CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 116Perfectionism, Procrastination, Anxiety StudiesStudent Stress and CopingEducation, Achievement, and Giftedness

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 39 of the 40 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

How to Reduce Test Anxiety and Academic Procrastination Through Inquiry of Cognitive Appraisals: A Pilot Study Investigating the Role of Academic Self-Efficacy

Open access
Krispenz, Ann, Gort, Cassandra, Schültke, Leonie, Dickhäuser, Oliver·2019·Frontiers in Psychology
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01917PMC PMC6710437
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Test anxiety can impair learning motivation and lead to procrastination. Control-value theory of achievement emotions (Pekrun, 2006) assumes test anxiety to be a result of students' appraisals of the testing situation and its outcomes. Modification of cognitive appraisals such as low self-efficacy beliefs is thus assumed to reduce test anxiety and subsequent procrastination. In the present study, we tested the effects of an inquiry-based stress reduction (IBSR) intervention on students' academic self-efficacy, their test anxiety, and subsequent procrastination in the final stages of an academic term. DESIGN: Longitudinal quasi-randomized intervention control trial. METHODS: = 31) received the intervention after the study was completed. Dependent variables were assessed before and after the intervention as well as at the end of the term. RESULTS: Data-analyses revealed that the IBSR intervention reduced test anxiety as well as subsequent academic procrastination in comparison to the control group. The effect on test anxiety was partly due to an enhancement of self-efficacy. CONCLUSION: Our findings provide preliminary evidence that IBSR might help individuals to cope with their test anxiety and procrastination.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01917

Cites

39 of 39 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Figures

FIGURE 1 Path model of academic self-efficacy, test anxiety, and academic procrastination for all times of measurement. Depicted in gray color are first- and second-order autoregressive paths. Depicted in black color are direct effects of the IBSR intervention (dummy coded IBSR = 1 vs. control group = 0) on the dependent variables at time 2 and time 3, causal paths from academic self-efficacy measured at time 2 on test anxiety and academic procrastination measured at time 3, and from test anxiety measured at time 2 on academic procrastination measured at time 3. For increased readability, correlations between (residuals of) dependent variables were omitted in the graphical presentation of the model. Model fit: χ2(19) = 19.817, p = 0.406; CFI = 0.997; RMSEA = 0.025; SRMR = 0.081. All continuous variables were z-standardized. All reported parameter estimates are unstandardized. N = 71. †p ≤ 0.10, ∗p ≤ 0.05, ∗∗p ≤ 0.01, ∗∗∗p ≤ 0.001. Reported are significance levels based one-tailed p-values.
FIGURE 1 Path model of academic self-efficacy, test anxiety, and academic procrastination for all times of measurement. Depicted in gray color are first- and second-order autoregressive paths. Depicted in black color are direct effects of the IBSR intervention (dummy coded IBSR = 1 vs. control group = 0) on the dependent variables at time 2 and time 3, causal paths from academic self-efficacy measured at time 2 on test anxiety and academic procrastination measured at time 3, and from test anxiety measured at time 2 on academic procrastination measured at time 3. For increased readability, correlations between (residuals of) dependent variables were omitted in the graphical presentation of the model. Model fit: χ2(19) = 19.817, p = 0.406; CFI = 0.997; RMSEA = 0.025; SRMR = 0.081. All continuous variables were z-standardized. All reported parameter estimates are unstandardized. N = 71. †p ≤ 0.10, ∗p ≤ 0.05, ∗∗p ≤ 0.01, ∗∗∗p ≤ 0.001. Reported are significance levels based one-tailed p-values.CC BY · PubMed Central
FIGURE 2 Conditional Parallel Multiple Mediation Models for Academic Procrastination Measured at Time 3. All continuous variables were z-standardized. All reported parameter estimates are unstandardized. N = 71. †p ≤ 0.10, ∗p ≤ 0.05, ∗∗p ≤ 0.01, ∗∗∗p ≤ 0.001. Reported are significance levels based one-tailed p-values.
FIGURE 2 Conditional Parallel Multiple Mediation Models for Academic Procrastination Measured at Time 3. All continuous variables were z-standardized. All reported parameter estimates are unstandardized. N = 71. †p ≤ 0.10, ∗p ≤ 0.05, ∗∗p ≤ 0.01, ∗∗∗p ≤ 0.001. Reported are significance levels based one-tailed p-values.CC BY · PubMed Central

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 40 references

Research works printed but not linked: 6

  1. Geiser, 2013, Data Analysis with Mplus.
  2. Jerusalem, 1986, Selbstwirksamkeit (Self-efficacy), Skalen Zur Befindlichkeit und Persönlichkeit
  3. Kline, 2016, Principles and Practices of Structural Equation Modeling
  4. Muthén, 2012, Mplus User’s Guide
  5. Patzelt, 2014, German version of the academic procrastination state inventory (APSI-d), Compilation of Social Science Items and Scales
  6. Schermelleh-Engel, 2003, Evaluating the fit of structural equations models: tests of significance and descriptive goodness-of-fit measures., Methods Psychol. Res., 8, 23

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 101–110 of 110

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Krispenz, A., Gort, C., Schültke, L., & Dickhäuser, O.
Affiliations
University of Mannheim (DE)
Corresponding author
Krispenz, Ann
ORCID
Venue
Frontiers in Psychology
Publisher
Frontiers Media SA
Published
2019-08-20
Volume
10
Pages
1917-1917
ISSN
1664-1078 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01917
PMC
PMC6710437
OpenAlex
W2966775938
Semantic Scholar
26a16b37fdc951f50d3eccc257d99ae7f313d6c8
Cited by
116
References
40
Citations by year
2026: 16 · 2025: 24 · 2024: 25 · 2023: 13 · 2022: 10 · 2021: 24 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 1
FWCI
10.91
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Frontiers in Psychology (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • MADOC (University of Mannheim) (acceptedVersion)
  • BORIS (University Library Bern) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • Open Access CRIS of the University of Bern
Funders
  • Universität Mannheim
  • Ministerium für Wissenschaft, Forschung und Kunst Baden-Württemberg
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Perfectionism, Procrastination, Anxiety Studies
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Student Stress and Coping
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Education, Achievement, and Giftedness
Keywords
test anxiety, academic procrastination, academic self-efficacy, cognitive appraisal, stress reduction intervention, control-value theory of achievement emotions, coping with anxiety, students

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review