journal_vol49no3 - 21

Investigating the Mental Health of Housing Staff
A recent study (Nyunt, 2021) concluded that residence life staff have experienced
a significant decline during the pandemic in social-psychological well-being and that
these low levels were also associated with intentions to leave the field of residence life
altogether. As several studies have shown (Davidson, 2012; Rankin, 2013; Reed, 2015),
the retention of housing staff had been worrisome even prior to the pandemic.
PURPOSE OF THE STUDY
This study is exploratory in nature, with a focus on examining the impact of COVID-19
on the mental health of university housing staff across multiple functional areas and
levels. This study addresses the following research question:
Are there any significant differences in the impact of the pandemic on the mental
health of university housing staff across groups based on race, gender, age group,
housing function, institution type, and education level?
METHODOLOGY
Data were collected from 218 university housing professionals across multiple functional
areas through a short survey that was shared with housing professionals at two
regional housing conferences, through regional housing conference email listservs,
and in a Facebook group dedicated to housing and residence life professionals during
February of 2022. The demographic section of the survey also captured respondents'
age ranges, their highest level of education, and the type of institution where they were
employed. (See Table 1, page 19.)
Survey Instrument
The survey instrument used for this study is known as the Mental Health Inventory-5
(MHI-5), a short, valid, reliable international instrument (Cronbach's α = .88 for the
population sample of this study) that has been used for assessing common mental
health disorders (CMDs) such as anxiety and depression in adults (Rivera-Riquelme
et al., 2019). The inventory has five questions, with six possible responses to each
question that are scored between 1 and 6. This allows the score for each individual to
range between 5 and 30, which is then transformed into a score between 0 and 100
using a standard linear transformation (Kelly et al., 2008). This is done in order to
standardize the raw scores (Hartley, 2012). A significant limitation of the MHI-5
is that it was not developed with a validated cut-point to define a case of common
mental health disorder. This study used the generalizable cut-point score of 76 to
define a case of CMD, as developed by Kelly and colleagues (2008), meaning that any
respondent with an MHI-5 score below 76 would be considered to have a diagnosable
case of CMD. In an effort to focus the responses on related effects of the pandemic,
the following sentences were added before the instrument:
Please read each question and select the statement that best describes how things
have been for you during the past two years (since the pandemic started). There are
no right or wrong answers.
18 The Journal of College and University Student Housing
journal_vol49no3

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of journal_vol49no3
