Scholarlink

<p>Grounded in the bioecological model, this study examined depressive symptom profiles and their links with school relational factors (teacher–student relationships, home–school relationships, peer friendships, and bullying victimization) among 3,837 Chinese adolescents (<i>M</i><sub>age</sub> = 14.71 years; <i>SD</i><sub>age</sub> = 1.42; 51.7% female). Latent profile analysis of depressed affect, somatic and retarded activity, interpersonal problems, and lack of positive affect identified four groups: low depression risk (LDR, 68.5%), moderate depression risk with low interpersonal problems (MDR-LIP, 11.6%), moderate depression risk (MDR, 13.5%), and high depression risk (HDR, 6.5%). Network analysis revealed profile-specific edge-weight configurations. The LDR group showed a pattern broadly consistent with supportive school relationships, the MDR-LIP group showed more complex, problem-linked relational edges, and the MDR and HDR groups showed strong depressed affect–somatic activity connections. Centrality analyses further highlighted peer friendships and lack of positive affect as recurring symptom–relationship connection points. These findings support differentiated school-based support.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

School Relational Environment and Adolescent Depressive Symptoms: Insights from Latent Profile and Network Analysis

  • 期刊论文

  • 发表日期：

    2026年7月20日

查看全文
  • Kuo Zhang,
  • Xiaoliu Jiang,
  • Chenyao Wang,
  • Suxia Liao,
  • Xuji Jia,
  • Sarah Gunn

摘要

Grounded in the bioecological model, this study examined depressive symptom profiles and their links with school relational factors (teacher–student relationships, home–school relationships, peer friendships, and bullying victimization) among 3,837 Chinese adolescents (Mage = 14.71 years; SDage = 1.42; 51.7% female). Latent profile analysis of depressed affect, somatic and retarded activity, interpersonal problems, and lack of positive affect identified four groups: low depression risk (LDR, 68.5%), moderate depression risk with low interpersonal problems (MDR-LIP, 11.6%), moderate depression risk (MDR, 13.5%), and high depression risk (HDR, 6.5%). Network analysis revealed profile-specific edge-weight configurations. The LDR group showed a pattern broadly consistent with supportive school relationships, the MDR-LIP group showed more complex, problem-linked relational edges, and the MDR and HDR groups showed strong depressed affect–somatic activity connections. Centrality analyses further highlighted peer friendships and lack of positive affect as recurring symptom–relationship connection points. These findings support differentiated school-based support.