Skip to main content
Advertisement
Browse Subject Areas
?

Click through the PLOS taxonomy to find articles in your field.

For more information about PLOS Subject Areas, click here.

< Back to Article

Table 1.

Sociodemographic characteristics of the sample.

More »

Table 1 Expand

Table 2.

Characteristics of the universities most widely represented in the current sample.

More »

Table 2 Expand

Fig 1.

Support expected during the pandemic: Type and source.

More »

Fig 1 Expand

Table 3.

Basic descriptive statistics with the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test of normality and reliability (Cronbach’s α).

More »

Table 3 Expand

Table 4.

Pearson’s correlation coefficients between the strategies of coping with stress.

More »

Table 4 Expand

Fig 2.

Cluster analysis for strategies of coping with stress.

More »

Fig 2 Expand

Table 5.

Comparisons of coping strategies between the clusters.

More »

Table 5 Expand

Table 6.

Gender differences in strategies of coping with stress.

More »

Table 6 Expand

Table 7.

One-way analysis of variance of differences in strategies of coping with stress between age groups.

More »

Table 7 Expand

Table 8.

One-factor analysis of variance of differences in strategies of coping with stress depending on place of residence.

More »

Table 8 Expand

Table 9.

Comparison of coping strategy use between full-time and extramural students.

More »

Table 9 Expand

Fig 3.

The coping strategy of active coping (mean) among students in individual program years (F = 5.72, p<0.001, eta = 0.06).

I U–I Undergraduate (n = 142), II U–II Undergraduate (n = 100), III U–III Undergraduate (n = 104), I G–I Graduate (n = 66), II G–II Graduate (n = 70), I-III M–I-III uniform Master’s studies (n = 64), IV-V M–IV-V uniform Master’s studies (n = 31).

More »

Fig 3 Expand

Fig 4.

The coping strategy of planning (mean) among students in individual program years (F = 4.87, p<0.001, eta = 0.05).

More »

Fig 4 Expand

Fig 5.

The coping strategy of positive reframing (mean) among students in individual program years (F = 2.51a, p = 0.023, eta = 0.01).

* Welch’s correction was applied.

More »

Fig 5 Expand

Fig 6.

The coping strategy of behavioral disengagement (mean) among students in individual program years (F = 3.06, p = 0.006, eta = 0.03).

More »

Fig 6 Expand

Table 10.

One-factor analysis of variance of differences in coping strategy use depending on the type of support needed.

More »

Table 10 Expand

Fig 7.

Students’ use of religious coping (mean) and sources of expected support during the COVID-19 pandemic (F = 3.99, p = 0.007, η2 = 0.02).

More »

Fig 7 Expand

Fig 8.

Students’ substance use (mean) and sources of expected support during the COVID-19 pandemic (F = 4.12a, p = 0.007, η2 = 0.02).

* Welch’s correction was applied.

More »

Fig 8 Expand

Fig 9.

Students’ use of self-blame (mean) and sources of expected support during the COVID-19 pandemic (F = 3.14, p = 0.024, η2 = 0.02).

More »

Fig 9 Expand