For many years students have typically entered university directly from secondary school, studying on campus, full-time, and from high socioeconomic backgrounds (Bradley et al., 2008; Choy, 2002). However, in the past two decades, the higher education sector in many industrialised countries has gone through significant transformation from elite to mass access, characterised by a marked increase in student numbers and diversity (Devlin, 2010). Students who do not conform to the traditional privileged image of university students are increasingly the norm (Bradley et al., 2008; Altbach et al., 2009; Higher Education Funding Council for England, 2013). In Australia, about 17% of domestic university students commencing in 2012 were from a low socio-economic background, representing a 9.1% increase from 2011 (Department of Industry, 2012).

The term ‘non-traditional students’ is commonly used in education research and policy-making to refer to those with socio-demographic characteristics that differ from traditional participants in higher education. In an era of increasingstudent diversity, such terminology may promote an awareness for researchers to explore issues particularly relevant to the growing number of students who arrive on campus via widening participation initiatives, leading to evidence-based policies and practices which support their well being and achievement (Kim et al., 2010). Research proposes that ‘non-traditional students’ are likely to face unique concerns which impact on their educational and mental health needs (Adebayo, 2006). For instance, students who have family or work responsibilities may face a higher load of external demands in comparison to ‘traditional students’ (Gilardi and Guglielmetti, 2011). Strategies to reduce conflict between work and study are therefore paramount for their success (Adebayo, 2006; Adebayo et al., 2008). Nevertheless, many have questioned the usefulness of the term ‘non-traditional students’ in research examining the experience of students from diverse backgrounds (Kim et al., 2010; Greenland, 1993; Smit, 2012). In particular, inconsistent definitions used in research have led to little agreement regarding who ‘non-traditional students’ are (Hughes, 1983; Kim et al., 2010; Johnson and Nussbaum, 2012). This may also risk generalising characteristics of some groups of students to others, due to the use of a single “umbrella term” to refer to diverse groups which may potentially have very different needs (Smit, 2012).

Reviewing the range of definitions used in research could lead to a clearer understanding of the term and the way in which it is applied. A previous article reviewed the definition of ‘non-traditional students’ in the education literature (Kim, 2002). However, this study was conducted more than a decade ago and focused on community colleges in the United States. Kim (2002) also did not mention methods used to select studies included in the review and how definitions were extracted and analysed.

The aim of the present study is to systematically review how the term ‘non-traditional students’ has been defined in mental health research conducted with higher education students. This area of interest was chosen because the mental health of university students has become a growing source of concern in recent years (Storrie et al., 2010; Dyrbye et al., 2010). Studies have shown that university students are more at-risk of mental distress compared to the age-matched general population (Leahy et al., 2010; Stallman, 2010), with the prevalence of severe mental distress within this population also on the rise (Gallagher, 2011; Benton et al., 2003; Collins and Mowbray, 2005). As the diversification of students’ backgrounds increases, the mental health needs of university students are expected to evolve (Byrd and McKinney, 2012). Mental health research which considers student diversity issues is critical in guiding the development of initiatives which promote well-being among all students.

A clearer understanding of the meaning of ‘non-traditional students’ within the mental health literature would therefore assist the translation of research into practice.

In addition, the systematic review methodology was adopted because it is an increasingly recognised approach in clarifying concepts or definitions (Oh et al., 2005; Frank et al., 2010; Wlodzimirow et al., 2012). The use of an explicit and auditable method to locate, assemble and evaluate the body of literature serves to reduce bias in the review process, leading to more reliable findings compared to traditional reviews (Hemingway and Brereton, 2009).

For many years students have typically entered university directly from secondary school, studying on campus, full-time, and from high socioeconomic backgrounds (Bradley et al., 2008; Choy, 2002). However, in the past two decades, the higher education sector in many industrialised countries has gone through significant transformation from elite to mass access, characterised by a marked increase in student numbers and diversity (Devlin, 2010). Students who do not conform to the traditional privileged image of university students are increasingly the norm (Bradley et al., 2008; Altbach et al., 2009; Higher Education Funding Council for England, 2013). In Australia, about 17% of domestic university students commencing in 2012 were from a low socio-economic background, representing a 9.1% increase from 2011 (Department of Industry, 2012).

The term ‘non-traditional students’ is commonly used in education research and policy-making to refer to those with socio-demographic characteristics that differ from traditional participants in higher education. In an era of increasingstudent diversity, such terminology may promote an awareness for researchers to explore issues particularly relevant to the growing number of students who arrive on campus via widening participation initiatives, leading to evidence-based policies and practices which support their well being and achievement (Kim et al., 2010). Research proposes that ‘non-traditional students’ are likely to face unique concerns which impact on their educational and mental health needs (Adebayo, 2006). For instance, students who have family or work responsibilities may face a higher load of external demands in comparison to ‘traditional students’ (Gilardi and Guglielmetti, 2011). Strategies to reduce conflict between work and study are therefore paramount for their success (Adebayo, 2006; Adebayo et al., 2008). Nevertheless, many have questioned the usefulness of the term ‘non-traditional students’ in research examining the experience of students from diverse backgrounds (Kim et al., 2010; Greenland, 1993; Smit, 2012). In particular, inconsistent definitions used in research have led to little agreement regarding who ‘non-traditional students’ are (Hughes, 1983; Kim et al., 2010; Johnson and Nussbaum, 2012). This may also risk generalising characteristics of some groups of students to others, due to the use of a single “umbrella term” to refer to diverse groups which may potentially have very different needs (Smit, 2012).

Reviewing the range of definitions used in research could lead to a clearer understanding of the term and the way in which it is applied. A previous article reviewed the definition of ‘non-traditional students’ in the education literature (Kim, 2002). However, this study was conducted more than a decade ago and focused on community colleges in the United States. Kim (2002) also did not mention methods used to select studies included in the review and how definitions were extracted and analysed.

The aim of the present study is to systematically review how the term ‘non-traditional students’ has been defined in mental health research conducted with higher education students. This area of interest was chosen because the mental health of university students has become a growing source of concern in recent years (Storrie et al., 2010; Dyrbye et al., 2010). Studies have shown that university students are more at-risk of mental distress compared to the age-matched general population (Leahy et al., 2010; Stallman, 2010), with the prevalence of severe mental distress within this population also on the rise (Gallagher, 2011; Benton et al., 2003; Collins and Mowbray, 2005). As the diversification of students’ backgrounds increases, the mental health needs of university students are expected to evolve (Byrd and McKinney, 2012). Mental health research which considers student diversity issues is critical in guiding the development of initiatives which promote well-being among all students.

A clearer understanding of the meaning of ‘non-traditional students’ within the mental health literature would therefore assist the translation of research into practice.

In addition, the systematic review methodology was adopted because it is an increasingly recognised approach in clarifying concepts or definitions (Oh et al., 2005; Frank et al., 2010; Wlodzimirow et al., 2012). The use of an explicit and auditable method to locate, assemble and evaluate the body of literature serves to reduce bias in the review process, leading to more reliable findings compared to traditional reviews (Hemingway and Brereton, 2009).

 

 

Four out of the 49 relevant records did not contain a working definition for ‘non-traditional students’. Of the remaining 45 records, working definitions were as short as four words and as long as 258 words. Twenty out of 45 definitions were explicitly referenced from other authors’ work, whilst 22 definitions did not include a reference, and three definitions were only partly referenced (Table 1). 

 

 

 

Categories included in working definitions

Thirteen categories of meaning were identified in the extracted definitions  (Table 2). The majority of these included only one category (19 out of 45), two categories were included in 14 out of 45 articles, and the remainder contained three or more categories. The following sections provide further details into how 'non-traditional students' were defined by these categories. 

 

 

Age

Most definitions (35 out of 45) included the category of age. ‘Non-traditional students’ were commonly referred to as being older than a specific age; however, one article defined this student group in terms of being younger (Christie, 2009). The cut-off point most frequently adopted was that of 25 years (Bell, 2003; Carney-Crompton and Tan, 2002; Hemby, 1997; Mello, 2004; San et al., 2004; Elliott, 1990; Myers and Mobley, 2004; Norris, 2011; Sweet and Moen, 2007; Villella and Hu, 1991; Backels and Meashey, 1997; Hudson et al., 2008; Bennett et al., 2007; Quimby and O'Brien, 2006; Yarbrough and Schaffer, 1990; Waltman, 1997; Hemby, 1998; Christie, 2009; Keith, 2007). However, 9 other cut-off points were also used, including 20 (Kohler Giancola et al., 2009), 21 (Bitner, 1994), 22 (Morris et al., 2003), 23 (Arbuckle and Gale, 1996; Home, 1997; Query et al., 1992), 24 (Macari et al., 2006; Dill and Henley, 1998; Chartrand,  1992;  Pierceall  and  Keim,  2007;  Adebayo, 2006), 28 (Bye et al., 2007), 30 (DeGregoria, 1987), 40 (Hollis-Sawyer, 2011), and 50 years (Hooper and Traupmann, 1983).

Multiple roles

In 18 definitions, ‘non-traditional students’ were referred to as individuals holding life roles in addition to that of student. Three sub-categories of role were commonly found, including spouse/ partner, employee/ worker, and parent/ carer of a dependent. Eight out of 18 of definitions mentioned all three sub-categories, while five mentioned a single sub-category, and the remainder included two sub-categories. Only one definition specified the duration in which these roles were held (i.e. at least one year) (Dill and Henley, 1998).

Fifteen definitions referred to ‘non-traditional students’ as ‘employees’ or ‘workers’ (Chartrand, 1990; Home, 1997; Hudson et al., 2008; Query et al., 1992; Dill and Henley, 1998; Adebayo, 2006; Fortune, 1987; Morris et al., 2003; Macari et al., 2006; Mello, 2004; Kirby et al., 2004), and/ or being ‘financially independent’ (Hemby, 1997, 1998; Macari et al., 2006; Waltman, 1997). Only a small proportion of these studies provided details regarding the nature of work, for instance, ‘non-traditional students’ were defined as those who worked full-time (Macari et al., 2006), or either part-time or full-time (Adebayo, 2006; Home, 1997; Mello, 2004). Furthermore, the definition of part-time or full-time work was only provided in two articles. One definition specified that full-time work constituted 35 or more hours per week (Macari et al., 2006), whereas another suggested that part-time work meant at least nine hours of work a week (Home, et al., 2006), whereas another suggested that part-time work meant at least nine hours of work a week (Home, 1997).

‘Non-traditional students’ were defined as being ‘married’ (Hemby, 1997, 1998; Johnson and Nussbaum, 2012; Waltman, 1997), ‘partners’ (Chartrand, 1990), ‘spouses’  (Fortune,  1987;  Morris  et  al.,  2003), or  not ‘single’ (Bitner, 1994). In contrast, ‘non-traditional students’ were also referred to as being ‘divorced’ or ‘widowed’ (Hemby, 1997, 1998).

‘Non-traditional students’ were referred to as being ‘parents’ (Johnson and Nussbaum, 2012; Chartrand, 1990; Fortune, 1987; Morris et al., 2003; Waltman, 1997), ‘with dependents’ (Hansen, 1999; Macari et al., 2006), ‘with children’ (Bitner, 1994), ‘caregivers’ (Hemby, 1997, 1998; Home, 1997), or having ‘family responsibilities’ (Hudson et al., 2008; Mello, 2004). One definition specified that ‘non-traditional students’ were responsible for ‘more than 50% of their child’s upbringing’ (Macari et al., 2006). Three articles provided further description about the characteristics of dependents. A dependent was variously described as a child (Menks and Tupper, 1987), either a child or adult (Home, 1997), or either a child or adult but excluding a spouse (Macari et al., 2006). In addition, a dependent could be related to (Macari et al., 2006; Home, 1997) or simply living with the carer (Menks and Tupper, 1987). A dependent was also defined as having a physical, intellectual, emotional, or learning disability (Home, 1997).

Mode of study

Eight articles included mode of study in the definition of ‘non-traditional students’. Half of these articles referred to ‘non-traditional students’ as students enrolled part-time (Macari et al., 2006; Query et al., 1992; Metzner and Bean, 1987; Villella and Hu, 1991). In contrast, four articles suggested that non-traditional students’ status could be applied to those enrolled either part-time or full- time (Quimby and O'Brien, 2006; Hudson et al., 2008; Chartrand, 1992; Adebayo, 2006).

Gap in studies

Seven articles defined ‘non-traditional students’ as those who had taken time off from formal studies (Mello, 2004; Johnson and Nussbaum, 2012; Bennett et al., 2007; Chang, 2007; Sweet and Moen, 2007; Yarbrough and Schaffer, 1990; DeGregoria, 1987). Three definitions specified the timing in which the break in study occurred, such as between high school and university (Bennett et al., 2007; Chang, 2007), or ‘after the age of 22’ (Sweet and Moen, 2007). In addition, inconsisten-cies were found in the duration of the gap in studies. One article defined ‘non-traditional students’ as those with at least a one year gap in studies (Chang, 2007), while another suggested at least two years away from studies (Sweet and Moen, 2007).

Commuter status

Four articles defined ‘non-traditional students’ as those who did not live on campus (Metzner and Bean, 1987; Villella and Hu, 1991; Chartrand, 1992; Quimby and O'Brien, 2006).

Being demographically ‘different’ from the norm

Three definitions referred to ‘non-traditional students’ as being ‘different’ demographically when compared to the normative student. ‘Non-traditional students’ were described as being ‘historically underrepresented’ (Hansen, 1999), ‘the focus of widening participation policy initiatives’ (Leathwood and O'Connell, 2003)and not being ‘age normative’ (Bye et al., 2007).

Sex

Three articles referred to ‘non-traditional students’ as being women (Hansen, 1999; Home, 1997; Hooper and Traupmann, 1983).

Admission pathway

Two articles defined ‘non-traditional students’ as those who did not follow a normative admission pathway to universities, including students entering university through a ‘further education college’ (Christie et al., 2008)and those who did not receive ‘a standard high school diploma’ (Macari et al., 2006).

Enrolment in ‘non-traditional’ programs

Two articles associated ‘non-traditional students’ status with the type of program in which they were enrolled, such as ‘evening programmes’ (Chang, 2007)and ‘weekend college program’ (Kirby et al., 2004).

 

Being ‘disadvantaged’

Two articles referred to ‘non-traditional students’ as being ‘disadvantaged’ in some aspects of their lives.

In this context they were described as being ‘underprepared’  (Hansen. 1999)and ‘from disadvantaged backgrounds’ (Christie. 2009). However, in these two instances, no further explanation was provided.

Ethnicity

In one article, ‘non-traditional students’ were defined as being from ‘ethnic minorities’ (Hansen, 1999). However, no further elaboration was made in terms of what this meant.

Disability and trauma

Only one article included physical, psychiatric or learning disabilities in the definition of ‘non-traditional students’ (Hansen, 1999). Furthermore, this article also included experiences of substance misuse, sexual or physical abuse in the definition.

Having a previous degree

‘Non-traditional students’ were referred to as those having had  ‘previously completed a baccalaureate degree’ (Everly et al., 1994).

‘Non-traditional students’ as a continuum

The majority of articles conceptualised ‘non-traditional students’ as a categorical variable, whereby students were dichotomised into either a ‘non-traditional’ or ‘traditional’ group, depending on whether their characteristics met the defining criteria chosen by the authors. On the contrary, one article conceptualised ‘non-traditional students’ as a continuous variable (Macari et al., 2006). Using a scale developed by Horn (1996), Macari et al. (2006) deemed students to be minimally, moderately or highly non-traditional based on the number of criteria met. The ‘non-traditional’ criteria were those characteristics which have been shown to be associated with university attrition in previous research, including delayed enrolment and part-time students. 

 

There has been a longstanding concern within the field of higher education regarding the lack of consistency in the way the term ‘non-traditional students’ has been defined in research (Greenland, 1993; Hughes, 1983; Kim et al., 2010). Confirming this problem, the present review shows that the term ‘non-traditional students’ encompasses a broad range of definitional categories within mental health research conducted in higher education settings. We found that students have been classified as ‘non-traditional’ based on 13 categories related to their demographic and educational background, such as age, multiple roles and admission pathway. This study also demonstrates wide variation within each category of meaning, for instance, multiple cut-off ages have been used. Furthermore, there were also differences in the approach in which this term was defined. Although ‘non-traditional students’ was predominantly conceptualised as a dichotomous variable, one study referred to it as a continuum.

In addition to the lack of consistency in categories involved in the definition of ‘non-traditional students’, this review demonstrates other problems which may further limit the usefulness of this already ambiguous term. First, around 9% of articles which fulfilled the inclusion criteria did not provide a working definition for ‘non-traditional students’. It was therefore impossible for the reader to identify the group of students under study. Second, the sources of definitions were often unreferenced or partially referenced and it was unclear how the authors arrived at their method for categorising ‘non-traditional students’. Third, definitions were not always clearly described to a standard permitting replication. In particular, generalised  labels such as ‘disadvantaged’ (Christie, 2009) and ‘underprepared’ (Hansen, 1999), were mentioned in definitions of ‘non-traditional students’ without further explanation of their meanings. These limitations are likely to render findings incomparable, regarding the mental health status of students from diverse backgrounds. Future research should therefore address these problems and work towards greater clarity and consistency in which this term is used.

Achieving a consensus definition for ‘non-traditional students’ is a complex task. One of the challenges suggested by other researchers was the lack of an agreed upon purpose for which the term is used (Greenland, 1993). The origin of the term ‘non-traditional students’ can be traced back to post-World War II, where changes in political, economic and societal contexts have led to diversification of students’ demographics in higher education (Ogren, 2003). The label ‘non-traditional students’ served to denote students who were “new to higher education and that colleges and universities traditionally have not served people like them”, thereby guiding the establishment of policies to meet their needs (Ogren, 2003). However, some groups of students who were once thought of as ‘non-traditional’ have significantly increased in numbers and are quickly becoming ‘traditional’ (Bell, 2012; Greenland, 1993). For instance, while a large number of studies included in the present review defined ‘non-traditional students’ as those over 25 years of age, this group of students represents around 40% of all enrolled undergraduates in the United States in 2013 and a rise of 20% is expected by 2020 (National Center For Education Statistics, 2012; Snyder and Dillow, 2012).  Similar trends regarding the changing age profile of university students are also evident in Australia, where the average age of students in 2011 was 26 years 11 months (Australian Council for Educational Research, 2013). Furthermore, recent figures show that 61% of Australian undergraduate students engaged in some form of employment as their primary source of income (Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2013a). Likewise, around 70% of American undergraduates are in paid employ-ment (Davis, 2012). Our findings suggest that despite societal changes, endorsement of common definitions of ‘non-traditional students’ (e.g. age, multiple roles and mode of study) has not seemed to vary significantly since the 1980s. This indicates that the use of the term ‘non-traditional students’ today does not necessarily reflect ‘under representedness’ as suggested by its historical origin and serves little value in communicating a distinct concept. It is recommended that researchers re-examine the purposes for categorising ‘non-traditional’ status in the contemporary context of educational practice and research. For instance, does ‘non-traditional’ refer to having characteristics which are uncommon among the majority of students? Or does it refer to having characteristics which predispose university students to non-completion of their educational degree/program? A more consistent definition of ‘non-traditional students’ better aligned with this purpose can then be developed, taking into account on-going changes in student demographics as well as progress of higher education systems in responding to these changes.

As shown in the findings, ‘non-traditional students’ is a fluid concept within the literature and its meaning is likely to vary depending on the societal, geographical and systemic context in which the research is conducted. The authors therefore would not attempt to propose another definition of ‘non-traditional students’. However, there is still a practical need for nuanced approaches in classifying ‘non-traditional students’ which consider a broad range of student characteristics (Kim et al., 2010). Given current difficulties in identifying a consistent researcher-assigned definition for ‘non-traditional students’, a student-centred approach of definition, which involves eliciting students’ self-beliefs about whether they are ‘non-traditional’ and why, may be a promising alternative. The benefits of this approach are that it reduces the need for researchers to predefine the term, and it minimises the problem of overlapping ‘traditional’ and ‘non-traditional’ characteristics. It is common for ‘non-traditional students’ to present some characteristics which are typically ‘traditional’. Kim et al. (2010) argued that many students under the age of 25, who are often considered as ‘traditional’, have work and family responsibilities. On the contrary, some older students do not have these responsibilities. Self-definition represents a means to categorise students with overlapping characteristics of student status. We identified only one study that has adopted the student-centred definition (Kim et al., 2010) and therefore more research is needed to compare its usefulness in drawing meaningful conclusion with that of traditional approaches. This will ultimately contribute to the progress of research concerning student diversity in higher education.

Another contribution of the present study is that it documents the adaptation and application of a tool originally developed for systematically reviewing empirical health research (Joanna Briggs Institute, 2011). Research in any discipline often requires the clarification of key concepts under study. However, it has been critiqued that this process is sometimes overlooked by researchers, leading to methodological problems (Baldwin, 2008). The systematic review methodology has been increasingly used in reviewing definitions but no published tool for this purpose currently exists. This study offers a data extraction and appraisal tool for systematic review of definitions which can be adopted and refined by future research.

The current study has a number of limitations. First, it only included peer-reviewed literature and not grey literature (e.g. government reports, conference proceedings). Future studies may seek to review grey literature to gain a clearer understanding of how this concept is used more broadly. Furthermore, the scope of the search was confined to studies of mental health. For instance, a number of studies relating to academic achievement, attrition or attitude towards education of ‘non-traditional students’ were excluded (Munro, 2011; Devlin, 1996). The present study therefore cannot be taken as an exhaustive review of all published definitions of the term ‘non-traditional students’. Future studies which review definitions used in the broader education literature would complement the findings of this study.

In conclusion, this study represents the first systematic review of the definitions of ‘non-traditional students’ within mental health research conducted within a higher education setting. It provides a summary of criteria adopted in existing definitions which can be a useful resource to facilitate communication among those working with students, including educators, mental health professionals, and policymakers. It might also stimulate discussions about more consistent definitions of ‘non-traditional students’, which would ultimately identify a common approach for research seeking to understand the needs of this diverse student group. 

The author(s) have not declared any conflict of interests.