An evaluation of the factor structure and predictive utility of a test anxiety scale with reference to students’ past performance and personality indices

Abstract

The two cognitive factors have emerged as the most substantial negative predictors of examination performance. Attention to these factors and to relevant personality indices are commended as a potentially fruitful strategy for remedial intervention.

Perceived fear appeals and examination performance: Facilitating or debilitating outcomes?

“…The expected inverse relations between worry and examination performance and between tension and examination performance were also confirmed, however the relation between bodily symptoms and examination performance was not. Given the inconsistent results reported for the bodily symptoms and performance outcomes (Keogh, Bond, French, Richards, & Davies, 2004;McIlroy, Bunting, & Adamson, 2000;Putwain, Connors, & Symes, 2010) this finding is not surprising. Taken together with the pattern of relations between perceived threat and test anxiety, these findings confirm our expectation that perceived threat has an indirect debilitating effect through the worry and tension components of test anxiety.…”

Distal and proximal associates of academic performance at secondary level: A mediation model of personality and self-efficacy

“…Furthermore, the impact of the FFM on intermediate constructs, such as self-efficacy is also beginning to be explored (Caprara et al, 2011). However, the predictive validity of self-efficacy is optimised when specific rather than general measures are employed (Bandura, 1997;Pajares, 1996), such as the Academic Self-efficacy measure used in this study (Mcilroy, Bunting & Adamson, 2000;Mcilroy & Bunting, 2002). …”

“…In contrast students with low Self-efficacy are likely to give up easily, invest less effort and see tasks as more difficult than they are (Britner & Pajares, 2006). 1.5 Academic Self-efficacy: postulated as a mediator of personality in performance Academic Self-efficacy is specifically designed to tap academically relevant behaviours and approaches to learning (Mcilroy, Bunting & Adamson, 2000;Mcilroy & Bunting, 2002) in contrast to the FFM which was not designed primarily for this purpose (Ackerman, Chamorro-Premuzic & Furnham, 2011). Given that Academic Self-efficacy is specific, it is construed to be proximal to performance , whereas the five factors of personality are seen as distal (Bidjerano & Dai, 2007), there is a good justification for postulating Academic Self-efficacy as a mediator for the FFM, especially the two factors most implicated in performance (Openness and Conscientiousness).…”

“…The sample used was 17 year old students toward the end of their secondary education (the non-compulsory stage beyond 16 for UK students) and therefore on the threshold of transition to tertiary level education. The use of specific Academic Self-efficacy (rather than general Self-efficacy) followed a pattern initiated in recent Italian studies but the present study was in a different culture, and an adult measure of Academic Self-efficacy that had been previously validated on university samples (Mcilroy, Bunting & Adamson, 2000;Mcilroy & Bunting, 2002) rather than a children's version (Pastorelli, Caprara, Barbaranelli, Rola, Rozsa, & Bandura, 2001). …”

Secondary Level Achievement

“…This version of the FFM has elicited sound psychometric properties in previous research (Gow et al, 2004) and this study has supported that with high reliabilities, good indicators of normality, association with academic performance and independence between the factors. (Mcilroy et al, 2000) This is a 10-item self-report measure designed to assess Self-efficacy within the academic setting with a 7-point Likert response format with anchor points set at, 1 = Very Strongly Agree to 7 = Very Strongly Disagree. A sample item is, "If I don't understand an academic problem, I persevere until I do", with a few items reverse scored.…”