Community Engagement and Coping with Stress
among College Students: An Exploratory Study

Mojisola F. Tiamiyu
Meghan L. Marsac
University of Toledo, Toledo, Ohio

Abstract
     The purpose of the study was to examine the construct of the perception of community engagement as well as the relationships among perception of community engagement, actual engagement in the community, stress, and coping in college students.  One hundred and sixty undergraduate college students completed self-report measures for the perception of community engagement, actual engagement in the community, stress, and coping.  Results suggested that college students perceive community engagement as a multifaceted construct.  Additionally, results indicated no significant relationship between perception of community engagement and actual engagement in the community. While coping was negatively related to community engagement, stress level was not.  The implications of the study are that consideration should be given to conceptualizing community engagement as a multifaceted construct, and that coping may be a significant factor in improving college student perception of and actual community engagement in the community.  
Introduction
     The high levels and impact of stress on college students has been thoroughly investigated and documented by numerous researchers (Rawson, Bloomer, & Kendall, 1994; Towbes & Cohen, 1996; Goldman & Wong, 1997; Ross, Niebling, & Heckert, 1999; Hudd et al. 2000). Without an effective coping method, stress is often perceived as unmanageable (Struthers et al., 2000). Past research has indicated the importance of coping with stress in a healthy manner. Ineffective coping can lead to negative psychological outcomes (Aspinwall & Taylor, 1992; Carver & Scheier, 1994). While stress and coping are tightly linked together, it is important to investigate other variables that could affect students’ stress level and ways of coping, which could impact their overall adjustment to college. One variable that has not been researched thoroughly is college students’ engagement in the community (i.e. off-campus engagement). While engagement in the community has been conceptualized in a variety of ways by researchers as including volunteering, service learning, or fulfilling a civic duty, most studies are limited to examining one of these aspects of engagement (e.g., Giles & Eyler, 1994; Angelique, 2001; Vernon & Foster, 2002; Sturmer & Kampmeier, 2003; Allen, Facteau, & Facteau, 2004). In addition, researchers have not focused on college student’s perception of what community engagement includes. Furthermore, though research has shown the importance of college student engagement in the college community (e.g., Giles & Eyler, 1994; Flannery & Ward, 1999; Primavera, 1999; Sturmer & Kampmeier, 2003), the effect of engagement and perception of engagement outside the campus community on the individual are not as fully understood. Thus, the present study will investigate college students’ coping with stress and community engagement in a broader sense (i.e., both perception as well as actual engagement).
Community Engagement
     Engagement in the community has been conceptualized in a variety of ways by researchers in the field as including volunteering, service learning, and fulfilling a civic duty. First, Sturmer & Kampmeier (2003) suggest that volunteerism or community service can serve a variety of purposes for the individual including “expressing humanitarian values, gaining knowledge and understanding, belonging to social networks, receiving career-related benefits, coping with one’s own personal problems, and enhancing one’s self-esteem (p. 105).” Second, service learning is the collaboration between colleges and community organizations in order to involve the students in the community, to connect the learning experience to real life, to empower students to build relationships with members of the community, and to foster long-term citizenship and civic responsibility (Giles & Eyler, 1994; Angelique, 2001; Vernon & Foster, 2002). Third, citizenship is considered to “contain personal values that go beyond self-fulfillment to values about civic involvement and social obligation” (Giles & Eyler, 1994, p. 328). Allen, Facteau, & Facteau (2004) have described these types of actions as organizational citizenship behavior (OCBO). They further explain that civic behaviors include activities that support the specific organization.  The present study will be looking at community engagement in a broader sense by combining these definitions used in previous research. Thus, volunteering, service learning, and citizenship are all considered separate but necessary components of community engagement.
     The motive behind college student engagement in the community is questionable. Vernon & Foster (2002) found that community members’ perception of college student volunteerism includes both positive and negative aspects. These perceptions included students fulfilling course requirements, moral/ethic reasons, and students’ desire to be part of a community. The community informants expressed concern with students’ motivation why they are present particularly when they are volunteering to fulfill a class requirement. Generally, to increase effectiveness, agencies wanted more commitment from students. However, most organizations identified their student volunteers as reliable, capable, able to make good connections with their clients/customers, and very supportive of the organization. 
     According to Primavera (1999) as many as one-half of college students engage in some type of community service activities during their college career.  The impact of college student involvement on the student is predominantly positive.  Service learning is associated with increased belief that one person can make a difference, that they should be involved in the outside community, and that there is a need for equal opportunity (Giles & Eyler, 1994).  In addition, service learning helps students become more aware of cultural differences and similarities, decrease stereotypes, and recognize the importance of serving the community (Flannery & Ward, 1999; Primavera, 1999).  College student volunteers also report increased self-knowledge, academic knowledge, social awareness, personal growth, self-esteem, and self-efficacy (Primavera, 1999).  Results are mixed as to whether or not requiring service learning or volunteering increases or decreases the likelihood of participation in the community in the future (Giles & Eyler, 1994; Primavera, 1999; Stukas, Snyder, & Clary, 1999; Gagne 2003). 
     Volunteerism and social and political participation in the community have been found to be related to personal identification with the community (Sturmer & Kampmeier, 2003). By presenting students with positive aspects of their surrounding community, students’ identification with the community increased as well as their willingness to volunteer in the community (Sturmer & Kampmeier, 2003).
     The literature does not address whether or not community engagement reduces stress levels among college students.
Stress in College
     Stress is defined “as any condition marked by physical or mental strain” (Crampton, Hodge, Mishra, & Price, 1995, p.10). It encompasses both psychological and biosocial components (Lazarus, 2000). The impact of stress on college students has been thoroughly investigated and documented by numerous researchers. In general, chronic stress can lead to physical, psychological, and behavioral problems. Physical problems resulting from prolonged stress include “heart disease, high blood pressure, strokes, migraine headaches, cancer, gastrointestinal disorders, asthma, diabetes, and multiple sclerosis” (Crampton et al., 1995, p.11). Stress is related to physiological reactions in the body, which may lead to some health problems. For example, when an individual becomes stressed, the sympathetic system is activated to prepare the body for the “fight-or-flight” response. The body responds by increasing the heart rate, breathing rate, and blood pressure (Carlson, 2001; Mason, 2002). Psychologically, stress can lead to problems including feelings of depression, helplessness or anxiousness (Struthers, Perry, & Menec, 2000; Towbes & Cohen, 1996; Crampton et al., 1995). 
     Specific to college students, Towbes & Cohen (1996) suggested that students have to deal with six main sources of stress upon entering college:  academic performance, peer relations, family relations, romantic relationships, lifestyle, and physical appearance and health. Adding to this, Niebling, & Heckert (1999) showed that students have to deal with intrapersonal stress, academic stress, and environmental stress. More specifically, they found that the top five sources of stress for college students include new sleeping habits, school breaks, new eating habits, increased amounts of work and increased responsibilities.
     Rawson, Bloomer, & Kendall (1994) studied the relationships among stress, anxiety, depression, and physical illness in undergraduate college students. While each of the variables studied were related to physical illness, the relationship between stress and illness was the strongest. Similarly, college students who are experiencing higher levels of stress are more likely to engage in unhealthy practices such as eating more junk food and exercising less; they also report lower satisfaction with their physical health (Hudd, Dumlao, Erdmann-Sager, Murray, Phan, Soukas, & Yokozuka, 2000). Looking at mental health, Goldman & Wong (1997) discovered that the more stress one experienced, the lower self-perceptions students had. Thus, high levels of stress have been shown to negatively affect college student physical and mental health. To avoid suffering from the common problems that ongoing stress can cause, one must develop an effective coping method.  Without an effective coping method, stress is often perceived as unmanageable (Struthers et al., 2000). 
     The literature does not address whether or not community engagement is related to stress levels among college students.
Coping Styles
     One of the most consistent findings of mediating variables for stress is coping styles. The purpose of coping is two-fold. First, coping attempts to control “harms, threats, and challenges to the person’s integrity in which that person has a stake by trying to change the situation for the better” (Lazarus 1996, p. 291). Second, coping aims to manage emotional reactions to the harm (Lazarus 1996). While Lazurus divides coping into two categories, emotion-focused and problem-focused, other researchers disagree with this division. For example, Carver, Scheier, & Weintraub (1989), believe that reducing coping into two distinct categories is too simple and instead divide coping into 14 components. Thus, the present study will use Carver et al.’s more complex model of coping.
     Past research has indicated the importance of coping with stress in a healthy manner. Ineffective coping can lead to negative psychological outcomes. For example, Carver & Scheier (1994) found that students who regularly used alcohol as a means of coping had higher scores of emotional harm, which indicated they tended to be in worse psychological condition. Also, Aspinwall & Taylor (1992) conducted a study evaluating college adjustment, academic success, health, optimism, self-esteem, and psychological control. Results showed that coping methods mediated the effects that optimism, self-esteem, and control had on college adjustment. More specifically, using more active coping, less avoidance coping, and more social support predicted better college adjustment and academic success.  As a result, if the student used avoidant coping, the overall well-being of the student was not improved making their adjustment to college more difficult. Use of avoidant coping also had a negative impact on health. Hence, research has indicated the importance of developing positive coping strategies to help college students deal with their stress.
     The literature does not address whether or not community engagement affects how college students cope with stress.
The Present Study
     While much research has been conducted on community engagement, researchers have not developed a consistent definition for the construct (e.g. definitions varying from civic involvement to volunteerism).  Thus, the current study explored community engagement from the perception of college students asking: 1) “How do college students perceive community engagement?”     In addition to exploring community engagement as a construct, the current study addressed the following questions. 2) Is there a relationship between students’ perception of engagement in the community and their actual community engagement?  (3) Is there a relationship between students’ engagement in the outside community and their engagement in the college community? (4) Is there a relationship between how students cope with stress and their perception of community engagement and their actual community engagement?
     Furthermore, since the literature did not address the issue of gender, we also asked: 5) Are there gender differences in the perception of community engagement, actual community engagement, and coping with stress among college students?
Method
Participants
     Participants included 160 undergraduate students (108 female) enrolled in a public university in Northwest Ohio.  Freshmen (14.4%), sophomores (19.4%), juniors (25%), and seniors (38.1%) were all represented in the participant pool.  The majority of participants reported their ethnic identity as European American/White (69.9%), followed by African American (13.8%), and other (totaling 16.3%).
Materials
     The survey packet included an informed consent form, a demographic questionnaire, the College Student Community Engagement Questionnaire (CS-CEQ), the Perceived Stress (Cohen, Kamarck, & Mermelstein, 1983), and the Brief COPE (Carver, 1997).
     The demographic questionnaire included items requesting the participants’ gender, race/ethnicity, chosen major, and religion.
     The College Student Community Engagement Questionnaire (CS-CEQ) was created for use in the present study. The scale consists of two sections. The first section of the scale consists of 23 questions about different community activities.  Examples include “A student who attends a spiritual service every week is engaged in the community;” “Participating in the outside community enriches the college experience;” “Going out (to clubs/bars) means a student is engaged in the community.” Students were asked to rank each item on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = Strongly Agree to 5 = Strongly Disagree). Internal consistency of this part of the measure was shown to be in the acceptable range, α = .76. The second section of the scale instructed students to list the activities that they were currently involved in both through the college and in the outside community.
     The third questionnaire administered was the Perceived Stress Scale (PSS; Cohen, Kamarck, & Mermelstein, 1983), which assesses the students’ stress levels over the past month.  Cohen, Kamarck, & Mermelstein (1983) developed the PSS to be used with individuals who have at least a junior high school education. The scale consists of fourteen questions to be ranked on a five-point Likert scale (0=never to 4=very often). For the PSS, reliability α = .85.  The PSS was correlated with a life-impact scale (r = .18-.36) and depressive symptoms (r =.52-.76) scale to establish validity.
     A fourth and final questionnaire was used to assess coping with a specific situation. The Brief COPE (Carver 1987) contains 28-items which form 14 separate coping scales. Initially, the development of the COPE was based on combining two theories: Folkman & Lazurus’ model of coping (1984) and Carver & Scheier’s (1981, 1990) model of behavioral disengagement. The Brief COPE was developed from the original COPE because of the necessity of shortening research protocols and reducing item redundancy. While not identical, factor analysis indicated that the internal structure of the brief instrument was similar to the original COPE. In addition, internal reliability fell in an acceptable range for most of the coping scales: active coping (α = .68), planning (α = .73), positive reframing (α = .64), humor (α = .73), religion (α = .82), using emotional support (α = .71), using instrumental support (a = .64), self-distraction (α = .71), substance use (α = .90), behavioral disengagement (α = .65), and self-blame (α = .69). Though lower, venting (α = .50), denial (α = .54), and acceptance (α = .57) still have alpha reliabilities of at least .50.  In this study, the COPE was used to measure situational stress; each participant was instructed to think of a particularly stressful situation that he or she had faced in the past month and to answer the questions with that situation in mind.
Procedure
     To collect data for this study, the researchers distributed survey packets to college students enrolled in psychology classes. Students were offered experimental credit in their psychology class for their participation.  Before completing the survey, participants were required to read and sign an informed consent page. The participants were encouraged to complete the survey individually and confidentially, only providing their name on the informed consent page. On average, the survey took between 15 and 30 minutes to complete for each participant. As the participants finished completing the survey instruments, the investigators collected the packets and removed the informed consent pages to store separately.
Results
     To evaluate the first exploratory research question, “How do students perceive community engagement,” Pearson’s correlations and Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity were performed to determine whether or not principal components analysis was appropriate for the data. Since sphericity was significant and the variables were correlated, principal components analysis was conducted. Exploratory analysis evaluated 6-, 7-, and 8-factor models for the factor structure of student perception of community involvement. Initially, a Scree Test and Kaiser’s stopping rule indicated a 6-factor model. However, using a 6-factor model only accounted for 60% of the variance in the data. Additionally, several of the factors did not fit together conceptually.  Thus, further analyses determined that a 7-factor model was the best fit for the data statistically because the seventh eigenvalue was close to one (.97), and accounted for 65% of the variance in the data. 
     Since the seven-factor model was determined to be the best fit statistically, seven factors were extracted. The factors include Activities Supporting the Community, Using Community Services, Spiritual Involvement in the Community, Working in the Community, Using Available Resources in the Community, and Supporting Community Restaurants. The first five factors had high internal consistency reliabilities (a = .75-.80). However, only the first two factors were used in additional analyses because of unacceptable number of items, factor loadings, and reliabilities, and conceptualization factors. See Table 1 for factor loadings, subscale means, and alpha reliabilities. 
     Further analysis of college students’ perception of community engagement: the first two factors (i.e. Activities Supporting the Community (M = 1.65, SD = .41) and Using Community Services (M = 3.14, SD = .61)) were compared using dependent samples t-tests.  Significant differences emerged (t (157) = 27.17, p < .001; d = 2.87) indicating that students’ perceive those components of Activities Supporting the Community as playing a larger role in engagement in the outside community.  Using Cohen’s d, the effect size for the difference is overwhelmingly large suggesting important differences between these factors. Results suggest a single strong factor to be considered in assessing community engagement.
     To evaluate the second exploratory question as to whether there is a relationship between students’ perception of engagement in the community and their actual community engagement, Pearson’s bivariate correlations among first two factors of the CS-CEQ and scores on actual community engagement were performed.  Results indicated that the two variables were not significantly related.
     Pearson’s bivariate correlations were also used to analyze the third exploratory question as to whether there is a relationship between students’ engagement in the outside community and their engagement in the college community, results indicated a small relationship between engagement inside and outside the college environment (r = .22, p < .01).
     In examining the fourth exploratory question as to whether there is a relationship between how students cope with stress and their perception of community engagement and their actual community engagement, once again, Pearson’s correlations were conducted.  The results show that coping would be related to perception of outside community engagement and actual community engagement partially.  More specifically, results indicate that the amount of coping a student uses is negatively related to their perception of community engagement, r = -.21, p < .05. However, there was no significant relationship between types of coping used and perception of community engagement or types of coping used and actual community engagement.
     Exploratory analyses using t-tests to address exploratory question five as to whether there are gender differences in the perception of community engagement, actual community engagement, and coping with stress among college students, indicated several differences between male and female participants. Females reported engaging in the community more often (t (1, 2) = 7.0, p < .05), and were more likely to use emotional support (t (1, 157) = 2.24, p < .05), venting (t (1, 154) = 2.95, p < .05), self-blame (t(1, 157) = 2.21, p < .05), and more coping overall (t (1, 142) = 2.60, p < .05) than males. Males had a significantly different perception of community engagement overall than females (t (1, 156) = 2.83, p < .05). More specifically, males did not perceive working in the community (t (1, 158) = 2.21, p < .05) or supporting community activities (t (1, 98) = 2.17, p < .05) to be as strong of components of engaging in the community as females did.  
Discussion
     The results of the current study indicate that students in a higher educational institution consider community engagement to be multi-faceted. Unlike previous studies in which only one type of community engagement was studied (e.g., Giles & Eyler, 1994; Angelique, 2001; Vernon & Foster, 2002; Sturmer & Kampmeier, 2003; Allen, Facteau, & Facteau, 2004), our findings suggest that future researchers need to expand their own ideas about what it means for students of higher educational institutions to be engaged in their communities. More specifically, college students perceive that volunteering, participating in community groups, voting, attending community presentations, and working in the community are all part of overall community engagement.  Additionally, results show promising psychometric properties for a new questionnaire, which combines the aforementioned components into one scale (i.e. Activities Supporting the Community) and separates them from other possible components (e.g. Using Community Services).  Additional research on the measure is needed to further develop the validity and reliability of the community engagement measure.
     A small relationship between perception of community engagement and actual engagement in the community was found, hence, it might suggest that these two constructs may not overlap as much as one would expect.  Since the relationship was of such small magnitude, further research is needed in order to understand and to verify the relationship between perception of engagement and actual engagement in the community. Additional research suggestions include examining other college adjustment outcome variables to determine the impact of community engagement on the college student. When these variables and relationships are better understood, researchers of university-community collaborations and of higher education issues can assist various stakeholders in better serving both the students and their surrounding community.
     Data related to answering question four indicates that style of coping with stress was not related to perception of community engagement, but amount of coping was negatively related to perception of community engagement. Both of these findings contradict that of Sturmer & Kampmeier (2003) who found that volunteerism or community service helps with coping with one’s own personal problems. A possible explanation for this discrepancy is that Sturmer & Kampmeier (2003) limited their research to volunteerism whereas the current study used a more inclusive definition of community engagement. Thus, it is possible that different facets of community engagement serve different purposes in terms of college students’ coping. More research is necessary to focus on both the separate aspects of community engagement as well as community engagement as a whole in order to arrive at more reliable conclusions about college students’ coping with stress and their community engagement. 
     Several gender differences emerged in terms of specific coping styles, perception of community engagement, and actual community engagement. For example, females engaged in the community more often, and were more likely to use emotional support, venting, self-blame, and more coping overall. Furthermore, males had different perception of community engagement overall than females, especially as in regards to working in the community and to supporting community activities, even though females were more likely to actually engage in these activities than males. Again, these findings about perception of community engagement and actual community engagement indicate that perception of engagement in the community is indeed a different construct than actual engagement in the community. A possible explanation for the gender differences in coping may be due to the differences in the socialization of females and males in the North American culture; males and females cope with stress differently and females have to juggle more their personal and professional lives.
     Limitations of the study are related to the newly developed measure and the nature of the sample.  First, the development of the College Student Community Engagement Questionnaire (CS-CEQ) is only at the beginning stage. While the two final components conceptually make sense and the alpha reliabilities and factor loadings are acceptable, more research needs to be conducted to confirm the factors, reliability, and validity. We are currently conducting additional research to help better establish the psychometric properties of the measure. Also, because the small sample size and limited sample diversity, generalizations based on our findings must be made with caution.
Applied and Research Implications for Higher Education
     The findings of this study have a number of implications regarding how to improve college students’ academic life by facilitating how they cope with stress and improving their perceptions of community engagement and actual community engagement, and how to research these attitudes/experiences. Faculty and professional advisers should advocate more that institutions of higher education support students’ efforts to be more engaged in their community. Many institutions of higher education’s mission include an outreach component; thus, these institutions should provide incentives for both students and faculty members to support college students’ community engagement. In a similar vein, there needs to be opportunities both on-campus and off-campus for students and community members to fashion out ways that students can be more engaged in their community. Furthermore, more opportunities for community engagement earlier on in an individual’s life (i.e., in elementary & high school) should be provided and encouraged by teachers and mentors so that when the student arrives in college/university, she or he is no stranger to community engagement.
     As researchers, it is important to explore whether more college students engaged in their communities complete their course of study compared with students not engaged in their communities. Further, we need to analyze the characteristics of college students and how these relate to the different levels and types of community engagement so as to assist institutions of higher education in targeting and recruiting a diverse population of students who are able to cope well with college life.  Hopefully, researchers and practitioners will encourage students to participate more in the on-going dialogue about coping with stress and community engagement in higher education.

References
Allen, T.D., J. D. Facteau, & Facteau, C.L. (2004). Structured interviewing for OCB: Construct validity, faking, and the effects
      of question type. Human Performance 17:1-24.
Angelique, H.L (2001). Linking the academy to the community through internships: A model of service learning, student
      empowerment, and transformative education.  Sociological Practice: A Journal of Clinical and Applied Sociology 3:
      37-53.
Aspinwall, L., & Taylor, S. (1992). Modeling cognitive adaptation: a longitudinal investigation of the impact of individual
      differences and coping on college adjustment and performance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 63:
      989-1003.
Carlson, N. (2001). Physiology of Behavior. 7th ed. Needham Heights, Massachusetts: Allyn and Bacon.
Carver, C.S. (1997). You want to measure coping but your protocol’s too long: Consider the Brief COPE. International
      Journal of Behavioral Medicine 4: 92-100.
Carver, C.S., & Scheier, M. F. (1981). Attention and self-regulation: A control-theory approach to human behavior. New York:
      Springer-Verlag.
Carver, C.S., & Scheier, M. F. (1990). Principles of self-regulation: Action and emotion. In Handbook of motivation and
      cognition: Foundations of social behavior, E.T. Higgins & R. M. Sorrentino (Eds.), pp. 3-52.New York: Guilford.
Carver, C., & Scheier, M. (1994). Situational coping and coping dispositions in stressful transaction. Journal of Personality
      and Social Psychology 66: 184-195.
Carver, C., M. Sheier, & Weintraub, J. (1989). Assessing coping strategies: a theoretically based approach. Journal of
      Personality and Social Psychology 56: 267-283.
Cohen, S., T. Kamarck, & Mermelstein, R. (1983).  A global measure of perceived stress. Journal of Health and Social
      Behavior 24: 385-396.
Crampton, S., J. Hodge, J. Mishra, & Price, S. (1995).  Stress and stress management. SAM Advanced Management
      Journal 60: 10-19.
Flannery, D. & Ward, K. (1999). Service learning: A vehicle for developing cultural competence in health education.
      American Journal of Health Behavior 23: 323-332.
Gagne, M. (2003). The role of autonomy support and autonomy orientation in prosocial behavior engagement. Motivation
      and Emotion 27: 199-223.
Giles, D.E., & Eyler, J. (1994). The impact of a college community service laboratory on students’ personal, social, and
      cognitive outcomes. Journal of Adolescence 17: 327-339.
Goldman, C. & Wong, E. (1997).  Stress and the college student. Education 117: 604-611.
Hudd, S., J. Dumlao, D. Erdmann-Sager, D. Murray, E. Phan, N. Soukas, & Yokozuka, N. (2000). Stress at college effects
      on health habits, health status, and self-esteem. College Student Journal 34: 217- 227.
Lazarus, R. (1996). The role of coping in the emotions and how coping changes over the life course. In Handbook of Emotion,
      Adult Development, and Aging, edited by C. Magai & S. H. McFadden, 289-306. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Lazarus, R. (2000). Toward better research on stress and coping. American Psychologist 55:665-673.
Lazurus, R. S., & Folkman, S. 1(984). Stress, appraisal, and coping. New York: Springer.  
Mason, L. 2002. Stress education center’s physiology of stress. http://www.dstress.com/stress.phys.html (October 22,
      2007)
Primavera, J. (1999). The unintended consequences of volunteerism: Positive outcomes for those who serve. Journal of
      Prevention & Intervention in the Community 18:125-140.
Rawson, H., K. Bloomer, & Kendall, A. (1994). Stress, anxiety, and physical illness in college students. Journal of
      Genetic Psychology 155: 321-331.
Ross, S., B. Niebling, & Heckert, T. (1999). Sources of stress among college students.  College Student Journal 33:
      312-317.
Stukas, A.A., M. Snyder, & Clary, E. G. (1999). The effects of “mandatory volunteerism” on intentions to volunteer.
      Psychological Science 10: 59-64.
Struthers, C., R. Perry, & Menec, V. (2000). An examination of the relationship among academic stress, coping,
      motivation, and performance in college. Research in Higher Education 41: 581-592.
Sturmer, S. & Kampmeier, C.  (2003). Active citizenship: The role of community identification in community volunteerism
      and local participation. Psychologica Belgica 43: 103-122.
Towbes, L. & Cohen, L. (1996). Chronic stress in the lives of college students: scale development and prospective prediction
      of distress. Journal of Youth and Adolescence 25:199-218.
Vernon, A. & Foster, L. (2002). Nonprofit agency perspectives of higher education service learning and volunteerism. Journal
      of Nonprofit & Public Sector Marketing 10:207-230.

Table 1: Factor Structure of the College Student Perception of Community Engagement
Questionnaire (N = 160)