The effects of test item format on self-efficacy and worry during a high-stakes computer-based certification examination

Mulkey, Jamie R.; O’Neil, Harold F.

doi:10.1016/s0747-5632(99)00033-3

Cited by 13 publications

(12 citation statements)

References 48 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Several studies have already indicated that anxiety has a significant negative effect on performance (Blair, O'Neil, & Price, 1999;Choi, 1998;Mulkey & O'Neil, 1999;Pajares & Kranzler, 1995;Tobias, 1992;Tobias & Everson, 1997). In his review of self-efficacy beliefs in academic settings, Pajares (1996) concluded that the influence of anxiety on academic performance diminished when self-efficacy was included in a model, and that anxiety was inversely related to self-efficacy.…”

Section: The Effects Of Worry On Academic Performancementioning

confidence: 99%

Ethnicity, Effort, Self-Efficacy, Worry, and Statistics Achievement in Malaysia: A Construct Validation of the State-Trait Motivation Model

Hashim¹,

O’Neil²,

Hocevar³

2002

Educational Assessment

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The relations between motivational constructs, effort, self-efficacy and worry, and statistics achievement were investigated in a sample of 360 undergraduates in Malaysia. Both trait (cross-situational) and state (task-specific) measures of each construct were used to test a mediational trait → state → performance (TSP) model. As hypothesized, all three traits were found to be empirically distinguishable from their state counterparts in a confirmatory factor analysis. In a structural equation model, each trait also had a direct effect on its corresponding state as hypothesized. Most importantly, state worry and state effort had significant direct effects on statistics achievement in the predicted direction. Gender and ethnic (Malay vs. Chinese) differences and other predictions related to social cognitive theories of motivation also were analyzed and are discussed. Overall, results provide strong evidence for the utility of the state-trait distinction as applied to motivational constructs and are consistent with findings from U.S. samples.

show abstract

Section: The Effects Of Worry On Academic Performancementioning

confidence: 99%

Ethnicity, Effort, Self-Efficacy, Worry, and Statistics Achievement in Malaysia: A Construct Validation of the State-Trait Motivation Model

Hashim¹,

O’Neil²,

Hocevar³

2002

Educational Assessment

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Research regarding the effects of test anxiety on CAT and SAT are consistent with the literature on computer anxiety. For CAT, Mulkey and O'Neil found that success and failure on the CAT state self-efficacy and the worry aspect of test anxiety [20]. Vispoel found that students with lower levels of test anxiety performed better than those with higher levels of test anxiety [14].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

On Test and Computer Anxiety: Test Performance under Cat and Sat Conditions

Shermis

Mzumara

Bublitz

2001

Journal of Educational Computing Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article examines the differences between computer adaptive (CAT) and self-adapted testing (SAT) along with possible differences in feedback conditions and gender. Areas of comparison include measurement precision/ efficiency and student test characteristics. Participants included 623 undergraduates from a large Midwestern university who took math placement tests in a 4 (condition) × 2 (feedback) × 2 (gender) design. The four conditions included: a) CAT; b) SAT-Global; c) SAT-Individual; and d) SAT-Placebo groups. Multivariate Analysis of Variance was used to analyze the data. The perceived control hypothesis was used as a framework to explain the differences between CAT and SAT. Results indicated that measurement efficiency is differentially affected by the type of test condition with the SAT-Global condition performing worse than the others. Moreover, there were significant gender effects with regard to ability, test length, and test anxiety. There was no relative advantage for the inclusion of item feedback. Implications for computerized adaptive testing and areas of future research are discussed. fewer items than traditional fixed-item tests [1]. However, the increased efficiency of computerized testing may come at the cost of higher test anxiety for some examinees [2].As an attempt to give the examinee increased control over the testing situation and thereby reduce test anxiety, self-adapted testing (SAT) is a technique that has met with some success [3,4]. Instead of the computer systematically selecting an item in an attempt to maximize information at the examinee's current ability estimate, SAT lets individuals select items calibrated to a "desired" (relative) difficulty level. Otherwise, the calculation of ability level and estimate precision is carried out as it normally is with CAT. For example, before an individual is presented with an item, he/she is asked how difficult of an item they would prefer. The levels of difficulty can vary, typically ranging from three (easy, medium, hard) up to eight. Using the difficulty range chosen by the individual, the algorithm selects items specifically tailored to the present ability estimate. SAT has been found to lessen the increase in anxiety that occurs with computerized testing [3][4][5].Research has not fully investigated the cause of anxiety reduction in SAT. Three hypotheses were offered by Wise et al. [6]. One possible explanation, the self-monitoring hypothesis, states that SAT allows the examinee access to information beyond which would be available to a traditional computerized testing algorithm (e.g., current affective (emotional) and motivational states) [7]. For example, some examinees begin an examination by feeling apprehensive, anxious, or insecure about their ability. In other cases, examinees may feel quite optimistic and confident in their mastery of the test content. This additional information about affective and motivational states allows the student to tailor the test to their specific psychological states and thus reduce their anxiety....

show abstract

“…Within the ITS group, participants with high CSE (M=27.82) did significantly better than participants with low CSE (M=16.85). This result was consistent with the prediction of Mulkey and O'Noel (1999) that learners with higher levels of computer self-efficacy perform better than those with lower levels of self-efficacy in computer training situations. In addition, the means of task performance measure for those with low levels of CSE significantly differed across the groups while those with high levels of CSE were relatively stable.…”

Section: Effect Of Computer Self-efficacy and Training Mode On Trainisupporting

confidence: 90%

“…a) Self-efficacy: Self-efficacy precepts suggest that learners may perceive new educational technology, ITS included, as either an opportunity or a threat. Mulkey and O'Noel (1999) held that learners with higher levels of computer self-efficacy perform better than those with lower levels of self-efficacy in computer training situations (see Baldwin, 1990;Gist et al, 1989). In this study, three types of self-efficacy will be explored.…”

Section: Learner's Ability To Succeed Indicatorsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…McQuiggan, et al (2008) and Bandura (1986Bandura ( , 1997 hold that self-efficacy is a person's beliefs about his/her judgment or ability to perform well in a given situation. This means that the concern is not on an individual's skills, but the judgments of what a person can do with whatever skills she/he possesses (Mulkey & O'Noel, 1999;Bandura 1989). In the ITS context, self-efficacy can be described as a judgment of one's capability to understand, use, and benefit from the ITS-based training.…”

Section: Learner's Ability To Succeed Indicatorsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Cognition and Technology: Effectiveness of intelligent tutoring systems for software training

Hategekimana

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The effects of test item format on self-efficacy and worry during a high-stakes computer-based certification examination

Cited by 13 publications

References 48 publications

Ethnicity, Effort, Self-Efficacy, Worry, and Statistics Achievement in Malaysia: A Construct Validation of the State-Trait Motivation Model

Ethnicity, Effort, Self-Efficacy, Worry, and Statistics Achievement in Malaysia: A Construct Validation of the State-Trait Motivation Model

On Test and Computer Anxiety: Test Performance under Cat and Sat Conditions

Cognition and Technology: Effectiveness of intelligent tutoring systems for software training

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About