
and diagnosis of mental health disorders, while also providing judicious utilization of clinical time.

In terms Level of Stress

The criminology students’ level of stress was assessed using seven indicators, and the mean scores for
each indicator are given.
The mean scores for all seven indicators fall within the "Normal" range, with values ranging from 1.16 to
1.65. The overall mean total score for all indicators is 1.43, which also falls within the "Normal" range.
Based on these results, it can be concluded that the criminology students, on average, did not exhibit
significant stress symptoms, two years after the COVID-19 pandemic. The scores for each indicator
suggest that the criminology students generally did not have difficulty winding down, did not tend to
overreact to situations, did not feel excessive nervous energy, and were not frequently agitated or unable
to relax. Additionally, they did not report intolerance towards interruptions or a generally touchy
disposition.

IJFMR240322015 Volume 6, Issue 3, May-June 2024 27

 International Journal for Multidisciplinary Research (IJFMR)
E-ISSN: 2582-2160 ● Website: [Link] ● Email: editor@[Link]

These findings indicate that at the time of the assessment, the criminology students did not demonstrate
high levels of stress. However, it is important to note that stress is a complex psychological and
physiological response that can vary among individuals. These results provide an understanding of the
average level of stress among the criminology students but should not be generalized to the entire
population.
Additional factors, such as sample size, demographics, and the context in which the assessment was
conducted, should be considered for a comprehensive analysis. If the goal is to address and manage stress-
related concerns, it is recommended to employ additional assessment measures and consult with mental
health professionals for a thorough evaluation.
It is worth noting that while the criminology students' average scores indicate normal levels of stress,
individual variations, and personal experiences should not be overlooked. It is essential to approach stress
management holistically and consider a person's subjective experiences, coping mechanisms, and overall
well-being.
The findings of this study corroborate the study by Castillo (2020) that stress levels increase according to
age and the responsibilities associated with it. These levels increase in an initial moment, showing a
decrease as the days in confinement increase. There is a confirmed relation between stress and anxiety and
between these variables and the days in confinement. The adherence to healthy habits decreases as the
days in confinement increase. In this sense, it can be seen that the higher the age range the more adherence
to healthy habits (Castillo, 2020). One implication is that greater psychological attention should be
mitigated, potentially through the involvement of psychologists, raised awareness, and better education.
The current knowledge of therapeutic interventions suggests that they could be beneficial but more long-
term follow-up is needed (Cabarkapa et al., 2020).

Test of Difference in the level of Depression of the Criminology Students, Two Years After the
COVID-19 Pandemic When Grouped According to their Demographic Profile
Based on the ANOVA results, none of the factors (age, sex, and year level) have a significant effect on
the mean scores. The observed variation in scores is more likely due to random chance or other
unconsidered factors. It is important to note that these results are specific to the analyzed dataset and
sample, and further studies with larger samples or different populations may yield different outcomes. The
implications of the ANOVA results are as follows:
Age: The lack of significant differences in mean scores across different age groups suggests that age does
not play a substantial role in influencing the observed scores. Therefore, when making decisions or
conducting further research related to the measured outcome, age may not be a critical factor to consider.
Other variables or factors should be explored to better understand the drivers of the scores.
Sex: The absence of significant differences in mean scores between sexes implies that gender does not
have a significant impact on the measured outcome. When analyzing or interpreting the scores, it may be
more appropriate to focus on other variables or factors that could potentially explain the observed
variations.
Year Level: The lack of significant differences in mean scores across different year levels indicates that
the academic level or progress of the individuals does not contribute significantly to the observed scores.
When designing interventions or educational programs, it may be necessary to look beyond the year level
and consider other aspects that might have a greater influence on the outcome.

IJFMR240322015 Volume 6, Issue 3, May-June 2024 28

 International Journal for Multidisciplinary Research (IJFMR)
E-ISSN: 2582-2160 ● Website: [Link] ● Email: editor@[Link]

Overall, these results highlight the importance of considering alternative factors or variables that may have
a more substantial impact on the measured scores. Researchers and decision-makers should explore
additional variables, such as socioeconomic status, educational background, or specific interventions, to
gain a deeper understanding of the factors driving the observed outcomes. It is crucial to recognize that
these implications are specific to the analyzed dataset and sample, and caution should be exercised when
generalizing them to different populations or contexts.
The findings of this study corroborate the study by Brody et al. (2018) that major depression is a common
and treatable mental disorder characterized by changes in mood, and cognitive and physical symptoms
over a 2-week period. It is associated with high societal costs and greater functional impairment than many
other chronic diseases, including diabetes and arthritis. Depression rates differ by age, sex, income, and
health behaviors.

Test of Difference in the level of Anxiety of the Criminology Students, Two Years After the COVID-
19 Pandemic When Grouped According to their Demographic Profile
In conclusion, the updated ANOVA results confirm that age and year level do not have a significant impact
on the mean scores. However, there is a significant difference in mean scores between different sexes.
This indicates that gender may be a relevant factor influencing the observed scores. Further analysis, such
as post hoc tests, can help identify the specific group differences and explore the underlying reasons for
these disparities. It is important to note that these implications are specific to the analyzed dataset and
sample, and caution should be exercised when generalizing them to different populations or contexts. The
implications of the updated ANOVA results are as follows:
Age: The analysis confirms that age does not have a significant effect on the mean scores. Therefore, when
making decisions or conducting further research related to the measured outcome, age may not be a critical
factor to consider. Other variables or factors should be explored to better understand the drivers of the
scores and their implications.
Sex: The finding of a significant difference in mean scores between different sexes indicates that gender
plays a role in influencing the observed scores. This suggests that gender-related factors may contribute
to variations in the outcome measure. It is important to further investigate and understand the specific
group differences to gain insights into the potential implications of gender on the measured outcome.
Year Level: The analysis confirms that year level does not have a significant impact on the mean scores.
Therefore, when designing interventions or educational programs, it may be necessary to look beyond the
year level and consider other aspects that might have a greater influence on the outcome. Exploring
additional factors such as teaching methods, curriculum design, or student engagement could provide
insights for improving the outcome measure.
Overall, these results highlight the importance of considering gender-related factors in understanding the
variations in the measured outcome. Further investigation into the specific group differences between
sexes is warranted to identify potential underlying causes and implications. Additionally, researchers and
decision-makers should explore other variables or factors that might have a more substantial impact on
the outcome measure. It is crucial to recognize that these implications are specific to the analyzed dataset
and sample, and caution should be exercised when generalizing them to different populations or contexts.
The findings of this study corroborate the study by Solomou and Constantinidou (2020) that there were
sex differences in the symptom distribution, with women reporting significantly higher levels of anxiety
and depression than men. This finding can be supported by many epidemiological studies, reporting that

IJFMR240322015 Volume 6, Issue 3, May-June 2024 29

 International Journal for Multidisciplinary Research (IJFMR)
E-ISSN: 2582-2160 ● Website: [Link] ● Email: editor@[Link]

women are at a higher risk for developing anxiety and depression. Therefore, sex patterns in the
distribution of symptoms were maintained during the pandemic.

Test of Difference in the level of Stress of the Criminology Students, Two Years After the COVID-
19 Pandemic When Grouped According to their Demographic Profile
Overall, the updated ANOVA results reinforce the initial findings that age, sex, and year level do not have
a significant impact on the mean scores. These factors do not explain the observed variations in the
outcome measure. It is important to explore and consider other variables or factors that might have a
stronger influence. Researchers and decision-makers should look beyond these variables to better
understand the factors driving the observed scores. However, it is crucial to note that these implications
are specific to the analyzed dataset and sample, and caution should be exercised when generalizing them
to different populations or contexts. Further studies with larger samples or different populations are
warranted to validate these findings.
The updated analysis reaffirms the initial findings that age, sex, and year level do not significantly affect
the mean scores. However, it is important to acknowledge the potential influence of other variables or
factors that might have a stronger impact on the measured outcome. The lack of significant differences in
mean scores across these factors suggests that the observed variations could be attributed to unconsidered
variables or random chance. Therefore, researchers and decision-makers should explore alternative
variables or factors that could potentially have a more substantial influence on the scores. It is crucial to
note that these implications are specific to the analyzed dataset and sample, and caution should be
exercised when generalizing them to different populations or contexts. Conducting further studies with
larger samples or different populations may lead to different outcomes and provide a more comprehensive
understanding of the subject matter.
The findings of this study corroborate the study by Beiter et al. (2015) that demographically, the most
stressed, anxious, and depressed students were transfers, upperclassmen, and those living off-campus.
With the propensity for mental health issues to hinder the success of college students, it is vital that
colleges continually evaluate the mental health of their students and tailor treatment programs to
specifically target their needs.

Conclusions
In light of the findings of the study, the researcher concluded the following:
1. Majority of the criminology students belong to age range 19-20 years old, female and in the first year
level.
2. The criminology students have normal level of mental health status in terms of depression, anxiety
and stress, two years after the COVID-19 pandemic.
3. There is no significant difference in the level of depression among criminology students, two years
after the COVID-19 pandemic when they are grouped according to their demographic profiles.
4. There is no significant difference in the level of anxiety among criminology students, two years after
the COVID-19 pandemic when they are grouped according to their demographic profiles.
5. There is no significant difference in the level of stress among criminology students, two years after
the COVID-19 pandemic when they are grouped according to their demographic profiles.
6. A Mental Health Program is proposed by the researcher to improve the mental health status of the
criminology students at the state university in Isabela.

IJFMR240322015 Volume 6, Issue 3, May-June 2024 30

 International Journal for Multidisciplinary Research (IJFMR)
E-ISSN: 2582-2160 ● Website: [Link] ● Email: editor@[Link]

Recommendations
In the light of the findings and conclusions of the study, the following recommendations are offered:
1. The School Administration is encouraged to consider adopting the proposed mental health program
for the use of criminology students at the Isabela State University Cauayan Campus, as data indicates
the need for a ground-level intervention for students with mental health issues.
2. College Deans and Program Coordinators in other colleges of the state university may consider
conducting the same investigation into students' mental health status, as this will provide a more
contextualized approach to program design and implementation.
3. Future researcher may conduct similar studies in the future using a mixed-method design, as this will
allow for a more in-depth investigation not only of the students' mental health status, but also of their
attitudes, needs, and preferences for mental health services at the university, as well as the inclusion
of other demographic variables so as to determine additional significant factors contributing to
students’ mental health.

REFERENCES
1. Afek, A., Ben-Avraham, R., Davidov, A., Berezin Cohen, N., Ben Yehuda, A., Gilboa, Y., &
Nahum, M. (2021). Psychological Resilience, Mental Health, And Inhibitory Control Among Youth
And Young Adults Under
Stress. FrontiersinPsychiatry,11. [Link]

2. Alejandria, M. C.,Casimiro, K. M.,Gibe, J. A.,Fernandez, N. S., Tumaneng, D. C.,

Sandoval, E. C., Hernandez, P. J., Quan-Nalus, M. A., Alipao, F. A., & Alejandria, M. A.
(2022). Attaining Well-Being Beyond The Home: A Socio-Cultural Framing Of Mental
Health Among University
StudentsInThePhilippines. HealthEducationJournal,001789692211415. htt
ps://[Link]/10.1177/0017896922 1141547
3. Alibudbud, R. (2022). Gender In Mental Health: Comparison Of The Rate And Social Factors
Of Depression, Anxiety, And Stress Among Young Adult Filipino Heterosexual Cisgender Men
And Women And LGBT+
Individuals. InternationalJournalofSocialPsychiatry,002076402211068. htt
ps://[Link]/10.1177/00207640221106874
4. Alibudbud, R. (2021). On Online Learning And Mental Health During The COVID- 19 Pandemic:
Perspectives From The Philippines. Asian Journal of Psychiatry, 66,
102867. [Link]
5. Anderson, G. (2020). Students In Great Need Of Mental Health Support During Pandemic.
Inside Higher Ed | Higher Education News, Career Advice,
Jobs. [Link] need-mental-health-
support-during-pandemic
6. Argao, R. C., Reyes, M. S., & Delariarte, C. F. (2021). Mental Health Literacy And Mental Health
Of Filipino College Students. North American Journal of Psychology, 23(3), 437-452.
7. Asif, S., Muddassar, A., Shahzad, T. Z., Raouf, M., & Pervaiz, T. (2020). Frequency Of
Depression, Anxiety And Stress Among University
Students. PakistanJournalofMedicalSciences, 36(5). [Link] 69/pjms.36.5.1873

IJFMR240322015 Volume 6, Issue 3, May-June 2024 31

 International Journal for Multidisciplinary Research (IJFMR)
E-ISSN: 2582-2160 ● Website: [Link] ● Email: editor@[Link]

8. Barker, R., Hartwell, G., Bonell, C., Egan, M., Lock, K., & Viner, R. M. (2021). Research
Priorities For Mental Health In Schools In The Wake Of COVID- 19. Journal of
EpidemiologyandCommunity Health, 76(5), 448- 450. [Link]
217902
9. Beiter, R., Nash, R., McCrady, M., Rhoades, D., Linscomb, M., Clarahan, M., &
Sammut, S. (2015). The Prevalence And Correlates Of Depression, Anxiety, And Stress In
A Sample Of College Students. Journal of Affective Disorders, 173, 90-96..
10. Beloe, P., & Derakshan, N. (2020). Adaptive Working Memory Training Can
Reduce Anxiety And Depression Vulnerability In Adolescents.
Developmental Science, 23(4), e12831.

11. Brody, D. J., Pratt, L. A., & Hughes, J. P. (2018). Prevalence Of Depression Among
Adults Aged 20 And Over: United States, 2013-2016

12. Butler, N., Quigg, Z., Bates, R., Jones, L., Ashworth, E., Gowland, S., & Jones, M. (2022). The
Contributing Role of Family, School, and Peer Supportive Relationships in Protecting the
Mental Wellbeing of Children and
Adolescents. SchoolMentalHealth, 14(3),776788. [Link] 12310-022-09502-9
13. Byrd, C. (2022, March 10). Stemming The Next Public Health Crisis — This Time,
[Link]. [Link]
u/news/stemming-next-public-health-crisis-time-mental-health
14. Cabarkapa, S., Nadjidai, S. E., Murgier, J., & Ng, C. H. (2020). The Psychological Impact
Of COVID-19 And Other Viral Epidemics On Frontline Healthcare Workers And Ways To
AddressIt: A Rapid Systematic Review. Brain, Behavior, & Immunity- health, 8, 100144.

15. Castillo, C. C. (2020). Analysis of the Stress, Anxiety, and Healthy Habits in the Spanish
Covid-19 Confinement. Health Science Journal, 14(2), 707.

16. Cavioni, V., Grazzani, I., & Ornaghi, V. (2020). Mental Health Promotion in Schools: A
Comprehensive Theoretical Framework. International Journal of Emotional Education, 12(1),
65-82. [Link]
17. CDC. (2021). About Mental Health. Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention. [Link]
18. Cefai, C., Camilleri, L., Bartolo, P., Grazzani, I., Cavioni, V., Conte, E., Ornaghi, V.,
Agliati, A., Gandellini, S., Tatalovic Vorkapic, S., Poulou, M., Martinsone, B., Stokenberga, I.,
Simões, C., Santos, M., & Colomeischi, A. A. (2022). The Effectiveness of a School-Based,
Universal MentalHealthProgrammeinSixEuropeancountries. FrontiersinPsychology,
13. [Link]
19. Cefai, C., Arlove, A., Duca, M., Galea, N., Muscat, M., & Cavioni, V. (2018). RESCUR Surfing the
Waves: An Evaluation of a Resilience Programme in the Early Years. Pastoral Care in Education,
36(3), 189-204. [Link]
20. Chen, J., Zhang, S. X., Wang, Y., Afshar Jahanshahi, A., Mokhtari Dinani, M., Nazarian
Madavani, A., & Nawaser, K. (2021). The Relationship Between Age and Mental Health Among

IJFMR240322015 Volume 6, Issue 3, May-June 2024 32

 International Journal for Multidisciplinary Research (IJFMR)
E-ISSN: 2582-2160 ● Website: [Link] ● Email: editor@[Link]

Adults in Iran During the COVID-19 Pandemic. International Journal of Mental Health and
Addiction, 20(5), 3162-3177. [Link]
21. Cleofas, J. V. (2019). Student Involvement, Mental Health and Quality of Life of College Students in
a Selected University in Manila,
Philippines. InternationalJournalofAdolescenceandYouth, 25(1),435447. [Link]
73843.2019.1670683
22. Colarossi, J. (2022). Mental Health of College Students is Getting Worse. Boston
University. [Link]
23. Corpuz, J. C. (2022). #Academicbreaknow: Student Burnout Amidst the COVID-19
Pandemic. Journal of Psychosocial Nursing and Mental Health Services, 60(4), 6-
6. [Link]
24. COVID-19 Pandemic Triggers 25% Increase in Prevalence of Anxiety and Depression Worldwide
retrieved from [Link]
in-prevalence-of-anxiety-and-depression-worldwide
25. Dalky, H., & Gharaibeh, A. (2018). Depression, Anxiety, and Stress Among College Students in
Jordan and their need for Mental Health Services. Nursing Forum, 54, 205–212.
[Link]
26. Dawel, A., Shou, Y., Smithson, M., Cherbuin, N., Banfield, M., Calear, A. L., Farrer, L. M., Gray, D.,
Gulliver, A., Housen, T., McCallum, S. M., Morse, A. R., Murray, K., Newman, E., Rodney
Harris, R. M., & Batterham, P. J. (2021). Corrigendum: The Effect of COVID-19 on Mental Health
and Wellbeing in a Representative Sample
ofAustralianadults. FrontiersinPsychiatry, 11. [Link]
27. Diaz, C. N. (2020). Students’ mental health: The Importance of the Teacher’s Role
andTraining. RevistaEducaciónlasAméricas, 10(2). [Link]
28. Dizon, A. A. (2019). Students’ Mental Health Literacy in One State University as Basis for Strategic
Action Areas. Asia Pacific Journal of Multidisciplinary Research, 7(3), 48-55.
29. Durlak, J. A., Domitrovich, C. E., Weissberg, R. P., & Gullotta, T. P. (2015). Handbook of Social and
Emotional Learning. Research and Practice. The Guilford Press.
30. Egcas, R. A., Oducado, R. M., Cleofas, J. V., Rabacal, J. S., & Lausa, S. M. (2021). After Over a Year
of Pandemic: Mental Well-Being and Life Satisfaction of Filipino College Students. Pertanika
Journal of Social SciencesandHumanities, 29(4),24012416. [Link]
31. Engelhardt, M. (2016). Examining Mental Health in Schools and the Role it Plays in Supporting
Students. SELU Research Review Journal, 1(2), 17–28.
32. Fawley, E. M. (2016). A Qualitative Study of Mental Health Experiences and College Student
Identity [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. Smith College.
33. Fenwick-Smith, A., Dahlberg, E. E., & Thompson, S. C. (2018). Systematic Review of Resilience-
Enhancing, Universal, Primary School-Based Mental
HealthPromotionPrograms. BMCPsychology, 6(1). [Link]
34. Flannery, M. E. (2022, July 20). Mental health in schools: The kids are not all right. National
Education Association | NEA. [Link]
health-schools-kids-are-not-all-right
35. Galanza, M. A., Aruta, J. J., Mateo, N. J., Resurreccion, R. R., & Bernardo, A. B. (2021). Mental
Health of Filipino University Students During the COVID-19 Pandemic: The Distinct Associations of

IJFMR240322015 Volume 6, Issue 3, May-June 2024 33

 International Journal for Multidisciplinary Research (IJFMR)
E-ISSN: 2582-2160 ● Website: [Link] ● Email: editor@[Link]

Fear of COVID-19 and

FinancialDifficulties. Educational16. [Link]
36. Gao, W., Ping, S., & Liu, X. (2019). Gender Differences in Depression, Anxiety, and Stress Among
College Students: A Longitudinal Study from China. Journalof Affective Disorders, 263, 292-300.
[Link]
37. Girolimon, M. (2022). Why is Mental is Important? Retrieved from [Link]
us/newsroom/education/why-is-mental-health important
38. Halbreich, U. (2021). Mental Vaccines: Can Resilience and Adaptation of Vulnerable Individuals and
Populations be Enhanced Before Disasters
andCrises? BJPsychAdvances, 27(3),201203. [Link]
39. Hernández-Torrano, D., Ibrayeva, L., Sparks, J., Lim, N., Clementi, A., Almukhambetova, A.,
Nurtayev, Y., & Muratkyzy, A. (2020). Mental Health and Well-Being of University Students: A
Bibliometric Mapping of the Literature Frontier Psychology 11.
40. Holmes, L.(2023). WhatisMentalHealth? VerywellMind. [Link]
mental-health-2330755
41. Hurley, K. (2019). What is Resilience? Definition, Types, Building Resiliency,
Benefits,[Link]. [Link]
42. Leonard, N., Gwadz, M., Ritchie, A., Linick, J., Cleland, C., Elliott, L., & Grethel, M. (2015). A Multi-
Method Exploratory Study of Stress, Coping, And Substance Use Among High School Youth in
Private Schools. Frontiers in Psychology, 6. [Link]
43. Lim, L. T., Regencia, Z. J., Dela Cruz, J. R., Ho, F. D., Rodolfo, M. S., Ly-Uson, J., & Baja, E. S.
(2022). Assessing the Effect of the COVID-19 Pandemic, Shift to Online Learning, and Social Media
Use on the Mental Health of College Students in the Philippines: A Mixed-Method Study
Protocol. PLOSONE, 17(5)e0267555. [Link]
44. Lorem, G. F., Schirmer, H., Wang, C. E., & Emaus, N. (2017). Ageing and Mental Health: Changes
in Self-Reported Health Due to Physical Illness and Mental Health Status with Consecutive Cross-
Sectional Analyses. BMJ Open, 7(1), e013629. [Link]
45. Malolos, G. Z., Baron, M. B., Apat, F. A., Sagsagat, H. A., Pasco, P. B., Aportadera, E. T., Tan, R. J.,
Gacutno-Evardone, A. J., & Lucero-Prisno III, D. E. (2021). Mental Health and Well-Being of
Children in the Philippine
SettingDuringtheCOVID19Pandemic. HealthPromotionPerspectives, 11(3),267270. [Link]
0.34172/hpp.2021.34
46. Mansfield, R., Humphrey, N., Patalay, P., Moore, A., & Stapley, E. (2021). Adaptation of a School-
Based Mental Health Literacy Curriculum: From
CanadiantoEnglishClassrooms. GlobalMentalHealth, 8. [Link]
47. Martinez, A. B., Co, M., Lau, J., & Brown, J. S. (2020). Filipino Help-Seeking for Mental Health
Problems and Associated Barriers and Facilitators: A Systematic Review. Social Psychiatry and
Psychiatric Epidemiology, 55(11), 1397-1413. [Link]
48. Muller, Imelda, "Mental Health Awareness Among High School and College Students: Barriers to
Knowledge, Accessibility, and Utilization of Resources" (2015). Family Medicine Clerkship Student
Projects. 100.

IJFMR240322015 Volume 6, Issue 3, May-June 2024 34

 International Journal for Multidisciplinary Research (IJFMR)
E-ISSN: 2582-2160 ● Website: [Link] ● Email: editor@[Link]

49. Pedrelli, P., Nyer, M., Yeung, A., Zulauf, C., & Wilens, T. (2015). College Students: Mental Health
Problems and Treatment
Considerations. AcademicPsychiatry, 39(5),503511. [Link]
50. Pineda, J., & Yamanaka, S. (2019). Perspectives of Filipino Workers on the Usage of a Personal
Mental Health Dashboard: A Qualitative Analysis of User
Reviews. JohoChishikiGakkaishi, 29(2),147152. [Link]
51. Publico, M. R. (2020). Assessing the Mental Health Literacy of Secondary School
Educators. International Journal of Childhood Education, 1(1), 24-
31. [Link]
52. Rakib, M. M., & Islam, M. (2020). Awareness of Students about Mental Health: A
StudyontheStudentsofUniversities. SSRNElectronicJournal. [Link]
53. Ramones, M.S., Gubia-On, A.B., Cagatao P.(2022). Depression, Anxiety and Stress Level Among
Persons Deprived of Liberty, a Year after COVID-19 Pandemic: It’s Implication to Jail Management.
[Link]
54. Sapra, A., Bhandari, P., Sharma, S., Chanpura, T., & Lopp, L. (2020). Using Generalized Anxiety
Disorder-2 (GAD-2) and GAD-7 in a primary care setting. Cureus, 12(5).

55. Serrano, J. O., Reyes, M. S., & De Guzman, A. B. (2022). Psychological Distress and Coping f
Filipino University Students Amidst the Global Pandemic: a Mixed-Method Study. Journal of Positive
School Psychology , 6(6), 373 – 386.
56. Shah, S. M. A., Mohammad, D., Qureshi, M. F. H., Abbas, M. Z., & Aleem, S. (2021). Prevalence,
Psychological Responses and Associated Correlates of Depression, Anxiety and Stress in a Global
Population, During the Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19) Pandemic. Community Mental Health
Journal, 57(1), 101-110.
57. Solomou, I., & Constantinidou, F. (2020). Prevalence and Predictors f Anxiety and Depression
Symptoms During the COVID-19 Pandemic and Compliance with Precautionary Measures: Age and
Sex Matter. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 17(14), 4924.
58. Son, C., Hegde, S., Smith, A., Wang, X., & Sasangohar, F. (2020). Effects of COVID-19 on College
Students’ Mental Health in the United States: Interview Survey Study. Journal of Medical Internet
Research, 22(9), e21279. [Link]
59. Smith, M., Robinson, L., & Segal, J. (2018). Building Better Mental Health.
[Link]. [Link]
60. Stangor, C. and Walinga, J. (2014). Introduction to Psychology – 1st Canadian
Edition. Victoria,B.C.:BCampus. Retrievedfrom[Link]
61. Solomou, I., & Constantinidou, F. (2020). Prevalence and Predictors of Anxiety and Depression
Symptoms during the COVID-19 Pandemic and Compliance with Precautionary Measures: Age and
Sex Matter. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 17(14), 4924.
62. Swick, D., & Powers, J. D. (2018). Increasing Access to Care by Delivering Mental Health Services
in Schools: The School-Based Support Program. School
CommunityJournal, 28(1),129144. [Link]
63. Szlamka, Z., Kiss, M., Bernáth, S., Kámán, P., Lubani, A., Karner, O., & Demetrovics, Z. (2021).
Mental Health Support in the Time of Crisis: are we Prepared? Experiences in the COVID-19

IJFMR240322015 Volume 6, Issue 3, May-June 2024 35

 International Journal for Multidisciplinary Research (IJFMR)
E-ISSN: 2582-2160 ● Website: [Link] ● Email: editor@[Link]

Counselling Programme in
Hungary. FrontiersinPsychiatry, 12. [Link]
64. Tee, M. L., Tee, C. A., Anlacan, J. P., Aligam, K. J., Reyes, P. W., Kuruchittham, V., & Ho, R. C.
(2020). Psychological Impact of COVID-19
PandemicinthePhilippines. JournalofAffectiveDisorders, 277,379391. [Link]
20.08.043
65. VanderLind, R. (2017). Destigmatizing Mental Illness in College Students. Global
JournalofIntellectual&DevelopmentalDisabilities, 1(4). [Link]
67
66. Van Droogenbroeck, F., Spruyt, B., & Keppens, G. (2018). Gender Differences in Mental Health
Problems among Adolescents and the table of Social Support: Results from the Belgian Health
Interview Surveys 2008 and 2013. BMC Psychiatry, 18(1). [Link]
4
67. Xiong, J., Lipsitz, O., Nasri, F., Lui, L. M., Gill, H., Phan, L., Chen-Li, D., Iacobucci, M., Ho, R.,
Majeed, A., & McIntyre, R. S. (2020). Impact of COVID-19 Pandemic on Mental Health in the
General Population: a Systematic Review. Journal of Affective Disorders, 277, 55-
64. [Link]
68. Yikealo, D., Tareke, W., & Karvinen, I. (2018). The Level of Stress among College Students: a Case
in the College of Education, Eritrea Institute of
Technology. OpenScienceJournal, 3(4). [Link]
69. Zimmerman, M. A. (2013). Resiliency Theory. Health Education & Behavior, 40(4), 381-
383. [Link]

IJFMR240322015 Volume 6, Issue 3, May-June 2024 36