Author’s Accepted Manuscript

Test anxiety effects, predictors, and correlates: A

30-year meta-analytic review

Nathaniel von der Embse, Dane Jester, Devlina

Roy, James Post

www.elsevier.com/locate/jad

PII: S0165-0327(17)30368-3
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2017.11.048
Reference: JAD9362
To appear in: Journal of Affective Disorders
Received date: 17 February 2017
Revised date: 13 September 2017
Accepted date: 11 November 2017
Cite this article as: Nathaniel von der Embse, Dane Jester, Devlina Roy and
James Post, Test anxiety effects, predictors, and correlates: A 30-year meta-
analytic review, Journal of Affective Disorders,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2017.11.048
This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for
publication. As a service to our customers we are providing this early version of
the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo copyediting, typesetting, and
review of the resulting galley proof before it is published in its final citable form.
Please note that during the production process errors may be discovered which
could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.
RUNNING HEAD: TEST ANXIETY META-ANALYSIS

Test anxiety effects, predictors, and correlates: A 30-year meta-analytic review

Nathaniel von der Embse, Ph.D.

University of South Florida

Dane Jester, M.Ed.

Devlina Roy, M.Ed.

James Post, B.A.

Temple University

Please address correspondence to:

Nathaniel von der Embse, Ph.D.
University of South Florida
College of Education
4202 E. Fowler Avenue
Tampa, FL 33620
natev@usf.edu
TEST ANXIETY META-ANALYSIS 2

ABSTRACT:

Background and objectives: Since the 1988 publication of Hembree’s seminal meta-analysis on
test anxiety, much has changed in the theoretical conceptualization of test anxiety, as well as the
influences on test performance. The present study examined the influence of test anxiety on a
variety of educational outcomes, in addition to demographic and intrapersonal correlates.

Design and methods: Results of 238 studies from 1988 to the present, were synthesized via a
meta-analytic framework to explicate predictors, correlates, and relationships with the test
anxiety construct. Pooled effect sizes were calculated.

Results: Results indicated that test anxiety was significantly and negatively related to a wide
range of educational performance outcomes, including standardized tests, university entrance
exams, and grade point average. Results were most pronounced at the middle grades level. Self-
esteem was a significant and strong predictor of test anxiety. Perceived difficulty of the test and
the high-stakes nature or consequences of the test was also related to higher test anxiety.

Conclusions: The magnitude of the relationship of test anxiety across a number of variables was
in the small to moderate range. Implications for researchers and educators are discussed
including the use of evidence-based assessment and interventions when warranted.
TEST ANXIETY META-ANALYSIS 3

Test anxiety effects, predictors, and correlates: A 30-year meta-analytic review

The role of emotion in performance has long been subject to much interest and research

(see Pekrun, 2006). Yerkes and Dodson first proposed an optimal state of arousal with

performance in 1908, and subsequently changed the study of emotion and its related effects.

Anxiety has been the primary variable of interest in understanding the role of emotion with

performance, and is typically characterized by feelings of tension, worried thoughts, and

negative physiological reactions (APA, 2013). Consistently, anxiety problems are reported to be

one of the most widespread mental health problems in children, with prevalence upwards of 41%

(Cartwright-Hatton, McNicol, & Doubleday, 2006). Heightened levels of anxiety are often

manifested when individuals encounter environments and scenarios that may provoke feelings of

fear or worry, such as a situation where an individual’s abilities are being tested. When faced

with an assessment of ability, there is often an implicit concern of negative consequences based

upon test performance. Test anxiety, exam stress, or test stress are often synonymous with the

fear or worry of negative evaluation that results in a negative behavioral, physiological, or

emotional responses (Zeidner, 1998).

Within educational settings, test anxiety is one form of “academic anxiety” (Cassady,

2010) that is characterized by (1) context specific stimuli (e.g., classroom instruction) and (2)

academic subject specific reactions (e.g., math anxiety; Hembree, 1990). Test anxiety is

differentiated from other forms of anxiety through its focus on evaluative (i.e., testing) situations.

Test anxiety has also been referred to as exam anxiety, exam stress or test stress. Recent

estimates have suggested that between 15 and 22% of students exhibit high levels of test anxiety

(Putwain & Daly, 2014; Thomas, Cassady, & Finch, 2017). Much research has demonstrated a

relationship between test anxiety and a host of negative variables including increased risk for
TEST ANXIETY META-ANALYSIS 4

subsequent anxiety and depression (Leadbeater, Thompson, & Grupposo, 2012), poor class

grades (Chapell, et al., 2005; Segool, Carlson, Goforth, von der Embse, & Barterian, 2013),

difficulties engaging in instructional content (Bedell & Marlowe, 1995), and low test

performance (Putwain, 2008; von der Embse & Witmer, 2014). Given these outcomes, research

has produced a variety of evidence-based interventions to mitigate test anxiety (Ergene, 2003;

von der Embse, Barterian, & Segool, 2013). However, to continue advancing evidence-based

treatment of test anxiety, it is necessary to better understand (1) the changing nature of the

construct, (2) the evolution and improvement in test anxiety measurement, and (3) the

relationship of test anxiety with performance as well as important demographic differences.

Changes in the understanding, measurement, and relationships of test anxiety

Some of the earliest and most influential work on test anxiety was published in the

1950’s (Sarason & Mandler, 1952) and has since influenced research and advanced our

understanding of the role of emotion in performance. Despite decades of research supporting an

association with a range of negative outcomes, test anxiety research experienced a period of

decline following the 1980s (Zeidner, 1998). Database searches of Psychinfo and ERIC within

the present investigation returned five percent fewer results in the 1990s than the 1980s, with

another slight decline in the early 2000s. However, results from 2010-2017 indicate a 31%

increase in published research when compared to the 1980s. In addition, there has been

significant disagreement within the research literature regarding the relationship of test anxiety

with test performance (see Sommer & Arendasy, 2014; 2015). As the construct approaches 70

years of research, much has changed in the predictors, variables influenced, and theoretical

understanding of test anxiety.

TEST ANXIETY META-ANALYSIS 5

Theoretical models of test anxiety have evolved over the last five decades. Theorists such

as Alpert and Haber (1960), Liebert and Morris (1967) and Wine (1971) all supported an

interference model of test anxiety, which explains depressed performance by identifying factors

(e.g., emotionality and worry) that disturb the process of information recall and utilization during

testing situations. Shortly after the conceptualization of this model, other theorists proposed a

deficits model, which regards the occurrence and severity of test anxiety as being due to deficits

in knowledge and skills (e.g., study skills, self-efficacy, motivation, testing strategies) needed to

perform well in evaluative situations (Culler & Hollahan, 1980; Tobias, 1985). While both of

these models provide valid information on the complexities of test anxiety, current research

suggests that neither is capable of explaining the dynamic and highly variable nature of test

anxiety. Eysenck and colleagues’s (2007) work with the attentional control theory posited that

anxiety influences performance due to an adverse effect on attentional control, including shifting

and inhibiting. The transactional model of test anxiety (Spielberger & Vagg, 1995) integrated

prior models including both interference and deficit theory, while considering test anxiety as a

cyclical or recursive phenomenon with test performance. That is, test anxiety is associated with

both appraisals of threat and negative or positive evaluations with their related emotions. Zeidner

and Matthews (2005) extends the transactional model by integrating multiple influences of

anxiety on cognitive process with their self-referent executive processing model (S-REF). Within

the S-REF model, executive processing is shaped by declarative and procedural self-knowledge

and that self-referent processing occurs in response to threatening external stimuli (e.g., worry

over academic competence) eventually leading to the manifestation of test anxiety (Zeidner &

Matthews, 2005).
TEST ANXIETY META-ANALYSIS 6

More recently, new models of test anxiety have incorporated environmental influences.

Lowe et al (2008) proposed a biopsychosocial model of test anxiety that indicates a biological

and psychological basis of test anxiety that interacts with the social (i.e., educational) context.

Segool and von der Embse (2014) built upon this model, using advanced statistical modeling to

examine a cognitive-behavioral framework of test anxiety that combined cognitive perceptions

and prior learning experiences with demographic characteristics, social or educational context,

and environmental contingencies (i.e., educational expectations). It is clear that the construct of

test anxiety is still evolving within the research. Similarly, the measurement of test anxiety has

evolved in parallel with theoretical developments.

The Test Anxiety Scale for Children (TASC; Sarason, Davidson, Lighthall, Waite, &

Ruebush, 1960) was long considered the gold standard for test anxiety assessment. Theoretical

advances, namely the deficit and interference models, influenced the development of a two-

factor measurement model assesses autonomic arousal (e.g., emotionality) and cognitive (e.g.,

worry) symptoms that was later incorporated into assessments developed by Liebert and Morris

(1967). Additional instruments included the Test Anxiety Profile (Oetting & Cole, 1980),

Sarason’s Reaction to Test (RTT) measure as well as the revised version from Benson and

colleagues (1992; Revised Test Anxiety scale[RTA]), and the Test Anxiety Inventory (TAI;

Spielberger, 1980). A social dimension was later included in instruments such as the FRIEDBEN

Test Anxiety Scale (FTAS; Friedman & Bendas-Jacob, 1997). Measurement has continued to

evolve as consistent with theory and later, demands in the educational environment. For example,

Cassady developed the Cognitive Test Anxiety Scale (Cassady & Johnson, 2002) to identify

different cognitive aspects of test anxiety, Pekrun and colleagues (2004) created an assessment to

identify “test emotions” and Lowe created two assessments consistent with the biopsychosocial
TEST ANXIETY META-ANALYSIS 7

model, the Test Anxiety Inventory for Children and Adolescents (TAICA; Lowe et al., 2008) and

the Test Anxiety Scale for Elementary Students (TAS-E; Lowe, Grumbein, & Raad, 2011). As

schools have increasingly integrated tiered service delivery that utilizes brief screening measures

to facilitate early intervention and prevention efforts, test anxiety assessments progressed to

reflect these needs including screening (B-FTAS; von der Embse et al., 2013) and single-item

measures (DBR-A; von der Embse et al., 2015). Clearly, the measurement and understanding of

test anxiety has changed significantly, yet the last meta-analysis examining the effects of the

construct was completed nearly thirty years ago.

In 1988, Ray Hembree published a seminal meta-analysis of 562 studies on the correlates,

causes, effects, and treatment of test anxiety (Hembree, 1988). This work has had great influence

on the subsequent understanding of test anxiety differences (e.g., gender, ethnicity, age) as well

as its relations (e.g., consistently linked with lower academic performance). Many of Hembree’s

findings were later supported through Seipp’s (1991) meta-analysis. Hembree’s meta-analysis

had informed intervention development (e.g., Ergene, 2003; von der Embse et al., 2013) that was

targeted to groups at most risk for high levels of test anxiety. However, theoretical and

measurement advances have changed our understanding of the test anxiety construct (Sommer &

Arendasy, 2014). Research has now more clearly elucidated the processes inherent to the

manifestation of test anxiety (e.g., Zeidner & Matthews, 2005) while also calling into question

the causal link to performance (see Sommer & Arendasy, 2013). Moreover, the nature and use of

testing for academic progress and achievement in schools have changed dramatically, thus

raising again the importance of emotion in performance. For example, many countries have used

high-stakes exams to determine student academic gains, teacher efficacy, and school

effectiveness. Student test anxiety is higher on high-stakes exams when compared with typical
TEST ANXIETY META-ANALYSIS 8

classroom tests (Segool, Carlson, Goforth, von der Embse, & Barterian, 2013), underscoring the

potential influence this change has had on students. In addition, individual variability in the

manifestation of test anxiety is considered to be dependent on biological, psychological, and

environmental variables. These include intrapersonal variables (e.g., self-efficacy, motivation,

self-regulation; Dull, Schliefer, & McMillan, 2015; Khalaila, 2015; Schnell, Ringeisen,

Raufelder, & Rohrmann, 2015), social influences (performance expectations and values,

achievement standards, and social support; von der Embse, Schultz, & Draughn, 2015; Ringeisen

& Raufelder, 2015; Sarason, 1981), and demographic variables (level of education, economic

status, and cultural background; Hembree, 1988; Putwain, 2008; Ziedner, 1990).

Purpose of the Present Study

Given the change in the understanding and measurement of test anxiety over the last 50

years, there is a need to examine the potential related changes in the relationship of test anxiety

with a variety of domains. The purpose of the present meta-analysis is threefold. First, we

examine the relationship of test anxiety with a variety of performance outcomes, including

achievement tests, grade point average, and standardized exams. Second, intrapersonal variables

such as motivation, and their related association to test anxiety are assessed. Lastly, we examine

differences in the predictors of test anxiety with respect to various demographic variables.

Method

Article collection and coding

A comprehensive review of the literature was conducted by three trained graduate

students in school psychology to identify relevant articles (including peer-reviewed journal

articles and doctoral dissertations) that address test anxiety. Methodological approaches adhered

to best practices identified by Hedges and Olkin (2014). Data collection was conducted through a
TEST ANXIETY META-ANALYSIS 9

multiple yield, narrowing criterion design. First, a coding manual was developed (Hunter &

Schmidt, 1990) that included relevant search terms and inclusion/exclusion criteria (see below).

Second, raters practiced searching with the relevant terms to compare initial yields and search

procedures, and discussion was used to confirm common methodology. Third, approximately 20%

of articles across all yields were examined by a second rater to determine inclusion/exclusion

criteria and calculate rater agreement. If disagreement existed, a third rater would examine the

article. Initial rater agreement across all yields exceeded 95%.

Electronic databases were searched including: PsycARTICLES, Psychology and

Behavioral Sciences Collection, PsycINFO, Academic Search Premier, Medline and the

Educational Resource Information Center (ERIC), with articles published in English after 1988

(i.e., after the publication of Hembree’s meta-analysis). The initial search terms included “test

anxiety”, “test stress”, “exam anxiety”, and “exam stress.” The search yielded a total 1,511

articles post-elimination of duplicate articles.

Several inclusion and exclusion criteria were applied for a second yield of articles. These

include: (1) articles needed to identify test anxiety as the independent variable (or correlate), (2)

an indicator of test performance was included as a dependent variable, and (3) test anxiety was

examined within an educational setting (i.e., schools and universities are an educational setting,

hospitals or clinics were not considered an educational setting). Test anxiety is typically

measured and intervened within education settings and therefore the implications are most

directly relevant for educators, thus the inclusion of educational settings and the exclusion of

others (e.g., hospitals). Group studies, single-case designs, and both quasi-experimental (as well

as correlational) and experimental designs were included in the second yield if effect size was

provided or could be calculated. Article reviews, test development/validation studies, and other
TEST ANXIETY META-ANALYSIS 10

non-empirical articles were excluded based upon these criteria. The second yield resulted in 391

articles and an inter-rater agreement of 100%.

In order to be considered acceptable for use in the meta-analysis, all identified articles

were then individually screened and categorized by the authors for the following criteria: (1) year

of publication/release, (2) appropriate study design (e.g., single-case designs, correlational,

quasi-experimental or experimental), (3) demographic Information (e.g., gender, socioeconomic

status, and (4) academic performance (e.g., course grades, GPA). A final yield of 238 studies met

study criteria with an inter-rater agreement of 95%.

Data analytic plan

A correlational meta-analysis was employed with 238 studies that met inclusion criteria.

Each of these studies provided either an effect size or the requisite data to calculate an effect size.

Due to the differing methodologies of the identified studies, multiple types of effect sizes were

listed. While both continuous (Pearson’s r) and between-group (Cohen’s d) effect sizes were

identified, r was the primary measure of effect size. Multiple studies did not report effect sizes,

but provided sufficient information to calculate an effect size. In these cases, the following

equations were utilized when appropriate: (d = M1 - M2 /spooled), (d = 2t /√(df)), (r = Σ (xy)/sqrt

[( Σ x2 )*( Σ y2 )]). Due to the interchangeable nature of effect sizes, d-values were converted to

r-value with the following equation, r = d /d 2+4.

StatsDirect meta-analysis software was utilized to calculate overall or pooled correlation

coefficients through the Hedges-Olkin fixed-effects model (1985). A fixed-effects model was

preferred over a random-effects model due to the large amount of studies and the general

homogeneity of the studies within each analysis conducted (Hedges & Olkin, 2014). The

Hedges-Olkin method converts the correlation coefficients of each study to a standard metric,
TEST ANXIETY META-ANALYSIS 11

which in this case uses Fisher’s r-to-Z transformation. This transformation was made for each

effect size within each unit of analysis (i.e., study aims) in the meta-analysis. After these

transformations were completed for each group of studies, a weighted average of these scores

was calculated and applied to each study within this group to identify the mean effect size. The

z-score of the mean effect size was then calculated by dividing the mean effect size by its

standard error and converted back into r, or the pooled correlation. A chi-square test was then

conducted to determine whether the effect sizes were homogeneous (Johnson, 1993). The

significance level for the test for the homogeneity of the k values of r (df= k-1) was set at .01 due

to standard agreement within meta-analysis literature and the inherent variability of effect sizes

due to data obtained through self-report measures (Schmidt & Hunter, 2014). When homogeneity

of the sample was evaluated and considered acceptable, groups were considered complete and

confidence intervals were calculated to test the null hypothesis that the effect size is zero. If a

group of studies was found to be heterogeneous (Q > k-1), outliers were identified and examined

to determine the cause of their variability and whether they should be excluded from the analysis

(Hedges & Olkin, 2014). Outliers were identified through a close inspection of data obtained

upon calculation of the overall correlation coefficient for the area in question. For data that was

heterogeneous, the random/fixed 95% confidence interval was used as an indicator of potential

outliers. Each data point falling outside of this range was examined. Outliers were eliminated

when the methodology and/or analyses were considered to be insufficient or irrelevant to the

aims identified within the current study. Correlation coefficients were then recalculated after

identification and removal of identified outliers. Data points falling outside of the 95%

confidence interval were included when there was no clear cause of variability.
TEST ANXIETY META-ANALYSIS 12

The potential influence of publication bias, or the “File Drawer Effect”, which suggests

that studies with significant results are more likely to be published than those that report results

that are not statistically significant (Rosenthal, 1979) was examined. Orwin’s Fail-safe N (Orwin,

1983) to identify the number of potentially unpublished studies with a null effect size needed to

reduce the pooled correlated to a criterion effect size that would no longer be meaningful. The

criterion effect size was set at r = .10 or r = -.10, depending upon the directionality of the data, as

this represents the lowest threshold for a small effect sizes identified by Cohen (Cohen, 1988).

This was calculated for each pooled correlate.

Results

Correlational Findings

The primary task of the current study was to identify significant correlates of test anxiety

with primary variables of interest (e.g., achievement). Most of the significant relationships fell

within the small to medium range. Results are compared and then discussed with respect to the

findings reported in Hembree’s (1988) seminal examination of test anxiety. Individual and

separate correlates were identified within each level of analysis. The aggregate effect of these

correlates is denoted with their respective tables. Additional information within the tables

detailing the relation with test anxiety include (1) the number of studies within the group of

analysis, (2) the total number of participants from the studies, (3) outlier values when included,

(4) the end values of r within the group of studies, (5) the pooled effects size or mean, and (6) an

indicator of significance when the mean was significantly different than zero. In several

instances, a single study included information that was utilized in multiple levels of analysis (e.g.,

Pintrich, Roeser, & De Groot, 1994).

Study Aim 1: Performance Correlates.

TEST ANXIETY META-ANALYSIS 13

The first aim of the current study (see summary within Table 1) was to examine the

relation between test anxiety and performance measures commonly identified in educational

settings. The coding procedure applied to these studies identified several performance categories,

including (1) achievement or typical classroom testing (e.g., quizzes, tests), (2) Grade Point

Average (GPA), (3) intelligence quotient (IQ), and (4) standardized exams (i.e., State Exams,

SAT, ACT). Subsequent analyses of several of these measures were conducted due to the depth

and range of research on test anxiety’s relation with differing measures of performance.

Additional analyses of these performance categories were conducted to align with the

differing components of test anxiety that are widely identified within the literature, including (1)

cognitive components, (2) affective/physiological components, (3) behavioral components, and

(4) social components. Not all studies differentiated between these components. Due to the

variability of scales administered within the studies examined, multiple scales were clustered

within differing test anxiety components dependent upon the individual scale’s operational

definition. The components and corresponding include: Cognitive (e.g, worry, test-irrelevant

thoughts, worrisome thoughts, cognitive obstruction), Affective/Physiological (e.g., emotionality,

tension, bodily symptoms, autonomic reactions), Behavioral (e.g., off-task behaviors), and Social

(e.g., social derogation).

Achievement or Typical Classroom Tests. Seventy-five studies examining test anxiety

included measures of typical classroom or achievement tests (e.g., class test or quiz).

Performance measures included in this group were exam scores, midterm scores, and final exam

scores. Due to prior research and theories on the developmental trajectory of test anxiety (e.g.,

Dan, Bar Ilan, & Kurman, 2014; Hembree, 1998), this category of performance measures was

further delineated into school-grade clusters including elementary school (first to fifth grades),
TEST ANXIETY META-ANALYSIS 14

middle school (sixth to eighth grades), high school (nine to twelfth grades), and post-secondary

(undergraduate and graduate). Variation in grouping exists as grades could be included in

multiple clusters (e.g., sixth grade as elementary/primary in the United Kingdom in contrast to

middle school in the United States). The pooled correlates of these grade-clusters suggest that the

relationship of test anxiety with test performance increases from elementary (r = -.22) to middle

school (r = -.25), decreases in high school (r = -.16), and increases again in post-secondary

educational settings (r = -.24). Each cluster shared a significant inverse relationship with test

anxiety.

Grade Point Average (GPA). Thirty-six studies examined the relationship between test

anxiety and cumulative GPA. This category was distinguished from the achievement tests

category, as it is indicator of broad achievement. The pooled correlate was significant at r = -.17

indicating a negative relation. It should be noted that 20 out of the 36 studies identifying GPA as

a performance measure examined students in post-secondary education; this may, in part,

contribute to the correlation between post-secondary achievement test performance and test

anxiety.

Intelligence (IQ). In total, 19 studies examined the correlation between test anxiety and

performance on IQ tests. Due to the structure of many of these studies, IQ was delineated into

three major clusters that align with current research on the construct of intelligence, including

nonverbal processing abilities (e.g., fluid reasoning, problem solving, visual processing),

cognitive proficiency abilities (e.g., memory, processing speed), and verbal abilities (e.g.,

vocabulary, comprehension). Pooled correlates for cognitive proficiency abilities (r = -.21),

verbal abilities (r = -.24), and nonverbal reasoning abilities (r = .10) all fell within the small

range.
TEST ANXIETY META-ANALYSIS 15

Standardized Exams. Within this study, standardized exams were defined as any test or

exam that was normed amongst a large population, so that individual scores could be compared

to a group average as a standard of comparison. Overall, 27 studies were identified as examining

the relationship between test anxiety and performance on standardized exams. The overall

pooled correlate for this group of studies (r = -.26) was the highest of the measures of

performance examined. Several sub-measures of standardized exam performance were identified

during the coding of these studies. These sub-measures include Entrance Examinations

(SAT/ACT), State Exams, and Professional Exams. These were amongst the largest correlations

between test anxiety and performance measures. Performance on entrance exams shared the

second highest correlation with test anxiety (r = -.31). Due to significant variability within State

Exam correlation data, these studies were further delineated and examined according to

previously identified grade clusters. Pooled correlates for primary, intermediate, and secondary

grades indicated a similar relation between achievement and test anxiety as identified previously,

increasing from primary grades (r = -.16) to intermediate grades (r = -.40) before decreasing in

secondary grades (r = -.23). The highest correlation between performance and test anxiety was

identified among secondary students who had taken standardized state exams.

Components of Test Anxiety. As noted previously, performance areas were also

examined in relation to differing components of test anxiety, including the cognitive component,

the affective/physiological component, the behavioral component, and the social component.

Due to insufficient data, correlations between the behavioral and social components of test

anxiety and differing areas of performance (i.e., achievement testing, GPA, IQ, Standardized

Exams) could not be delineated and calculated. There was sufficient data to calculate correlations

for the cognitive and affective/physiological components of test anxiety. Results indicated all
TEST ANXIETY META-ANALYSIS 16

correlations fell within the small range and there were relatively higher correlations between

areas of performance and the worry component of test anxiety than the affective/physiological

component of test anxiety, including achievement testing (Cognitive: r = -.29;

Affective/Physiological: r = -.18), GPA (Cognitive: r = -.24; Affective/Physiological: r = -.08),

IQ (Cognitive: r = -.25; Affective/Physiological: r = -.22), and Standardized Exams (Cognitive: r

= -.26; Affective/Physiological: r = -.13). The social component of test anxiety was significantly

related to performance (r = -.12), while the behavioral component was not (r = .04).

Study Aim 2: Personal Correlates

The second aim (see summary within Table 2) was to examine the relationship between

test anxiety and personal variables. Five categories were identified during the coding process to

further examine this relationship, including Self-Concept, Motivation, Coping Skills,

Achievement Goals, Self-Coping Skills, Self-Regulatory Learning Strategies, and Personality

Traits. These categories were established based upon the study goals and availability of data.

Self-Concept. Five sub-categories were identified as being related to student self-concept,

including Internal locus of/Personal control (i.e., i.e., one’s belief that have personal control of

academic tasks; r = -.32), Self-regulation (i.e., use of strategies, monitoring of learning outcomes;

r = -.21), Self-efficacy (i.e., personal belief in ability to engage in behaviors that facilitate

academic success; r = -.33), Self-esteem (i.e., judgment of one’s past successes or failures

relative to desired outcomes; r = -.43), and Academic Confidence (i.e., personal belief in

adequate performance of various required academic specific task demands; r = -.29). All sub-

categories shared a significantly inverse relationship with test anxiety, and were homogeneous

(with the exception of Self-Efficacy).

TEST ANXIETY META-ANALYSIS 17

Motivation. Motivation was examined given its long association within the research

literature to academic achievement (Cerasoli, Nicklin, & Ford, 2014; Deci, 1972) Seventeen

studies examined motivation and were further divided into two categories, Intrinsic Motivation

and Extrinsic Motivation. A significant correlation was found for both correlates, but the

relationship differed. Test anxiety was negatively related to Intrinsic Motivation (r = -.08) but

positively associated with Extrinsic Motivation (r = .12).

Coping Skills. This category was divided into two sub-categories: Problem-

Focused/Active Coping and Avoidance Coping. Ender and Parker (1991) defined problem-

focused coping as a strategy designed to manage or solve the problem by removing or

circumventing the stressor and avoidance coping as a strategy in which an individual engages in

non-relevant cognitions or behaviors in order to avoid the stressful situation. The pooled

correlate for approach coping was small and significantly negative (r = -.15), whereas the pooled

correlate for Avoidance Coping was moderate and significantly positive (r = .38), suggesting

that test anxious students are much more likely to ignore or escape stressors and stresses.

Achievement Goals. An individual’s beliefs and reasons for engagement greatly

influence academic performance and educational attainment (Pintrich, 2000). Achievement goals

are cognitive representations of competency-related outcomes that are future oriented (Hulleman,

Shrager, Bodman and Harackiewicz, 2010). Elliot and McGregor (2001) created a 2 x 2

framework to distinguish mastery goals (i.e., desire to development of knowledge and mastering

new skills) and performance goals (i.e., desire to demonstrate knowledge relative to others) along

approach and avoidance dimensions. The goals were defined as the following: mastery-approach

is the development of task competence, mastery-avoidance is the avoidance of incompetence on

a task, performance-approach is performing better than a norm or peer reference, and

TEST ANXIETY META-ANALYSIS 18

performance-avoidance is the desire to not performance worse than the reference group (or

individual). The correlation between mastery approach goals and test anxiety was not significant.

Using Cohen’s criteria (.1 = small, .3 = medium, .5 = large), the relationship between test anxiety

and mastery-avoidance goals was in the medium range (r = .30). Similarly, a small yet

significant positive correlation was found for performance-approach goals (r = .09), and a

medium significant positive correlation was found for performance-avoid goals (r = .37).

Personality Traits. The “Big Five” factors of personality (Costa & McCrae, 1992) were

identified within many studies and have been shown to impact levels of test anxiety (e.g.,

Chamorro-Premuzic, Ahmetoglu, & Furnham, 2008). Test anxiety shared a significant positive

correlation with Neuroticism (i.e., attributes: anxious, depressed, inability to delay gratification,

and increased vulnerability to stressors in the environment; r = .46) and a significant negative

relationship with Conscientiousness (i.e., attributes: self-disciplined and achievement oriented; r

= -.18). There was a small significant negative correlation with Openness (i.e., Attributes:

imaginative, insightful, intellectually curious, and openness to new experiences; r = -.09)

and a non-significant negative correlation with both Extraversion (i.e., attributes: assertive,

positive, and sociable; r = -.05) and Agreeableness (i.e., attributes: trusting, empathetic, and

compliant in social situations; r = -.06). These correlations suggest that certain personality traits

may be more predictive of or related to differing levels of test anxiety.

Study Aim 3: Demographic Correlates of Test Anxiety

The third aim (see summary within Table 3) was to examine demographic correlates of

test anxiety. As with the other study aims, these variables were coded and examined when there

were numerous studies that included a similar and distinct variable (e.g., gender, ethnicity, test
TEST ANXIETY META-ANALYSIS 19

conditions). There were variables of interest of which there was insufficient data (e.g., SES) and

could not be further analyzed.

Gender. In total, 49 studies included data comparing test anxiety levels between males

and females in education settings, subdivided into primary, intermediate, secondary, and post-

secondary educational settings. There was a significant relationship between gender and test

anxiety, with females reporting a significantly higher rate than males at all grade levels (r = .21).

This discrepancy between genders appears to increase from primary grades to secondary grades,

but then decreases slightly when students are enrolled in postsecondary educational settings.

Ethnicity. Many studies examined the role of ethnicity and its relationship with test

anxiety, but there was only enough data to examine test anxiety differences between

White/Caucasian and Black/African American students, and these differences have traditionally

been dichotomized as minority versus majority students. Seven studies examined the relationship

between test anxiety and ethnicity. Pooling data from across all grades, (insufficient data to

analyze individual grade levels), minority students reported significantly higher levels of test

anxiety than their peers (r = .12).

Ability. Seven studies examined the relationship between student ability level (average

ability level v. high ability level), determined by teacher perception of performance in the

classroom, and test anxiety. For teacher ratings, perceived ability is a reflection of a student’s

engagement in education curriculum; it is not an indicator of intelligence, as there are often

discrepancies between intelligence and engagement (Christenson, Reschly, & Wylie, 2012). The

pooled correlate for this category shows a negative correlation between the two ability levels (r =

-.15), with high ability level students reporting lower levels of test anxiety than students

identified as having an average ability level. There were insufficient data on the effects between
TEST ANXIETY META-ANALYSIS 20

low and average ability level students, but prior research (e.g., Hembree, 1988) suggests a

negative relationship between ability level and test anxiety, with test anxiety decreasing as ability

level increases.

Disabilities. Two categories of school-related disabilities were identified during the

coding process. The first category examined students with and without Attention Deficit

Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) diagnoses. Students with diagnoses of ADHD showed higher

levels of test anxiety than students without (r = .12). This finding was similar for students who

were identified with a specific learning disability, who also displayed significantly higher levels

of test anxiety (r = .08).

Test Conditions. Many schools and teachers differ in their testing methodology and form.

Three testing conditions were identified during the coding process. The first, perceived difficulty,

pooled effects from studies comparing test anxiety ratings of students in testing scenarios that

appeared simple or difficult. A large effect was identified for this condition (r = .31), with

students showing significantly increased levels of test anxiety in testing scenarios that they

perceived as difficult or challenging. The second test condition focused on test consequences.

Five studies presented data on the relationship between the evaluative nature of tests and test

anxiety. The pooled effect from these studies indicates that student report significantly higher

levels of test anxiety when they are presented with a test or evaluation that is clearly depicted as

being evaluative and having consequences (r = .21). Test anxiety levels were lower when tests

were presented as “activities” or “learning scenarios”. Third, experience with a test was

considered. That is, students who had previously taken a similar exam with regards to form (i.e.,

multiple choice questions) or content. Results indicated that students who had no prior

experience with a test reported higher levels of test anxiety (r = .16) than those with experience.
TEST ANXIETY META-ANALYSIS 21

Discussion

Since the publication of Hembree’s 1988 meta-analysis on the correlates and effects of

test anxiety, there has been significant changes in the theoretical understanding and measurement

of test anxiety. A primary goal of the present study was to employ a meta-analytic review to

empirical research concerning test anxiety over the last 30 years. The relationship of test anxiety

with performance, intrapersonal variables, and various demographic predictors was examined.

Relatedly, results are contrasted and discussed relative to Hembree’s original publication.

Importantly, this meta-analysis synthesizes correlations identified within the included studies.

Results do not imply causation and readers should exercise caution in interpretation and

generalization. Moreover, most of the identified correlations were within the small to moderate

range.

Test Anxiety and Test Performance

Results from the present study indicated a consistent pattern of relationships with higher

levels of test anxiety and lower levels of performance, across various testing formats. These

results were largely consistent with Hembree as effect sizes ranged from small (r =-.13) to

moderate (r= -.40), and may support the continued negative association of test anxiety with test

performance. However, our review allowed for a further specification across grade levels, and

results suggested that middle grades (i.e., 6th to 8th or ages 11 to 14) exhibited the largest

negative relationship whereas high school (i.e., 9th to 12th grades, or ages 15 to 18) the lowest.

Additionally, recent research has allowed for delineation of various types of standardized exams,

and results indicate the largest negative relationships of test anxiety and performance with

University entrance exams and Standardized State Exams within secondary grades. The use of

standardized, high-stakes testing in education has been gaining attention in recent years, most
TEST ANXIETY META-ANALYSIS 22

likely due to increases in test-based accountability practices associated with modern educational

legislation (Koretz & Hamilton, 2006). With this increase in attention has come an influx of

research on the relationship between test anxiety and student performance on these tests (von der

Embse & Witmer, 2014). These results are consistent with research demonstrating higher levels

of test anxiety on “high-stakes” exams than typical classroom tests (Segool et al., 2013). Thus,

educators may consider the exam format when targeting antecedent or symptom reduction

interventions (e.g., von der Embse et al., 2013). Test anxiety was also demonstrated to have

varying levels of association with IQ testing; for example, pooled effect sizes indicated a larger,

negative relationship to verbal and cognitive proficiency tasks than non-verbal tasks. Prior

research has also suggested that the cognitive component (i.e., worry) of test anxiety may

interfere with verbal demands (Markham & Darke, 1991; Lee, 1999). However, the debilitating

effects of test anxiety during IQ testing may complicate this relationship. The role of differing

test anxiety components was also examined. Results suggested that the cognitive component of

test anxiety consistently shares a higher negative relation with areas of achievement compared to

the other components of text anxiety (i.e., Affective/Physiological, Behavioral, Social). This

finding is consistent with extant research (e.g., Hembree, 1988; Chapell et al., 2005).

Test Anxiety and Intrapersonal Variables

With regards to intrapersonal variables, results from the present manuscript were largely

similar to Hembree. That is, self-esteem and self-efficacy were consistently found to have the

strongest relationships with test anxiety. Recent research has demonstrated a clear relationship

between self-concept and test anxiety (Raufelder & Ringeiesen, 2016). Locus of control had a

weaker relationship with test anxiety (.04) than had previously been reported (.22), with strong

heterogeneity between studies, suggesting that students experiencing test anxiety may differ in
TEST ANXIETY META-ANALYSIS 23

their beliefs that their environment is related to their own individual behaviors. The relationship

between test anxiety and self-concept appears to be highly negative and relatively consistent,

depicting the profile of a student who may have difficulties due to negative beliefs of themselves

and their ability to succeed in personal and academic environments.

Results indicated a small, significant positive relationship of test anxiety with extrinsic

motivation. Thus, students who are motivated by external demands rather than internal interests

are more likely to exhibit higher test anxiety. Relatedly, students with high test anxiety are more

likely to endorse performance- and mastery-avoidance goals, and engage in avoidance coping

strategies. Taken together, external factors (e.g., high-stakes testing) may be an impetus for a

student with high test anxiety to avoid testing situations or use avoidance coping strategies.

Research has supported these relationships, as teachers that utilize negative motivational

strategies (i.e., fear appeal) that appeal to an external outcome (i.e., entrance to University) result

in higher student test anxiety (Putwain & Symes, 2011; von der Embse, Schultz, & Draughn,

2015).

Due to the availability of data, the relation between test anxiety and personality traits was

examined. Test anxiety shared its largest positive relationship with neuroticism and a small

negative relationship with conscientiousness. These findings align with prior research examining

the attributes of these traits and their relation to anxiety, as Neuroticism is considered to be

highly related to high levels of anxiety (Watson & Clark, 1984) and Conscientiousness as being

related to certain personal variables (e.g., intrinsic motivation, self-efficacy) that share a negative

relationship with test anxiety (e.g., Mount & Barrick, 1995). These findings suggest that certain

personality traits and their related attributes may be more predictive of higher or lower levels of

test anxiety.
TEST ANXIETY META-ANALYSIS 24

Test Anxiety and Demographic Predictors

It is often stated that certain demographic groups exhibit higher rates of test anxiety that

may contribute to test achievement gaps (Cassady & Johnson, 2002; Steele & Aronson, 1995;

Wolf & Smith, 1995). Differences in the manifestation of test anxiety are then commonly used to

determine students most “at risk” and in need of intervention supports (Cizek & Burg, 2006).

Hembree’s work has frequently been cited as evidence of these differences, however much has

changed in the nature and consequences of testing. For example, results from the present

investigation indicated females are more likely to exhibit higher test anxiety—while similar in

direction (i.e., females higher), the strength of these relations are lower (.19 versus .43 for similar

grades) than past research. Similarly, our meta-analysis indicated small and significant

relationships (r = .11) with minority status that was again lower than the oft cited Hembree

finding of Black elementary students with much greater test anxiety (r = .52). Perhaps more

importantly, results indicated significant (and consistent with Hembree) differences in the

perceived difficulty (i.e., higher perceived difficulty = higher test anxiety) of the test as well as

test consequences (i.e., evaluative tests relate to higher test anxiety). Although significant

demographic differences remain, it seems prudent for educators to use psychometrically sound

tools to determine need for test anxiety intervention with certain testing conditions rather than

directly targeting certain demographic groups.

Limitations

Although this meta-analytic review presents several notable strengths, there are also

several limitations. First, though many significant correlations between test anxiety and other

factors have been identified, it should be noted that correlation does not equal causation, and

correlates identified within the studies included in this meta-analysis are not experimental in
TEST ANXIETY META-ANALYSIS 25

nature, and most correlations were within the small to moderate range. Thus, caution is

recommended when extrapolating implications from the pooled correlates reported within this

study. Some researchers have called into question the direction relationship of test anxiety with

test performance, instead suggesting that less competent test takers experience high test anxiety

accounting for the relationship to performance (Sommer & Arendasy, 2014). Additional

experimental research will be necessary to further delineate the relationship of test anxiety

throughout the assessment cycle (i.e., pre, during, post test; von der Embse et al., 2015).

Additionally, test anxiety theory and related measurement has changed significantly across the

last forty years. Therefore, the test anxiety may be variable across multiple studies which limits

potential comparisons.

Second, there were methodological limitations with regards to the search criteria; for

example, studies that were not written in the English language were excluded, despite much test

anxiety research taking place outside of the United States and English speaking countries

(Zeidner, 1998). Similarly, inclusion and exclusion criteria omitted studies which were article

reviews, non-empirical, and from non-educational settings. Given these exclusions, the results

from the present meta-analysis may not fully represent the test anxiety construct across settings.

Additionally, the quality of studies that were not published could not be controlled—thus

potentially leading to publication bias (i.e., file drawer effect) and there exists the possibility of

non-published test anxiety studies with null or contradictory results (Rosenthal, 1979). For

example, the Dissertations Abstracts International database was not searched as part of this meta-

analysis in a necessary attempt to restrict a vast literature base over nearly thirty years. Finally,

meta-analyses may not capture every published study on test anxiety and performance, as search
TEST ANXIETY META-ANALYSIS 26

terms and selected databases may vary, thus caution is urged when comparing meta-analyses

(Richardson, Abraham, & Boyd, 2012).

Third, there were limitations of the hypothesized correlates. For example, 20 out of 36

studies identifying GPA as a performance measure examined students in post-secondary

education. With such a large amount of the studies examining only post-secondary education,

results may skew relative to early education settings. Similarly, only seven studies examined

ethnicity and ability, which may not provide a representative sample of the aforementioned

demographic characteristics with the manifestation of test anxiety. Within ethnicity, only

Caucasian and African American students were examined, excluding all other ethnicities due to

insufficient data. In addition, differences amongst correlations were discussed relatively and

statistical differences were not assumed. Future research should critically evaluate the

hypothesized correlates, as well as conduct significance testing across groups to better inform

new research directions.

Conclusions

Test anxiety has continually been demonstrated to have a negative relationship with

important educational outcomes across two meta-analyses spanning nearly 70 years of research.

The relationship between higher test anxiety and lower test performance has been demonstrated

across many hundreds of studies and many thousands of participants. Importantly, testing has

taken a much more prominent role within a multitude of important educational decisions ranging

from grade promotion to University entrance to teacher evaluation. In this era of high-stakes

testing, it becomes even more crucial to understand the relationship of emotions to test

performance to ensure accurate measurement and equitable outcomes.

TEST ANXIETY META-ANALYSIS 27

Educators have an important role to play in creating a facilitating rather that debilitating

testing environment for students (von der Embse & Putwain, 2015). This includes using positive

motivational strategies, and explaining the use of assessments to students. Researchers and

educators should consider evidence-based test anxiety interventions that are targeted to the most

vulnerable student subgroups. For example, gender continued to be an important demographic

variable with female students reported significantly higher levels of test anxiety than males.

However, other demographic groups (e.g., minority status) did not appear to have as strong as

relationships to test anxiety and others (e.g., SES) were not able to be analyzed in this review.

Research will be necessary to further delineate which students may be most at risk and thus the

need for continued development of responsive test anxiety assessment tools that can be used in

screening, decision-making, and progress monitoring situations (Cassady & Johnson, 2002;

Pekrun et al., 2004; Lowe et al., 2008; Regehr, Glancy, & Pitts, 2013). Although research has

offered guidelines for diagnostic criteria for depression and anxiety more generally (Gurley,

Cohen, Pine, & Brook, 1996), test anxiety cut score research is only now beginning to emerge

(Thomas, Cassady, & Finch, 2017). Educators are recommended to take a tiered intervention

approach that includes a universal or school-wide curriculum (e.g., Weems et al., 2015) followed

by more targeted and individualized supports (e.g., Ergene, 2003, Reiss et al., 2017) for students

exhibiting higher levels of test anxiety. Much has changed in the measurement, treatment, and

study of test anxiety, leading to a better understanding of the role of emotion in test performance

that will ultimately help educators improve student outcomes.

TEST ANXIETY META-ANALYSIS 28
TEST ANXIETY META-ANALYSIS 29

Contributors: Dr. Nate von der Embse designed the study and coordinating the writing of the
manuscript. Dane Jester managed the literature searches and analyses. James Post and Devlina
Roy undertook the literature search and inclusion of final sample, and Dr. Nate von der Embse
wrote the first draft of the manuscript. All authors contributed to and have approved the final
manuscript.

Role of the Funding Source: The authors declare no funding received for this manuscript or
study.

Acknowledgements: None.

Conflict of interest

All authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

TEST ANXIETY META-ANALYSIS 30

References

American Psychiatric Association. (2013). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders

(5th ed.). Washington, DC: Author.

Alpert, R., & Haber, R. (1960). Anxiety in academic achievement situations. Journal of

Abnormal and Social Psychology, 61, 207-215. doi: 10.1037/h0045464

Bedell, J.R., & Marlowe, H.A. (1995). An evaluation of test anxiety scales: Convergent,

divergent, and predictive validity. In C.D. Spielberger & P.R. Vagg (Eds.), Test anxiety

theory, assessment, and treatment (pp. 35–45). Washington, DC: Taylor & Francis.

Benson, J., Moulin-Julian, M., Schwarzer, C., Seipp, B., & El-Zahhar, N. (1992). Cross

validation of a revised test anxiety scale using multi-national samples. In K. A. Hagvet &

T. B. Johnsen (Eds.), Advances in Test Anxiety Research Vol. 7 (pp. 62-83). Amsterdam:

Swets & Zeitlinger.

Cartwright-Hatton, S., McNicol, K., & Doubleday, E. (2006). Anxiety in a neglected population:

Prevalence of anxiety disorders in pre-adolescent children. Clinical Psychology Review,

26, 817–833. doi:10.1016/j.cpr.2005.12.002

Cassady, J. C. (2010). Anxiety in schools: The causes, consequences, and solutions for academic

anxieties (Vol. 2). Peter Lang.

Cassady, J. C., & Johnson, R. E. (2002). Cognitive test anxiety and academic performance.

Contemporary Educational Psychology, 27(2), 270-295. doi: 10.1006/ceps.2001.1094

Cerasoli, C. P., Nicklin, J. M., & Ford, M. T. (2014). Intrinsic motivation and extrinsic

incentives jointly predict performance: A 40-year meta-analysis. Psychological

Bulletin, 140(4), 980. doi: 10.1037/a0035661

TEST ANXIETY META-ANALYSIS 31

Chamorro-Prezumic, T., Ahmetoglu, G., & Furnham, A. (2008). Little more than personality:

Dispositional determinates of test anxiety (big five, core self-evaluations, and self-

assessed intelligence). Learning and Individual Differences, 18, 258-263.

Chapell, M. S., Blanding, Z. B., Silverstein, M. E., Takahashi, M., Newman, B., Gubi, A., &

McCann, N. (2005). Test anxiety and academic performance in undergraduate and

graduate students. Journal of Educational Psychology, 97(2), 268–274. doi:

10.1037/0022-0663.97.2.268

Christenson, S. L., Reschly, A. L., & Wylie, C. (Eds.). (2012). Handbook of research on student

engagement. Springer Science & Business Media.

Cizek, G., & Burg, S. (2006). Addressing Test Anxiety in a High Stakes Environment. Thousand

Oaks, California: Corwin Press.

Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ:

Erlbaum

Costa, P. T., Jr. & McCrae, R. R. (1992). Revised NEO personality inventory (NEO-PI-R) and

NEO five-factor inventory (NEO-FFI): Professional manual. Odessa: Psychological

Assessment Resources.

Culler, R. E., & Holahan, C. J. (1980). Test anxiety and academic performance: The effects of

study-related behaviors. Journal of Educational Psychology, 72(1), 16-20. doi:

10.1037/0022-0663.72.1.16

Dan, O., Bar Ilan, O., & Kurman, J. (2014). Attachment, self-esteem and test anxiety in

adolescence and early adulthood. Educational Psychology, 34(6), 659-673. doi:

10.1080/01443410.2013.814191
TEST ANXIETY META-ANALYSIS 32

Deci, E. L. (1972). The effects of contingent and noncontingent rewards and controls on intrinsic

motivation. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 8, 217–229.

doi:10.1016/0030-5073(72)90047-5

Dull, R. B., Schleifer, L. L., & McMillan, J. J. (2015). Achievement goal theory: the relationship

of accounting students’ goal orientations with self-efficacy, anxiety, and

achievement. Accounting Education, 24(2), 152-174.

doi: 10.1080/09639284.2015.1036892

Elliot, A. J., & McGregor, H. A. (1999). Test anxiety and the hierarchical model of approach and

avoidance achievement motivation. Journal of personality and social psychology, 76(4),

628. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.72.1.218

Endler, N. S. & Parker, J. D. A. (1991). Multidimensional assessment of coping: a critical

evaluation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58, 344-354. doi:

10.1037/0022-3514.58.5.844

Ergene, T. (2003). Effective interventions on test anxiety reduction. School Psychology

International, 24(3), 313-328. doi: 10.1177/01430343030243004.

Eysenck, M. W., & Calvo, M. G. (1992). Anxiety and performance: The processing efficiency

theory. Cognition & Emotion, 6(6), 409-434. doi: 10.1080/02699939208409696

Eysenck, M. W., Derakshan, N., Santos, R., & Calvo, M. G. (2007). Anxiety and cognitive

performance: Attentional control theory. Emotion, 7(2), 336-353. doi: 10.1037/1528-

3542.7.2.336

Friedman, I. A., & Bendas-Jacob, O. (1997). Measuring perceived test anxiety in adolescents: A

self-report scale. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 57(6), 1035-1046.

doi: 10.1177/0013164497057006012.
TEST ANXIETY META-ANALYSIS 33

Gregor, A. (2005). Examination anxiety: Live with it, control it or make it work for you? School

Psychology International, 26, 617-635. doi: 10.1177/0143034305060802

Hancock, D. R. (2001). Effects of test anxiety and evaluative threat on students' achievement and

motivation. The Journal of Educational Research, 94(5), 284-290. doi:

10.1080/00220670109598764

Hedges, L., & Olkin, I. (1985). Statistical methods for meta-analysis. Orlando, FL: Academic

Press.

Hedges, L. V., & Olkin, I. (2014). Statistical methods for meta-analysis. Academic press.

Hembree, R. (1988). Correlates, causes, effects, and treatment of test anxiety. Review of

Educational Research, 58(1), 47-77. doi: 10.3102/00346543058001047

Hembree, R. (1990). The nature, effects, and relief of mathematics anxiety. Journal for research

in mathematics education, 33-46. doi: 10.2307/749455

Hunter, J. E., & Schmidt, F. L. (1990). Methods of meta-analysis: Correcting error and bias in

research findings. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.


Khalaila, R. (2015). The relationship between academic self-concept, intrinsic motivation, test

anxiety, and academic achievement among nursing students: Mediating and moderating

effects. Nurse Education Today, 35(3), 432-438. doi: 10.1016/j.nedt.2014.11.001

Koretz, D., & Hamilton, L. S. (2006). Testing for accountability in K-12. In R.L. Brennan (Ed.),

Educational Measurement (4th ed., pp. 531-578). Westport, CT: American Council on

Education/Praeger.

Lee, J. H. (1999). Test anxiety and working memory. The Journal of Experimental

Education, 67(3), 218-240. doi: 10.1080/00220979909598354

TEST ANXIETY META-ANALYSIS 34

Leadbeater, B., Thompson, K., & Gruppuso, V. (2012). Co-occurring trajectories of symptoms

of anxiety, depression, and oppositional defiance from adolescence to young

adulthood. Journal of Clinical Child & Adolescent Psychology, 41(6), 719-730. doi:

10.1080/15374416.2012.694608

Liebert, R., & Morris, L. (1967). Cognitive and emotional components of test anxiety: A

distinction and some initial data. Psychological Reports, 20, 975-978. doi:

10.2466/pr0.1967.20.3.975

Lowe, P. A., Grumbein, M. J., & Raad, J. M. (2011). Examination of the psychometric properties

of the Test Anxiety Scale for Elementary Students (TAS-E) scores. Journal of

Psychoeducational Assessment, 29, 503–514. doi: 10.1177/0734282910395894

Lowe, P. A., Lee, S. W., Witteborg, K. M., Prichard, K. W., Luhr, M. E., Cullinan, C. M., Janik,

M. (2008). The Test Anxiety Inventory for Children and Adolescents (TAICA):

Examination of the psychometric properties of a new multidimensional measure of test

anxiety among elementary and secondary school students. Journal of Psychoeducational

Assessment, 26(3), 215-230. doi: 10.1177/0734282907303760

Markham, R., & Darke, S. (1991). The effects of anxiety on verbal and spatial task

performance. Australian Journal of Psychology, 43(2), 107-111.

Mount, M. K., & Barrick, M. R. (1995). Manual for the Personal Characteristics Inventory.

Libertyville, IL: Wonderlic.

Oetting, E. R., & Cole, C. W. (1980). Test anxiety profile. Fort Collins, CO: Tri-Ethnic Center

for Prevention Research.

Orwin, R. G. (1983). A fail-safe N for effect size in meta-analysis. Journal of Educational

Statistics, 8, 157-159.
TEST ANXIETY META-ANALYSIS 35

Pekrun, R. (2006). The control-value theory of achievement emotions: Assumptions, corollaries,

and implications for educational research and practice. Educational Psychology Review,

18(4), 315–341.doi: 10.1007/s10648-006-9029-9


Pekrun, R., Goetz, T., Perry, R. P., Kramer, K., Hochstadt, M., & Molfenter, S. (2004). Beyond

test anxiety: Development and validation of the Test Emotions Questionnaire (TEQ).

Anxiety, Stress & Coping, 17(3), 287-316. doi: 10.1080/10615800412331303847

Pintrich, P. R. (2000). Multiple goals, multiple pathways: The role of goal orientation in learning

and achievement. Journal of educational psychology, 92(3), 544. doi: 10.1037/0022-

0663.92.3.544

Putwain, D. (2007). Test anxiety in UK schoolchildren: Prevalence and demographic patterns.

British Journal of Educational Psychology, 77, 579-593. Doi:

10.1348/000709906X161704

Putwain, D. (2008). Do examinations stakes moderate the test anxiety-examination performance

relationship? Educational Psychology, 28, 109-118. doi: 10.1080/01443410701452264

Putwain, D., & Daly, A. L. (2014). Test anxiety prevalence and gender differences in a sample of

English secondary school students. Educational Studies, 40(5), 554-570.

doi: 10.1080/03055698.2014.953914

Raufelder, D., & Ringeisen, T. (2016). Self-perceived competence and test anxiety. Journal of

Individual Differences, 37, 159-167. doi: 10.1027/1614-0001/a000202

Regehr, C., Glancy, D., & Pitts, A. (2013). Interventions to reduce stress in university students:

A review and meta-analysis. Journal of Affective Disorders, 148(1), 1-11. doi:

10.1016/j.jad.2012.11.026
TEST ANXIETY META-ANALYSIS 36

Reiss, N., Warnecke, I., Tolgou, T., Krampen, D., Luka-Krausgrill, U., & Rohrmann, S. (2017).

Effects of cognitive behavioral therapy with relaxation vs. imagery rescripting on test

anxiety: A randomized controlled trial. Journal of Affective Disorders, 208, 483-489. doi:

10.1016/j.jad.2016.10.039

Ringeisen, T., & Raufelder, D. (2015). The interplay of parental support, parental pressure and

test anxiety–Gender differences in adolescents. Journal of Adolescence, 45, 67-79. doi:

10.1016/j.adolescence.2015.08.018

Rosenthal, R. (1979). The file drawer problem and tolerance for null results. Psychological

Bulletin, 86(3), 638. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.86.3.638

Sarason, S. B., & Mandler, G. (1952). Some correlates of test anxiety. Journal of Abnormal

Psychology, 47(4), 810-817. doi: 10.1037/h0060009

Sarason, S. B., Davidson, K. S., Lighthall, F.F., Waite, R., & Ruebush, B. K. (1960). Anxiety in

elementary school children. New York: Wiley.

Sarason, I. G. (1981). Test anxiety, stress, and social support. Journal of Personality, 49(1), 101-

114. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-6494.1981.tb00849.x

Sarason, I.G. (1984). Stress, anxiety and cognitive interference: Reactions to tests. Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, 46(4), 929_938. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.46.4.929

Schmidt, F. L., & Hunter, J. E. (2014). Methods of Meta-Analysis: Correcting Error and Bias in
Research Findings. Sage Publications.
Schnell, K., Ringeisen, T., Raufelder, D., & Rohrmann, S. (2015). The impact of adolescents'

self-efficacy and self-regulated goal attainment processes on school performance—Do

gender and test anxiety matter? Learning and Individual Differences, 38, 90-98. doi:

10.1016/j.lindif.2014.12.008
TEST ANXIETY META-ANALYSIS 37

Segool, N., Carlson, J., Goforth, A., von der Embse, N. & Barterian, J. (2013). Heightened test

anxiety among young children: Elementary school students’ anxious responses to high-

stakes testing. Psychology in the Schools, 50 (5), 489-499. doi: 10.1002/pits.21689.

Segool, N., von der Embse, N.P., Mata, A., & Gallant, J. (2014). Cognitive behavioral model of

test anxiety in a high-stakes context: An exploratory study. School Mental Health, 6, 50-

61. doi: 10.1007/s12310-013-9111-7.

Seipp, B. (1991). Anxiety and academic performance: A meta-analysis of findings. Anxiety

Research, 4(1), 27-41. doi: 10.1080/08917779108248762

Sommer, M., & Arendasy, M. E. (2014). Comparing different explanations of the effect of test

anxiety on respondents' test scores. Intelligence, 42, 115-127. doi:

10.1016/j.intell.2013.11.003

Sommer, M., & Arendasy, M. E. (2015). Further evidence for the deficit account of the test

anxiety–test performance relationship from a high-stakes admission testing setting.

Intelligence, 53, 72-80. doi: 10.1016/j.intell.2015.08.007

Spielberger, C. D., & Vagg. R.P. (1995). Test Anxiety: A Transactional Process Model. In by C.

D. Speilberger and P. R. Vagg (Eds.) Test Anxiety: Theory, Assessment and Treatment,

edited (pp. 3–14). Bristol, UK: Taylor & Francis.

Steele, C. M., & Aronson, J. (1995). Stereotype threat and the intellectual test performance of

African Americans. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69(5), 797. doi:

10.1037/0022-3514.69.5.797

Thomas, C. L., Cassady, J. C., & Finch, W. H. (2017). Identifying severity standards on the

Cognitive Test Anxiety Scale: Cut score determination using latent class and cluster

analysis. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment. doi: 10.1177/0734282916686004.

TEST ANXIETY META-ANALYSIS 38

Tobias, S. (1985). Test anxiety: Interference, defective skills, and cognitive capacity.

Educational Psychologist, 20, 135-142. doi: 10.1207/s15326985ep2003_3

von der Embse, N., Barterian, J., & Segool, N. (2013). Test anxiety interventions for children

and adolescents: A systematic review of treatment studies from 2000-2010. Psychology

in the Schools. 50 (1), 57-71. doi:10.1002/pits.21660

Thomas, C. L., Cassady, J. C., & Finch, W. H. (2017). Identifying Severity Standards on the

Cognitive Test Anxiety Scale: Cut Score Determination Using Latent Class and Cluster

Analysis. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment. doi: 10.1177/0734282916686004

von der Embse, N. & Hasson, R. (2012). Test anxiety and high-stakes tests: Implications for

educators. Preventing School Failure, 56 (3), 180-187. doi:

10.1080/1045988X.2011.633285

von der Embse, N., Kilgus, S.P., Segool, N., & Putwain, D. (2013). Evaluation of a brief test

anxiety screening assessment: Identification and predictive validity of the FRIEDBEN

Test Anxiety Scale. International Journal of School and Educational Psychology, 1, 246-

258. doi: 10.1080/21683603.2013.826152.

von der Embse, N.P., Mata, A., Segool, N., & Scott, E.C. (2014). Latent profile analysis of test

anxiety: A pilot study. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 32 (2), 165-172. doi:

10.1177/0734282913504541.

von der Embse, N.P., & Putwain, D. W. (2015). Examining the context of instruction to facilitate

student success. School Psychology International, 36, 552-558.

doi:10.1177/0143034315612144
TEST ANXIETY META-ANALYSIS 39

von der Embse, N.P., Schultz, B., & Draughn, J. D. (2015). Readying students to test: The

impact of fear and efficacy appeals on student anxiety, motivation, and test performance.

School Psychology International, 36, 620-637. doi:10.1177/0143034315609094

von der Embse, N.P., Scott, E.C., & Kilgus, S.P. (2015). Sensitivity to change and concurrent

validity of Direct Behavior Ratings for Academic Anxiety. School Psychology Quarterly,

30 (2), 244-259. doi: 10.1037/spq0000083.

von der Embse, N.P. & Witmer, S. (2014). High-stakes accountability: Student anxiety and

large-scale testing. Journal of Applied School Psychology, 2, 1-24. doi:

10.1080/15377903.2014.888529.

Watson, D., & Clark, L. A. (1984). Negative affectivity: The disposition to experience aversive

emotional states. Psychological Bulletin, 96, 465-490. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.96.3.465.

Wine, J. (1971). Test anxiety and direction of attention. Psychological Bulletin, 76, 92-104. doi:

10.1037/h0031332

Wolf, L. F., & Smith, J. K. (1995). The consequence of consequence: Motivation, anxiety, and

test performance. Applied Measurement in Education, 8(3), 227-242. doi:

10.1207/s15324818ame0803_3

Wren, D. G., & Benson, J. (2004). Measuring test anxiety in children: Scale development and

internal construct validation. Anxiety, Stress, and Coping, 17, 227–240. doi:

10.1080/10615800412331292606


Yerkes, R. M., & Dodson, J. D. (1908). The relation of strength stimulus to rapidity of habit-

formation. Journal of Comparative and Neuropsychological Psychology, 18, 459-482.

doi: 10.1002/cne.920180503

Zeidner, M. (1998). Test Anxiety, The State of the Art. New York: Plenum Press.
TEST ANXIETY META-ANALYSIS 40

Zeidner, M., & Matthews, G. (2005). Evaluation anxiety. In A. J. Elliot & C. S. Dweck

(Eds.), Handbook of competence and motivation (pp. 141–163). London: Guilford Press.

Table 1
Test Anxiety with Performance Correlates
Correlati
on
Coeffici
Description of correlational group ent
(Fixed/
Random
Correlate of TA
)
Fail- 95% z
Numb
Samp Safe N CI (Fixed/ End
er of Outlie
le (Fixed/ (Fixed/ Q I2 valu
studie rs
Size Rando Rando Rando es
s
m) m) m)
Achievement
Testing,
by grades
Primary (Grade 1- -.29 to 0.00 -.34/
9 774 11 -6.2 5.00 None -.22*
5) -.15 % -.13
-.29 to
Intermediate -.22/ -13.63/ **23.4 40.16 -.19/
16 2,799 25 -.059 -.25*
(Grade 6-8) -..30 to -9.67 0 % -.111
-.20
-.17 to
Secondary 13,11 17/ -.14/ -18.16/ 75.12 -.42/ -.16*/
27 107.37 None
(Grade 9-12) 7 19 -.21 to -9.15 % -.04 -.17*
-.14
-.25 to
Post-Secondary
20,84 77/ -.23/ -34.86/ **282. 76.98 -.56/ -.24*/
(Undergraduate & 53 .00
9 95 -.29 to -16.71 40 % -.01 -.27*
Graduate)
-.24
-.19 to
-.69,
16,85 26/ -.16/ -22.25/ **51.4 39.70 -.33/ -.17*/
GPA 36 -
5 33 -.21 to -.15.53 1 % -.04 -.19*
.49, .0
-.16
IQ
TEST ANXIETY META-ANALYSIS 41

Nonverbal
-.14 to 4.42 -.29/
Reasoning 7 2,332 0 -.46 12.56 None -.10*
-.05 % .00
Abilities
Cognitive
-.25 to -.8.50/ 10.62 -.41/
Proficiency 9 1,711 10 11.19 None -.21*
-.16 -8.01 % -.05
Abilities
-.28 to
-
10/ -.19/ **17.6 48.97 -.025, -.31/ -.24*/
Verbal Abilities 7 1,771 .10.14/
9 -.29 to 4 % .00 -.02 -.23*
-6.82
-.16
Standardized -.28 to
Exams 44/ -.24/ -23.40/ 56.98 -.53/ -.26*/
26 7,748 92.97 None
47 -.30 to -14.78 % -.07 -.27*
-.24
-.34 to
-
SAT/ ACT/ -.28/ 48.14 -.53/
13 2,741 29 .16.64/ 28.93 None -.31*
Entrance Exam -.36 to % -.07
-11.36
-.26
State Exam,
by grades
-.26 to 0.00 -.18/
Primary 2 343 1 -2.89 0.42 None -.16*
-.05 % -.09
-.49 to 0.00 -.34/
Intermediate 2 350 7 -7.92 0.18 None -.40*
-.31 % -.39
-.26 to
7/ -.19/ -13.19/ 67.65 -.40/ -.23*/
Secondary 5 3,287 27.82 None
8 -.31 to -7.63 % -.12 -.25*
-.19
-.28 to
-.16/ -7.18/ 35.54 -.32/
Professional Exam 7 1,027 9 9.31 None -.22*
-.29 to -5.25 % -.09
-.14
Cognitive
Component
-.31 to
Achievement 10,24 42/ -.28/ -30.50/ **110. 60.94 -.53/ -.29*/
21 -.03
Testing 5 50 -.36 to -17.17 08 % -.11 -.32*
-.29
-.26 to
15/ -.22/ -20.63/ 49.55 -.37/ -.24*/
GPA 10 6,952 21.80 None
16 -.29 to -12.01 % -.11 -.25*
-.21
-.29 to
-.22/ -12.21/ 52.45 -.38/
IQ 5 2,245 8 25.23 None -.25*
-.31 to -8.21 % -.11
-.19
-.29 to
Standardized 17/ -.24/ -20.45/ 63.28 -.50/ -.26*/
10 5,785 68.09 None
Exams 18 -.31 to -11.82 % -.05 -.27*
-.23
Affective/Physiolo
gical Component
-.20 to
Achievement 12/ -17.01/ **99.0 67.68 -.47/ -.18*/
15 8,564 -.16/ .089
Testing 9 -6.95 1 % .09 -.16*
-.21 to
TEST ANXIETY META-ANALYSIS 42

-.12
-.10 to
0/ -.05/ -6.08/ 64.71 -.19/ -.08*/
GPA 7 6,112 19.84 None
0 -.11 to -2.21 % .07 -.06
-.01
-.26 to
-.17/ -9.84/ 56.31 -.33/ -.22*/
IQ 4 1,811 5 18.31 None
-.28 to -5.89 % -.05 -.21*
-.14
-.15 to
Standardized 3/ -.10/ -.9.33/ 56.71 -.38/ -.13*/
9 5,598 60.06 None
Exams 4 -.19 to -6.59 % -.02 -.14*
-.10
-.07
Behavioral 0/ to .14/ 74.64 -.18/ .04/
3 324 6.56 11.83 None
Component 0 -.15 % .32 .08
to .30
-.19 to
-.05/ -3.62/ 88.50 -.32/ -.12*/
Social Component 3 852 1 43.48 None
-.32 -1.32 % .09 -.13
to .06
* p < .01
**Outliers were examined for cause of variability
TEST ANXIETY META-ANALYSIS 43

Table 2
Test Anxiety with Intrapersonal Variables
Description of correlational group Correlation
Coefficient
(Fixed/Rand
om)
Correlate of
Fail- 95%
TA Numb z
Samp Safe N CI End
er of (Fixed/ Outlie
le (Fixed/ (Fixed/ Q I2 valu
studie Rando rs
Size Rando Rando es
s m)
m) m)
Self-Concept
-.02
0/
Locus of to .10/ 1.40/ 94.33 -.29/ .04/
6 1,082 0 88.22 None
Control -.25 0.00 % .35 .00
17
to .25
-.22 to
Self- 10/ -.15/ -9.56/ 24.70 -.27/ -.19*/
11 2,599 13.28 None
Regulation 9 -.23 to -7.96 % -.06 -.18*
-.14
-.33 to
72/ -.30/ -30.99/ 121.4 72.82 -.58/ -.31*/
Self-Efficacy 32 9,162 None
76 -.36 to -16.22 3 % -.14 -.32*
-.29
-.48 to
-.36/ -12.05/ 38.06 -.56/
Self-Esteem 5 744 18 6.46 None -.42*
-.50 to -9.49 % -.37
-.34
-.32 to
-
Academic 21/ -.25/ **24. 55.81 .43/ -.28*/
11 2,735 .15.11/ .50
Confidence 22 -.34 to 89 % -.14 -.29*
-9.89
-.23
Motivation
-.08 to
Intrinsic 0/ -.01/ -2.81/ 59.84 -.18/ -.05*/
13 3,886 29.88 None
Motivation 0 -.12 to -2.33 % .11 -.07
-.01
12
Extrinsic to .17/ 10.05/ 30.38 .04/
5 4,894 2 5.75 None .14*
Motivation .10 6.59 % .20
to .18
Self-Coping
Skills
.32
Avoidance 23/ to .41/ 13.79/ **10. 54.06 .28/ .36*/
8 1,323 .15
Coping 24 .30 9.35 88 % .47 .37*
to .44
-.20 to
Approach 4/ -.10/ -6.18/ 52.06 -.28/ -.15*/
8 1,732 14.60 None
Coping 5 -.23 to -4.48 % -.04 -.16*
-.09
Achievement
Goals
Mastery- 11 2,146 0/ -.00 1.82/ **19. 53.17 -.23 -.1/ .04/
TEST ANXIETY META-ANALYSIS 44

Approach 0 to .08/ 1.42 2 % .15 .05*

Goals -.02
to .11
Mastery-
.24 .22/
Avoidance 7 1,341 14 11.02 5.89 0.0% None .29*
to .34 .4
Goals
Performance- .08
Approach to .16/ 6.44/ **18. 41.56 -.08/ .0/
14 2,911 3 .12*
Goals .07 4.65 82 % .42 .22
to .16
Performance- .29
Avoidance 47/ to .35/ 20.73/ 156.5 87.87 .0/ .32*/
20 3,986 None
Goals 45 .23 6.98 9 % .61 .31*
to .39
Personality
Traits
.42
.175/
46/ to .50/ 23.73/ **6.2 3.32 .35/ .46*/
Neuroticism 11 2,361 .24/
44 .42 22.75 1 % .514 .45*
.65
to .49
-.10 to
0/ -.00/ -2.07/ 42.25 -.21/ -.05/
Extraversion 8 1,665 12.12 None
0 -.13 -1.61 % .07 -.06*
to .01
-.14 to -.13/
Openness 5 1,347 0 -3.29 1.35 0.0% None -.09*
-.04 -.06
-.12
0/ to .00/ -1.77/ 55.10 -.17/
Agreeableness 5 973 8.91 None -.06/ -.05*
0 -.15 -.93 % .07
to .05
-.22 to
Conscientious 7/ -.14/ -8.10/ 49.70 -.31/ -.18*/
8 2,006 13.92 None
ness 6 -.23 to -5.34 % .0 -.17*
-.11
* p < .01
**Outliers were examined for cause of variability
TEST ANXIETY META-ANALYSIS 45

Table 3
Test Anxiety with Predictors
Correlati
on
Coeffici
Description of correlational group ent
(Fixed/
Random
Correlate of TA
)
Fail- 95% CI z
Numb
Sam Safe N (Fixed/ (Fixed End
er of Outlie
ple (Fixed/ Random) / Q I2 value
studie rs
Size Random Rando s
s
) m)
Gender, by grades
Primary (Grade 1- 1,13 .16 to .27/ 7.19/ 23.5 .03/
5 6 5.24 None .21*
5) 6 .13 to .28 5.43 9% .34
Intermediate 1,74 .11 to .20/ 6.53/ **7. 45.0 .04/
6 4 .03 .16*
(Grade 6-8) 1 .09 to .22 4.65 28 6% .27
Secondary 5,57 19/ .24 to .27/ 18.93/ **13 35.3 .04/ .25*/
12 .03
(Grade 9-12) 7 18 .20 to .27 12.73 .92 4% .3 .24*
Post-Secondary .0/
7,59 32/ .20 to .24/ 19.29/ **38 43.5 .06/ .22*/
(Undergraduate & 26 .51/
0 30 .18 to .25 13.13 .98 7% .35 .21*
Graduate) .64
Ethnicity (Cau vs. 1,34 .09/
7 1 .07 to .17 4.41 1.38 0.0% None .12*
AA) 0 .21
Ability (Low vs. -.19 to -
High) 2,14 4/ .11/ -7.11/ **10 51.1 -.34/ -.15*/
7 -.40
2 6 -.24 to - -5.11 .24 6% -.08 -.18*
.11
Disabilities
2,41 1/ .08 to .15/ 5.63/ 39.1 87.2 .0/ .12*/
ADHD 6 None
0 7 .08 to .32 3.21 7 4% .43 .21*
2,05 0/ .03 to .12/ 3.46/ 11.4 56.4 -.01/ .08*/
Learning Disability 6 None
0 1 .03 to .19 2.85 8 5% .17 .11*
Testing Conditions
Perceived
1,10 .25 to .36/ 10.49/ 10.8 63.1 .18/ .31*/
Difficulty (Low vs. 5 11 None
1 .20 to .39 5.96 5 2% .41 .30*
High)
Evaluative vs. .17/
5 881 6 .15 to .27 6.39 1.64 0.0% None .21*
Non-Evaluative .27
Prior Experience 3/ .09 to .23/ 4.69/ **4. 27.8 .09/ .16*/
5 843 .41
vs. No Experience 4 .09 to .25 4.05 16 5% .28 .17*
* p < .01
**Outliers were examined for cause of variability
TEST ANXIETY META-ANALYSIS 46

Highlights:

 Test anxiety was significantly and negatively related to a wide range of educational
performance outcomes, including standardized tests, university entrance exams, and
grade point average.
 Test anxiety effects were most pronounced at the middle grades level.
 Self-esteem was a significant and strong predictor of test anxiety.
 Perceived difficulty of the test and test consequences were also related to higher test
anxiety.