The Impact of Situational Test Anxiety on Retest Effects in Cognitive Ability Testing: A Structural Equation Modeling Approach

Abstract

When a cognitive ability is assessed repeatedly, test scores and ability estimates are often observed to increase across test sessions. This phenomenon is known as the retest (or practice) effect. One explanation for retest effects is that situational test anxiety interferes with a testee’s performance during earlier test sessions, thereby creating systematic measurement bias on the test items (interference hypothesis). Yet, the influence of anxiety diminishes with test repetitions. This explanation is controversial, since the presence of measurement bias during earlier measurement occasions cannot always be confirmed. It is argued that people from the lower end of the ability spectrum become aware of their deficits in test situations and therefore report higher anxiety (deficit hypothesis). In 2014, a structural equation model was proposed that specifically allows the comparison of these two hypotheses with regard to explanatory power for the negative anxiety–ability correlation found in cross-sectional assessments. We extended this model for usage in longitudinal studies to investigate the impact of test anxiety on test performance and on retest effects. A latent neighbor-change growth curve was implemented into the model that enables an estimation of retest effects between all pairs of successive test sessions. Systematic restrictions on model parameters allow testing the hypothetical reduction in anxiety interference over the test sessions, which can be compared to retest effect sizes. In an empirical study with seven measurement occasions, we found that a substantial reduction in interference upon the second test session was associated with the largest retest effect in a figural matrices test, which served as a proxy measure for general intelligence. However, smaller retest effects occurred up to the fourth test administration, whereas evidence for anxiety-induced measurement bias was only produced for the first two test sessions. Anxiety and ability were not negatively correlated at any time when the interference effects were controlled for. Implications, limitations, and suggestions for future research are discussed.

Investigation of a Model-Based Working Memory Training With and Without Distractor Inhibition and Its Comparative Efficacy: A Randomized Controlled Trial on Healthy Old Adults

“…This is in line with a meta-analysis, which described practice effects in WM tasks and specifically reported larger practice effects in updating, n-back, complex span, and coordination tasks than for simple span tasks, concluding that unfamiliar and challenging cognitive tasks are more subject to practice effects (Scharfen et al, 2018 ). As one explanation for the occurrence of practice effects, interference of anxiety has been described, which has been found to be reduced the largest after a second administration and reaching a plateau after a fourth administration of cognitive testing (Jendryczko et al, 2019 ). In our sample, we found reduced scores on all three subscales of the anxiety, stress, and depression scale at the second test administration and no changes in all three scores between pre- and post-training.…”

Introducing the ‘Psychosomatic Screening Questionnaire - 29’ (PSSQ-29): Reliability and Validity in an Epidemiological Sample of 1,158 Participants in Greece during the COVID-19 Domestic Lockdown

“…Hence, the odds for statistical bias in a test-retest validity analysis are likely to be higher than average. [35,36] The next stage of the study included an Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA). The analysis includes three steps.…”

Impact of Age on Cognitive Testing Practice Effects and Cardiorespiratory Responses

“…Practice or retest effects are well-recognized phenomena in psychological and/or neurocognitive testing ( Almkvist & Graff, 2022 ; Gross et al, 2015 ; Jendryczko et al, 2019 ; Machulda et al, 2013 ). Practice effects have been reported in healthy adults when test and retest were administered 1 day apart ( Collie et al, 2003 ), or were separated by intervals ranging from 2 to 3 weeks up to 1 year ( Bartels et al, 2010 ).…”