As a large international consortium of 26 countries and 110 higher-education institutions (HEIs), we successfully developed and executed an online student survey during or directly after the initial peak of the COVID-19 pandemic. The COVID-19 International Student Well-being Study (C19 ISWS) is a cross-sectional multicountry study that collected data on higher-education students during the COVID-19 outbreak in the spring of 2020. The dataset allows description of: (1) living conditions, financial conditions, and academic workload before and during the COVID-19 outbreak; (2) the current level of mental well-being and effects on healthy lifestyles; (3) perceived stressors; (4) resources (e.g., social support and economic capital); (5) knowledge related to COVID-19; and (6) attitudes toward COVID-19 measures implemented by the government and relevant HEI. The dataset additionally includes information about COVID-19 measures taken by the government and HEI that were in place during the period of data collection. The collected data provide a comprehensive and comparative dataset on student well-being. In this article, we present the rationale for this study, the development and content of the survey, the methodology of data collection and sampling, and the limitations of the study. In addition, we highlight the opportunities that the dataset provides for advancing social science research on student well-being during the COVID-19 pandemic in varying policy contexts. Thus far, this is, to our knowledge, the first cross-country student well-being survey during the COVID-19 pandemic, resulting in a unique dataset that enables high-priority socially relevant research.

International research consistently finds gender differences in depression, but do women genuinely experience more complaints or are the findings contaminated by group-specific elements unrelated to depression but affecting its measurement? The study of gender differences in depression depends on the measurement quality of the instrument used to evaluate depression. In the present study we test the measurement equivalence of a shorter version of a commonly used instrument in mental health research, the Center for Epidemiologic Studies - Depression Scale (CES-D), using data from the Belgian sample of the third round of the European Social Survey (N = 1794). Evidence for measurement invariance can be established within the multigroup confirmatory factor analysis framework. This method allows us to evaluate a nested hierarchy of hypotheses to test different levels of cross-group measurement invariance: configural, metric, scalar and residual invariance, and clarifies under what conditions meaningful comparisons between the male and female respondents can be made. The best fitting factor model is then used to estimate the 'true' prevalence of depressive symptoms for both groups. In our study measurement equivalence is established at all levels, indicating that the current depression scale allows defensible quantitative gender comparisons. Our data also confirm the epidemiological finding that women report more complaints of depression than men.