- Email: [email protected]
Does test anxiety increase as the exam draws near? – Students' state test anxiety recorded over the course of one semester
Personality and Individual Differences 104 (2017) 397–400
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Personality and Individual Differences journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/paid
Short Communication
Does test anxiety increase as the exam draws near? – Students' state test anxiety recorded over the course of one semester Christin Lotz ⁎, Jörn R. Sparfeldt Saarland University, Department of Educational Science, Campus A5 4, D-66123 Saarbrücken, Germany
a r t i c l e
i n f o
Article history: Received 19 April 2016 Received in revised form 16 August 2016 Accepted 23 August 2016 Available online xxxx Keywords: Test anxiety State test anxiety Trait test anxiety High-stake exam College students
a b s t r a c t State test anxiety (STA) assumingly increases as an exam draws near. However, only few studies (with short time intervals or just two measurement points) seem to confirm this assumption; especially the longer-term STAcourse remains unexamined. The present study investigated N = 192 college students' STA over the course of one semester with four measurement points. STA-assessments at the first, third and fourth measurement point referred to the final obligatory exam, the second to an unmarked mock exam. Regarding the final exam, the students chose from two dates two months apart. A 2 (early vs. late exam date) × 4 (measurement points T1–T4) mixed ANOVA revealed a significant main effect of the exam date, indicating higher STA for students choosing the early exam, and a significant main effect for the measurement points. Planned contrasts indicated an overall STA-increase with a peak directly before the exam and an expected STA-drop at T2 (referring to the mock exam). Criterion validity was evidenced by substantial convergent correlations between STA and trait test anxiety (worry, emotionality). The psychological and educational relevance of the results is discussed. © 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction Impending examinations often elicit test anxiety (TA). It is widely believed that TA increases as an exam draws near (Zeidner, 1998). However, especially the longer-term TA-course is still unexplored. Therefore, this study investigated the development of state test anxiety (STA) in a larger sample of college students over the course of one semester in the context of an upcoming obligatory exam. Additionally, STA and trait test anxiety (TTA) were differentiated. TA refers to a “set of phenomenological, physiological, and behavioral responses that accompany concern about possible negative consequences or failure on an exam” (Zeidner, 1998, p. 17). STA as a transitory emotional state experienced in a specific situation is distinguished from TTA as a stable personal disposition to interpret situations as threatening. Regarding TTA, Liebert and Morris (1967) introduced the distinction of worry (ruminating about self-threatening consequences of failure) and emotionality (perceived physiological stress reactions). The relations between STA and these TTA-facets ranged usually within .40 ≤ r ≤ .70 (e.g., Laux et al., 2013). Conceptually, TA can be regarded as a situation-specific trait (Spielberger, 1966): Individuals with higher TTA interpret specific situations as more threatening and react with more STA. Moreover, the specific examination type influences the TA-level: High-stake assessments elicit higher TA than ⁎ Corresponding author. E-mail address: [email protected] (C. Lotz).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2016.08.032 0191-8869/© 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
developmental low-stake assessments (Reeve, Bonaccio, & Charles, 2008) as, for example, mock exams. The STA-course can be conceptualized as a dynamic temporal process unfolding over time with an increase as an exam draws near. Students do not exactly know beforehand what the exam and its outcome are like and typically become more and more concerned with the demands, corresponding constraints, and threats of the upcoming exam. Thus, concerns and aversive emotions associated with the exam are rising with decreasing temporal distance to the exam (Zeidner, 1998). Empirical evidence – although with short time intervals or only two measurement points – supports this hypothesized STA-increase (Bolger, 1990; Dimitriev, Saperova, & Dimitriev, 2016; Lay, Edwards, Parker, & Endler, 1989; Raffety, Smith, & Ptacek, 1997; Skinner & Brewer, 2002; Zeidner, 1994). For example, Bolger (1990) applied a daily diary measure 17 days before the exam to 50 students: A descriptive inspection of the corresponding graph (p. 531) revealed a substantial TA-increase from day six up to the day before the examination. Likewise, 158 college students reported their daily experience of worry, distraction, and tension during the week before an exam, resulting in a substantial TA-increase (Raffety et al., 1997). Therefore, short-term STA-increases seem to be confirmed, but the longer-term (N4 weeks) course remains an open question. Thus, this study investigated STA-tendencies over the course of one semester and the STA-relations to TTA-facets. We expected (1) an overall STA-increase when referring to a high-stake exam and a STA-drop when referring to a low-stake assessment (mock exam). Moreover,
398
C. Lotz, J.R. Sparfeldt / Personality and Individual Differences 104 (2017) 397–400
(2) substantial convergent correlations were expected between STA and TTA that might be lower for a low-stake assessment.
2.3. Analyses Regarding Hypothesis (1), we computed a 2 (early vs. late exam date) × 4 (measurement points T1–T4) mixed ANOVA (α = .05). Because there were eight weeks between the exams in both groups, the exam date was considered. In case of a significant main effect for the exam date, the STA-course was examined by two repeated measures ANOVAs (separately for the early vs. late exam group), especially focusing on four a priori contrasts: (1) STA-level at T1 is higher than at T2 (mock exam); (2) T2-STA-level is lower than at T3; (3) T3-STA-level is higher than at T1; and (4) T4-STA-level is higher than at T3. Additionally, we conducted four post hoc t-tests for independent samples to examine whether both groups differed at each measurement point (α = .01 because of multiple comparisons). Concerning Hypothesis (2), we inspected whether the STA-TTA-correlations differed meaningfully between the two groups at all measurement points by computing the effect size q (cf. Cohen, 1988). Additionally, we compared separately (also by computing q) for both groups and separately for worry and emotionality whether the STATTA-correlations at T2 were lower compared to the STA-TTA-correlations at the other three measurement points.
2. Method 2.1. Participants and procedure Participants were N = 192 German teacher-education students (mean age: 22.36 years, SD = 3.17, 63% female) who attended a weekly third semester lecture on educational assessment ending with an obligatory exam. Data were collected at four measurement points (T1–T4) over the course of one semester. At T1 (first course lecture) students completed a STA-questionnaire (referring to the final exam) and a TTA-questionnaire. At T2 (sixth course lecture) students completed the STA-questionnaire, referring to a low-stake, not graded mock exam taken straight away and dealing with the course topics. T3 was actualized as an online assessment during the week of the last lecture and STA-measures again referred to the obligatory high-stake exam at the end of the semester. T4 took place in the auditorium right before students took their exam. For administrative reasons, students could choose from two possible exam dates, eight weeks apart. For the early exam group (n = 97), the third measurement point was one week prior to their exam. For the late exam group (n = 95) the third measurement point was nine weeks prior to their exam. These differing temporal distances to the exams in both groups might be relevant for the STAexperiences. The lectures and both examinations took place from 2 to 4 pm. Not every student participated in all testing sessions. Out of N = 391 students that took the exam and answered the corresponding T4-STAquestionnaire, n = 355 students participated in T1 (T2: n = 346, T3: n = 271). Only participants with complete data were included in the analyses, resulting in N = 192. Regarding for example T3 (largest amount of missing data), students who did and who did not participate in T3 were comparable regarding gender (χ2(1) = 0.04; p = .84); age (t(352) = − 1.48, p = .14); worry (t(345) b 1); emotionality (t(344) b 1). This was also true for STA-assessments at T1, T2, and T4 (all t b 1).
3. Results Descriptive statistics are shown in Table 1; STA-TTA-correlations are displayed in Table 2. TA-measures reached good reliabilities and the means were located well within the possible range, indicating an absence of bottom- or ceiling-effects. Regarding Hypothesis (1), the mixed ANOVA revealed significant main effects for the within-subject factor measurement point, F(3, 570) = 157.69, p b .05, η2 = .454, for the between-subject factor exam date, F(1, 190) = 11.80, p b .05, η2 = .058, and a significant interaction effect, F(3, 570) = 4.50, p b .05, η2 = .023 (see Fig. 1). Regarding the early exam group, analyses revealed a significant main effect of measurement point, F(3, 288) = 102.46, p b .05, η2 = .516. Examining the STA-curve, contrasts showed the expected significant STA-drop from T1 to T2, F(1, 96) = 118.07, p b .05, η2 = .552. Then, STA increased significantly from T2 to T3, F(1, 96) = 155.61, p b .05, η2 = .618, but the T3-STA-level did not exceed significantly the T1-STA-level, F(1, 96) = 2.13, p = .15, η2 = .022. T4-STA-level was significantly higher compared to T3, F(1, 96) = 11.86, p b .05, η2 = .110. Regarding the late exam group, a significant effect of measurement point was revealed as well, F(3, 282) = 58.21, p b .05, η2 = .382. The STA-curve showed a result pattern that was comparable to the early exam group: T2-STA-level was significantly lower compared to T1, F(1, 94) = 114.18, p b .05, η2 = .548 and T3, F(1, 94) = 70.33, p b .05, η2 = .428, but T3-STA-level did not differ significantly from T1, F(1, 94) b 1, p = .67, η2 = .002. STA-level increased significantly from T3 to T4, F(1, 94) = 10.49, p b .05, η2 = .100. Furthermore, post hoc t-tests revealed that the late exam group showed significantly lower STA-levels than the early exam group at T1, t (190) = 2.87, p b .01, d = 0.52, at T3, t (190) = 3.86, p b .01, d = 0.56, and at T4, t (190) = 3.49, p b .01, d = 0.50, but not at T2, t (190) b 1, p = .37, d = 0.13 (see Table 1).
2.2. Instruments TTA was assessed using nine items from the German adaption (TAIG; Hodapp, 1991) of the Test-Anxiety-Inventory (TAI; Spielberger, 1980). Based on prior findings (e.g., Sparfeldt, Rost, Baumeister, & Christ, 2013) five items of the worry-subscale and four items of the emotionality-subscale were administered with a four-point rating scale, ranging from almost never (1) to almost always (4). STA was measured using eight items (adjectives: e.g., anxious, worried, nervous; Jacobs, 1981) with a seven-point rating scale ranging from very (1) to not at all (7). Students indicated their feelings if they had to take the exam right now. Answers were rescored so that higher numerical values corresponded to higher STA.
Table 1 Descriptive statistics of state test anxiety for both exam date groups and trait test anxiety. State test anxiety
Trait test anxiety
Measurement point
T1
T2
T3
T4
Exam date
Early
Late
Early
Late
Early
Late
Early
Late
M SD Minimum Maximum Cronbach's α
4.30 1.42 2.00 7.00 .93
3.71 1.45 1.00 7.00 .94
2.55 1.47 1.00 6.63 .95
2.38 1.25 1.00 6.13 .93
4.47 1.38 1.50 7.00 .94
3.64 1.60 1.00 6.88 .96
4.80 1.53 1.00 7.00 .95
4.04 1.48 1.00 7.00 .95
Worry
Emotionality
2.67 0.72 1.00 4.00 .85
2.09 0.77 1.00 4.00 .88
C. Lotz, J.R. Sparfeldt / Personality and Individual Differences 104 (2017) 397–400 Table 2 Correlations between state test anxiety (STA) and trait test anxiety (TTA).
1. STA T1 2. STA T2 3. STA T3 4. STA T4 5. TTA Emotionality 6. TTA Worry
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
– .40⁎ .64⁎ .65⁎ .78⁎ .53⁎
.60⁎ – .43⁎ .35⁎ .38⁎ .34⁎
.57⁎ .49⁎ – .80⁎ .51⁎ .36⁎
.64⁎ .51⁎ .71⁎ – .53⁎ .42⁎
.78⁎ .49⁎ .58⁎ .61⁎
.56⁎ .37⁎ .46⁎ .46⁎ .63⁎ –
– .69⁎
Note. Correlations of the early exam group: lower left half; late exam group: upper right half. ⁎ p b 0.05.
Concerning hypothesis (2), STA-TTA-correlations were substantial (see Table 2) and differences between both groups were mostly of small effect sizes (0 ≤ q ≤ 0.14), indicating the comparableness of the correlations in both groups from T1–T4. STA-TTA-correlations at T2 were lower compared to those coefficients assessed at the other measurement points. For example, in the early exam group the correlation between trait emotionality and T1-STA (r = .78) and the correlation between trait emotionality and T2-STA (r = .38) differed by qT2– T1 = − 0.65. Likewise, the correlations of trait emotionality and T3STA (r = .51) and T4-STA (r = .53) differed from the correlation between trait emotionality and T2-STA (r = .38) by qT2–T3 = −0.16 and qT2–T4 = − 0.19, respectively. The corresponding differences of the trait-worry-STA-correlations of the early exam group as well as the TTA-STA-correlation differences in the late exam group revealed larger correlations at T1 than at T2 (small to large effect sizes) and negligible to small differences of the T2-T3- and T2-T4-correlations (qT2–T1/qT2– T3/qT2–T4; early exam, worry: −0.24/−0.02/−0.09; late exam, emotionality: −0.51/−0.13/−0.17; late exam, worry: −0.24/−0.11/−0.11).
4. Discussion This study revealed an overall STA-increase over the course of one semester with a modest development over time and a peak shortly before the exam. Late exam students showed lower STA-levels than early exam students, but a comparable STA-course (except for T2, referring to the mock exam). Substantial STA-TTA-correlations evidenced
399
convergent validity and did not differ substantially between the two groups, indicating their comparableness. As to this study's strengths, we examined a relatively large student sample in a real-life situation. The exam was obligatory, ensuring its importance and, therefore, supporting the external validity of our findings. Additionally, the expected substantial STA-drop and the lower STATTA-correlations when STA-measures referred to a low-stake (mock) assessment were in accordance with our theory. Furthermore, this indicated our instrument's sensitivity to detect meaningful STA-differences. As to the limitations, no random assignment of the students to the two exam dates was possible. However, both groups showed very similar result patterns (except the lower drop at T2 for the late exam group). The generally lower STA-levels of late exam students could be explained by (a) their greater temporal distance to the exam (T1–T3) and (b) the publishing of the early exams' results (which turned out to be good) before the late exam was written (T4). Furthermore, one could probably criticize that the third STA-assessment had not the same temporal distance to the exam in both groups. However, this could be interpreted as the advantage of having another measurement point about two months before the upcoming exam in the late exam group which gives additional evidence that STA seems to remain stable on a moderate level for a longer time if the exam is still quite far away. Regarding the implications, the modest STA-course (referring to the final exam) without bottom- or ceiling-effects evidenced that STA could be assessed meaningfully with greater temporal distance as well as shortly before the exam without risking substantial variance reductions. Furthermore, students seemed to be quite concerned about the upcoming exam already at the beginning of the semester although, or maybe because, they do not yet have substantial knowledge about the lectures' topics or the exams' demands. Although TA-levels of our sample were probably not very problematic and may represent a functional TAlevel, it seems reasonable that lectures and university didactics in general should be designed highly transparent at their beginning, establishing good prerequisites to avoid the emergence of high TA. Higher transparency of the exam (e.g., concerning its topics, examination modalities, and response formats) would make it more likely that students use their resources for effective learning behavior and buffer the negative and dysfunctional effects of high TA (cf. Hembree, 1988) on their exam scores. References
Fig. 1. STA-course of the two exam date groups over the course of one semester (T1: beginning of the semester; T2: middle of the semester, referring to an unmarked mock exam; T3: last week of the semester; T4: before taking the exam).
Bolger, N. (1990). Coping as a personality process: A prospective study. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 525–537. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed ). New York, NY: Psychology Press. Dimitriev, D. A., Saperova, E. V., & Dimitriev, A. D. (2016). State anxiety and nonlinear dynamics of heart rate variability in students. PloS One, 11(1), e0146131. Hembree, R. (1988). Correlates, causes, effects, and treatment of test anxiety. Review of Educational Research, 58, 47–77. Hodapp, V. (1991). Das Prüfungsängstlichkeitsinventar TAI-G: Eine erweiterte modifizierte Version mit vier Komponenten [The Test Anxiety Inventory TAI-G: An expanded and modified version with four components]. Zeitschrift für Pädagogische Psychologie, 5, 121–130. Jacobs, B. (1981). Angst in der Prüfung – Beiträge zu einer kognitiven Theorie der Angstentstehung in Prüfungssituationen [Anxiety during an examination – Contributions to a theory of anxiety genesis in examination situations]. Frankfurt/Main, Germany: Fischer. Laux, L., Hock, M., Bergner-Köther, R., Hodapp, V., Renner, K. -H., & Merzbacher, G. (2013). Das State-Trait-Angst-Depressions-Inventar (STADI) [The State-Trait Anxiety Depression Inventory (STADI)]. Göttingen, Germany: Hogrefe. Lay, C. L., Edwards, J. M., Parker, J. D. A., & Endler, N. S. (1989). An assessment of appraisal, anxiety, coping, and procrastination during an examination period. European Journal of Personality, 3, 195–208. Liebert, R. M., & Morris, L. W. (1967). Cognitive and emotional components of test anxiety: A distinction and some initial data. Psychological Reports, 20, 975–978. Raffety, B. D., Smith, R. E., & Ptacek, J. T. (1997). Facilitating and debilitating trait anxiety, situational anxiety, and coping with an anticipated stressor: A process analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72, 892–906. Reeve, C. L., Bonaccio, S., & Charles, J. E. (2008). A policy-capturing study of the contextual antecedents of test anxiety. Personality and Individual Differences, 45, 243–248. Skinner, N., & Brewer, N. (2002). The dynamics of threat and challenge appraisals prior to stressful achievement events. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83, 678–692.
400
C. Lotz, J.R. Sparfeldt / Personality and Individual Differences 104 (2017) 397–400
Sparfeldt, J. R., Rost, D. H., Baumeister, U. M., & Christ, O. (2013). Test anxiety in written and oral examinations. Learning and Individual Differences, 24, 198–203. Spielberger, C. D. (1966). Theory and research on anxiety. In C. D. Spielberger (Ed.), Anxiety and behavior (pp. 3–20). New York, NY: Academic Press. Spielberger, C. D. (1980). Test anxiety inventory (preliminary professional manual). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
Zeidner, M. (1994). Personal and contextual determinants of coping and anxiety in an evaluative situation: A prospective study. Personal and individual Differences, 16, 899–918. Zeidner, M. (1998). Test anxiety: The state of the art. New York, NY: Plenum Press.
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Personality and Individual Differences journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/paid
Short Communication
Does test anxiety increase as the exam draws near? – Students' state test anxiety recorded over the course of one semester Christin Lotz ⁎, Jörn R. Sparfeldt Saarland University, Department of Educational Science, Campus A5 4, D-66123 Saarbrücken, Germany
a r t i c l e
i n f o
Article history: Received 19 April 2016 Received in revised form 16 August 2016 Accepted 23 August 2016 Available online xxxx Keywords: Test anxiety State test anxiety Trait test anxiety High-stake exam College students
a b s t r a c t State test anxiety (STA) assumingly increases as an exam draws near. However, only few studies (with short time intervals or just two measurement points) seem to confirm this assumption; especially the longer-term STAcourse remains unexamined. The present study investigated N = 192 college students' STA over the course of one semester with four measurement points. STA-assessments at the first, third and fourth measurement point referred to the final obligatory exam, the second to an unmarked mock exam. Regarding the final exam, the students chose from two dates two months apart. A 2 (early vs. late exam date) × 4 (measurement points T1–T4) mixed ANOVA revealed a significant main effect of the exam date, indicating higher STA for students choosing the early exam, and a significant main effect for the measurement points. Planned contrasts indicated an overall STA-increase with a peak directly before the exam and an expected STA-drop at T2 (referring to the mock exam). Criterion validity was evidenced by substantial convergent correlations between STA and trait test anxiety (worry, emotionality). The psychological and educational relevance of the results is discussed. © 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction Impending examinations often elicit test anxiety (TA). It is widely believed that TA increases as an exam draws near (Zeidner, 1998). However, especially the longer-term TA-course is still unexplored. Therefore, this study investigated the development of state test anxiety (STA) in a larger sample of college students over the course of one semester in the context of an upcoming obligatory exam. Additionally, STA and trait test anxiety (TTA) were differentiated. TA refers to a “set of phenomenological, physiological, and behavioral responses that accompany concern about possible negative consequences or failure on an exam” (Zeidner, 1998, p. 17). STA as a transitory emotional state experienced in a specific situation is distinguished from TTA as a stable personal disposition to interpret situations as threatening. Regarding TTA, Liebert and Morris (1967) introduced the distinction of worry (ruminating about self-threatening consequences of failure) and emotionality (perceived physiological stress reactions). The relations between STA and these TTA-facets ranged usually within .40 ≤ r ≤ .70 (e.g., Laux et al., 2013). Conceptually, TA can be regarded as a situation-specific trait (Spielberger, 1966): Individuals with higher TTA interpret specific situations as more threatening and react with more STA. Moreover, the specific examination type influences the TA-level: High-stake assessments elicit higher TA than ⁎ Corresponding author. E-mail address: [email protected] (C. Lotz).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2016.08.032 0191-8869/© 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
developmental low-stake assessments (Reeve, Bonaccio, & Charles, 2008) as, for example, mock exams. The STA-course can be conceptualized as a dynamic temporal process unfolding over time with an increase as an exam draws near. Students do not exactly know beforehand what the exam and its outcome are like and typically become more and more concerned with the demands, corresponding constraints, and threats of the upcoming exam. Thus, concerns and aversive emotions associated with the exam are rising with decreasing temporal distance to the exam (Zeidner, 1998). Empirical evidence – although with short time intervals or only two measurement points – supports this hypothesized STA-increase (Bolger, 1990; Dimitriev, Saperova, & Dimitriev, 2016; Lay, Edwards, Parker, & Endler, 1989; Raffety, Smith, & Ptacek, 1997; Skinner & Brewer, 2002; Zeidner, 1994). For example, Bolger (1990) applied a daily diary measure 17 days before the exam to 50 students: A descriptive inspection of the corresponding graph (p. 531) revealed a substantial TA-increase from day six up to the day before the examination. Likewise, 158 college students reported their daily experience of worry, distraction, and tension during the week before an exam, resulting in a substantial TA-increase (Raffety et al., 1997). Therefore, short-term STA-increases seem to be confirmed, but the longer-term (N4 weeks) course remains an open question. Thus, this study investigated STA-tendencies over the course of one semester and the STA-relations to TTA-facets. We expected (1) an overall STA-increase when referring to a high-stake exam and a STA-drop when referring to a low-stake assessment (mock exam). Moreover,
398
C. Lotz, J.R. Sparfeldt / Personality and Individual Differences 104 (2017) 397–400
(2) substantial convergent correlations were expected between STA and TTA that might be lower for a low-stake assessment.
2.3. Analyses Regarding Hypothesis (1), we computed a 2 (early vs. late exam date) × 4 (measurement points T1–T4) mixed ANOVA (α = .05). Because there were eight weeks between the exams in both groups, the exam date was considered. In case of a significant main effect for the exam date, the STA-course was examined by two repeated measures ANOVAs (separately for the early vs. late exam group), especially focusing on four a priori contrasts: (1) STA-level at T1 is higher than at T2 (mock exam); (2) T2-STA-level is lower than at T3; (3) T3-STA-level is higher than at T1; and (4) T4-STA-level is higher than at T3. Additionally, we conducted four post hoc t-tests for independent samples to examine whether both groups differed at each measurement point (α = .01 because of multiple comparisons). Concerning Hypothesis (2), we inspected whether the STA-TTA-correlations differed meaningfully between the two groups at all measurement points by computing the effect size q (cf. Cohen, 1988). Additionally, we compared separately (also by computing q) for both groups and separately for worry and emotionality whether the STATTA-correlations at T2 were lower compared to the STA-TTA-correlations at the other three measurement points.
2. Method 2.1. Participants and procedure Participants were N = 192 German teacher-education students (mean age: 22.36 years, SD = 3.17, 63% female) who attended a weekly third semester lecture on educational assessment ending with an obligatory exam. Data were collected at four measurement points (T1–T4) over the course of one semester. At T1 (first course lecture) students completed a STA-questionnaire (referring to the final exam) and a TTA-questionnaire. At T2 (sixth course lecture) students completed the STA-questionnaire, referring to a low-stake, not graded mock exam taken straight away and dealing with the course topics. T3 was actualized as an online assessment during the week of the last lecture and STA-measures again referred to the obligatory high-stake exam at the end of the semester. T4 took place in the auditorium right before students took their exam. For administrative reasons, students could choose from two possible exam dates, eight weeks apart. For the early exam group (n = 97), the third measurement point was one week prior to their exam. For the late exam group (n = 95) the third measurement point was nine weeks prior to their exam. These differing temporal distances to the exams in both groups might be relevant for the STAexperiences. The lectures and both examinations took place from 2 to 4 pm. Not every student participated in all testing sessions. Out of N = 391 students that took the exam and answered the corresponding T4-STAquestionnaire, n = 355 students participated in T1 (T2: n = 346, T3: n = 271). Only participants with complete data were included in the analyses, resulting in N = 192. Regarding for example T3 (largest amount of missing data), students who did and who did not participate in T3 were comparable regarding gender (χ2(1) = 0.04; p = .84); age (t(352) = − 1.48, p = .14); worry (t(345) b 1); emotionality (t(344) b 1). This was also true for STA-assessments at T1, T2, and T4 (all t b 1).
3. Results Descriptive statistics are shown in Table 1; STA-TTA-correlations are displayed in Table 2. TA-measures reached good reliabilities and the means were located well within the possible range, indicating an absence of bottom- or ceiling-effects. Regarding Hypothesis (1), the mixed ANOVA revealed significant main effects for the within-subject factor measurement point, F(3, 570) = 157.69, p b .05, η2 = .454, for the between-subject factor exam date, F(1, 190) = 11.80, p b .05, η2 = .058, and a significant interaction effect, F(3, 570) = 4.50, p b .05, η2 = .023 (see Fig. 1). Regarding the early exam group, analyses revealed a significant main effect of measurement point, F(3, 288) = 102.46, p b .05, η2 = .516. Examining the STA-curve, contrasts showed the expected significant STA-drop from T1 to T2, F(1, 96) = 118.07, p b .05, η2 = .552. Then, STA increased significantly from T2 to T3, F(1, 96) = 155.61, p b .05, η2 = .618, but the T3-STA-level did not exceed significantly the T1-STA-level, F(1, 96) = 2.13, p = .15, η2 = .022. T4-STA-level was significantly higher compared to T3, F(1, 96) = 11.86, p b .05, η2 = .110. Regarding the late exam group, a significant effect of measurement point was revealed as well, F(3, 282) = 58.21, p b .05, η2 = .382. The STA-curve showed a result pattern that was comparable to the early exam group: T2-STA-level was significantly lower compared to T1, F(1, 94) = 114.18, p b .05, η2 = .548 and T3, F(1, 94) = 70.33, p b .05, η2 = .428, but T3-STA-level did not differ significantly from T1, F(1, 94) b 1, p = .67, η2 = .002. STA-level increased significantly from T3 to T4, F(1, 94) = 10.49, p b .05, η2 = .100. Furthermore, post hoc t-tests revealed that the late exam group showed significantly lower STA-levels than the early exam group at T1, t (190) = 2.87, p b .01, d = 0.52, at T3, t (190) = 3.86, p b .01, d = 0.56, and at T4, t (190) = 3.49, p b .01, d = 0.50, but not at T2, t (190) b 1, p = .37, d = 0.13 (see Table 1).
2.2. Instruments TTA was assessed using nine items from the German adaption (TAIG; Hodapp, 1991) of the Test-Anxiety-Inventory (TAI; Spielberger, 1980). Based on prior findings (e.g., Sparfeldt, Rost, Baumeister, & Christ, 2013) five items of the worry-subscale and four items of the emotionality-subscale were administered with a four-point rating scale, ranging from almost never (1) to almost always (4). STA was measured using eight items (adjectives: e.g., anxious, worried, nervous; Jacobs, 1981) with a seven-point rating scale ranging from very (1) to not at all (7). Students indicated their feelings if they had to take the exam right now. Answers were rescored so that higher numerical values corresponded to higher STA.
Table 1 Descriptive statistics of state test anxiety for both exam date groups and trait test anxiety. State test anxiety
Trait test anxiety
Measurement point
T1
T2
T3
T4
Exam date
Early
Late
Early
Late
Early
Late
Early
Late
M SD Minimum Maximum Cronbach's α
4.30 1.42 2.00 7.00 .93
3.71 1.45 1.00 7.00 .94
2.55 1.47 1.00 6.63 .95
2.38 1.25 1.00 6.13 .93
4.47 1.38 1.50 7.00 .94
3.64 1.60 1.00 6.88 .96
4.80 1.53 1.00 7.00 .95
4.04 1.48 1.00 7.00 .95
Worry
Emotionality
2.67 0.72 1.00 4.00 .85
2.09 0.77 1.00 4.00 .88
C. Lotz, J.R. Sparfeldt / Personality and Individual Differences 104 (2017) 397–400 Table 2 Correlations between state test anxiety (STA) and trait test anxiety (TTA).
1. STA T1 2. STA T2 3. STA T3 4. STA T4 5. TTA Emotionality 6. TTA Worry
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
– .40⁎ .64⁎ .65⁎ .78⁎ .53⁎
.60⁎ – .43⁎ .35⁎ .38⁎ .34⁎
.57⁎ .49⁎ – .80⁎ .51⁎ .36⁎
.64⁎ .51⁎ .71⁎ – .53⁎ .42⁎
.78⁎ .49⁎ .58⁎ .61⁎
.56⁎ .37⁎ .46⁎ .46⁎ .63⁎ –
– .69⁎
Note. Correlations of the early exam group: lower left half; late exam group: upper right half. ⁎ p b 0.05.
Concerning hypothesis (2), STA-TTA-correlations were substantial (see Table 2) and differences between both groups were mostly of small effect sizes (0 ≤ q ≤ 0.14), indicating the comparableness of the correlations in both groups from T1–T4. STA-TTA-correlations at T2 were lower compared to those coefficients assessed at the other measurement points. For example, in the early exam group the correlation between trait emotionality and T1-STA (r = .78) and the correlation between trait emotionality and T2-STA (r = .38) differed by qT2– T1 = − 0.65. Likewise, the correlations of trait emotionality and T3STA (r = .51) and T4-STA (r = .53) differed from the correlation between trait emotionality and T2-STA (r = .38) by qT2–T3 = −0.16 and qT2–T4 = − 0.19, respectively. The corresponding differences of the trait-worry-STA-correlations of the early exam group as well as the TTA-STA-correlation differences in the late exam group revealed larger correlations at T1 than at T2 (small to large effect sizes) and negligible to small differences of the T2-T3- and T2-T4-correlations (qT2–T1/qT2– T3/qT2–T4; early exam, worry: −0.24/−0.02/−0.09; late exam, emotionality: −0.51/−0.13/−0.17; late exam, worry: −0.24/−0.11/−0.11).
4. Discussion This study revealed an overall STA-increase over the course of one semester with a modest development over time and a peak shortly before the exam. Late exam students showed lower STA-levels than early exam students, but a comparable STA-course (except for T2, referring to the mock exam). Substantial STA-TTA-correlations evidenced
399
convergent validity and did not differ substantially between the two groups, indicating their comparableness. As to this study's strengths, we examined a relatively large student sample in a real-life situation. The exam was obligatory, ensuring its importance and, therefore, supporting the external validity of our findings. Additionally, the expected substantial STA-drop and the lower STATTA-correlations when STA-measures referred to a low-stake (mock) assessment were in accordance with our theory. Furthermore, this indicated our instrument's sensitivity to detect meaningful STA-differences. As to the limitations, no random assignment of the students to the two exam dates was possible. However, both groups showed very similar result patterns (except the lower drop at T2 for the late exam group). The generally lower STA-levels of late exam students could be explained by (a) their greater temporal distance to the exam (T1–T3) and (b) the publishing of the early exams' results (which turned out to be good) before the late exam was written (T4). Furthermore, one could probably criticize that the third STA-assessment had not the same temporal distance to the exam in both groups. However, this could be interpreted as the advantage of having another measurement point about two months before the upcoming exam in the late exam group which gives additional evidence that STA seems to remain stable on a moderate level for a longer time if the exam is still quite far away. Regarding the implications, the modest STA-course (referring to the final exam) without bottom- or ceiling-effects evidenced that STA could be assessed meaningfully with greater temporal distance as well as shortly before the exam without risking substantial variance reductions. Furthermore, students seemed to be quite concerned about the upcoming exam already at the beginning of the semester although, or maybe because, they do not yet have substantial knowledge about the lectures' topics or the exams' demands. Although TA-levels of our sample were probably not very problematic and may represent a functional TAlevel, it seems reasonable that lectures and university didactics in general should be designed highly transparent at their beginning, establishing good prerequisites to avoid the emergence of high TA. Higher transparency of the exam (e.g., concerning its topics, examination modalities, and response formats) would make it more likely that students use their resources for effective learning behavior and buffer the negative and dysfunctional effects of high TA (cf. Hembree, 1988) on their exam scores. References
Fig. 1. STA-course of the two exam date groups over the course of one semester (T1: beginning of the semester; T2: middle of the semester, referring to an unmarked mock exam; T3: last week of the semester; T4: before taking the exam).
Bolger, N. (1990). Coping as a personality process: A prospective study. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 525–537. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed ). New York, NY: Psychology Press. Dimitriev, D. A., Saperova, E. V., & Dimitriev, A. D. (2016). State anxiety and nonlinear dynamics of heart rate variability in students. PloS One, 11(1), e0146131. Hembree, R. (1988). Correlates, causes, effects, and treatment of test anxiety. Review of Educational Research, 58, 47–77. Hodapp, V. (1991). Das Prüfungsängstlichkeitsinventar TAI-G: Eine erweiterte modifizierte Version mit vier Komponenten [The Test Anxiety Inventory TAI-G: An expanded and modified version with four components]. Zeitschrift für Pädagogische Psychologie, 5, 121–130. Jacobs, B. (1981). Angst in der Prüfung – Beiträge zu einer kognitiven Theorie der Angstentstehung in Prüfungssituationen [Anxiety during an examination – Contributions to a theory of anxiety genesis in examination situations]. Frankfurt/Main, Germany: Fischer. Laux, L., Hock, M., Bergner-Köther, R., Hodapp, V., Renner, K. -H., & Merzbacher, G. (2013). Das State-Trait-Angst-Depressions-Inventar (STADI) [The State-Trait Anxiety Depression Inventory (STADI)]. Göttingen, Germany: Hogrefe. Lay, C. L., Edwards, J. M., Parker, J. D. A., & Endler, N. S. (1989). An assessment of appraisal, anxiety, coping, and procrastination during an examination period. European Journal of Personality, 3, 195–208. Liebert, R. M., & Morris, L. W. (1967). Cognitive and emotional components of test anxiety: A distinction and some initial data. Psychological Reports, 20, 975–978. Raffety, B. D., Smith, R. E., & Ptacek, J. T. (1997). Facilitating and debilitating trait anxiety, situational anxiety, and coping with an anticipated stressor: A process analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72, 892–906. Reeve, C. L., Bonaccio, S., & Charles, J. E. (2008). A policy-capturing study of the contextual antecedents of test anxiety. Personality and Individual Differences, 45, 243–248. Skinner, N., & Brewer, N. (2002). The dynamics of threat and challenge appraisals prior to stressful achievement events. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83, 678–692.
400
C. Lotz, J.R. Sparfeldt / Personality and Individual Differences 104 (2017) 397–400
Sparfeldt, J. R., Rost, D. H., Baumeister, U. M., & Christ, O. (2013). Test anxiety in written and oral examinations. Learning and Individual Differences, 24, 198–203. Spielberger, C. D. (1966). Theory and research on anxiety. In C. D. Spielberger (Ed.), Anxiety and behavior (pp. 3–20). New York, NY: Academic Press. Spielberger, C. D. (1980). Test anxiety inventory (preliminary professional manual). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
Zeidner, M. (1994). Personal and contextual determinants of coping and anxiety in an evaluative situation: A prospective study. Personal and individual Differences, 16, 899–918. Zeidner, M. (1998). Test anxiety: The state of the art. New York, NY: Plenum Press.