Next Article in Journal
A Parallel Mediation Model of Career Adaptability, Career Self-Efficacy, and Future Career Choice Among University Students: The Role of Basic Psychological Needs Satisfaction and Mindfulness
Next Article in Special Issue
Scale of Subtle Prejudices Towards Disability at the University: Validation in Mexican Population
Previous Article in Journal
Relations Between Medical Students’ Motivational Persistence Skills and Their Acceptance of Specific Blended Learning Tools
Previous Article in Special Issue
Enhancing Emotional Intelligence in Autism Spectrum Disorder Through Intervention: A Systematic Review
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
EJIHPE
Volume 15
Issue 4
10.3390/ejihpe15040046
ejihpe-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Exploring the Associations Between School Climate and Mental Wellbeing: Insights from the MOVE12 Pilot Study in Norwegian Secondary Schools

by
Karoline Gulbrandsen Hansen
1 and
Svein Barene
2,*
1
Center for Studies of Educational Practice (SePU), University of Inland Norway, 2318 Hamar, Norway
2
Department of Public Health and Sport Sciences, University of Inland Norway, 2406 Elverum, Norway
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Eur. J. Investig. Health Psychol. Educ. 2025, 15(4), 46; https://doi.org/10.3390/ejihpe15040046
Submission received: 4 March 2025 / Revised: 17 March 2025 / Accepted: 23 March 2025 / Published: 26 March 2025
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Equity, Diversity, Inclusion, Well-Being, and Belonging in Education across the Disciplines)
Browse Figure
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
This study examined the association between school climate, defined by social and academic environments, and mental wellbeing among 446 first-year upper-secondary students in eastern Norway (ISRCTN10405415). As part of the MOVE12 pilot study conducted in February 2023, a cross-sectional online questionnaire targeted approximately 600 students from five schools offering diverse academic and vocational tracks. Mental wellbeing was assessed using the Warwick–Edinburgh Mental Wellbeing Scale (SWEMWBS, scale 7–35), and the data were analyzed with stepwise multiple linear regression. The mean mental wellbeing score was 24.5 ± 4.3, with significant gender differences (p < 0.05) but no variations between academic and vocational tracks. Self-efficacy was the strongest predictor of mental wellbeing (b = 0.236, p < 0.001), followed by health satisfaction (b = 0.179, p < 0.001), time spent with friends (b = 0.163, p < 0.001), social isolation (b = −0.162, p = 0.001), wellbeing in physical education (b = 0.129, p = 0.002), and classroom climate (b = 0.128, p = 0.007). These findings emphasize the critical role of self-efficacy, peer connections, and supportive classroom climates in promoting mental wellbeing. Addressing these elements of school climate can significantly enhance the mental health and overall outcomes of upper-secondary students.

1. Introduction

Mental wellbeing has been a central topic of research for decades, with numerous studies investigating the factors that contribute to this complex construct (Guo et al., 2024; Lin & Guo, 2024). Mental wellbeing concerns optimal experience and functioning, emphasizing the subjective experiences of happiness and life satisfaction (Buecker et al., 2023; Ryan & Deci, 2001). There are different theoretical approaches tied to wellbeing. Still, the term mental wellbeing can be referred to as a positive and sustainable mental state that allows individuals to thrive and flourish and focuses on both a feeling of happiness and the functionality of an individual (Ellyatt, 2022; Lomas et al., 2023; Novak & Kiknadze, 2024). Developing positive mental wellbeing has long-term benefits, as adolescents with high wellbeing tend to perform better academically, have greater career success, and report higher life satisfaction in adulthood (Loft & Waldfogel, 2021; Thomson et al., 2022). Social relationships and physical health are key factors in fostering mental wellbeing (Merino et al., 2024; Regan et al., 2022; Ryan & Deci, 2001), and school climate plays a particularly important role, as adolescents spend a significant portion of their daily lives in school (Bailey et al., 2012; Hawkins et al., 2023).
School climate influences students’ mental wellbeing by shaping their social interactions, sense of belonging, and academic motivation. Self-Determination Theory (SDT) highlights the importance of autonomy, competence, and relatedness in fostering wellbeing (Ryan & Deci, 2000). When students feel supported by teachers and peers, experience meaningful learning, and develop self-efficacy, they are more likely to engage in school positively. Conversely, a lack of support or inclusion can undermine motivation and wellbeing. The Socio-Ecological Model (SEM) further explains how individual wellbeing is influenced by interactions across multiple environmental levels (Özdoğru, 2011). Supportive peer networks, inclusive extracurricular activities, and school-based mental health initiatives create an environment that fosters a sense of belonging and emotional security (Darling-Hammond & Cook-Harvey, 2018).
Research has shown that students’ perceptions of their school climate are closely linked to both health and psychosocial wellbeing (Bosacki et al., 2023; Eccles & Roeser, 2011; Tusha et al., 2024; Wang et al., 2020), influencing self-esteem, depression, and anxiety (Aldridge & McChesney, 2018; Li et al., 2024; Raniti et al., 2022). Students construct their identities through their experiences with their classroom climate and school climate by developing competencies and skills, understanding their social standing among peers, and enhancing their ability to self-regulate learning behaviors (Bandura, 2002; Deci & Ryan, 2000; Li et al., 2024; Meland & Brion-Meisels, 2024). The role of school climate is, therefore, pivotal in shaping students’ holistic development and mental wellbeing through extended socialization, fostering friendships, providing emotional support, and cultivating a sense of belonging (Eccles & Roeser, 2011; Huang & Chui, 2024; Thapa et al., 2013; Tusha et al., 2024).
Moreover, extensive scientific evidence highlights the positive effects of regular physical activity on mental wellbeing (Cheng et al., 2025), primarily through the release of endorphins and serotonin, which play a critical role in mood regulation (Cadenas-Sanchez et al., 2021; Mandolesi et al., 2018). Physical activity has also been shown to improve cognitive function, enhance academic performance, and support stress regulation (Zarazaga-Peláez et al., 2024). Given the increasing prevalence of sedentary behavior and declining physical activity levels among adolescents worldwide (van Sluijs et al., 2021), integrating physical activity into daily routines could be a strategic approach to addressing the rising rates of mental health challenges in youth. Such an initiative could also positively impact school-related factors, including school climate, by fostering a sense of belonging, strengthening peer relationships, and promoting resilience (K. A. Allen et al., 2022; Biddle & Asare, 2011).
This study aimed to explore the specific aspects of school climate that can contribute to students’ mental wellbeing. According to Wang and Degol (2016), school climate can be described as a multidimensional construct that can be conceptualized into four areas: safety, community, academic environment, and institutional environment. Each of these areas plays a crucial role in supporting the functioning and flourishing of students (Wang & Degol, 2016). Within this framework, students’ mental wellbeing can be categorized into three main domains: (i) safety, (ii) community, and (iii) the academic environment. These areas are essential in helping students feel seen, heard, and valued as integral class members. The safety domain encompasses both physical safety and emotional safety, which are foundational for fostering a positive learning environment (Bradshaw et al., 2021; Nickerson et al., 2021). The community domain involves the quality of relationships, sense of belonging, and school connectedness, which have been shown to significantly impact student engagement and mental wellbeing (Han, 2021; Kim et al., 2023; Thapa et al., 2013). Finally, the academic domain includes students’ self-efficacy and motivation, which are crucial for achieving academic success and personal growth. Self-efficacy, defined as the belief in one’s ability to influence events that affect one’s life, plays an important role in decision-making and perceptions of personal agency (Bandura, 1977). Research suggests that young people’s perceived self-efficacy is shaped by contextual factors, including the school context (Butz & Usher, 2015; Kim et al., 2023).
Given that the different dimensions of school climate play a crucial role in meeting students’ psychosocial needs, it can be argued that when these needs are met, students are more likely to engage in learning and develop essential academic skills (Conesa et al., 2022; Lombardi et al., 2019; Thapa et al., 2013). Understanding the impact of mental wellbeing on both the present and the future lives of young people (Diener & Seligman, 2004; Martela, 2024), this study aimed to investigate how school climate influences students’ mental wellbeing in upper-secondary schools.
Although some studies have identified a positive association between a supportive school climate and mental wellbeing in upper-secondary schools, most have primarily focused on younger students. Additionally, some of these studies have been conducted outside Western Europe (Podiya et al., 2025), within sociocultural contexts that differ from the Norwegian setting. However, according to a recent Norwegian study, gender-dependent classroom climate influences emotional wellbeing (Røsand & Johansen, 2024). Given the unique developmental challenges faced by upper-secondary students and the need for context-specific insights, this study investigated the following research question:
‘How are dimensions of school climate, such as self-efficacy, classroom climate, social isolation, and wellbeing in physical education (PE), associated with the mental wellbeing of Norwegian upper secondary students, when accounting for variables such as gender, socioeconomic status (SES), study track, health satisfaction, and time spent with friends during leisure time?’

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Study Design and Participants

This cross-sectional online questionnaire was conducted as a baseline assessment within a 12-week randomized controlled physical activity pilot study among Norwegian upper-secondary school students, where the study design has been previously presented in detail (Barene et al., 2025). In short, the intervention was conducted between January and May 2023. The target population included first-year students from three counties in eastern Norway. Efforts were made to ensure balanced representation from both academic and vocational study programs. Invitations were sent to 27 schools, and five were selected based on a stratified convenience sampling approach to achieve an approximately equal distribution of students from both categories. Among these, three were academic schools, and two were vocational. One vocational school, being twice the size of the others, contributed approximately 200 students, while the remaining four schools, three academic and one vocational, contributed about 100 students each. This selection ensured that the final sample included approximately 300 students from each study program, while also facilitating organization and implementation.
The inclusion criteria required students aged 16–17 years, while the exclusion criteria included disabilities or illnesses that posed participation or health risks. The study was approved by the Research Ethics Committee at Inland University Norway (21/01894) and registered in the International Standard Randomized Controlled Trial Number Register (ISRCTN10405415). Written informed consent was obtained from all participants.
The questionnaire incorporated validated scales to measure demographic background variables, mental wellbeing, and school-related factors, addressing the primary outcome variables of this study.

2.2. Demographic Background Variables

The demographic background variables included gender, socioeconomic status (SES), study track, time spent with friends, and health satisfaction. Gender was recorded as ‘girl’, ‘boy’, or ‘other’, with ‘other’ being omitted from the statistical analyses due to the small sample size, ensuring confidentiality. SES was assessed using a question from The Norwegian Directorate of Health (Nes et al., 2018): ‘How easy or difficult is it for you to make ends meet on a daily basis with your household income?’. Responses were captured on a 7-point Likert scale ranging from ‘Very hard’ to ‘Very easy’, with an option for ‘I do not know’. Study track was categorized as either academic or vocational, with additional details provided for specific programs within those tracks. Social interaction was measured using a single item from the Oslo Social Support Scale (Nes et al., 2018), which assessed the time spent with friends on a 6-point Likert scale from ‘Almost daily’ to ‘Less often than every year’, including the option ‘I do not have any good friends’. Lastly, health satisfaction was measured using a single item from the Short Form Survey Instrument (Ware & Sherbourne, 1917), asking, ‘How do you perceive your health status today?’. Responses were recorded on a 5-point Likert-scale ranging from 1 = ‘Bad’ to 5 = ‘Excellent’.

2.3. Mental Wellbeing

Mental wellbeing was assessed using the short version of the Warwick–Edinburgh Mental Wellbeing Scale (SWEMWBS), a validated tool particularly suited for Norwegian adolescents (Ringdal et al., 2018; Smith et al., 2017; Tennant et al., 2007). This 7-item scale captures wellbeing on a 7-35 range and includes statements such as ‘I have been optimistic about the future’, ‘I have felt useful’, and ‘I have been thinking clearly’. Responses are rated on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 = ‘Not at all’ to 5 = ‘All the time’. The scale demonstrated good internal consistency in this study, with a Cronbach’s α of 0.789.

2.4. Self-Efficacy

Self-efficacy was assessed using a scale specifically adapted for Norwegian students by Sørlie and Nordahl (1998) based on Bandura (2006). The scale consists of four items that gauge students’ perceptions of their self-efficacy, with statements such as ‘I think I can handle the tasks I am given in class’ and ‘I give up if I find the task difficult’. Responses were recorded on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 = ‘No, never’ to 5 = ‘Yes, always’. The scale demonstrated acceptable internal consistency in this study, with a Cronbach’s α of 0.722.

2.5. Classroom Climate and Social Isolation

Classroom climate was measured using a scale originally developed by Moos (1974), which was later adapted and translated into Norwegian by Sørlie and Nordahl (1998) and Ogden (1995). While the original scale comprised 13 items, this study focused on nine items specifically related to the classroom climate, yielding a Cronbach’s α of 0.847, indicating good internal consistency. The scale includes items such as ‘I can ask a classmate for help if there is something I do not understand’ and ‘The students in my class know each other well’, with responses rated on a 4-point Likert scale ranging from 1 = ‘Totally disagree’ to 4 = ‘Totally agree’.
To assess perceived social isolation at school, the study employed a modified version of the ‘Social skills rating system’ developed by Gresham (1990), also translated and adapted for Norwegian use by Sørlie and Nordahl (1998). Originally containing 21 items across three factors, the scale was condensed to 5 items focusing on social isolation, including statements like ‘I feel sad at school’, ‘I am alone during recess’, and ‘I am excluded from the social relationships at school’. The five-item social isolation scale demonstrated acceptable reliability with a Cronbach’s α of 0.789.

2.6. Wellbeing in Physical Education

To assess wellbeing in physical education (PE), we adapted the wellbeing in school scale from the Norwegian Ungdata survey (Bakken, 2022) specifically for PE classes. The scale comprises five items, including statements such as ‘I enjoy physical education classes’ and ‘I feel that I fit in among the students in physical education’. Responses were measured on a 4-point Likert scale ranging from 1 = ‘Totally disagree’ to 4 = ‘Totally agree’. The scale demonstrated good internal consistency in this study, with a Cronbach’s α of 0.746.

2.7. Statistical Analysis

Descriptive item statistics were initially explored using STATA version 18 (StataCorp LP, College Station, TX, USA). Preliminary analysis included summary statistics of demographic data, followed by factor analyses to validate the constructs. Correlation analyses were then performed to examine the relationships between the scales and mental wellbeing.
All participants who provided informed consent and completed the questionnaire were included in the dataset. However, seven responses were excluded from the analyses because the participants identified as ‘Other’ in response to the gender identity question (Boy, Girl, Other). Due to the small sample size in this category, meaningful statistical comparisons were not feasible.
A stepwise multiple linear regression was conducted with mental wellbeing as the dependent variable. To ensure the validity of the results, we verified that the assumptions of normality, linearity, multicollinearity, and homoscedasticity were not violated. Gender, study track, and SES were entered at Step 1, explaining 6% of the variance in mental wellbeing. At Step 2, time spent with friends and health satisfaction were added, increasing the explained variance to 20%. Finally, at Step 3, the inclusion of the four school-related variables, wellbeing in PE, self-efficacy, classroom climate, and social isolation, enhanced the model, explaining 37% of the variance in mental wellbeing, F (9,436) = 29.5, p < 0.001. The beta coefficients were subsequently analyzed to assess the relative impact of each predictor, highlighting their significance to students’ mental wellbeing.

3. Results

3.1. Descriptive Statistics

Out of 739 eligible students across five schools, 446 (∼60%) participated in the online electronic questionnaire (see Table 1), comprising 247 girls and 199 boys. Of these, 253 students (∼57%, 140 girls, 113 boys) were enrolled in academic tracks, while 193 (∼43%, 107 girls, 86 boys) were in vocational tracks. No significant differences were observed between academic and vocational groups in terms of SES, time spent with friends outside school, or mental wellbeing. However, health satisfaction varied significantly, with students in the academic track and boys reporting higher satisfaction levels (Table 1).

3.2. Correlation and Multicollinearity

To explore associations between the dependent variable and the explanatory variables, a correlation analysis was conducted (Table 2). However, additional analyses using the variance inflation factor (VIF) indicated no multicollinearity among the independent variables, with all VIF values below 1.6.

3.3. School Climate and Mental Wellbeing

To systematically explore potential mediating relationships between the variables, a 3-step multiple regression analysis was used (Table 3). This approach is particularly useful for examining complex models, as it allows for stepwise identification of direct effects, mediators, and moderators (Baron & Kenny, 1986; Hayes, 2017). Our model explained 36.6% of the variance in mental wellbeing, which is considered acceptable.
As shown in Figure 1, the analysis revealed that all school climate variables significantly predicted mental wellbeing. Self-efficacy was the strongest predictor (b = 0.236, p < 0.001), followed by social isolation (b = −0.162, p = 0.001), wellbeing in physical education (PE) (b = 0.129, p = 0.002), and classroom climate (b = 0.128, p = 0.007). Additionally, Model 3 demonstrated that health satisfaction (b = 0.179, p < 0.001) and time spent with friends (b = 0.163, p < 0.001) remained significant predictors, highlighting the complex array of factors within the school environment that influence students’ mental wellbeing (Table 3).
Interestingly, socioeconomic status (SES) showed no significant association with mental wellbeing in our analysis (b = 0.026, p = 0.497). This suggests that SES has a limited influence on mental wellbeing in this context when other factors are considered.

4. Discussion

The aim of this study was to explore how students’ perceptions of their school climate could impact their self-perceived mental wellbeing. Our findings indicate that various dimensions of school climate, as well as both health satisfaction and time spent with friends in leisure time, are significant predictors of mental wellbeing, underscoring the importance of considering these factors in educational settings. The regression analysis revealed that wellbeing in PE, self-efficacy, classroom climate, and social isolation impact students’ mental wellbeing, even after controlling for gender, study track, health satisfaction, and time spent with friends during leisure time.
In our model, self-efficacy emerged as the most robust predictor of wellbeing (b = 0.236; p < 0.000). This suggests that students who perceive themselves as capable and competent are more likely to experience higher levels of mental wellbeing. This aligns with previous research that emphasizes the role of self-efficacy in fostering a positive self-image and enhancing mental health (Brandseth et al., 2019; De Caroli & Sagone, 2014; Guo et al., 2024). Self-efficacy is a dynamic construct where the environment and personal behavior interact with thoughts, feelings, and beliefs (Bandura, 1977). Therefore, the school environment is crucial in shaping students’ self-efficacy, influencing their motivation and learning (Hattie, 2023). Research by De Caroli and Sagone (2014) underscores that students with higher scholastic self-efficacy tend to experience greater wellbeing (De Caroli & Sagone, 2014), demonstrating the strong connection between perceived competence and psychological health. Nonetheless, Lombardi et al. (2019) highlights that the benefits of a positive school climate on student engagement are dependent on its effective implementation and its ability to enhance students’ wellbeing experiences (Lombardi et al., 2019). This suggests that while fostering a supportive school environment is essential, its actual impact on student wellbeing hinges on how well it translates into meaningful improvements in students’ daily experiences and perceptions.
Our findings suggest that social relationships, both within and outside school, significantly predict students’ mental wellbeing. Classroom climate (b = 0.128; p = 0.007) remained a significant predictor, even when controlling for time spent with friends outside school (b = 0.163; p < 0.001). Strong social relationships are crucial to mental wellbeing, as they provide emotional support, a sense of belonging, and opportunities for social interaction, all of which contribute to psychological adjustment (Wang & Degol, 2016). The classroom climate significantly impacts wellbeing, especially for young people who spend substantial time interacting with their peers and classmates during school days (Naidoo & Wills, 2009). A strong sense of belonging and social support within the classroom setting is closely associated with enhanced mental wellbeing, as students who feel seen, respected, and included tend to experience higher levels of wellbeing (K. Allen et al., 2018; Brandseth et al., 2019; Guo et al., 2024).
However, classroom climate alone did not explain the gender difference in mental wellbeing, as the effect remained significant (p < 0.001) after its inclusion. The gender disparity only disappeared after adding self-efficacy, social isolation, and wellbeing in PE, suggesting that these factors collectively account for the difference. Girls may experience lower self-efficacy, greater social isolation, or different PE experiences, which could contribute to their lower wellbeing. Unlike previous research indicating gender-specific effects of classroom climate (Røsand & Johansen, 2024), our study suggests that multiple school-related factors drive gender disparities in mental wellbeing. While our study did not directly examine body image satisfaction, social comparison, or academic stress, prior research has highlighted that adolescent girls often report lower body image satisfaction, greater vulnerability to social comparison, and higher academic stress related to societal expectations, factors that have been linked to self-esteem and overall wellbeing (Barene et al., 2022; Kaczmarek & Trambacz-Oleszak, 2021; Papageorgiou et al., 2022). These broader patterns may help contextualize the gender differences observed in our study, underscoring the need for further research into the complex interplay of psychological and social factors in adolescent mental health.
This aligns with attachment theory, which posits that consistent emotional support and a secure environment foster self-reliance and resilience (Ainsworth, 1989; Wang & Degol, 2016), enabling young people to make autonomous decisions rather than being influenced by their surroundings. Schools characterized by high-quality relationships and a sense of connectedness not only boost academic achievements but also contribute to positive health outcomes (Thapa et al., 2013; Wang & Degol, 2016), emphasizing the pivotal role of a supportive school environment in promoting holistic student development.
Our model indicates that social isolation may negatively impact students’ wellbeing (b = −0.162; p = 0.001). Social isolation is often linked to reduced wellbeing and can lead to feelings of loneliness, which may exacerbate existing mental health issues (Diener & Seligman, 2004). Physical and emotional safety are integral components of a positive school climate, as they allow students to express themselves without fear of negative reactions. Students who feel unsafe, or experience social isolation or bullying, are likely at a higher risk of lower wellbeing (Diener & Seligman, 2004).
Not surprisingly, the study demonstrated that perceived wellbeing in physical education (PE) classes significantly enhanced students’ overall mental wellbeing (b = 0.129; p = 0.002). This finding aligns with existing research indicating that physical education offers students crucial opportunities for physical activity, social interaction, and skill development, all of which are instrumental in enhancing self-esteem and mental health (Bailey et al., 2012; Janssen & LeBlanc, 2010). The beneficial effects of physical activity on mental health are well-documented, with evidence indicating improvements in mood, reduction in anxiety levels, and enhanced cognitive function (Biddle & Asare, 2011; Lubans et al., 2016). It should be emphasized that physical activity represents a powerful tool for enhancing wellbeing and improving students’ quality of life (Cadenas-Sanchez et al., 2021). While this study does not assess the direct effects of physical activity, future research should further explore how structured school-based interventions can optimize its implementation as a mental health-promoting strategy in educational settings.
It is important to acknowledge that wellbeing in the school environment is shaped not only by individual experiences but also by broader institutional factors, including the school’s approach to and implementation of physical activity (van Sluijs et al., 2021). While this study represents a baseline assessment conducted before the implementation of the physical activity intervention, prior research suggests that school policies, teacher attitudes, and the availability of structured physical activity opportunities significantly influence students’ engagement and wellbeing (Biddle & Asare, 2011; Guthold et al., 2020). Future research should examine how the implementation of structured physical activity programs impacts school climate and student wellbeing outcomes beyond individual perceptions of PE. These findings reinforce the critical role of well-structured PE programs in promoting mental wellbeing among students.
Unlike previous studies identifying SES as a key predictor of mental wellbeing (Pillas et al., 2014; Reiss, 2013), the significant association observed in Model 1 (p = 0.001) disappeared after adjusting for spending time with friends and health satisfaction in Model 2 (p = 0.068) and was further diminished in Model 3 (p = 0.497). This suggests that social relationships and perceived health mediate the SES-wellbeing link, consistent with research highlighting their protective role (Coyle et al., 2022). Another possible explanation is the limited socioeconomic diversity in our sample, which may have reduced variability and obscured potential associations. Additionally, the findings align with the resource substitution hypothesis (Schoon et al., 2021; Shi et al., 2023), which posits that strong social and environmental support can mitigate the negative effects of SES disparities. In this context, school-related factors, such as supportive peer and teacher relationships, likely played a compensatory role, buffering the impact of SES on wellbeing (Patalay & Fitzsimons, 2018). These protective mechanisms may have weakened the direct association between SES and mental wellbeing, underscoring the importance of social resources in shaping adolescent mental health outcomes. Future research should examine these dynamics in more socioeconomically diverse samples and employ longitudinal designs to clarify how school environments and peer relationships mediate SES effects over time. This would help identify targeted interventions to reduce socioeconomic disparities in adolescent mental health.
The findings should be understood in the Norwegian context, where equal access to education, healthcare, and social support most likely helps reduce SES differences in mental wellbeing. Instead, self-efficacy emerged as the strongest positive predictor, followed by time spent with friends and health satisfaction, emphasizing the role of personal agency and social connectedness. Additionally, classroom climate ranked third, reinforcing the impact of inclusive, student-centered learning environments. In contrast, social isolation was a significant negative predictor, underscoring its harmful effects. These results suggest that in Norway, school climate and peer relationships are central to adolescent mental wellbeing, differing from societies where SES plays a stronger role due to greater economic inequality or competitive educational systems (Reiss, 2013; Rudolf & Lee, 2023).

4.1. Strengths and Limitations

A strength of the study is the relatively robust data collection employing validated scales across key constructs such as mental wellbeing, self-efficacy, and classroom climate, which ensured accurate and dependable measurements. An additional strength is the 61% response rate from both academic and vocational programs enhancing the study’s generalizability. However, a potential weakness of the study is the use of self-reported data, which may lead to response bias due to socially desirable answering tendencies. Furthermore, while the five participating schools were geographically distributed across southeastern Norway, their location in mid-sized urban areas may limit the study’s representativeness. To improve the external validity, future research should strive to include a more diverse sample, incorporating schools from various regions, including rural areas.

4.2. Educational Strategies and Future Research Directions

Our findings underscore the importance of school climate in shaping students’ mental wellbeing. Self-Determination Theory (SDT) highlights that when students experience autonomy, competence, and relatedness, they are more likely to develop intrinsic motivation, emotional resilience, and overall wellbeing (Ryan & Deci, 2000). The results indicate that positive teacher–student relationships, peer support, and engagement in school activities contribute to students’ sense of belonging and self-efficacy, supporting SDT’s emphasis on fulfilling these psychological needs. Similarly, the Socio-Ecological Model (SEM) illustrates how school climate interacts with individual and social factors to shape wellbeing (Özdoğru, 2011). The classroom climate, peer relationships, and extracurricular participation play a crucial role in either mitigating or reinforcing SES-related disparities, social isolation, and differences in health satisfaction. Our findings suggest that a supportive school climate can buffer the negative effects of socioeconomic disadvantages by fostering positive interactions, meaningful engagement, and emotional security. These results highlight the need for school-based interventions that enhance peer integration, improve teacher–student relationships, and create inclusive learning environments.
Future research should further explore these mechanisms by examining how teacher–student dynamics contribute to self-efficacy, the impact of extracurricular activities on social connectedness, and the role of digital technology as both a risk factor and a support tool for mental wellbeing. Understanding these factors will provide valuable insights for designing evidence-based educational policies that promote students’ wellbeing in diverse learning contexts.

5. Conclusions

Our study reveals that various dimensions of school climate, including self-efficacy, classroom climate, and wellbeing in physical education, are significant predictors of students’ mental wellbeing. Self-efficacy emerged as the strongest predictor, indicating the critical role of perceived competence. Social relationships, both within and outside school, also play a vital role, while social isolation negatively impacts wellbeing. In contrast, the study suggests that neither gender nor SES has a substantial influence on shaping students’ mental health outcomes. These findings underscore the importance of a supportive school climate, particularly for upper-secondary students, in promoting mental health.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, K.G.H. and S.B.; methodology, K.G.H. and S.B.; formal analysis, K.G.H. and S.B.; data curation, K.G.H. and S.B.; writing—original draft preparation, K.G.H.; writing—review and editing, K.G.H. and S.B.; supervision, S.B.; project administration, S.B. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by The Savings Bank Foundation DNB.

Institutional Review Board Statement

The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki and approved by the Committee for Research Ethics (KoFE) of University of Inland Norway (21/01894, 23/12/2022).

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

Data Availability Statement

The raw data supporting the conclusions of this article will be made available by the authors on request.

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank Rolf Inge Ølberg at Østfold County Municipality and the teacher ambassadors at the respective schools for their administrative support during the data collection.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest. The funders had no role in the design of the study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript; or in the decision to publish the results.

References

  1. Ainsworth, M. S. (1989). Attachments beyond infancy. American Psychologist, 44, 709. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Aldridge, J. M., & McChesney, K. (2018). The relationships between school climate and adolescent mental health and wellbeing: A systematic literature review. International Journal of Educational Research, 88, 121–145. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Allen, K., Kern, M. L., Vella-Brodrick, D., Hattie, J., & Waters, L. (2018). What schools need to know about fostering school belonging: A meta-analysis. Educational Psychology Review, 30, 1–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Allen, K. A., Jamshidi, N., Berger, E., Reupert, A., Wurf, G., & May, F. (2022). Impact of school-based interventions for building school belonging in adolescence: A systematic review. Educational Psychology Review, 34, 229–257. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Bailey, D. P., Fairclough, S. J., Savory, L. A., Denton, S. J., Pang, D., Deane, C. S., & Kerr, C. J. (2012). Accelerometry-assessed sedentary behaviour and physical activity levels during the segmented school day in 10–14-year-old children: The HAPPY study. European Journal of Pediatrics, 171, 1805–1813. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  6. Bakken, A. (2022). Ungdata 2022. Nasjonale resultater (nova Rapport 5/22). Velferdsforskningsinstituttet nova. [Google Scholar]
  7. Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84, 191–215. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Bandura, A. (2002). Social foundations of thought and action. In D. F. Marks (Ed.), Social foundations of thought and action (pp. 94–106). SAGE Publications Ltd. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Bandura, A. (2006). Guide for constructing self-efficacy scales. In F. Pajares, & T. Urdan (Eds.), Adolescence and education: Self-efficacy and adolescence (pp. 307–337). Information Age Publishing. [Google Scholar]
  10. Barene, S., Johansen, P. F., Tjomsland, H. E., Ølberg, R. I., & Thurston, M. (2025). Applying intervention mapping to develop a program for promoting short physical activity breaks during class time in upper secondary schools: The move12 protocol study. Frontiers in Sports and Active Living, 6, 1460373. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Barene, S., Ruud-Tronsmoen, A., & Johansen, P. F. (2022). Associations between demographic characteristics, lifestyle factors and school-related conditions and symptoms of mental health problems in norwegian upper secondary school students. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 19, 9575. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator–mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173–1182. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Biddle, S. J. H., & Asare, M. (2011). Physical activity and mental health in children and adolescents: A review of reviews. British Journal of Sports Medicine, 45, 886–895. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Bosacki, S., Talwar, V., & Lecce, S. (2023). Critical review: Secondary school climate and adolescents’ emotional well-being. Adolescents, 3(3), 508–523. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Bradshaw, C. P., Cohen, J., Espelage, D. L., & Nation, M. (2021). Addressing school safety through comprehensive school climate approaches. School Psychological Review, 50(2–3), 221–236. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Brandseth, O. L., Håvarstein, M. T., Urke, H. B., Haug, E., & Larsen, T. (2019). Mental well-being among students in Norwegian upper secondary schools: The role of teacher support and class belonging. Norsk Epidemiologi, 28, 49–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Buecker, S., Luhmann, M., Haehner, P., Bühler, J. L., Dapp, L. C., Luciano, E. C., & Orth, U. (2023). The development of subjective well-being across the life span: A meta-analytic review of longitudinal studies. Psychological Bulletin, 149(7–8), 418–446. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Butz, A. R., & Usher, E. L. (2015). Salient sources of early adolescents’ self-efficacy in two domains. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 42, 49–61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Cadenas-Sanchez, C., Mena-Molina, A., Torres-Lopez, L. V., Migueles, J. H., Rodriguez-Ayllon, M., Lubans, D. R., & Ortega, F. B. (2021). Healthier minds in fitter bodies: A systematic review and meta-analysis of the association between physical fitness and mental health in youth. Sports Medicine, 51, 2571–2605. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Cheng, R., Yang, L., & Kang, S. J. (2025). A study on the relationship between high school students’ sleep quality, physical exercise, academic stress, and subjective well-being. BMC Psychology, 13, 180. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Conesa, P. J., Onandia-Hinchado, I., Dunabeitia, J. A., & Moreno, M. Á. (2022). Basic psychological needs in the classroom: A literature review in elementary and middle school students. Learning and Motivation, 79, 101819. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Coyle, S., Weinreb, K. S., Davila, G., & Cuellar, M. (2022). Relationships matter: The protective role of teacher and peer support in understanding school climate for victimized youth. Child Youth Care Forum, 51, 181–203. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Darling-Hammond, L., & Cook-Harvey, C. M. (2018). Educating the whole child: Improving school climate to support student success. Learning Policy Institute. [Google Scholar]
  24. De Caroli, M. E., & Sagone, E. (2014). Generalized self-efficacy and well-being in adolescents with high vs. low scholastic self-efficacy. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 141, 867–874. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The “what” and “why” of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11, 227–268. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Diener, E., & Seligman, M. E. P. (2004). Beyond money: Toward an economy of well-being. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 5, 1–31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  27. Eccles, J. S., & Roeser, R. W. (2011). Schools as developmental contexts during adolescence. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 21, 225–241. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Ellyatt, W. (2022). Education for human flourishing—A new conceptual framework for promoting ecosystemic wellbeing in schools. Challenges, 13(2), 58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Gresham, F. M. (1990). Social skills rating system. APA PsycTests. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Guo, S., Fu, H., & Guo, K. (2024). Effects of physical activity on subjective well-being: The mediating role of social support and self-efficacy. Frontiers in Sports and Active Living, 6, 1362816. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Guthold, R., Stevens, G. A., Riley, L. M., & Bull, F. C. (2020). Global trends in insufficient physical activity among adolescents: A pooled analysis of 298 population-based surveys with 1.6 million participants. The Lancet Child and Adolescent Health, 4(1), 23–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Han, K. (2021). Students’ well-being: The mediating roles of grit and school connectedness. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 787861. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Hattie, J. (2023). Visible learning: The sequel: A synthesis of over 2,100 meta-analyses relating to achievement. Routledge. [Google Scholar]
  34. Hawkins, G. T., Chung, C. S., Hertz, M. F., & Antolin, N. (2023). The school environment and physical and social-emotional well-being: Implications for students and school employees. Journal of School Health, 93(9), 799–812. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Hayes, A. F. (2017). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. Guilford Publications. [Google Scholar]
  36. Huang, Y., & Chui, H. (2024). Promoting adolescent subjective well-being: A classroom environment approach. Learning Environments Research, 27, 435–451. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Janssen, I., & LeBlanc, A. G. (2010). Systematic review of the health benefits of physical activity and fitness in school-aged children and youth. International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity, 7, 40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  38. Kaczmarek, M., & Trambacz-Oleszak, S. (2021). School-related stressors and the intensity of perceived stress experienced by adolescents in Poland. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 18, 11791. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  39. Kim, H., Carney, J. V., & Hazler, R. J. (2023). Promoting school connectedness: A critical review of definitions and theoretical models for school-based interventions. Preventing School Failure: Alternative Education for Children and Youth, 67(4), 256–264. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Li, Z., Li, J., Kong, J., Li, Z., Wang, R., & Jiang, F. (2024). Adolescent mental health interventions: A narrative review of the positive effects of physical activity and implementation strategies. Frontiers in Psychology, 15, 1433698. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Lin, J., & Guo, W. (2024). The research on risk factors for adolescents’ mental health. Behavioral Sciences, 14, 263. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Loft, L., & Waldfogel, J. (2021). Socioeconomic status gradients in young children’s well-being at school. Child Development, 92(1), e91–e105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Lomas, T., Pawelski, J. O., & VanderWeele, T. J. (2023). A flexible map of flourishing: The dynamics and drivers of flourishing, well-being, health, and happiness. International Journal of Wellbeing, 13, 4. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Lombardi, E., Traficante, D., Bettoni, R., Offredi, I., Giorgetti, M., & Vernice, M. (2019). The impact of school climate on well-being experience and school engagement: A study with high-school students. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 2482. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Lubans, D., Richards, J., Hillman, C., Faulkner, G., Beauchamp, M., Nilsson, M., Kelly, P., Smith, J., Raine, L., & Biddle, S. (2016). Physical activity for cognitive and mental health in youth: A systematic review of mechanisms. Pediatrics, 138, e20161642. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Mandolesi, L., Polverino, A., Montuori, S., Foti, F., Ferraioli, G., Sorrentino, P., & Sorrentino, G. (2018). Effects of physical exercise on cognitive functioning and wellbeing: Biological and psychological benefits. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, 509. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Martela, F. (2024). Being as having, loving, and doing: A theory of human well-being. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 28(4), 372–397. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Meland, E. A., & Brion-Meisels, G. (2024). An integrative model for culturally sustaining SEL in the classroom. Social and Emotional Learning: Research, Practice, and Policy, 3, 100042. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Merino, M., Tornero-Aguilera, J. F., Rubio-Zarapuz, A., Villanueva-Tobaldo, C. V., Martín-Rodríguez, A., & Clemente-Suárez, V. J. (2024). Body perceptions and psychological well-being: A review of the impact of social media and physical measurements on self-esteem and mental health with a focus on body image satisfaction and its relationship with cultural and gender factors. Healthcare, 12(14), 1396. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  50. Moos, R. H. (1974). Classroom environment scale manual. Consulting Psychologists Press. [Google Scholar]
  51. Naidoo, J., & Wills, J. (2009). Foundations for health promotion e-book. Elsevier Health Science. [Google Scholar]
  52. Nes, R., Hansen, T., Barstad, A., Vittersø, J., Carlquist, E., & Røysamb, E. (2018). Anbefalinger for et bedre målesystem. Helsedirektoratet. [Google Scholar]
  53. Nickerson, A. B., Randa, R., Jimerson, S., & Guerra, N. G. (2021). Safe places to learn: Advances in school safety research and practice. School Psychology Review, 50(2–3), 158–171. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Novak, L., & Kiknadze, N. (2024). Does the good life feel good? The role of positive emotion in competing conceptions of the good life. Frontiers in Psychology, 15, 1425415. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Ogden, T. (1995). Kompetanse i kontekst: En studie av risiko og kompetanse hos 10-og 13-åringer. Barnevernets Utviklingssenter. [Google Scholar]
  56. Özdoğru, A. (2011). Bronfenbrenner’s ecological theory. In S. Goldstein, & J. A. Naglieri (Eds.), Encyclopedia of child behavior and development. Springer. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Papageorgiou, A., Fisher, C., & Cross, D. (2022). “Why don’t I look like her?” How adolescent girls view social media and its connection to body image. BMC Women’s Health, 22, 261. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Patalay, P., & Fitzsimons, E. Development and predictors of mental ill-health and wellbeing from childhood to adolescence. Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology, 53, 1311–1323. [CrossRef]
  59. Pillas, D., Marmot, M., Naicker, K., Goldblatt, P., Morrison, J., & Pikhart, H. (2014). Social inequalities in early childhood health and development: A European-wide systematic review. Pediatric Research, 76(5), 418–424. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Podiya, J. K., Navaneetham, J., & Bhola, P. (2025). Influences of school climate on emotional health and academic achievement of school-going adolescents in India: A systematic review. BMC Public Health, 25, 54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Raniti, M., Rakesh, D., Patton, G. C., & Sawyer, S. M. (2022). The role of school connectedness in the prevention of youth depression and anxiety: A systematic review with youth consultation. BMC Public Health, 22, 2152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Regan, A., Radošić, N., & Lyubomirsky, S. Experimental effects of social behavior on well-being. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 26(11), 987–998. [CrossRef]
  63. Reiss, F. (2013). Socioeconomic inequalities and mental health problems in children and adolescents: A systematic review. Social Science & Medicine, 90, 24–31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Ringdal, R., Bradley Eilertsen, M.-E., Bjørnsen, H. N., Espnes, G. A., & Moksnes, U. K. (2018). Validation of two versions of the Warwick-Edinburgh mental well-being scale among Norwegian adolescents. Scandinavian Journal of Public Health, 46, 718–725. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Røsand, I., & Johansen, V. (2024). Connections between the school environment and emotional problems among boys and girls in upper secondary school. Cogent Education, 11, 1. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Rudolf, R., & Lee, J. (2023). School climate, academic performance, and adolescent well-being in Korea: The roles of competition and cooperation. Child Indicators Research, 16, 917–940. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-Being. American Psychologist, 55, 68–78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  68. Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2001). On happiness and human potentials: A review of research on hedonic and eudaimonic well-being. Annual Review of Psychology, 52, 141–166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Schoon, I., Nasim, B., & Cook, R. (2021). Social inequalities in early childhood competences, and the relative role of social and emotional versus cognitive skills in predicting adult outcomes. British Educational Research Journal, 47, 1259–1280. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Shi, J., Qiu, H., & Ni, A. (2023). The moderating role of school resources on the relationship between student socioeconomic status and social-emotional skills: Empirical evidence from China. Applied Research in Quality of Life, 18, 2349–2370. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Smith, O. R. F., Alves, D. E., Knapstad, M., Haug, E., & Aarø, L. E. (2017). Measuring mental well-being in Norway: Validation of the warwick-edinburgh mental well-being scale (WEMWBS). BMC Psychiatry, 17, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Sørlie, M.-A., & Nordahl, T. (1998). Problematferd i skolen: Hovedfunn, forklaringer og pedagogiske implikasjoner. Norsk Institutt for Forskning om Oppvekst. [Google Scholar]
  73. Tennant, R., Hiller, L., Fishwick, R., Platt, S., Joseph, S., Weich, S., Parkinson, J., Secker, J., & Stewart-Brown, S. (2007). The warwick-edinburgh mental well-being scale (WEMWBS): Development and UK validation. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 5, 63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Thapa, A., Cohen, J., Guffey, S., & Higgins-D’Alessandro, A. (2013). A review of school climate research. Review of Educational Research, 83, 357–385. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Thomson, R. M., Igelström, E., Purba, A. K., Shimonovich, M., Thomson, H., McCartney, G., Reeves, A., Leyland, A., Pearce, A., & Katikireddi, S. V. (2022). How do income changes impact on mental health and wellbeing for working-age adults? A systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet Public Health, 7(6), e515–e528. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  76. Tusha, A., Bulut, S., & Al-Hendawi, M. (2024). Promoting a healthy school environment via social-emotional learning in the high school setting: An overview. Advances in Medicine Psychology and Public Health, 1(3), 156–163. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. van Sluijs, E. M., Ekelund, U., Crochemore-Silva, I., Guthold, R., Ha, A., Lubans, D., & Katzmarzyk, P. T. (2021). Physical activity behaviours in adolescence: Current evidence and opportunities for intervention. The Lancet, 398(10298), 429–442. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Wang, M.-T., & Degol, J. L. (2016). School climate: A review of the construct, measurement, and impact on student outcomes. Educational Psychology Review, 28, 315–352. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Wang, M.-T., Degol, J. L., Amemiya, J., Parr, A., & Guo, J. Classroom climate and children’s academic and psychological well-being: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Developmental Review, 57, 100912. [CrossRef]
  80. Ware, J. E., & Sherbourne, C. D. (1917). MOS 36-item short-form health survey. Medical Care, 30, 473–483. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Zarazaga-Peláez, J., Barrachina, V., Gutiérrez-Logroño, A., Villanueva-Guerrero, O., Roso-Moliner, A., & Mainer-Pardos, E. (2024). Impact of extracurricular physical activity on achievement of the sustainable development goals and academic performance: Mediating cognitive, psychological, and social factors. Sustainability, 16(16), 7238. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Ejihpe 15 00046 g001
Figure 1. Predictors of mental wellbeing among Norwegian upper-secondary school students (error bars represent 95% CI).
Figure 1. Predictors of mental wellbeing among Norwegian upper-secondary school students (error bars represent 95% CI).
Ejihpe 15 00046 g001
Table 1. Descriptive characteristics of the study population (n = 446) at baseline, stratified by gender and study track. Data are reported as mean (SD).
Table 1. Descriptive characteristics of the study population (n = 446) at baseline, stratified by gender and study track. Data are reported as mean (SD).
CharacteristicsGenderStudy Track
BoysGirls AcademicVocational
(n = 199)(n = 247)p-Value(n = 253)(n = 193)p-Value
Socioeconomic status (1–7)5.1 ± 1.25.1 ± 1.30.7855.2 ± 1.15.1 ± 1.40.410
Time spent with friends (1–6)5.5 ± 0.95.3 ± 0.90.1405.4 ± 0.95.4 ± 0.80.974
Health satisfaction (1–5)3.6 ± 1.03.2 ± 0.80.0003.5 ± 0.93.2 ± 0.90.000
Mental wellbeing (7–35)25.4 ± 4.523.8 ± 4.00.00024.8 ± 4.024.2 ± 4.60.144
Self-efficacy (1–5)3.9 ± 0.63.7 ± 0.60.0003.8 ± 0.63.7 ± 0.60.357
Classroom climate (1–4)3.2 ± 0.53.2 ± 0.50.3363.2 ± 0.53.2 ± 0.60.389
Wellbeing in PE (1–4)3.1 ± 0.73.1 ± 0.60.4143.1 ± 0.73.1 ± 0.70.420
Social isolation (1–5)1.5 ± 0.61.7 ± 0.60.0081.6 ± 0.61.6 ± 0.70.592
Table 2. Pearson’s correlation matrix for all included variables (n = 446).
Table 2. Pearson’s correlation matrix for all included variables (n = 446).
Characteristics12345678
1Wellbeing (7–35)-
2Socioeconomic status (1–7) 0.16 **
3Time spent with friends (1–6) 0.32 ***
4Health satisfaction (1–5) 0.37 ***
5Self-efficacy (1–5) 0.36 ***
6Classroom climate (1–4) 0.37 ***
7Wellbeing in PE (1–4) 0.32 ***
8Social isolation (1–5) 0.42 ***
*** p < 0.001, ** p < 0.01.
Table 3. Multiple regression analysis (forward stepwise) of predictors for mental wellbeing.
Table 3. Multiple regression analysis (forward stepwise) of predictors for mental wellbeing.
ModelUnstandardizedStandardized tp-ValueAdjusted
CoefficientCoefficientR2
BSt. ErrorBeta
(Constant)24.9741.198−20.850.0000.057
Gender−1.5660.395−0.183−3.970.000
Study track−0.5410.396−0.063−1.370.173
Socioeconomic status0.5400.1580.1583.430.001
(Constant)14.8331.614−9.190.0000.198
Gender−0.9720.372−0.113−2.610.009
Study track−0.1950.371−0.023−0.530.599
Socioeconomic status0.2720.1490.0801.830.068
Time spent with friends1.0820.2230.2184.850.000
Health satisfaction1.2700.2160.2715.880.000
(Constant)7.8302.350−3.330.0010.366
Gender−0.5530.335−0.064−1.650.100
Study track−0.2180.331−0.025−0.660.509
Socioeconomic status0.0910.1330.0260.680.497
Time spent with friends0.8100.2030.1633.990.000
Health satisfaction0.8370.1990.1794.220.000
Wellbeing in PE0.8100.2620.1293.090.002
Self-efficacy1.6190.2730.2365.940.000
Classroom climate1.0430.3840.1282.710.007
Social isolation−1.0760.316−0.162−3.400.001
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Hansen, K.G.; Barene, S. Exploring the Associations Between School Climate and Mental Wellbeing: Insights from the MOVE12 Pilot Study in Norwegian Secondary Schools. Eur. J. Investig. Health Psychol. Educ. 2025, 15, 46. https://doi.org/10.3390/ejihpe15040046

AMA Style

Hansen KG, Barene S. Exploring the Associations Between School Climate and Mental Wellbeing: Insights from the MOVE12 Pilot Study in Norwegian Secondary Schools. European Journal of Investigation in Health, Psychology and Education. 2025; 15(4):46. https://doi.org/10.3390/ejihpe15040046

Chicago/Turabian Style

Hansen, Karoline Gulbrandsen, and Svein Barene. 2025. "Exploring the Associations Between School Climate and Mental Wellbeing: Insights from the MOVE12 Pilot Study in Norwegian Secondary Schools" European Journal of Investigation in Health, Psychology and Education 15, no. 4: 46. https://doi.org/10.3390/ejihpe15040046

APA Style

Hansen, K. G., & Barene, S. (2025). Exploring the Associations Between School Climate and Mental Wellbeing: Insights from the MOVE12 Pilot Study in Norwegian Secondary Schools. European Journal of Investigation in Health, Psychology and Education, 15(4), 46. https://doi.org/10.3390/ejihpe15040046

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop