course

Statistics & Probability

Assessment of Student Stress Levels and Associated Factors Through

Descriptive and Inferential Statistical Analysis

{Sobia Hadi, Rania,Sara,Rukhsar,Khadija}

supervisor
Mam Shumaila

June 4, 2026
Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2. Research Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3. Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.1. Research Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.2. Population and Sample . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.3. Data Collection Method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.4. Survey Instrument . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.5. Data Preparation and Cleaning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.6. Statistical Techniques Used . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.6.1. Descriptive Statistics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.6.2. Inferential Statistics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4. Data Cleaning and Preparation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4.1. Dataset Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4.2. Data Verification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4.3. Missing Value Assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4.4. Duplicate Response Check . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4.5. Variable Classification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4.6. Data Preparation for Statistical Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
5. Descriptive Statistics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
5.1. Measures of Central Tendency and Dispersion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
5.2. Visual Representation of Stress Levels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
6. Frequency Distribution and Graphical Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
6.1. Gender Distribution of Respondents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
6.2. Educational Level Distribution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
6.3. Financial Support Distribution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
6.4. Living Arrangement Distribution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
6.5. Major Sources of Student Stress . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
6.6. Sleep Duration of Respondent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
6.7. Non-Academic Work Hours . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
6.8. Perception of Academic Workload . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
6.9. Physical Illness Due to Stress . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
7. Inferential Statistical Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
7.1. Independent Samples t-Test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
7.1.1. Research Hypotheses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
7.1.2. Statistical Decision . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
7.1.3. Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
7.2. One-Way Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
7.2.1. Research Hypotheses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
7.2.2. Statistical Decision . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
7.2.3. Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
8. Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
8.1. Overall Student Stress Levels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
8.2. Major Sources of Student Stress . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
8.3. Gender Differences in Stress Levels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
8.4. Educational Level and Stress . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
8.5. Sleep Patterns and Physical Health . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
8.6. Implications of the Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
8.7. Summary of Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
9. Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
[Link] of the Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
[Link] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
[Link] Workload Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

2
 0. Contents

[Link] Student Counseling Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

[Link] Health Awareness Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
[Link] Guidance and Professional Development Support . . . . . . . . . . . 25
[Link] Support and Assistance Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
[Link] of Healthy Lifestyle Practices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
[Link] of Comprehensive Stress Management Programs . . . . . . . . 25
[Link] for Future Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
[Link] Recommendation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

3
 Abstract
Student stress has become an increasingly important issue in modern educational
environments due to its potential impact on academic performance, physical health, and
overall well-being. The primary objective of this study was to investigate student stress
levels and identify the factors associated with stress among students. Data were collected
through an online survey questionnaire from a sample of 154 respondents representing
different educational backgrounds.
Descriptive and inferential statistical techniques were employed to analyze the col-
lected data. Descriptive statistics, including measures of central tendency and dispersion,
were used to summarize stress levels and other study variables. Frequency distributions
and graphical analyses were conducted to examine demographic characteristics, lifestyle
factors, and sources of stress. Additionally, an Independent Samples t-Test and a One-Way
Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) were performed to evaluate differences in stress levels among
selected groups.
The findings revealed that students generally experience a moderate level of stress, with
an average stress score of 5.60 on a ten-point scale. Academic workload was identified as the
most significant source of stress, followed by financial instability and concerns regarding
future career prospects. The Independent Samples t-Test indicated a statistically significant
difference in stress levels between male and female students (p = 0.0063). However, the
ANOVA results demonstrated that educational level did not have a statistically significant
effect on stress levels. The study also found that many students experienced limited sleep
duration and stress-related physical illness, highlighting the broader impact of stress on
student well-being.
The study concludes that student stress is influenced by multiple academic, finan-
cial, personal, and lifestyle-related factors. The findings emphasize the importance of
implementing effective stress management strategies, counseling services, mental health
awareness programs, and academic support initiatives to promote student well-being and
academic success.

Keywords: Student Stress, Academic Workload, Descriptive Statistics, Independent Sam-

ples t-Test, ANOVA, Mental Health, Student Well-Being.

1. Introduction
Stress has become one of the most common challenges faced by students in modern
educational environments. Academic responsibilities, examinations, financial concerns,
personal expectations, and social pressures often contribute to increased levels of stress
among students. While a moderate level of stress can motivate students to achieve their
academic goals, excessive stress may negatively affect their mental well-being, physical
health, academic performance, and overall quality of life.
In recent years, educational institutions and researchers have shown growing interest
in understanding the factors that influence student stress. Students encounter various
stressors throughout their academic journey, including heavy coursework, assignment
deadlines, examination pressure, financial difficulties, and challenges in maintaining a
balance between academic and personal life. These stressors may affect students differ-
ently depending on their gender, educational level, living arrangements, financial support
systems, and lifestyle habits.

4
 Stress can also influence other aspects of students’ lives, such as sleeping patterns,
work commitments, and physical health conditions. Prolonged exposure to stress may
lead to fatigue, anxiety, reduced concentration, and stress-related illnesses, which can
ultimately impact academic success. Therefore, identifying the major sources of stress
and understanding their relationship with different demographic and academic factors is
essential for developing effective support strategies for students.
The present study aims to investigate stress levels among students and examine the
factors associated with stress using statistical techniques. Data were collected through
a structured survey questionnaire administered to students from different educational
backgrounds. The collected responses were analyzed using both descriptive and inferen-
tial statistical methods to identify patterns, trends, and significant relationships within
the data.
Descriptive statistics were used to summarize the characteristics of the respondents
and provide an overview of important variables such as stress levels, sleep duration,
sources of stress, financial support, and academic workload. Furthermore, inferential
statistical techniques, including an Independent Samples t-test and One-Way Analysis of
Variance (ANOVA), were employed to determine whether significant differences in stress
levels existed across various groups of students.
The findings of this study are expected to contribute to a better understanding of
student stress and its associated factors. The results may help educators, academic institu-
tions, and policymakers design appropriate interventions and support mechanisms to
improve student well-being and create a healthier academic environment.

2. Research Objectives
The primary objective of this study is to examine the stress levels of students and
identify the factors associated with student stress using statistical analysis of survey data
collected from 154 respondents.
The specific objectives of the study are as follows:
1. To analyze the demographic characteristics of the respondents, including gender and
educational level.
2. To identify the major sources of stress experienced by students.
3. To examine the distribution of stress levels among students and evaluate the overall
stress pattern within the sample population.
4. To investigate students’ sleeping habits, non-academic work commitments, financial
support conditions, and living arrangements.
5. To assess students’ perceptions regarding academic workload and its relationship
with stress.
6. To examine the occurrence of physical illness associated with stress among students.
7. To summarize the collected data using descriptive statistical measures, including
mean, median, mode, standard deviation, variance, range, and interquartile range.
8. To determine whether there is a statistically significant difference in stress levels
between male and female students using an Independent Samples t-test.
9. To determine whether stress levels differ significantly across educational levels using
One-Way Analysis of Variance (ANOVA).
10. To provide evidence-based conclusions and recommendations that may assist educa-
tional institutions in understanding and addressing student stress more effectively.

5
3. Methodology

3. Methodology

3.1. Research Design

This study employed a quantitative research design to investigate stress levels among
students and identify the factors associated with student stress. A survey-based approach
was adopted to collect primary data from respondents. Quantitative research was con-
sidered appropriate because it allows numerical data to be analyzed using statistical
techniques, enabling objective interpretation of results and identification of significant
relationships among variables.

3.2. Population and Sample

The target population for this study consisted of students from different educational
backgrounds. Data were collected from a total of 154 respondents through an online
survey questionnaire. The sample included students belonging to various educational
levels, genders, and living arrangements, providing a diverse representation of student
experiences and stress-related factors.

3.3. Data Collection Method

Primary data were collected using a structured questionnaire developed through
Google Forms. The questionnaire was distributed electronically, allowing respondents to
participate conveniently and anonymously. Responses were recorded automatically and
later exported to Microsoft Excel for cleaning, organization, and statistical analysis.

3.4. Survey Instrument

The survey questionnaire consisted of demographic, academic, and lifestyle-related
questions designed to assess factors associated with student stress. The questionnaire
included the following variables:
• Gender
• Education Level
• Financial Support
• Living Arrangement
• Major Source of Stress
• Stress Level (Scale: 1–10)
• Average Sleep Hours
• Non-Academic Work Hours
• Perception of Academic Workload
• Physical Illness Due to Stress
The collected variables included both categorical and quantitative data, allowing the
application of descriptive and inferential statistical techniques.

3.5. Data Preparation and Cleaning

After data collection, the dataset was exported to Microsoft Excel for preprocessing.
The data were reviewed to ensure consistency and accuracy. Responses were checked
for missing values, duplicate entries, and inconsistencies. Variables were organized into
appropriate categories and formats to facilitate statistical analysis. The cleaned dataset
was then used for descriptive and inferential statistical procedures.

3.6. Statistical Techniques Used

Both descriptive and inferential statistical methods were employed in this study.

6
3.6.1. Descriptive Statistics
Descriptive statistics were used to summarize and present the characteristics of the
collected data. The following measures were calculated:
• Mean
• Median
• Mode
• Standard Deviation
• Variance
• Range
• Interquartile Range (IQR)
• Frequency Distributions
• Percentages

3.6.2. Inferential Statistics

To examine relationships and differences among variables, the following inferential
statistical techniques were applied:
1. Independent Samples t-Test
• Used to determine whether a significant difference existed in stress levels be-
tween male and female students.
2. One-Way Analysis of Variance (ANOVA)
• Used to examine whether stress levels differed significantly across educational
levels.
The results obtained from these statistical techniques were interpreted using a sig-
nificance level of 0.05 (5%). Statistical conclusions were drawn based on calculated test
statistics and p-values.

4. Data Cleaning and Preparation

Before conducting any statistical analysis, the collected survey data underwent a
systematic data cleaning and preparation process to ensure accuracy, consistency, and
reliability. Data preparation is a critical stage in quantitative research because the quality
of the analysis depends heavily on the quality of the dataset. Errors, inconsistencies, or
missing values can significantly affect statistical results and lead to misleading conclusions.
Therefore, the dataset was carefully reviewed and organized before performing descriptive
and inferential statistical analyses.

4.1. Dataset Overview

The survey data were collected through an online questionnaire distributed using
Google Forms. After the completion of the data collection process, responses were ex-
ported to Microsoft Excel for preprocessing and statistical analysis.
A total of 154 valid responses were obtained from students belonging to different
educational backgrounds. The dataset contained information related to demographic
characteristics, academic conditions, lifestyle factors, and stress-related variables.
The collected dataset included both categorical and numerical variables, allowing
comprehensive statistical analysis of student stress and its associated factors.

4.2. Data Verification

The dataset was examined to identify potential issues that could affect the accuracy of
the analysis. The verification process included:
• Reviewing all responses for completeness.

7
4. Data Cleaning and Preparation

•Checking for duplicate entries.

•Identifying missing values.
•Examining variable consistency.
•Ensuring proper categorization of responses.
•Confirming numerical values were recorded within acceptable ranges.
Special attention was given to the Stress Level variable, which was measured on a scale
ranging from 1 to 10. The recorded values were checked to ensure that all responses fell
within the defined measurement scale.

4.3. Missing Value Assessment

Missing values can reduce the reliability of statistical analysis and may introduce
bias into research findings. Therefore, all survey responses were reviewed to identify
incomplete records.
The dataset showed no substantial missing information that would require removal of
observations or advanced imputation techniques. Consequently, all valid responses were
retained for further analysis. This ensured that the maximum available information was
utilized while maintaining the integrity of the dataset.

4.4. Duplicate Response Check

Duplicate observations may distort statistical results by overrepresenting certain re-
sponses. To prevent this issue, the dataset was reviewed for duplicate entries.
No significant duplicate responses were identified that could affect the overall findings
of the study. Therefore, all collected responses were considered suitable for analysis.

4.5. Variable Classification

For effective statistical analysis, variables were classified according to their measure-
ment type. This classification guided the selection of appropriate descriptive and inferen-
tial statistical techniques.
Table 4.1. Classification of Study Variables
Variable Variable Type Measurement Level
Gender Categorical Nominal
Education Level Categorical Ordinal
Financial Support Categorical Nominal
Living Arrangement Categorical Nominal
Major Source of Stress Categorical Nominal
Stress Level (1–10) Numerical Scale
Sleep Hours Numerical Scale
Non-Academic Work Hours Numerical Scale
Academic Workload Agreement Categorical Ordinal
Physical Illness Due to Stress Categorical Nominal

The classification of variables enabled the application of appropriate statistical pro-

cedures. Numerical variables were analyzed using measures of central tendency and
dispersion, whereas categorical variables were summarized using frequency distributions
and percentages.

8
4.6. Data Preparation for Statistical Analysis
Following the cleaning and verification process, the dataset was organized into a
structured format suitable for analysis. Numerical variables were prepared for descrip-
tive statistical calculations, while categorical variables were grouped into meaningful
categories for frequency analysis and graphical representation.
The cleaned dataset was subsequently used to perform descriptive statistics, graph-
ical analysis, and inferential statistical tests. This preparation ensured that the results
generated from the study accurately reflected the responses provided by the participants.
The completion of the data cleaning and preparation stage established a reliable
foundation for the statistical analyses presented in the subsequent sections of this report.

5. Descriptive Statistics
Descriptive statistics provide a summary of the main characteristics of a dataset and
help researchers understand the overall distribution and behavior of variables. In this
study, descriptive statistical measures were calculated for the students’ reported stress
levels to examine the general pattern of stress within the sample population.
A total of 154 student responses were included in the analysis. Measures of central
tendency and dispersion were computed to describe the distribution of stress levels among
respondents. These measures provide valuable insights into the average stress experienced
by students, the variability of responses, and the overall spread of the data.

5.1. Measures of Central Tendency and Dispersion

The primary numerical variable analyzed in this study was the students’ self-reported
stress level measured on a scale from 1 to 10.

Table 5.1. Descriptive Statistics of Student Stress Levels

Measure Value
Sample Size (N) 154
Mean 5.60
Median 5.00
Mode 5.00
Standard Deviation 2.59
Variance 6.71
Range 9.00
First Quartile (Q1) 4.00
Third Quartile (Q3) 7.75
Interquartile Range (IQR) 3.75

Interpretation of Results
The calculated mean stress level of 5.60 indicates that, on average, students experi-
enced a moderate level of stress. Since the stress scale ranged from 1 to 10, the mean value
suggests that stress was a common experience among the surveyed students.
The median value of 5.00 indicates that half of the respondents reported stress levels
at or below 5, while the remaining half reported stress levels above 5. The closeness of the
mean and median suggests that the distribution of stress levels is relatively balanced and
does not appear to be heavily skewed.

9
5. Descriptive Statistics

The mode of 5.00 shows that the most frequently reported stress level among students
was 5, further supporting the observation that moderate stress was common within the
sample.
The standard deviation of 2.59 indicates a moderate level of variation in stress levels
among respondents. This suggests that although many students reported stress levels
near the average, there was still noticeable diversity in individual experiences.
Similarly, the variance of 6.71 reflects the dispersion of stress scores around the mean.
The variance confirms that stress levels varied considerably across students.
The range of 9.00 demonstrates that responses covered nearly the entire stress scale,
indicating the presence of both very low-stress and very high-stress individuals within the
sample.
Quartile analysis provides additional information regarding the distribution of stress
levels. The first quartile (Q1) of 4.00 indicates that approximately 25% of respondents
reported stress levels at or below 4. The third quartile (Q3) of 7.75 indicates that approxi-
mately 75% of respondents reported stress levels at or below 7.75.
The Interquartile Range (IQR) of 3.75 represents the spread of the middle 50% of
observations and suggests a moderate concentration of responses around the central
portion of the distribution.
Overall, the descriptive statistics indicate that student stress levels were generally
moderate, although substantial variation existed across individuals. This finding highlights
the importance of investigating potential factors contributing to differences in stress
experiences among students.

5.2. Visual Representation of Stress Levels

Graphical analysis provides a clearer understanding of the distribution of stress levels
and allows patterns to be identified more effectively than numerical summaries alone.

Figure 5.1. Distribution of Student Stress Levels

Figure 5.1 presents the distribution of student stress levels based on responses collected
from 154 participants. The histogram indicates that stress levels are concentrated around
the middle of the scale, with the highest frequencies observed near the moderate stress
range. This pattern is consistent with the calculated mean stress level of 5.60, suggesting
that most students experience moderate levels of stress rather than extremely low or ex-
tremely high stress. The distribution also demonstrates variability in responses, indicating

10
that stress affects students differently depending on their individual circumstances and
academic conditions.

Figure 5.2. Distribution of Student Stress Levels

Figure 5.2 provides a graphical summary of the distribution of student stress levels
through a box plot. The median stress level is located near the center of the distribution,
while the interquartile range illustrates the spread of the middle 50% of responses. The
relatively wide spread between the lower and upper quartiles indicates noticeable variation
in stress experiences among students. Furthermore, the box plot assists in identifying
potential outliers and confirms the overall variability observed in the descriptive statistical
analysis. This visualization supports the conclusion that although moderate stress is
common, individual stress levels differ considerably across the student population.

6. Frequency Distribution and Graphical Analysis

Frequency distribution analysis was conducted to examine the demographic char-
acteristics, academic conditions, and lifestyle factors of the respondents. This analysis
provides a detailed understanding of the sample composition and helps identify patterns
associated with student stress. A total of 154 valid responses were included in the analysis.

6.1. Gender Distribution of Respondents

Table 6.1. Gender Distribution of Respondents
Gender Frequency Percentage (%)
Female 110 71.4
Male 40 26.0
Prefer not to say 4 2.6
Total 154 100.0

As shown in Figure 6.1, female students constituted the largest proportion of the study
sample, representing approximately 71.4% of all respondents. Male students accounted for
26.0% of the sample, while only a small percentage preferred not to disclose their gender.
This distribution suggests that the survey responses primarily reflect the experiences and

11
6. Frequency Distribution and Graphical Analysis

perceptions of female students. Consequently, the overall findings of the study may be
more strongly influenced by the academic and personal experiences of female participants.

Figure 6.1. Gender Distribution of Respondents

6.2. Educational Level Distribution

Table 6.2. Educational Level Distribution
Education Level Frequency Percentage (%)
Undergraduate 96 62.3
Higher School 40 26.0
Postgraduate 18 11.7
Total 154 100.0

As illustrated in Figure 6.2, undergraduate students formed the majority of the re-
spondents, accounting for more than sixty percent of the sample. Higher school students
represented approximately one-quarter of the respondents, while postgraduate students
constituted the smallest group. This finding indicates that the dataset is predominantly
composed of undergraduate students. The variation in educational levels provides an
important basis for examining differences in stress levels across academic groups.

6.3. Financial Support Distribution

Table 6.3. Financial Support Distribution

Financial Support Source Frequency Percentage (%)
Parents or Family Members 140 90.9
Personal Savings or Employment 11 7.1
Academic/Athletic Scholarships 3 1.9
Total 154 100.0

12
 6. Frequency Distribution and Graphical Analysis

Figure 6.2. Educational Level Distribution

Figure 6.3. Financial Support Distribution

As presented in Figure 6.3, the majority of respondents relied on parents or family

members as their primary source of financial support. Only a limited number of students
reported supporting themselves through employment or receiving scholarships. This
finding highlights the significant role of family assistance in financing higher education.
Although family support may reduce some financial burdens, concerns regarding educa-
tional expenses and future financial security may still contribute to student stress.

6.4. Living Arrangement Distribution

As presented in Figure 6.4, the majority of respondents relied on parents or family
members as their primary source of financial support. Only a limited number of students

13
6. Frequency Distribution and Graphical Analysis

Table 6.4. Living Arrangement Distribution

Living Arrangement Frequency Percentage (%)
Living with Parents 92 59.7
Hostel 58 37.7
Alone 3 1.9
Other 1 0.7
Total 154 100.0

reported supporting themselves through employment or receiving scholarships. This

finding highlights the significant role of family assistance in financing higher education.
Although family support may reduce some financial burdens, concerns regarding educa-
tional expenses and future financial security may still contribute to student stress.

Figure 6.4. Financial Support Distribution

14
 6. Frequency Distribution and Graphical Analysis

Figure 6.5. Major Sources of Student Stress

6.5. Major Sources of Student Stress

Table 6.5. Major Sources of Student Stress
Source of Stress Frequency Percentage (%)
Academic Workload 67 43.5
Financial Instability 34 22.1
Career Prospects 34 22.1
Social Relationships 19 12.3
Total 154 100.0

As illustrated in Figure 6.5, academic workload emerged as the most frequently re-
ported source of stress among respondents. Financial instability and concerns regarding
future career prospects were also identified as major stress contributors. Social relation-
ships represented the least commonly reported stress source. These findings suggest that
academic responsibilities remain the dominant challenge affecting student well-being
and stress levels.

6.6. Sleep Duration of Respondent

Table 6.6. Average Sleep Hours During the School Week
Sleep Duration Frequency Percentage (%)
6–7 Hours 68 44.2
4–5 Hours 47 30.5
Less Than 4 Hours 20 13.0
8 or More Hours 19 12.3
Total 154 100.0

As presented in Figure 6.6, most students reported sleeping between six and seven
hours per night during a typical school week. However, a considerable proportion of
respondents indicated sleeping fewer than six hours per night. Insufficient sleep has been

15
6. Frequency Distribution and Graphical Analysis

associated with reduced concentration, lower academic performance, and increased stress
levels. Therefore, sleep duration may be an important factor influencing students’ overall
well-being.

Figure 6.6. Distribution of Average Sleep Hours

6.7. Non-Academic Work Hours

Table 6.7. Weekly Non-Academic Work Hours
Work Hours Frequency Percentage (%)
0 Hours 87 56.5
1–10 Hours 47 30.5
11–20 Hours 10 6.5
More Than 20 Hours 10 6.5
Total 154 100.0

As shown in Figure 6.5, more than half of the respondents reported no involvement in
non-academic work activities. Nevertheless, a notable proportion of students spent time
on employment, internships, or other work-related commitments outside their studies.
Balancing academic responsibilities with work obligations may increase workload and
time pressure, potentially contributing to higher levels of stress.

16
 6. Frequency Distribution and Graphical Analysis

Figure 6.7. Weekly Non-Academic Work Hours

6.8. Perception of Academic Workload

Table 6.8. Perception of Academic Workload
Response Frequency Percentage (%)
Neutral 63 40.9
Agree 48 31.2
Strongly Agree 17 11.0
Strongly Disagree 15 9.7
Disagree 11 7.1
Total 154 100.0

As illustrated in Figure 6.8, many respondents perceived their academic workload

as demanding and challenging. A substantial proportion agreed or strongly agreed that
they felt overwhelmed by academic responsibilities, while comparatively fewer students
disagreed with this statement. These findings reinforce earlier results indicating that
academic workload is one of the most significant contributors to student stress.

6.9. Physical Illness Due to Stress

Table 6.9. Physical Illness Due to Stress
Frequency of Illness Frequency Percentage (%)
6 or More Times 55 35.7
1–2 Times 43 27.9
3–4 Times 35 22.7
0 Times 21 13.6
Total 154 100.0

As presented in Figure 6.9, many students reported experiencing physical illness

associated with stress. More than one-third of respondents indicated suffering from

17
 Figure 6.8. Perception of Academic Workload

stress-related illness six or more times during the observed period. This finding demon-
strates that stress may extend beyond psychological effects and can have meaningful
consequences for physical health and overall quality of life.

Figure 6.9. Physical Illness Due to Stress

7. Inferential Statistical Analysis

Inferential statistics were employed to examine whether statistically significant differ-
ences existed among different groups of respondents. Unlike descriptive statistics, which

18
 7. Inferential Statistical Analysis

summarize observed data, inferential statistics enable researchers to draw conclusions

regarding relationships and differences within the population represented by the sample.
In this study, two inferential statistical techniques were applied. An Independent
Samples t-Test was conducted to investigate whether stress levels differed significantly
between male and female students. In addition, a One-Way Analysis of Variance (ANOVA)
was performed to determine whether stress levels varied across different educational
levels.
A significance level of α = 0.05 was adopted throughout the analysis. Statistical signifi-
cance was determined by comparing the calculated p-value with the predefined signifi-
cance level.

7.1. Independent Samples t-Test

The Independent Samples t-Test was conducted to examine whether there was a
statistically significant difference in stress levels between male and female students.

7.1.1. Research Hypotheses

Null Hypothesis (H0 ):
There is no statistically significant difference in mean stress levels between male and
female students.
Alternative Hypothesis (H1 ):
There is a statistically significant difference in mean stress levels between male and
female students.

Table 7.1. Independent Samples t-Test Results

Statistic Value
Test Type Independent Samples t-Test
Dependent Variable Stress Level
Grouping Variable Gender
t-Statistic -2.814
p-Value 0.0063
Significance Level (α) 0.05

As presented in Table 7.1, the Independent Samples t-Test produced a t-statistic of

-2.814 and a p-value of 0.0063. Since the obtained p-value is smaller than the significance
level of 0.05, the null hypothesis is rejected.
The results indicate that a statistically significant difference exists in stress levels
between male and female students. This finding suggests that gender may influence how
students experience or report stress. Therefore, gender should be considered an important
factor when examining student well-being and developing stress management strategies
within educational institutions.

7.1.2. Statistical Decision

Since p = 0.0063 < 0.05, the null hypothesis is rejected.

7.1.3. Conclusion
The analysis provides sufficient statistical evidence to conclude that stress levels differ
significantly between male and female students.

19
7. Inferential Statistical Analysis

7.2. One-Way Analysis of Variance (ANOVA)

A One-Way Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) was performed to determine whether stress
levels differed significantly across educational groups.

7.2.1. Research Hypotheses

Null Hypothesis (H0 ):
There is no statistically significant difference in mean stress levels among students
belonging to different educational levels.
Alternative Hypothesis (H1 ):
At least one educational group differs significantly in mean stress level from the others.

Table 7.2. One-Way ANOVA Results

Variable Description
Dependent Variable Stress Level
Factor Educational Level
Groups Compared Higher School, Undergraduate, Postgraduate

As shown in Table 7.2, a One-Way ANOVA was conducted to compare stress levels
across different educational groups. The analysis examined whether variations in educa-
tional status were associated with significant differences in perceived stress levels.
The ANOVA procedure is particularly useful when comparing more than two groups
because it evaluates differences among group means simultaneously. By comparing the
variability between groups with the variability within groups, ANOVA determines whether
observed differences are statistically meaningful.
The findings of the ANOVA analysis should be interpreted based on the calculated
F-statistic and corresponding p-value obtained from the statistical output. If the p-value
is less than the significance level of 0.05, the null hypothesis should be rejected, indicating
significant differences among educational groups. Conversely, if the p-value exceeds 0.05,
the null hypothesis should not be rejected.

7.2.2. Statistical Decision

As presented in Table 7.2, the One-Way ANOVA analysis produced an F-statistic of
0.260. The mean stress levels for the three educational groups were relatively similar,
with undergraduate students reporting a mean stress level of 5.55, higher school students
reporting 5.83, and postgraduate students reporting 5.33.
Since the ANOVA results indicate that the observed variation between group means is
very small relative to the variation within groups, the analysis does not provide sufficient
evidence to conclude that educational level has a statistically significant effect on student
stress levels. Therefore, the null hypothesis (H0 ) is not rejected at the 5% significance
level.

7.2.3. Conclusion
The One-Way ANOVA findings suggest that stress levels do not differ significantly
across educational groups within the surveyed sample. Although minor differences were
observed in the average stress scores of higher school, undergraduate, and postgraduate
students, these differences were not large enough to be considered statistically meaningful.
Consequently, educational level does not appear to be a significant determinant of
student stress in this study. This finding indicates that stress is experienced across all
educational groups at relatively similar levels and may be influenced more strongly by
other factors such as academic workload, financial concerns, sleep patterns, or personal
circumstances.
The mean stress levels were:

20
 • Higher School: 5.83
• Undergraduate: 5.55
• Postgraduate: 5.33
Overall, the ANOVA results demonstrate that while stress is prevalent among students,
the differences in stress levels across educational categories are not statistically significant
within the present sample.

8. Discussion
The primary objective of this study was to investigate student stress levels and identify
the factors associated with stress among students. Through descriptive and inferential
statistical analyses, several important findings emerged regarding stress experiences,
demographic characteristics, academic pressures, and lifestyle-related factors. The discus-
sion presented in this section interprets these findings and highlights their implications
within the context of student well-being.

8.1. Overall Student Stress Levels

The descriptive statistical analysis revealed that the average stress level reported by
students was 5.60 on a ten-point scale. This value indicates that students generally
experience a moderate level of stress. The median and mode values further confirmed
that moderate stress levels were common among respondents. Although extremely high
stress was not reported by the majority of students, the observed variability in stress scores
suggests that stress experiences differ considerably across individuals.
The findings demonstrate that stress is a widespread issue affecting students regardless
of their background. Academic responsibilities, future uncertainty, financial concerns,
and personal circumstances collectively contribute to the stress experienced by students.
These results emphasize the importance of monitoring student well-being and imple-
menting support mechanisms to reduce excessive stress.

8.2. Major Sources of Student Stress

One of the most significant findings of the study was the identification of academic
workload as the leading source of stress among respondents. Academic responsibilities
accounted for the largest proportion of reported stress sources. This finding indicates
that coursework, examinations, assignments, deadlines, and academic expectations place
substantial pressure on students.
Financial instability and concerns regarding future career prospects were also identi-
fied as major contributors to stress. Students often face uncertainty regarding employment
opportunities, career development, and financial independence after graduation. Such
concerns may increase psychological pressure and negatively affect overall well-being.
The findings suggest that educational institutions should pay greater attention to
academic workload management and provide adequate career guidance services to help
students cope with these challenges.

8.3. Gender Differences in Stress Levels

The Independent Samples t-Test revealed a statistically significant difference in stress
levels between male and female students. The obtained p-value of 0.0063 was lower than
the significance level of 0.05, leading to the rejection of the null hypothesis.
This result indicates that gender may influence the way students experience or report
stress. Differences in academic expectations, social pressures, coping strategies, and
emotional responses may contribute to variations in stress levels between male and

21
female students. The finding highlights the importance of considering gender-related
factors when designing student support programs and mental health interventions.

8.4. Educational Level and Stress

The One-Way ANOVA analysis examined whether stress levels differed across edu-
cational groups. The results indicated that educational level did not have a statistically
significant effect on stress levels. Although minor differences were observed in mean stress
scores among higher school, undergraduate, and postgraduate students, these differences
were not statistically meaningful.
This finding suggests that stress is experienced across all educational levels and is
not confined to a specific academic group. Regardless of educational status, students
encounter academic responsibilities, personal challenges, and future-related concerns
that contribute to stress. Consequently, stress management initiatives should be made
available to students at all educational levels rather than targeting a single academic
group.

8.5. Sleep Patterns and Physical Health

The analysis of sleep duration revealed that a substantial proportion of students re-
ported sleeping fewer than the recommended number of hours per night. Many respon-
dents slept between four and seven hours during a typical school week. Insufficient
sleep has been associated with fatigue, reduced concentration, emotional instability, and
increased stress levels.
Furthermore, the findings demonstrated that many students experienced physical ill-
ness associated with stress. A considerable proportion reported suffering from stress-related
illness multiple times, indicating that stress may have noticeable physical consequences.
These findings reinforce the importance of promoting healthy lifestyle habits, including
adequate sleep and effective stress management practices.

8.6. Implications of the Findings

The findings of this study have important implications for educational institutions,
policymakers, and student support services. Since academic workload emerged as the
dominant source of stress, universities and colleges should consider strategies to balance
academic demands and reduce unnecessary pressure on students.
Institutions may benefit from providing counseling services, stress management work-
shops, mental health awareness programs, and academic support resources. Career coun-
seling initiatives may also help students address concerns regarding future employment
and professional development.
Overall, the study highlights the need for a comprehensive approach to student
well-being that addresses academic, psychological, and lifestyle-related factors contribut-
ing to stress.

8.7. Summary of Discussion

The discussion of findings indicates that student stress is influenced by multiple inter-
connected factors. Moderate stress levels were commonly reported among respondents,
with academic workload identified as the primary source of stress. Significant gender
differences in stress levels were observed, whereas educational level did not appear to
significantly influence stress experiences. Additionally, insufficient sleep and stress-related
physical illness emerged as important concerns affecting student well-being.
These findings provide valuable insights into the challenges faced by students and es-
tablish a foundation for the conclusions and recommendations presented in the following
sections.

22
9. Conclusion
The purpose of this study was to investigate student stress levels and identify the
factors associated with stress among students through the application of descriptive
and inferential statistical techniques. Data were collected from 154 respondents and
analyzed using frequency distributions, measures of central tendency and dispersion, an
Independent Samples t-Test, and a One-Way Analysis of Variance (ANOVA).
The findings revealed that students generally experience a moderate level of stress,
with an average stress score of 5.60 on a ten-point scale. Although stress levels varied
among individuals, the overall results indicate that stress is a common aspect of student
life and affects a substantial proportion of the surveyed population.
The analysis further demonstrated that academic workload is the most significant
source of stress among students. Financial instability and concerns regarding future career
prospects were also identified as important contributors to student stress. These findings
suggest that academic and future-related pressures play a major role in shaping students’
stress experiences.
The inferential statistical analysis provided additional insights into the factors as-
sociated with student stress. The Independent Samples t-Test indicated a statistically
significant difference in stress levels between male and female students, suggesting that
gender may influence how stress is experienced or reported. In contrast, the One-Way
ANOVA revealed no statistically significant differences in stress levels across educational
groups, indicating that stress is experienced at relatively similar levels regardless of educa-
tional status.
The study also highlighted the importance of lifestyle-related factors. Many students
reported limited sleep duration and frequent physical illness associated with stress. These
findings suggest that stress may have both psychological and physical consequences,
emphasizing the need for effective stress management and health promotion strategies.
Overall, the results of this study demonstrate that student stress is a multidimensional
issue influenced by academic, financial, personal, and lifestyle-related factors. Educa-
tional institutions should recognize the prevalence of stress among students and imple-
ment supportive measures to promote mental well-being, improve academic experiences,
and help students manage stress more effectively.
In conclusion, the study provides valuable evidence regarding the nature of student
stress and contributes to a better understanding of the challenges faced by students in
contemporary educational environments. The findings may assist educators, administra-
tors, and policymakers in developing strategies that support student success and overall
well-being.

10. Limitations of the Study

Although the study successfully achieved its objectives and provided valuable insights
into student stress levels and associated factors, certain limitations should be acknowl-
edged when interpreting the findings.
First, the study was based on a sample of 154 respondents. While this sample size was
sufficient for statistical analysis, it may not fully represent the experiences and perspectives
of all students. Therefore, the findings should be generalized with caution beyond the
surveyed population.
Second, the study relied on self-reported survey responses. Since participants provided
information based on their personal perceptions and experiences, there is a possibility of
response bias. Some respondents may have overestimated or underestimated their stress
levels, sleep patterns, or other factors included in the questionnaire.
Third, the research employed a cross-sectional design in which data were collected
at a single point in time. As a result, the study captures stress levels only during the
specific period of data collection and does not account for changes in stress over time.

23
Longitudinal studies may provide a more comprehensive understanding of how stress
evolves throughout students’ academic journeys.
Another limitation is that the study focused primarily on selected demographic, aca-
demic, and lifestyle-related variables. Other factors such as family circumstances, person-
ality traits, mental health history, social support systems, and institutional environment
were not examined in detail. These variables may also influence student stress and could
be explored in future research.
Finally, although inferential statistical techniques were applied to identify significant
differences among groups, the study did not investigate causal relationships between
variables. Therefore, the findings should be interpreted as associations rather than direct
cause-and-effect relationships.
Despite these limitations, the study provides meaningful insights into student stress
and offers a valuable foundation for future research aimed at understanding and address-
ing stress among students.

11. Recommendations
Based on the findings of this study, several recommendations are proposed to help
educational institutions, policymakers, and students address the factors contributing to
stress and promote overall student well-being.

11.1. Academic Workload Management

Since academic workload emerged as the most frequently reported source of stress,
educational institutions should review their academic requirements and assessment
practices. Universities and colleges should strive to maintain a balanced workload by
distributing assignments, projects, quizzes, and examinations more effectively throughout
the academic semester.
Faculty members should also provide clear academic guidelines, realistic deadlines,
and adequate learning support to reduce unnecessary pressure on students. Improved
workload management may help students maintain better academic performance while
reducing stress levels.

11.2. Strengthening Student Counseling Services

Educational institutions should establish and strengthen student counseling and psy-
chological support services. Professional counseling programs can help students identify
stress-related challenges, develop coping strategies, and improve emotional well-being.
Accessible counseling facilities may encourage students to seek assistance before stress
develops into more serious psychological or physical health problems. Regular counseling
sessions and confidential support mechanisms should be made available to all students.

11.3. Mental Health Awareness Programs

Universities and colleges should organize workshops, seminars, and awareness cam-
paigns focusing on mental health and stress management. Such initiatives can help
students recognize the signs of stress, anxiety, and burnout while providing practical
techniques for maintaining emotional well-being.
Increasing awareness regarding mental health may also help reduce stigma associated
with seeking professional support and encourage students to adopt healthier coping
strategies.

24
11.4. Career Guidance and Professional Development Support
The findings indicated that concerns regarding future career prospects contribute
significantly to student stress. Educational institutions should therefore provide compre-
hensive career counseling services, internship opportunities, professional development
programs, and employment preparation workshops.
Career guidance initiatives can help students make informed decisions regarding their
future, reduce uncertainty, and improve confidence in their professional development
pathways.

11.5. Financial Support and Assistance Programs

Financial instability was identified as an important stress-related factor among stu-
dents. Institutions should consider expanding scholarship opportunities, financial aid
programs, tuition assistance schemes, and student employment initiatives.
Providing financial support mechanisms may help reduce economic pressure and
allow students to focus more effectively on their academic responsibilities.

11.6. Promotion of Healthy Lifestyle Practices

The study revealed that many students experience limited sleep and stress-related
physical illness. Educational institutions should promote healthy lifestyle practices
through wellness programs, health awareness campaigns, and student support activities.
Students should be encouraged to maintain adequate sleep schedules, engage in
regular physical activity, adopt healthy dietary habits, and participate in recreational
activities that support physical and mental well-being.

11.7. Development of Comprehensive Stress Management Programs

Institutions should implement structured stress management programs that address
academic, psychological, and lifestyle-related stress factors. These programs may include
time management training, relaxation techniques, mindfulness sessions, peer-support
groups, and resilience-building workshops.
A comprehensive approach to stress management can help students develop effective
coping mechanisms and improve their overall academic experience.

11.8. Recommendations for Future Research

Future studies should consider larger and more diverse samples to improve the gener-
alizability of findings. Researchers may also examine additional variables such as family
environment, personality traits, social support systems, mental health conditions, and
institutional factors that may influence student stress.
Longitudinal research designs could provide deeper insights into how stress changes
throughout different stages of students’ educational journeys. Furthermore, future studies
may investigate intervention strategies designed to reduce stress and improve student
well-being.

11.9. Concluding Recommendation

Student stress is a complex issue influenced by multiple academic, financial, personal,
and lifestyle-related factors. Therefore, effective solutions require a collaborative effort
involving students, educators, administrators, families, and policymakers. By implement-
ing the recommendations presented in this study, educational institutions can create
healthier learning environments that promote student success, well-being, and long-term
personal development.

25
11. References

References
1. Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2018). Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative,
and Mixed Methods Approaches. Sage Publications.
2. Field, A. (2018). Discovering Statistics Using IBM SPSS Statistics (5th ed.). Sage Publi-
cations.
3. Triola, M. F. (2022). Elementary Statistics (14th ed.). Pearson Education.
4. Microsoft Corporation. (2024). Microsoft Excel. Microsoft.
5. Google LLC. (2024). Google Forms. Google LLC.
6. Moore, D. S., McCabe, G. P., & Craig, B. A. (2021). Introduction to the Practice of
Statistics (10th ed.). W. H. Freeman and Company.
7. Weiss, N. A. (2020). Introductory Statistics (11th ed.). Pearson Education.

26