Data Collection

Mental Health Services

In fall 2016, Let’s Talk was consistently held at Tuesday-Friday at four locations.

Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday
3:15-4:45 2:30-4:00 3:15-4:45 1:30-3:00
Lopata Hall(Room 303) Athletic Complex*(August-November 2016)

Sumers Recreation Center(November 2016-present)

Center for Diversity and Inclusion (CDI)

(Olin Library, Suite 202)

Office of International Students and Scholars (OISS)

(Stix House on Forsyth)

MHS gave us attendance data from the inception of the program in March 2016 through the end of the 2016 calendar year. Due to the brevity of the program in the spring semester, however, we have only considered the fall semester data in our model. Because the data that we are handling is protected by privacy laws, we will be presenting the aggregate numbers for all of the information that we present. The table below contains the aggregate Let’s Talk attendance data for the fall semester.

Total Attendance per Location

(Fall 2016 semester)

Weekly Average

(people/week)

Athletics/ Zenker 14 1.27
Olin Library CDI 11 0.92
Lopata 20 1.67
Stix House OISS 19 1.58
First-Year Center 4 4.00

Foot Traffic

Second, we collected foot traffic data at each location on the day and time that Let’s Talk was held; specifically, we counted the number of people entering each building so we could later determine if there is a correlation between high trafficked areas and attendance. We didn’t monitor people entering the specific room or area where Let’s Talk was held to maintain the privacy of those who might have been using it. This data was difficult to obtain given our busy and varying schedules so we were not able to collect data each week, but data was collected a minimum of four times at each location.

Average Foot Traffic
Athletic Complex 298
Olin 335
Lopata 172
Stix House 36

Survey

Our final method of data collection was aimed to gather data to create a model that would match the attendance data from SHS. We used data available from WUSTL on its webpage for detailed information on breakdown of students per school in the undergraduate population. We also created an online survey through Google Forms that we distributed via social media. We received 422 responses and found that the demographic distributions of the respondents adequately correlated to the actual undergraduate student demographics. This is illustrated in the figures below.