Financial, resource, and psychological impacts of COVID-19 on U.S. College students: Who is impacted and what are the implications for adjustment and well-being?

Since the emergence of COVID-19 and associated mitigation measures in the United States, the general population has reported significant economic and mental health repercussions. College students faced additional disruptions to living, learning, and working environments (e.g., campus closures, abrupt transition to virtual learning), which influenced finances, access to resources, and psychological well-being. Early evidence showed widespread disruptions, with cascading effects on academic performance and mental health. However, it remained unclear whether students differed in severity and domain of impact, and whether these differences uniquely predicted well-being and college adjustment. The present study aimed to develop profiles of COVID-19-related impacts among college students across financial, resource, and psychological domains; identify the social positions of students most likely to experience such profiles; and examine associations of these profiles with student well-being and adjustment to college. The intent was to provide nuanced, person-centered insights to inform institutional supports and interventions.

Economic impacts: COVID-19 led to job loss, reduced hours/wages, and decreased internship and employment prospects for U.S. college students. Surveys in early 2020 documented substantial wage reductions, job/internship losses, and family income loss, with downstream effects such as food and housing insecurity and difficulty obtaining essential hygiene and medical supplies. Economic and resource hardships closely tied to mental health outcomes, including depression and stress. Psychological impacts: Meta-analytic and U.S.-based studies reported high prevalence of depressive and anxiety symptoms among college students during 2020, with many students experiencing high psychological impact. First-year students often showed worse psychological well-being than seniors in some studies. Group differences: Prior work suggested exacerbation of existing inequalities. Women and gender diverse students reported greater distress; first-generation students faced more remote learning barriers and basic needs insecurity; seniors anticipated larger career impacts, while first-year students sometimes reported worse psychological symptoms; and racial/ethnic disparities were noted in academic impacts and mental health, including heightened anti-Asian discrimination during the pandemic.

Design and setting: Cross-sectional online survey during January–February 2021 at a medium-sized Minority Serving Institution in the southeastern United States (Spring 2021 semester), amid a severe national COVID-19 peak. University context included mixed modality courses, reduced-capacity housing, and virtual activities. A modified statewide stay-at-home order with nightly curfew was in effect. Sample and recruitment: All traditional undergraduates aged 18–26 were invited via university-provided email addresses; extra credit was offered in three introductory courses. Of 1,186 who opened the survey, exclusions were applied for non-consent, excessive missingness (>90% blank), or failing attention checks. Final sample N=894 (median age 20). Demographics: 40.8% White, 30.6% Black, 8.7% Hispanic/Latinx, 6.8% Asian, 11% multiracial, 1.3% other; 82% women, 15.3% men, 2.7% nonbinary/other; class standing distributed across first-year to senior; 45.5% first-generation. Living arrangements: 38.7% at home, 38.3% on campus, 22.9% off-campus. Measures: - COVID-19 impacts: COVID Impacts Questionnaire (CIQ; 9 items; Conway et al., 2020) assessing financial, resource, and psychological domains (3 items each), rated 1–7. - College adjustment: College Student Adjustment Questionnaire (CAQ; O’Donnell et al., 2018) with educational and relational subscales (10 items total; 1–5), higher scores indicate better adjustment; reliability α=.89 (educational), α=.84 (relational). - Self-esteem: Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale (RSES; Rosenberg, 1979; 10 items; 1–4), higher scores indicate higher self-esteem; α=.91. - Sociodemographic covariates: self-reported race, gender, year in school (first-year vs others), and generational status (first-generation vs continuing-generation), dummy-coded. Small n precluded analyses specific to gender diverse students. Analytic plan: - Latent Profile Analysis (LPA) in Mplus 8.0 using nine CIQ items as continuous indicators (robust ML, FIML for missing data). Sequential models (1–6 profiles) compared via AIC, BIC, SABIC (lower better), VLMR-LRT, BLRT, classification quality (entropy; AvePP), and interpretability/parsimony. - Selected solution related to auxiliary variables using 3-step approach (Asparouhov & Muthén, 2014). Multinomial logistic regression predicted profile membership from covariates (race, gender, first-year, generational status). Distal outcomes (self-esteem, educational, relational adjustment) compared across profiles controlling for covariates using omnibus and pairwise Wald tests. Data handling: Eight cases missing all CIQ items were excluded from LPA (analytic N=886). Six cases missing demographics were excluded from covariate models (N=880).

Profile solution: - A 4-profile solution was selected for parsimony, interpretability, robust class sizes, and strong classification (entropy=0.896; AvePP=0.916–0.951). Profiles (with sample proportion): 1) Minimally Impacted (n=288; 32.5%): low financial, resource, and psychological impact. 2) Resource & Financially Impacted (n=140; 15.8%): moderate financial and resource impacts, low psychological impact. 3) Psychologically & Financially Impacted (n=308; 34.6%): moderate psychological and financial impacts, low resource impact. 4) Highly Impacted (n=151; 17.0%): high impacts across financial, resource, and psychological domains. Covariates predicting profile membership (multinomial logistic regression; reference profiles varied): - Gender: Men were more likely than women/gender diverse students to be Minimally Impacted vs Psychologically & Financially Impacted (OR=1.82, 95% CI: 1.21–2.74, p=.028) and Minimally Impacted vs Highly Impacted (OR=2.59, 95% CI: 1.46–4.59, p=.006). - Generational status: First-generation students more likely than continuing-generation to be in Resource & Financially Impacted (OR=1.67, 95% CI: 1.11–2.50, p=.039) and Highly Impacted (OR=1.64, 95% CI: 1.04–2.56, p=.007) relative to Psychologically & Financially Impacted. - Year in school: First-year students more likely to be Minimally Impacted vs Highly Impacted (OR=1.62, 95% CI: 1.08–2.42, p=.050). - Race: Not a significant predictor of profile membership. Distal outcomes (profile-specific adjusted means; omnibus Wald tests p<.001 for all three outcomes): - Self-esteem: Minimally 2.12; Resource & Financially 1.95; Psychologically & Financially 1.68; Highly 1.47. All pairwise differences significant (p=.016 for Minimally vs Resource & Financially; p<.001 others). - Educational adjustment: Minimally 4.46; Resource & Financially 4.33; Psychologically & Financially 4.28; Highly 3.82. Highly Impacted lower than all others (p<.001). Minimally higher than Psychologically & Financially (p=.044); no difference Minimally vs Resource & Financially (p=.254) or Resource & Financially vs Psychologically & Financially (p=.710). - Relational adjustment: Minimally 3.21; Resource & Financially 3.07; Psychologically & Financially 2.63; Highly 2.34. Minimally and Resource & Financially did not differ (p=.180); Psychologically & Financially lower than Minimally (p<.001); Highly lower than all others (p<.001 vs Minimally and Resource & Financially; p=.003 vs Psychologically & Financially).

Findings demonstrate heterogeneity in the types and severity of COVID-19-related impacts on U.S. college students. Four distinct profiles show that impact should be considered by domain, not only severity: many students experienced combinations of psychological and financial distress, with varying resource constraints. Gender and generational status disparities indicate that women and gender diverse students, and first-generation students, faced elevated multi-domain impacts; first-year students were relatively less likely to be highly impacted in this sample. These profiles were meaningfully linked to well-being and college adjustment: profiles with higher psychological and financial distress, especially the Highly Impacted group, had the lowest self-esteem and the poorest educational and relational adjustment. This underscores that co-occurring psychological and financial strain creates a particularly adverse environment for student functioning. Results inform targeted institutional supports by identifying who is most at risk and in which domains (financial, resource, psychological), with implications for improving academic and relational adjustment and overall well-being.

Most undergraduate students experienced notable COVID-19-related impacts across financial, resource, and psychological domains. Students highly impacted across domains showed the lowest self-esteem and poorest academic and relational adjustment. Institutions should prioritize supports for groups at elevated risk—women and gender diverse students, first-generation students, and students at advanced class standings—through mental health services, financial aid, and resource access as campuses transition and recover. Ensuring students’ safety and financial security may directly improve self-esteem and college adjustment. Future research should track longitudinal changes, include diverse campuses and modalities, and better capture experiences of gender diverse and other marginalized student populations.

Single-institution sample limits generalizability, especially given geographic variation in COVID-19 dynamics and institutional responses. Cross-sectional, single time point data preclude causal inference and comparisons to pre-pandemic functioning. Online-only survey distribution may have introduced selection bias (e.g., favoring students with reliable internet access). Small sample sizes for nonbinary and gender diverse students limited analyses for those groups. The measures did not include some potentially important pandemic-related impacts (e.g., household income changes, experiences of COVID-19-related racial discrimination).