Search

The recognition of racism as a social determinant of health, with particularly strong impacts on mental health, highlights the need to take concrete action to address the effects of racial stress among Black Americans (Paine et al., 2021; Paradies et al., 2015). Black undergraduate students are particularly vulnerable to the effects of racism because, in addition to the general stressors associated with the transition to college, they are faced with the unique stressors of anti-Black racism and discrimination on- and off-campus (Mushonga, 2020). These racial stressors can lead to impacts on physical, mental, functional, social, and spiritual aspects of well-being (Harrell, 2000).Racial stress screening is proposed here as the first step in a data-driven strategy for identifying Black undergraduate students experiencing racial stress, with the goal of informing delivery of direct mental health services, implementation of campus-wide interventions or programming, and referral of students to off-campus supports. A researcher-adapted rating scale, the Racial Stress Survey for Black Undergraduates (RSS-BU), was used as the measure of racial stress in the current study. The RSS-BU consists of 30 items across four domains: Cultural Racism, Individual Racism, Institutional Racism, and Campus Racism. Additionally, the researcher-developed Social Validity Questionnaire (SVQ), consisting of five Likert-type questions and two open-response questions, was used to gather participant perspectives on screening. The goal of the current study was to pilot campus-based racial stress screening in an online format. The researcher used a pragmatic interpretive framework and mixed-methodology to answer the three following research questions: (a) what scores did Black undergraduate student participants receive after completing the RSS-BU and did these scores differ across gender, historically Black college and university (HBCU) affiliation, and generational status?; (b) is the RSS-BU effective in measuring the racial stress of Black undergraduate students and does it measure racial stress equivalently across gender, HBCU affiliation, and generational status?; and (c) what perspectives do Black undergraduate students have on campus-based racial stress screening?The N = 122 Black undergraduate participants in this study reported experiencing at least some level of racial stress. Participants reported relatively higher levels of racial stress in the Cultural Racism domain (M = 29.49, SD = 7.97) and relatively lower levels in the Institutional Racism domain (M = 8.43, SD = 6.26). Results from independent samples t-tests revealed significant differences in RSS-BU scores across gender and HBCU affiliation, but not for generational status.The Rasch Rating Scale Model (RSM) and Rasch Many-Facets Model (MFM) were used to investigate the measurement utility of the RSS-BU (Rasch, 1960; Andrich, 1978; Linacre, 1989, 1994). Five RSS-BU items produced too much variation in participant responses (i.e., underfit) and seven items produced too little variation (i.e., overfit) than expected by the Rasch RSM. Results from the Rasch MFM revealed evidence of differential item functioning (DIF) across all RSS-BU items except one, meaning that these items did not equivalently measure the construct of racial stress across the specified demographic groups (i.e., gender, generational status, and HBCU affiliation).Results based on scores from the SVQ revealed that, overall, the N = 122 Black undergraduate participants think it is important to ask Black students about racial stress (M = 4.47, SD = 0.75). Participants reported that they would be willing to complete a measure like the RSS-BU as part of campus-based screening (M = 4.08, SD = 1.01), but were somewhat less interested in being connected to mental health supports for their own racial stress (M = 3.72, SD = 1.35). The six-step thematic analysis process outlined by Braun and Clarke (2006) was used to analyze qualitative response data from the two open-ended questions on the SVQ. Thematic analysis resulted in five thematic domains—(a) Racial Stress in Higher Education, (b) Campus Support Services, (c) Perspectives on Screening, (d) Procedural Considerations for Screening, and (e) Feedback on Study—with subsequent themes and sub-themes.The main findings of the current study provide support for the implications of using screening to inform culturally responsive campus practices and using mixed-methodology to develop screening tools. Limitations and future directions of this study are also discussed. Ultimately, the goal of campus-based screening is to guide service delivery for addressing racial stress among Black undergraduate students.

Background The mental health of first responders is an area of growing concern, with recent studies indicating significantly higher rates of PTSD, anxiety and depression than found in the general population (Berger et al., 2012; Syed et al., 2020). Many organisations use mental health screening to identify individuals at risk of developing posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) or other mental health conditions, though its effectiveness conducted pre- or post-employment is unclear. Aims This research aims to investigate the role that mental health screening may have in predicting PTSD and other types of psychological injury in first responders. Methods A systematic review of the research literature related to pre-employment screening of personality and other factors which may be predictive of later depression or PTSD symptoms in first responders was conducted. Nested case-control studies of 300 serving police officers with pre-employment personality screening (MMPI-2) data linked to information on long-term sick leave for psychological injury was analysed. A separate set of linked mental health surveys was conducted to examine variance in the number and severity of symptoms reported. Results Measures of dynamic factors including physiological responses to simulated trauma and maladaptive coping styles had stronger evidence as predictors of psychological vulnerability than assessments of static factors such as trauma history or pre-existing psychopathology. With the nested case control studies, conditional logistic regression analyses found no associations between any of the MMPI-2 scale scores, either in isolation or combination, and later psychological injury (OR = 0.89; 95% CI 0.78-1.02). Possible reasons for these findings are discussed, one being the under-reporting of symptoms. This hypothesis was tested by comparing responses on identical validated questionnaires (DASS-21 and PCL-5) administered by different organisations. As expected, police officers reported significantly lower levels of anxiety (p < 0.05) and PTSD (p < 0.001) symptoms on the employer-administered survey compared to the anonymous independent survey. Conclusions The available research evidence does not support the type of pre-employment mental health screening conducted by many first responder organisations. The under-reporting of symptoms in employer-administered surveys is a major barrier to the effectiveness of any screening.